Re: Two sides of same coin
psyah pai, i dont see how that is any different from believing only people from your little club will go to heaven and the rest will suffer for eternity in hell. petty gods and all that.. :)
**and evolution is real. it is proven. **denying it makes you a kafir literally..
so you think living beings can evolve from rocks?
Re: Two sides of same coin
Let’s not get to evolution theory to prove religion is right.
The essence of first post as far as I understand is atheism itself is a religion.
Agree.
I have said this with proofs in past.
Atheism certainly fall in to the fourth definition of word “religion”.
religion - definition of religion by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.
They believe in some people just like those people are prophets.
They believe in being separate from all others as a group.
They have their concept of morality and immorality …if any. 
They think they are right. Citing their reasons.
They may not have a concept of God but Buddhists also do not have that concept and Buddhism is considered as a religion.
A religion does not have to have concept of God.
Re: Two sides of same coin
.....The essence of first post as far as I understand is atheism itself is a religion....
I think the essence is this:
Atheists say that religious people believe in stories they heard from their elders while atheists believe in what human mind (heads) has discovered so far.
The evidence discovered so far does not point towards a super-natural being, and hence until such evidence is found, they would not be convinced of presence of such a being.
A thousand years ago, 99% of people would insist that it is not possible for two human beings a thousand miles apart to talk instantly with each other. The scientific discoveries till then told them so. If some people believed that it is possible, they would be considered lunatics.
Re: Two sides of same coin
I think for atheists, religion is synonym of rituals and they themselves don’t follow any rituals.
Is there any ritualistic part of atheism?
Re: Two sides of same coin
I think for atheists, religion is synonym of rituals and they themselves don't follow any rituals.
Is there any ritualistic part of atheism?
First you mentioned atheists beliefs as religion being synonymous of rituals as an evidence and then asked the question is there any ritualistic part of atheism. Very interesting.
Most of the rituals are related to worshiping God. And hence atheists may not be following those types of rituals for the same reasons.
On the other hand, they do follow some rituals (despite claiming to be atheists) such as de-baptism. In this ritual they make a mockery of Baptism in Christianity. Hope you have heard of it. They use blow dryer to dry someone's hair. Very popular among college students.
And then they are avid supporters of Yoga, their peculiar way of burying the dead people by playing favorite music or reading particular book, making speech about the dead person. Without invoking God.
They do have their own way of celebrating marriage...again without talking about God.
Re: Two sides of same coin
I think the essence is this:
Atheists say that religious people believe in stories they heard from their elders while atheists believe in what human mind (heads) has discovered so far.
The evidence discovered so far does not point towards a super-natural being, and hence until such evidence is found, they would not be convinced of presence of such a being.
A thousand years ago, 99% of people would insist that it is not possible for two human beings a thousand miles apart to talk instantly with each other. The scientific discoveries till then told them so. If some people believed that it is possible, they would be considered lunatics.
Bhai jan, religious people believed they could talk to God or send prayers and good wishes to each other far too long distance, before science actually proved it for even shorter distances. :D
Re: Two sides of same coin
First you mentioned atheists beliefs as religion being synonymous of rituals as an evidence and then asked the question is there any ritualistic part of atheism. Very interesting.
Most of the rituals are related to worshiping God. And hence atheists may not be following those types of rituals for the same reasons.
On the other hand, they do follow some rituals (despite claiming to be atheists) such as de-baptism. In this ritual they make a mockery of Baptism in Christianity. Hope you have heard of it. They use blow dryer to dry someone's hair. Very popular among college students.
And then they are avid supporters of Yoga, their peculiar way of burying the dead people by playing favorite music or reading particular book, making speech about the dead person. Without invoking God.
They do have their own way of celebrating marriage...again without talking about God.
Interesting. It we concentrate, rituals are everywhere in the world. Its just that rituals in the name of God are part of religion.
Re: Two sides of same coin
Interesting. It we concentrate, rituals are everywhere in the world. Its just that rituals in the name of God are part of religion.
Yes.
Re: Two sides of same coin
Let's not get to evolution theory to prove religion is right.
.....
you see, they use evolution theory to prove religion is otherwise.
Re: Two sides of same coin
you see, they use evolution theory to prove religion is otherwise.
That does not mean anything whatsoever.
They cannot prove this theory by anything whatsoever scientifically available at their disposal to be true.
Please refer to threads on this topic and one of those was probably the longest thread.
