In 1983 Dr. Judith Riesman, Author/Researcher appointed at a department of Justice to investigate the images in “playboy” along with “Penthouse” and “Hustler” Magazines. The reasons for the studies due to raise of the violence sex crimes committed by young adults against even younger children. Those who are committing this sex crimes were often found has copies of these magazines i.e. playboy, Penthouse and Hustler. **Who are the founder of these magazines???
**
Hugh Hefner, an atheist, founder of ‘playboy magazine’.
Bob Guccione, an atheist founder of ‘Penthouse magazine’.
Larry Flynt, an atheist, publisher of ‘Hustler’.
and campaign likes “Enjoy your life” is about what? Probably about all those acts which prohibited (declared haraam) in Islam or in any other religion.
I don't go to any lengths to justify my belief system ... And I'm not apologetic regarding it. If a scientific discovery complies with the Qur'an, it will be good science, but if it conflicts with the Quran, then for sure there something wrong with the 'science' that was employed in making that discovery/setting the hypothesis.
Sorry to say this, but this is the most utterly ridiculous and close-minded thing I have ever heard anyone say. :D
I don't go to any lengths to justify my belief system ... And I'm not apologetic regarding it. If a scientific discovery complies with the Qur'an, it will be good science, but if it conflicts with the Quran, then for sure there something wrong with the 'science' that was employed in making that discovery/setting the hypothesis.
Regarding miracles such as walking on water ... well I don 't believe it was MagLev, but I do say that a miracle is when such things can happen without any technological intervention, by God's permission. I am not apologetic about my belief in any way whatsoever.
and brother I would say then is why 8 pages to discuss when your mind is already closed ? - because no matter how much we try to prove otherwise you will keep on doing what they say is 'wahi murge ki ek taang'
Sorry to say this, but this is the most utterly ridiculous and close-minded thing I have ever heard anyone say. :D
and brother I would say then is why 8 pages to discuss when your mind is already closed ? - because no matter how much we try to prove otherwise you will keep on doing what they say is 'wahi murge ki ek taang'
to me that is chicanery.
Peace calypsodc and bitter
If you have before you something you consider from God and then on the other hand you were presented with something man has made and it conflicts with what you believe is from God then to accept the man made thing is not really viewing God as Perfect is it?
I can believe that I am wrong and I can believe that you are wrong but I can't believe that God is wrong ... This is not close minded it is being consistent ...
Furthermore ... so far it has proven to be a valid position to be taking
And I make it my mission to learn the said science enough to satisfy myself about what is amiss ... If you wish to represent the party that supports evolution then please give me the pathways and mechanisms of how evolution occurs in sexual beings ... I've seen meiosis discussed (normal sexual development), I've seen how DNA is coded (the model proposed) - now present to me speciation in similar terms ... If you cannot provide this information then it is not I who is being close minded but it is you who are being hasty at supporting anything uttered by a "scientist" ...
I am simply amused by the childish analysis from the above post. Gravity is also a theory.. nobody has ever been able to prove how/why it exists.. nevertheless gravity is a fact and anyone who doubts it is welcome to jump from a high rise building.
Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world’s data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don’t go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein’s theory of gravitation replaced Newton’s in this century, but apples didn’t suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin’s proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.
Moreover, “fact” doesn’t mean “absolute certainty”; there ain’t no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth. In science “fact” can only mean “confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent.” I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.
Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred.
A scientific theory is “a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.” Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy. As with all forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and do not make apodictic propositions; instead, they aim for predictive and explanatory force.
The strength of a scientific theory is related to the diversity of phenomena it can explain, which is measured by its ability to make falsifiable predictions with respect to those phenomena. Theories are improved as more evidence is gathered, so that accuracy in prediction improves over time. Scientists use theories as a foundation to gain further scientific knowledge, as well as to accomplish goals such as inventing technology or curing disease. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge. This is significantly different from the word “theory” in common usage, which implies that something is unproven or speculative.
If you study biology in the light of evolution everything starts making sense. Without evolution everything falls apart.
How can this alien arrival dogma explain more than 90% similarity of genetic composition between a human and chimpanzee.
Also the fact that not a single evidence has been found against the evolutionary lineage from all the geological time data, it should be an eye opener for the people who believe that billions of species are all aliens who arrived from somewhere else.
Prokaryotes inhabited the Earth from approximately 3–4 billion years ago.No obvious changes in morphology or cellular organisation occurred in these organisms over the next few billion years. The eukaryotic cells emerged between 1.6 – 2.7 billion years ago. The next major change in cell structure came when bacteria were engulfed by eukaryotic cells, in a cooperative association called endosymbiosis. The engulfed bacteria and the host cell then underwent co-evolution, with the bacteria evolving into either mitochondria or hydrogenosomes. Another engulfment of cyanobacterial-like organisms led to the formation of chloroplasts in algae and plants.
The history of life was that of the unicellular eukaryotes, prokaryotes and archaea until about 610 million years ago when multicellular organisms began to appear in the oceans in the Ediacaran period.The evolution of multicellularity occurred in multiple independent events, in organisms as diverse as sponges, brown algae, cyanobacteria, slime moulds and myxobacteria.
