Re: Atheism
psyah is just being “rondho” right now. you know that word 
?
Re: Atheism
Apologies … I’m losing my cool … 
Re: Atheism
no. he made a lot of sense. don't have a sensible reply?
I've already replied to that type of post already ..
Re: Atheism
No problems Psyah. Aap apologies dekar humein sharminda naa karein! It is all good.
Re: Atheism
So do you believe that evolution is a belief system yet?
Re: Atheism
im just giggling at your inability to comprehend
belief system 
ab banda kya kahe…
Re: Atheism
Bandar … Bandar … Bandar … Banda !!!
Proof of evolution …
Re: Atheism
Re: Atheism
Khush raho … Achee baat hai … 
Re: Atheism
Bandar ... Bandar ... Bandar .... Banda !!!
Proof of evolution ....
You forgot Bandariya. :(
Re: Atheism
Evolution cannot be taught as a fact because it's a developing theory and proof is that it's been totally changed since Darwin first presented it.
Doesn't matter what you think..
It may not be taught as a fact in the madrassa you are attending.. but in every reputable educational institution of the world it is taught as a "fact"...
Evolution is a "fact" explained by a theory.. Yes the theory is modified, altered from time to time... and I am sure it will be modified in future also, but it will not change the fact of evolution. Just like gravity is "fact" and when Newton's theory was replaced by Einstein's it did not change the fact of gravity.
I am really shocked at the dishonesty of the postings being posted by you. I think you understand very clearly how theories explain facts in science. Facts are not developing stories.. theories can be modified when new explanations-informations are available. I suspect you understand very well how science works around facts and theories.. yet in this case you have tried to put the cart before a horse.. and I suspect intentional dishonesty in this matter just to prove your view point which is regarded as false-primitive by the scientific community in the world.
In science class rooms in any reputable educational institution.. you will not be allowed to express what you and your husband are posting here..
They will immediately send you to Department of Theology not to curb your freedom of expression..
In your madrassa may be you can get away by saying my stand point regarding evolution is non sense.. but Harvard-Oxford-Yale Berkeley-Stanford and all the reputable educational institutions consider evolution as a "fact" and teach this "fact' in their institutions..
Re: Atheism
no. he made a lot of sense. don't have a sensible reply?
Chacha Ghalib has rightly put it.. same repetition of belief system against the opinion of the scientific community of the world.. just to tire the posters here to have their "Aha" moment.
Re: Atheism
Peace yazdi
The Galileo comment I'm going to ignore it is meaningless in this discussion. However, I am not a religious literalist ... (I think that is what you meant ... Not literal religionist ... Because that too is meaningless) ... I am a follower of the Qur'an, Sunnah and Ijma of scholars.
Regarding the Qur'an, the terms it uses make perfect sense to people in each age ... despite the concepts changing through time ... To a layman when it speaks of the path taken by the sun, they take it to mean something that had it been written more restrictively it would have been cause to fault the Qur'an, however, since the** language used is both lucid enough to provide meaning, but at the same time general enough not to restrict how it is understood from common knowledge** ... It makes the collective into a Book applicable in every age without fault.
What you have written above is nonsense.
How conveniently you change the understanding when you want to..
Zakir Naik types are the biggest hypocrites I have seen in my life who change the scripture, translation, understanding, meaning to suit their agendas.. and the explanation they give?
Oh the language is very lucid... and there is no restriction about how it is understood...!!!
Means you can derive whatever meaning you want to according to your own desire...
I respect Mududi and Dr. Israr for their honesty.. they have a clear stand that there is no science in Quran.. and it should not be taken in literal sense.. It's a guidance and spiritual book which should be read and understood accordingly..
Re: Atheism
How conveniently you change the understanding when you want to..
Zakir Naik types are the biggest hypocrites I have seen in my life who change the scripture, translation, understanding, meaning to suit their agendas.. and the explanation they give?
Oh the language is very lucid... and there is no restriction about how it is understood...!!!
Means you can derive whatever meaning you want to according to your own desire...
I respect Mududi and Dr. Israr for their honesty.. they have a clear stand that there is no science in Quran.. and it should not be taken in literal sense.. It's a guidance and spiritual book which should be read and understood accordingly..
