Do philosophical theories

[psyah]

Re: Do philosophical theories

I do appreciate their input, buddy. It's just tiring when they continue to redirect a conversation to what they want to talk about. That's not healthy.

Besides, I didn't read Bella88's response because I don't want to participate in this never-ending debate. I could care less who is right or wrong. I was just telling Bella88 that this has been argued to death and she wasn't going to change anyone's mind so she should save herself the trouble. I believe in evolution because I believe it its evidence. To believe in creationism, I would have to rely on the word of "God" which has no tangible evidence at all. Some evidence is better than none.

Say even if there's no evidence of evolution (I believe there absolutely is!), even then the idea of an evolving species is a lot less bizarre than a woman being made from a man's rib spontaneously.

Peace Theorist

That is one woman made from one man's rib ... Evolution no matter how you put it will have a step change in a single generation ... it is impossible to have gradual shift from 23 pairs of chromosomes to 24 pairs ... isn't it? Evolution requires multiple spontaneous life forms just like creationism ... the only difference is that in evolution it uses other existing species as source material ... whereas in religion that is not necessarily the case.

[Southie]

Re: Do philosophical theories

Scripture is from God ... theories belong to scientists which is why they need to be peer reviewed by other scientists ... all of whom are only human ...

Would I not take from The Perfect One rather than from those who are like me, needy, flawed, weak, who have lapses and can be deceived? Please refrain from using sarcasm because - this phrase peer reviewed journals (meant to be amazingly precise) for you is nothing compared to sheer Knowledge of The Creator ... if you but understood the concept that we have even if you didn't believe in it - just understood Deity then you would not use these useless anecdotes - all for what end? Just to be mocking ... as if that makes your argument any better or weightier ... it doesn't.

Whose Scriptures are the truth? Whose God is The God?

Sometimes sarcasm is necessary to counter circular logic.

[Monk]

Re: Do philosophical theories

Whose Scriptures are the truth? Whose God is The God?

Sometimes sarcasm is necessary to counter circular logic.

good question.
There is only one God, in every scripture.
The scripture on which people did not leave their hand print.

[Southie]

Re: Do philosophical theories

good question. There is only one God, in every scripture. The scripture on which people did not leave their hand print.

OK. But I don't find you challenging posters who state "insert fav religion" is the ONLY perfect religion. That no further revisions are necessary for "fav religion".

And that is the issue. You are certainly respectful of ALL faiths. You have provided text from various religious Scriptures to show commonality.

But a segment insists ONLY their religion is perfect. Sarcasm is a good antidote in such cases.

[Monk]

Re: Do philosophical theories

OK. But I don't find you challenging posters who state "insert fav religion" is the ONLY perfect religion. That no further revisions are necessary for "fav religion".

And that is the issue. You are certainly respectful of ALL faiths. You have provided text from various religious Scriptures to show commonality.

But a segment insists ONLY their religion is perfect. Sarcasm is a good antidote in such cases.

southie that fact fascinate me that all book talk about same thing, every messenger got hard ships for bringing same massage to people.
Also I when people try to win argument, or argue no one gets their point across.

[Monk]

Re: Do philosophical theories

@southie

"And do not insult those they invoke other than Allah , lest they insult Allah in enmity without knowledge. Thus We have made pleasing to every community their deeds. Then to their Lord is their return, and He will inform them about what they used to do."

6:108

[Southie]

Re: Do philosophical theories

@southie

"And do not insult those they invoke other than Allah , lest they insult Allah in enmity without knowledge. Thus We have made pleasing to every community their deeds. Then to their Lord is their return, and He will inform them about what they used to do."

6:108

That is a good passage. My beef is nit with you. It definitely is not against ANY religion. My beef is ONLY with those who are so arrogant wrt their faith. When they declare there religion is the ONLY one that is relevant, perfect and their book is the only one that matters.

Anyway, I will stop posting on this topic.

[system]

Re: Do philosophical theories

Besides, I didn't read Bella88's response because I don't want to participate in this never-ending debate. I could care less who is right or wrong. I was just telling Bella88 that this has been argued to death and she wasn't going to change anyone's mind so she should save herself the trouble. I believe in evolution because I believe it its evidence. To believe in creationism, I would have to rely on the word of "God" which has no tangible evidence at all. Some evidence is better than none.