Soon after the emergence of these first multicellular organisms, a remarkable amount of biological diversity appeared over approximately 10 million years, in an event called the Cambrian explosion. Here, the majority of types of modern animals appeared in the fossil record, as well as unique lineages that subsequently became extinct. Various triggers for the Cambrian explosion have been proposed, including the accumulation of oxygen in the atmosphere from photosynthesis.
About 500 million years ago, plants and fungi colonised the land and were soon followed by arthropods and other animals. Insects were particularly successful and even today make up the majority of animal species. Amphibians first appeared around 364 million years ago, followed by early amniotes and birds around 155 million years ago (both from “reptile”-like lineages), mammals around 129 million years ago, homininae around 10 million years ago and modern humans around 250,000 years ago. However, despite the evolution of these large animals, smaller organisms similar to the types that evolved early in this process continue to be highly successful and dominate the Earth, with the majority of both biomass and species being prokaryotes.
Islam is not Judaism that you can change according to your whims and wishes and by negating the teachings of Moses (Musa PBUH). Islam remains the same as it was given to Muslims by the Last Prophet Muhammad (PBUH)
I know that "Islam remains the same" while other religions have been corrupted is one of the doctrines of Islam designed to affirm the superiority of Islam. Yet, it's a matter of faith. On the other hand, the Judaism and Christianity point of view is that Islam has plagiarized those religions and rewrote them to meet its needs. This point of view is no less legitimate than the former. If you choose to believe the former, it is your personal choice, but it does not make it true.
The Qur'an is not science ... The Qur'an contains the truth ...
It's a statement of faith, not a statement of fact! What happens if evidence and reason (science) contradicts your religious beliefs? Why would you choose to doubt science rather than your religious beliefs?
the 'aqeedah cannot be changed - it won't remain Islam if someone did that.
There numerous versions and teachings in Islam. They all differ in some aspects. Who said that your is better than the others? Who said that your interpretation of Islam is the right one?
If a scientific discovery complies with the Qur'an, it will be good science, but if it conflicts with the Quran, then for sure there something wrong with the 'science' that was employed in making that discovery/setting the hypothesis.
It's a statement of faith, not a statement of fact! What happens if evidence and reason (science) contradicts your religious beliefs? Why would you choose to doubt science rather than your religious beliefs?
Same can be applied to other religions also. I suppose in Christianity also there are two schools of thought. One are literal religionist who try to dig science out of scriptures. Others believe scriptures are not transcript of science. They have been conveyed to give moral-spritual guidance to idiots like us. They have been conveyed in a language-understanding of natural phenomenon which can be understood by a common mortal.. and they were conveyed thousands of years ago at a time when this understanding stood at a much inferior level compared to present times.
Your above mentioned statement about contradicting religions only stands valid in case of literal religionist who believe the scriptures should be referred to validate scientific facts. When you take a religious course where you come at peace with the fact that these are not scientific literature.. the idea of choosing between religion and science does not arise..
Religions have contributed to moral-spritual well being of our human kind for thousands of years. They have been instrumental in the formation of better societies with stronger family-civil structures. Apart from literal religionist.. there are a vast number of people (even religious) who do not consider religions to be a hurdle in scientific advancement..
Same can be applied to other religions also. I suppose in Christianity also there are two schools of thought. One are literal religionist who try to dig science out of scriptures. Others believe scriptures are not transcript of science. They have been conveyed to give moral-spritual guidance to idiots like us. They have been conveyed in a language-understanding of natural phenomenon which can be understood by a common mortal.. and they were conveyed thousands of years ago at a time when this understanding stood at a much inferior level compared to present times.
Your above mentioned statement about contradicting religions only stands valid in case of literal religionist who believe the scriptures should be referred to validate scientific facts. When you take a religious course where you come at peace with the fact that these are not scientific literature.. the idea of choosing between religion and science does not arise..
Religions have contributed to moral-spritual well being of our human kind for thousands of years. They have been instrumental in the formation of better societies with stronger family-civil structures. Apart from literal religionist.. there are a vast number of people (even religious) who do not consider religions to be a hurdle in scientific advancement..
I think these 2 attitudes are common among any religion out there. Personally, I'm an atheist and see all religions as human-made constructs. I don't see religions as a source of morality, but rather a human attempt to codify it and validate/enforce it by appealing to a higher authority - an argument, which appears to be the most convincing for an average human being.
Correction our ancestral form has been taken from this world … i.e. Adam was fashioned from clay/dust … of this world and then taken to heaven. The alien part of it is merely the returning of what has orginally come from here anyway … that is enough to destroy the alien argument, but even if we were true aliens i.e. not from this world in any way, shape or form - we believe Allah (SWT) has power over all things.
If you have before you something you consider from God and then on the other hand you were presented with something man has made ....
This is exactly the crux of the problem. Once you accept something as being "from God", i.e an absolute truth, which cannot be doubted or criticized, you stop thinking and become an intellectual zombie.
