Even your signature is hate filled. It proves you do not use your brain. You do not think for yourself , you stereotype.
Those of you who are wondering here is his signature which reeks of hate for a Pashtun Tribe.
Pashtun tribe? what the? just cuz you think one person is brainless..you hate their race or tribe or whatever?
i do not hate afridi.. he is just brainless..i actually support pak cricket.. afridi is counter productive..
I do not hate people who worship. I just think it’s a waste. Life is not just a race for me where I want people to be left behind. I seriously think religious obsessions are wasteful and counterproductive to the growth of our civilization.. its not about that competing with each other..
the “what if you were wrong” argument is just plain ol hilarious..
With regards to the what if you were wrong concept I’ll have to wait until this evening to find out to watch the video. I agree with the concept that “religious obsessions” are or can be counterproductive even wasteful. It does not mean however that religion or to be adequately religious is the same as having an obsession. Being religious and having an obsession are two different things. One can have atheistic or irreligious obsessions which are equally as counterproductive.
Growth to our civilisation - well things like language you could argue is critical for the betterment of civilisation. On the advent of Islam - research in Arabic grew because of the power and precision of the Arabic langauge rooted inteh Qur’an - it led to many developments and Islamic concepts of research and hadith sciences and authentication helped developed the world of encyclopedic works and the importance of referencing.
Science is a good aspect to civilisation growth you would say and modern science finds it roots in Islamic works.
The latest atheistic bases for developments do not take into consideration the concepts of whether something is good for society or bad. Latest science tells us to explore “possibility” this will lead to things like genetic manipulations and nuclear bombs, because there is no ethical cap to science.
If you understanding of growth is unethical development then I agree with you religion does indeed stop unethical development, but the absence of religion does not stop unethical things coming in to society and in the long run this will be our downfall. The best sort of growth for civilisation is not too rapidly that it gets growth pains and not too slowly that it becomes stagnant. It needs to be rooted in religion because from it we can discover our purpose rather than imposing our personal desires over others.
here comes the ethics card. as if religions provide ethics. they just set down laws - laws that with the times lost their context and have got more and more difficult to implement in a practical manner. ethics is much more than a set of rules, and religious people are no more ethical than non-religious ones.
I don't know if you have ever wondered if you as an atheist represent "ethics" in any way? Please answer that and also include why you think people on this forum dislike conversing with you. I personally do not think that atheism has undertaken anything uniquely ethical. And religion is a framework for ethics nothing more. You are right that ethics is more than a set of rules, but you are posing this statement as if religion is nothing but a set of rules. This shows how much one unqualified to talk about religion as yourself actually knows about religion.
Even if you hear it from me that religion is indeed what enables ethics and ethical society to flourish you will be all too conveniently made deaf and blind to this claim by your bias against religion. For you it suits your purpose to resign religion to a set of rules, as if having rules is an unethical thing. I think you will find that imposing "rules" upon oneself is the definition of ethics. Those rules self imposed or written as a standard for us to impose on ourselves - your choice of words for making "rules" seem something distasteful really shows the reality of atheism that you represent. Atheism is a protest against the rules of ethics.
As a finale to my response ... I would like to add that the greatest position in Islam - the religion I follow as you well know is to be in the state of "love" with God. This state is under no compulsion and to be with gratitude to The One Who gave us life and the bounties of this world and the joys of the soul. It is He who we Praise and contain ourselves in humility never claiming any of it selfishly or falsely attribute that blessing as a result of our own worth. The greatest position of human to another is not one of domination it is not even sharing, but rather it is of sacrificing our rights for the rights of others. This philosophy is alien to atheism in general and the dominant wave of atheism which is rooted in evolution definitely preaches a philosophy that attempts to justify domination by force let alone sharing.
So how you can even say that ethics is abstract from religion? ... I don't know.
I think Dawkins should keep to his pseudo-science 'cos his philosophy is a C minus at best. He answered the question with the same question. His premise or build up to it was a red-herring argument, he was stating that people believe in what they are led to believe in due to their nurture i.e. "their environment" however his personal belief is not aligned with that so already he is stating that his belief differs from the belief of others. According to him the others who believe only follow, but he has made his own mind up. By asking the question "what if you are wrong" to someone who has made his own mind up due to research and work has totally different ramifications to asking the same question to an ignorant blind follower.