Say even if there's no evidence of evolution (I believe there absolutely is!), even then the idea of an evolving species is a lot less bizarre than a woman being made from a man's rib spontaneously.

main intention was to point out flaws in bellas posts.
Anyways.
You believe in evolution because you believe there does exist some evidence of it. no worries. Your life you can choose to believe or not whatever you wish to. And i am extremely serious while saying this. And am sorry if anywhere i came across as pushy or something like that.

Have you ever thought and pondered how through completely lifeless eggs laid by a hen, once the hatching/incubation period is over, emerge out complete, tangible, real and full of energy chicks.

[bella88]

Re: Do philosophical theories

@rainydays

aijazali or diwana and for that matter anyone else, are all grown up mature people who can speak for themselves, so i am not trying to buck them up, but still I would say perhaps you can consider appreciating them a little too for the amount of energy they spend in arguing with someone whose counters are based solely on the links that show up first in her google search and without verifying their validity in the light of science, she simply copy and pastes them and posts them here. I have come across the sources that she has been picking up the data from and seems so never even once she tries to ascertain the authenticity of the information she chooses to paste all over the place.

Here is some deeper look into the ridiculous claim and shameless lies dished out by evolutionists, for the sake of supporting their theories, that human dna is 99% similar to chimps’.

The actual research paper whose excerpts were misused to make this claim:

The nonsensical idea that human and chimp DNA are 99% similar comes from misinterpreting a 1975 paper by Mary-Claire King and A. C. Wilson. This groundbreaking (for its time) article compared several proteins in chimpanzees to their equivalent proteins in humans.

The below link talks in details about the most recent researches going into the study of human and apes’ genes:
THE MYTH OF HOMOLOGY

Oh yes, all my links are totally inauthentic and false, just like you say. This is why evolution is taught in schools, universities, displayed in nearly ALL the museums of natural history. the reason why nearly all scientists accept is is because it’s false and has no evidence.

O btw, the link you posted is from Harun Yahya! hmm I wonder where he gets all his information from.. and you call my links inauthentic. nice one

[bella88]

Re: Do philosophical theories

main intention was to point out flaws in bellas posts.

Please do.

[bella88]

Re: Do philosophical theories

Ok I said that was my last post to you but i have to clear an accusation you made against me here.

Yes you do and did. You are making irreligious comments all throughout your postings and deny that?

irreligious and bashing religion are 2 different things. Never once have I bashed any religion.
if you're referring to the homosexuality thread, i did not once bash religion even once. All I said was that no one chooses to be gay. How is that bashing? Yes im not religious, but that does not mean I have offended islam in anyway.

[quote]

Supporting sodomy/homosexuality and then evolution which is contradictory to religious beliefs is like disrespecting or denying religious scriptures.
[/quote]

Again sodomy and homosexuality are different. a homosexual does not always commit sodomy, ( if he believes it's a sin). just like being heterosexual and fornication is not the same thing. a heterosexual has a choice if he wants to fornicate, homosexual has a choice if he wants to commit sodomy. I did not comment on what I think of sodomy, Its none of my business. ALL I said was homosexuality is not a choice or a disease. that is not bashing religion or offending anyone who believes in religion. if i did offend you or anyone else, my apologies. that was not my intention.

[quote]
Again, I find useless to talk with you on deeper level since it requires me to give you a whole lot of evidences and arguments even scientific details, including why I found APA position being absurd...... which I once wanted to,... but when read your posts earlier decided not to and jumped in to the most obvious question of anatomy which you failed to understand or answer.
[/quote]

since APA doesn't seem to think homosexuality is a disease or pathology, they are absurd? okay. got your point. BTW, it's not just APA that thinks homosexuality is not a pathology, ANY psychiatrist trained in US is taught that. So you can call all US trained psychiatrists absurd.