Re: Two sides of same coin
If some guy uses his head in matters of religion, he is told by most of the participants in this very thread to go ask the experts who have studied the subject matter for years and years. However, they have no qualms about dismissing established scientific consensus of people who have spent their whole lives studying evolution because they seem to think that they know better. Do atheists really need better ammunition to prove how illogical religious folks are?
Re: Two sides of same coin
If some guy uses his head in matters of religion, he is told by most of the participants in this very thread to go ask the experts who have studied the subject matter for years and years. However, they have no qualms about dismissing established scientific consensus of people who have spent their whole lives studying evolution because they seem to think that they know better. Do atheists really need better ammunition to prove how illogical religious folks are?
Peace chacha_Ghalib
Subject matter experts in the Islamic sense are used to clarify what we already KNOW to be TRUE. They don't tell us what is true, but they tell us how to understand it and provide the evidences therein. Likewise, subject matter experts in evolution are not to be approached for what they tell us is true or not, but merely to understand the mechanisms of their theory and how it all works to get a true understanding of it.
For example someone can say "We didn't come from monkeys" and then clarification comes by saying "No we came from common ancestors" here what is to be understood is that evolutionists do not claim we came from monkeys, but that we came from a common ancestor with monkeys ... Knowing this as I do does not mean I should accept the theory now ... they keep coming with further and further sophistication of a belief - it does not make it any more sensible or believable until proof can be given for it.
The consequences of accepting evolution will have rippling affects - it will undermine the idea of an actual paradise, it will undermine the idea of Adam (AS) being created and sent to Earth literally. It will undermine the Act of instantaneous creation ... these are dangerous ideas for Sunni Muslims ...
Re: Two sides of same coin
^ Interesting that you would not accept evolution "until proof can be given for it" but are willing to accept biblical and quranic stories simply by saying that "we already KNOW to be TRUE" without a requiring 'proof' since that would undermine those 'tales'.
This is the gist of OP.
Re: Two sides of same coin
^ Interesting that you would not accept evolution "until proof can be given for it" but are willing to accept biblical and quranic stories simply by saying that "we already KNOW to be TRUE" without a requiring 'proof' since that would undermine those 'tales'.
This is the gist of OP.
Because two are very different concepts.
No matter how much people try to compare religion with science, they are not comparable.
Actually this is how irreligious minded try to make religious minded fool and try to make them feel inferior.
On the other hand misguided so called religious minded try to bring scientific tools to prove religion is valid. Not a good approach.
Re: Two sides of same coin
^ Interesting that you would not accept evolution "until proof can be given for it" but are willing to accept biblical and quranic stories simply by saying that "we already KNOW to be TRUE" without a requiring 'proof' since that would undermine those 'tales'.
This is the gist of OP.
Peace kakaballi
Actually - truth in itself is always gathered through the prism of the mind - in other words we are each subject to our own understandings ... So the Qur'an has reached us today through the mashhur of various sources - these are the same - There is only one Qur'an - it is a muttawatir transmission and the evidence of this is so strong it is considered proof that the TEXT is unchanged - it is as the holy prophet Muhammad (SAW) uttered it ... and the contrary to that position is a lie and scientifically unsound ... The Qur'an contains testable claims and untestable claims ... we also have external references for the character of RasoolAllah (SAW) as being totally honest and trustworthy ... again it would be unscientific to claim the contrary to his (SAW)'s blessed personality and suggest at any point he lied or was deceived or anything to that nature. So we trust in him (SAW) because we trust in the way we have learned about him (SAW). We therefore conclude the material in the Qur'an cannot be a lie. How we understand it can be deficient - but a lie it is not ... and that is when we need to go to the people of knowledge - through intercourse with the people living today we can refine an understanding which is going to be what we then accept to be doctrinal and credo - the aqeedah and the faith system.
On this basis evolution as a concept is no where near - the pioneers of evolution are not known for their trustworthy natures and there is no consistent idea or corpus on the mechanisms of evolution. It violates the explanation of creation as given by our religion in such as way that we are forced to decide - which one is true? We cannot sensibly say both are true - because then we would be compelled to abandon the understandings of a thousand plus years of scholarly minds just to make the picture fit between the Qur'an and the popular opinion of the time - which happens to be evolution.
The other thing is since scientists on the whole are purporting this theory - they claim it to be scientific - but in fact it is a belief system ... and accordingly there are people who take the Qur'an to be metaphoric as a whole and they do not have a problem in accepting evolution either. But such people are not being sincere when they claim evolution to be scientific - it is not ... call it what it is ... a belief. In which case impartially it is on equal pegging with creationist belief ... that for me is not enough to start interpreting the Qur'an figuratively ... not yet ... so I reserve judgment on evolution and maintain my belief in Islam as per tradition.