This is exactly the crux of the problem. Once you accept something as being "from God", i.e an absolute truth, which cannot be doubted or criticized, you stop thinking and become an intellectual zombie.
You don't stop thinking, you become biased just like an atheist.
It's a statement of faith, not a statement of fact! What happens if evidence and reason (science) contradicts your religious beliefs? Why would you choose to doubt science rather than your religious beliefs?
Yes it is a statement of faith, but you are wrong that it is not a statement of "fact" - it may be a statement of "fact" and that is the pure logical approach to this discussion. As long as that statement is possibly TRUE logically, then there is no hesitance in me to believe it so long as it ticks the boxes on a faith level too ... i.e. hadith based, Qur'an based, ijma of scholars based ... if evidence conflicts with my religious beliefs then I will ignore it as conflicting evidence. If a man shows you amazing things like flying and brings people back to life and causes rain will you accept his claims of God? I won't ... even if he shows me a great display of amazing things ... the reason why I won't is because I know God is not a man ... it is as simple as that for me. Science has a similar appeal to the minds of people as such a man would have ...
There numerous versions and teachings in Islam. They all differ in some aspects. Who said that your is better than the others? Who said that your interpretation of Islam is the right one?
If you knew a bit more about Islam then you would come to realise that there is a natural process of authentic understanding that results from the consensus of scholars ... it is a matter that is not existent in any other religion. We are people of scripture and majority opinion, on a rational level it makes sense that the greatest acceptance without any undue pressure from external factors will result in the middle way and the middle way is the right way according to me.
This is the definition of prejudice.
No ... it is indeed an example of prejudice ... My faith is only a faith because I deem it to be correct ... in which case I would sooner be consistent and prejudiced rather than inconsistent and logically fair ... According to latest ideas of evolution in order to get around the probability problem the pioneering "evolutionists" argue that there is a prejudice in nature that when life occurred it continued to develop through that principle. If it is okay for atheists to argue their ground on the basis of prejudice then so can I ...
This is exactly the crux of the problem. Once you accept something as being "from God", i.e an absolute truth, which cannot be doubted or criticized, you stop thinking and become an intellectual zombie.
Peace AlexB
It can be the case that we stop thinking ... yes ... but it can also take another route ... that we start thinking more ...
You will even find such behaviour in pro-evolution Muslims ... what they argue is not that Islam or the Qur'an is wrong, but that our interpretation of the Qur'an and Islam is wrong and that it is compatible with evolution theory ... you see even they are not doubting the "God given" thing ... but they are merely doubting the human ability to interpret it ...
I did consider that ... but then when I studied evolution and read about it in more depth I saw it for what it was ... a dogma ... I am not prepared to replace one dogma for another ... show me that evolution is true and I will accept it and then I will modify my understandings about how Islam and Qur'an should be understood ... but I will never say that the Qur'an is wrong ...
Often it is the trait of the educated and trained human mind to make paranormal inferences after all logical and reasonable paths have been exhausted first ... You see orientalists don't want to believe in the truth of Islam ... but they study it closely ... they draw conclusions regarding the Qur'an from a very unreasonable vantage point - a vantage point that conflicts with history and logic ... but they are compelled to say such things because otherwise they would have to acknowledge the truth of Islam.
Yes it is a statement of faith, but you are wrong that it is not a statement of "fact" - it may be a statement of "fact" and that is the pure logical approach to this discussion. As long as that statement is possibly TRUE logically, then there is no hesitance in me to believe it so long as it ticks the boxes on a faith level too
....
Then your belief is no better than a belief in an invisible pink unicorn (and an infinite number of similar beliefs) for those who have an affinity for these kind of things on a faith level.
If you knew a bit more about Islam then you would come to realise that there is a natural process of authentic understanding that results from the consensus of scholars ... it is a matter that is not existent in any other religion. We are people of scripture and majority opinion, on a rational level it makes sense that the greatest acceptance without any undue pressure from external factors will result in the middle way and the middle way is the right way according to me.
If you knew a bit more about other religions then you would know that this was the situation about most of them. This is something to do with the human nature.
No ... it is indeed an example of prejudice ... My faith is only a faith because I deem it to be correct ... in which case I would sooner be consistent and prejudiced rather than inconsistent and logically fair ... According to latest ideas of evolution in order to get around the probability problem the pioneering "evolutionists" argue that there is a prejudice in nature that when life occurred it continued to develop through that principle. If it is okay for atheists to argue their ground on the basis of prejudice then so can I ...
How about being both consistent and logically fair (these seem one and the same BTW)? Anyway, you should improve your knowledge of evolution. The evolution theory does not postulate any prejudice in nature, nor any preferential direction (like "toward complexity" or whatever) for the evolutionary process.
You don't stop thinking, you become biased just like an atheist.
I stand corrected. You become biased. But not like an atheist. It is not a bias if you avoid incorporating unnecessary conjectures into your worldview -- like gods, invisible pink unicorns or spaghetti monsters. It is basic reason.