[quote]

Please do not make a fool of yourself, read at least basic books on genetics and psychiatry before blindly following so called scientists with x,y, z degrees,.. like people talk about religions without even reading scriptures.
[/quote]

trust me I am not making a fool of myself. and even if I am, feel free to ignore my foolishness.
and you're being very derogatory once again.
And yes I have researched enough in genetics, biology, psychiatry to know what I am talking about. thanks for constantly telling me how illiterate I am.

[psyah]

Re: Do philosophical theories

Peace bella88

Please respond to my questions when you get a chance ... Thanks.

I would like to clarify my position ... I am neither saying that evolution is false nor am I saying my religion is fact and scientifically provable ... But what I am saying rather is the pioneers of evolution present it to be what it is not ... I say my faith is a faith and it has evidences ... I can accept evolution as another belief system of course with its evidences ... But it is not a fact based science ... And therefore it cannot replace what I have and deem to be better than it ...

If you admit that you and the scientists who believe in it are merely atheists who have chosen a belief system that supports their atheism and I and other creationist scientists choose to believe in a Diety then I will be happy, because that will be truth.

[system]

Re: Do philosophical theories

The researches performed were also by harun yahya?

[bella88]

Re: Do philosophical theories

^when you post a website that is Harun Yahya for scientic reasoning, you lose ALL crediblity. try again.

[psyah]

Re: Do philosophical theories

Again sodomy and homosexuality are different. a homosexual does not always commit sodomy, ( if he believes it's a sin). just like being heterosexual and fornication is not the same thing. a heterosexual has a choice if he wants to fornicate, homosexual has a choice if he wants to commit sodomy. I did not comment on what I think of sodomy, Its none of my business. ALL I said was homosexuality is not a choice or a disease.

since APA doesn't seem to think homosexuality is a disease or pathology, they are absurd? okay. got your point.

Peace bella88

The nominal position of most men and women is to be heterosexual and religion requires us to be chaste ... i.e. That we do not commit adultery or fornication. Sodomy is disallowed in any circumstance even in a heterosexual relationship.

It is also true that some people get homosexual urges ... And these are natural for them ... But it is also true that such urges can be curtailed and trained away .... Similar to the training of the monks for celibacy ... It is also possible to become inclined towards heterosexuality through training ... And vice-versa people who are otherwise heterosexual have been noted as being able to persuade themselves towards homosexuality.

exposure and indulgence leads to an increase ... Over indulgence can flip the effect into the pursuing more and more taboo areas and otherwise can lead to impotency ... With ever increasing indulgence in to wackier and more fringe activity ... The basic thing here is if people accept their orientation then sooner or later it will fuel and become the impetus for the act ... Just like people who constantly indulge and think about sex will eventually commit zina or even rape ... People who accept their homosexuality will only increase them in that condition.

Humans must try to be heterosexual but not indulgent in any orientation. We should not be totally celibate but should should legal sex as a mechanism to expel our building up urges and refrain from contemplating sex as a hobby. This means despite natural homosexuality being there ... The result is the same as if it were treated like a disorder ... i.e. Acts from it are avoided and it's tendency is to be consciously subdued.

[bella88]

Re: Do philosophical theories

Peace bella88

Please respond to my questions when you get a chance ... Thanks.

I would like to clarify my position ... I am neither saying that evolution is false nor am I saying my religion is fact and scientifically provable ... But what I am saying rather is the pioneers of evolution present it to be what it is not ... I say my faith is a faith and it has evidences ... I can accept evolution as another belief system of course with its evidences ... But it is not a fact based science ... And therefore it cannot replace what I have and deem to be better than it ...

If you admit that you and the scientists who believe in it are merely atheists who have chosen a belief system that supports their atheism and I and other creationist scientists choose to believe in a Diety then I will be happy, because that will be truth.

psyah, I can respond to each point. However, this is not a place for someone who can potentially offend a religion (i have already been accused several times). I mainly came on this forum to discuss other things. there is just too many personal attacks against people who say anything that goes against religious views in forum, really derails the whole topic as well.
I donot care to change anyone's views here. The only reason i even posted in this thread so many times was to respond to some accusations made directly at me from other users, and me being offensive to religion was one of them.
I am not an atheist, but I don't believe in religion either. I have been an agnostic in the past, but I do believe in God.
my reason for acceptance of evolution has nothing to do with my belief in God. My reason for acceptance is the evidence I have seen.