Tradition is a scientific process ... because it is based on evidence, classification, transmission and consensus.
Again to simplify in to an argument structure:
a) Since the TEXT of the Qur'an can be scientifically proven to be precisely as stated by the holy prophet Muhammad (SAW)
and
b) It can be scientifically proven that RasoolAllah (SAW) didn't lie and was not of unsound mind
therefore
c) The Qur'anic text is True
Further evidence to support this ... Qur'an contains verifiable claims and non-verifiable claims and of those that are verifiable - they are ALL true ...
Example - The Arabic is itself grammatically perfect - verifiable
Example - The Qur'anic verses are impossible to be emulated no addition or subtraction can enter it - verifiable
So concepts that are not verifiable such as the creation of Adam (AS) - must be taken on good faith. This method is not logical deduction - to call it thus is a fallacy ... but it is a sensible approach to gauging truth when there is no other means to gauge it ...
The last factor that we use to gauge truth is the "heart" - we feel right with it and we accept it.
Re: Two sides of same coin
.........On the other hand misguided so called religious minded try to bring scientific tools to prove religion is valid. Not a good approach.
.........Again to simplify in to an argument structure:
a) Since the TEXT of the Qur'an can be scientifically proven to be precisely as stated by the holy prophet Muhammad (SAW)
and
b) It can be scientifically proven that RasoolAllah (SAW) didn't lie and was not of unsound mind
therefore
c) The Qur'anic text is True.....
Dekhain psyah bhai, diwana aap ko kya kah rahay hain :D
Re: Two sides of same coin
No you misunderstanding him 
… diwana has always maintained that we should not inspect into the Qur’an for scientific discoveries … such as the Big Bang and Embryology and what not … to a certain extent I agree with him … Rather the type of scientific process I have invoked here is purely history science and rational argumentation to deduce what I did above … There is science on one hand then there is “the scientific process” diwana was talking about science I was talking about the scientific process … as with evolution it does not stand up to the “scientific process” …
Re: Two sides of same coin
^ So the OP is correct, religious people DO use tales. Atheists using heads is qualified by human discovery 'so far'.
I don't understand what's so wrong about it. Why religious people get so defensive about using 'tales' instead of 'heads'?. One can easily argue that God, so far, is beyond human intellect just as radio waves, electromagnetic waves, infrared light etc were beyond human scientific understanding only 500 years ago.
Even the word 'faith' says that you have to put rationality aside for a while. Lets assume that we lived in a world where God could be seen and heard directly by human beings. Belief in God in such a situation would not be called 'faith'. It would just be a rational decision.
Re: Two sides of same coin
^ So the OP is correct, religious people DO use tales. Atheists using heads is qualified by human discovery 'so far'.
I don't understand what's so wrong about it. Why religious people get so defensive about using 'tales' instead of 'heads'?. One can easily argue that God, so far, is beyond human intellect just as radio waves, electromagnetic waves, infrared light etc were beyond human scientific understanding only 500 years ago.
Even the word 'faith' says that you have to put rationality aside for a while. Lets assume that we lived in a world where God could be seen and heard directly by human beings. Belief in God in such a situation would not be called 'faith'. It would just be a rational decision.
Atheists think they use head and hence correct. Not true. Even using head can bring a lot of false results.
And when atheists base their arguments on science, they are wrong. There is no rationality in science either which is used by atheists so adamantly to prove they are right.
Science itself is full of tales, assumptions, theories and words like perhaps, maybe, could be, might be, are commonly found in science books.
A lot of phenomenon cannot be explained by science. No one knows how to even predict when someone X, Y, or Z person will have a heart attack and why. All science can do is to try to minimize that chance, but cannot eliminate that chance to zero.
Try asking a scientific person to 'cure' a simple disease like hypertension and that person if sincere and truthful, will be dumbfounded.
Science by no means is absolute. never been and never will be.
Re: Two sides of same coin
Dekhain psyah bhai, diwana aap ko kya kah rahay hain :D
lol
I had not read this or psyah bahi response before I posted above.
There is a big difference in what we call science and scientific process. I agree with psyah bahi there. If we say, scientific process means looking in to details of evidences then no problem there.
If we try to use science as an entity which only deals with materialistic evidences then no, religion is beyond that and should not be proved right based on materialistic evidences.