There are undeniable facts in the Qur'an ... which means that science can concur with the Qur'an ... I have never maintained that the Qur'an is science textbook ... And I would like you to show me what references you are using from Dr. Israr and Maududi ...
Re: Atheism
The belief that nothing could come from nothing, even though something did come from something, is apparently resolved by citing GOD as the ultimate something from which all else came.
But by citing God, your not really resolving anything. Because what you leave unanswered is where GOD came from. You could assume that God just always has been, but then if your admitting that there is something in existence (God) which always has been and was not created, then why can the Universe too, always have been?
Re: Atheism
The belief that nothing could come from nothing, even though something did come from something, is apparently resolved by citing GOD as the ultimate something from which all else came.
But by citing God, your not really resolving anything. Because what you leave unanswered is where GOD came from. You could assume that God just always has been, but then if your admitting that there is something in existence (God) which always has been and was not created, then why can the Universe too, always have been?
This is where the difference between Creator and Creation comes in.
We accept that being a God and by the true definition of God, He can not be a creation because He is the Creator.
Universe is a creation of God and by comparing the origin of two (where God has no beginning/origin), you are comparing Creator vs Creation - might I say case of comparing oranges with apples? - hence, logical fallacy in the argument.
Re: Atheism
The belief that nothing could come from nothing, even though something did come from something, is apparently resolved by citing GOD as the ultimate something from which all else came.
But by citing God, your not really resolving anything. Because what you leave unanswered is where GOD came from. You could assume that God just always has been, but then if your admitting that there is something in existence (God) which always has been and was not created, then why can the Universe too, always have been?
It is because it is not a logically induced formula for us it is a belief ... Allah (SWT) has no beginning and no end is part of our belief as per scripture. Also, we do not say that Allah (SWT) changes in any way ... but that what can change form such as energy and that it can be made and destroyed automatically suggests to us that it is not the immutable cause for all things ... We have no questions to ask ... Allah (SWT) is the Cause for all things and He has no cause in Himself. However, the real question is not about physical existence it is about consciousness, morality and intelligence as well.
Re: Atheism
The belief that nothing could come from nothing, even though something did come from something, is apparently resolved by citing GOD as the ultimate something from which all else came.
But by citing God, your not really resolving anything. Because what you leave unanswered is where GOD came from. You could assume that God just always has been, but then if your admitting that there is something in existence (God) which always has been and was not created, then why can the Universe too, always have been?
Scientists have often quoted their core belief is nothing happens by itself/ everything has a cause that is why.
Re: Atheism
Not exactly. Let's start from the definition of "God". Can you exactly define the parameter "God"? According to the definition, is the parameter necessary to support your model of the Universe? Can a model of the Universe be suggested without introduction of this new parameter? Is this parameter provable/falsifiable? Suggest an experiment that can falsify your hypothesis.
The definition of "God" as mentioned in Holy Quran Chapter 2 verse 225: "Allah - there is no deity except Him, the Ever-Living, the Sustainer of [all] existence. Neither drowsiness overtakes Him nor sleep. To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth. Who is it that can intercede with Him except by His permission? He knows what is [presently] before them and what will be after them, and they encompass not a thing of His knowledge except for what He wills. His Kursi extends over the heavens and the earth, and their preservation tires Him not. And He is the Most High, the Most Great."
and to understand that if He is the one true deity, He given us four logic to understand of His existence
- Prophet Adam a.s. is created with no male and no female
- Hazrat Eve a.s. is created with one male and no female
- Prophet Isa (Jesus) a.s. is created with one female and no male, and
- All of us created from one male and one female
Very beautifully explained by 'Hussanain Rajabali': "The God is not bound in the frame of the reference, He is the creator of the time, time is the creation of the God, matter is the creation of the God this is transient entity. transient entity cannot come into existence by himself so when we talk about the frame of the reference we must clearly understand that every time we ask the question about the God in time knowing the future one have to very careful how he/she defining this terminology so God's knowledge of the future of mine future is absolutely is His domain He knows everything but He is not bound in the time where He is experimenting Himself for He is not bounding space time or matter those who created entity which He has putting into it for us to putting into it would be also very wrong."