[psyah]

Re: Do philosophical theories

^when you post a website that is Harun Yahya for scientic reasoning, you lose ALL crediblity. try again.

Why?

If a scientific argument is being presented you need to assess the validity of the argument using science not names ... Science is supposed to be objective so anyone can access and cross-examine any evidence ... Instead of saying Harun Yahya this and that ... Please examine the argument and use science to refute it. Thanks.

[psyah]

Re: Do philosophical theories

psyah, I can respond to each point. However, this is not a place for someone who can potentially offend a religion (i have already been accused several times). I mainly came on this forum to discuss other things. there is just too many personal attacks against people who say anything that goes against religious views in forum, really derails the whole topic as well. I donot care to change anyone's views here. The only reason i even posted in this thread so many times was to respond to some accusations made directly at me from other users, and me being offensive to religion was one of them. I am not an atheist, but I don't believe in religion either. I have been an agnostic in the past, but I do believe in God. my reason for acceptance of evolution has nothing to do with my belief in God. My reason for acceptance is the evidence I have seen.

Well that is all I wanted to hear ... Thanks ...

I actually enjoy studying evolution ... The parts I could not understand were why reasonably intelligent and useful information would pass from generation to generation without returning to the same mistakes ... I found this to be a designed process ... One that requires Conscious Control ... Even now I constantly search my own scriptures and evolution to see where if possible a homogeneity or common ground can be reached ... I'm not there yet.

keep holding on to the belief of God ... :) ... It may be useful for you one day.

[bella88]

Re: Do philosophical theories

Peace bella88

The nominal position of most men and women is to be heterosexual and religion requires us to be chaste ... i.e. That we do not commit adultery or fornication. Sodomy is disallowed in any circumstance even in a heterosexual relationship.

It is also true that some people get homosexual urges ... And these are natural for them ... But it is also true that such urges can be curtailed and trained away .... Similar to the training of the monks for celibacy ... It is also possible to become inclined towards heterosexuality through training ... And vice-versa people who are otherwise heterosexual have been noted as being able to persuade themselves towards homosexuality.

exposure and indulgence leads to an increase ... Over indulgence can flip the effect into the pursuing more and more taboo areas and otherwise can lead to impotency ... With ever increasing indulgence in to wackier and more fringe activity ... The basic thing here is if people accept their orientation then sooner or later it will fuel and become the impetus for the act ... Just like people who constantly indulge and think about sex will eventually commit zina or even rape ... People who accept their homosexuality will only increase them in that condition.

Humans must try to be heterosexual but not indulgent in any orientation. We should not be totally celibate but should should legal sex as a mechanism to expel our building up urges and refrain from contemplating sex as a hobby. This means despite natural homosexuality being there ... The result is the same as if it were treated like a disorder ... i.e. Acts from it are avoided and it's tendency is to be consciously subdued.

Peace Psyah.
when i said it's not a disorder, I meant disorder in terms of medical, not religiously. i don't agree with some things you just said, especially where you say
[quote]
It is also possible to become inclined towards heterosexuality through training
[/quote]
. this is not true for the most part, maybe very rarely it can be successful but thats why there is no recommended therapies to 'treat' homosexuality in psychiatry practice (in US and western world atleast).
If i did not personally know homosexual people, I might have agreed with you. none of the people i know want to be gay. they struggle daily. if one goes against their homosexual nature in order to avoid sin, they are really very strong. i would consider that jihad an Nafs, which is the hardest of all.
i have discussed this topics in 11 pages in another thread. donot want to repeat it again and offend people again.

[bella88]

Re: Do philosophical theories

Why?

If a scientific argument is being presented you need to assess the validity of the argument using science not names ... Science is supposed to be objective so anyone can access and cross-examine any evidence ... Instead of saying Harun Yahya this and that ... Please examine the argument and use science to refute it. Thanks.

When I post any scientific links, they are called "ABSURD", and 'unathentic links'. there is tons of websires supporting evolution which are called 'un athentic' by certain posters here, including the links from prestigious universities. atleast be fair if even if you dont agree with me.