The question "what if you are wrong" actually is an incomplete question. It should have been asked the way I set the dilemma. "Should we not believe and we are wrong then we will be punished in damnation, but should we believe and be wrong then there is no consequence of hell and the lifestyle would have only been a blessing on those around us"
sharaabee not only has Dawkins spun the answer in to a counter question having avoided answering it but you have given me the wrong link to watch to what I posed. What I said was distinctly different to what that girl said and you aught to have known better for linking it here.
psyah.. yes..dawkins did not answer the question fully and he spun it.. bcuz the question is so incredibly retarrded it's not worth dwelling into it. i totally like the way he spun it around..
as for how science has no ethics.. why do need to have one basic philosophy (science or religion) controlling everything? science does what it does.. explore opportunities and improve stuff.. the modern atheistic based science has done wonders for us.. evidence is the computer screen you are reading this on... to give islam the credit for this is frankly quite ridiculous.
as far as what to cap and what not to do.. thats guided by morales.. morales are constantly evolving and a collective feeling of all people in the society.. simple stuff like dont kill innocent people and dont rape.. we dont need any religion to tell us that.. we shouldn't.. we dont need religion to tell us that we should control atomic bombs... its just basic morality.. and dont tell me that basic morality COMES from religion.. the existence of god and his message to humans is IRRELEVANT to my COMMON SENSE to not murder my neighbour and rape his daughter..
this morality did not exist in the masses 1000s of yrs ago perhaps thats why prophets felt the need to scam the public into fear.. and getting them to do whats right..
we don't need that anymore..
you should not assume that if there is no religion.. everything will become a mess and people will start killing and raping each other....
regarding atheism based on evolution... the notion that it preaches "dominance by force" is not true.. just because you recognize evolution and natural selection doesn't mean that you think it's FAIR or morale..
survival of the fittest is true but that doesnt mean atheists actually want to kill all the weak...
i am not a staunch atheist.. just thought i'd clarify the above in psyah's post..
It is considerably intersting how you continually deal with concepts of 'good' and 'bad' and assume that science orchestrated by atheists is not absent of morality. A moral or something ethical considers the good and the bad, atheistic science does not look at good and bad. It looks at how and what is possible, what is manipulatable. It is clinically severed from concepts of good and evil.
Yet with the same breath it is being suggested by you that morals do not stem from religion, of course they do. The concept of "thou shalt not kill" did not come from science. You say the concept of 'goodness' did not exist in people thousands of years ago and in order to make people moral you say that prophets pulled a scam (which in itself is immoral - lieing being a mortal sin in most religions). How you can make this absurd notions is beyond me and quite frankly it demonstrates the weakness of cogent argumentation that you are presenting here.
Now to address the specific issue of people discovering 'good' without religion. Yes I agree they can stumble across it and they enjoin it. However no science text book will tell you why. It is religion, Islam in fact that tells us every human has inside their soul a sense of natural order called the fitrah. This is given to us in order for us to arrive at the very principles that documented scriptures from the large religions have provided to us through history. By the way you still have not given me an adequate answer regarding my resolution. It is safer to be religious, because it has the highest contingency.
By the way it is another misnoma and false assumption that religious ideals and morals and ethics are common sense purely based on the observation that atheists of today can be perceived as being good.
True goodness is only when something is done for the love or at least the fear of God. The fact that you won't kill your neighbour or rape his daughter you believe is common sense, but the reality is actually years and years of confirmation and affirmation that has molded society in realising that these concepts which are grounded in religion (not in science - which if based on observation of the animal kingdom it will make us arrive at different answers) has made the nurturing process that you have been born into something which becomes ingrained in the fabric of the society. It is the norm around you that makes you realise that those things are immoral and wrong not a sense of inspiration on your behalf.
psyah.. you keep confusing this as a science vs religion debate..
i started off my last post with the same thing.. we dont need just 1 of these or 1 of any to control everything.. i am not offering science as a substitute or a replacement to religion.. i am not saying that science has good morals.. I said myself that natural selection and survival of the fittest.. are not moral.. and i wudnt want to have our civilizations run with those themes at all..
do you understand? science is not offering morals.. it is not a replacement to religion...
i am not contesting that religion offers good values.. of course it does.. it just comes with way too much baggage.. and a lot of it is very illogical.. i was only simply saying that it is a waste of time with the way people obsess over so much stuff that is just illogical..
Take a better look at my posts … I do not say “science is” I say “science as orchestrated by atheists is” or “evolution is” or “psuedo-science is” …
In this case the tool of science when used by atheists to disprove God leaves them in a catch 22 that they do not acknowledge. Do you consider evolution as science which infers that there is no place for morals and no God or do you consider morals are important but then you would have to compromise the tenets of evolution in the areas where it will suggest that we should be doing other than moral things?
You can’t have both. You cannot disagree with the unethical conclusions born from evolution and believe morality is correct but at the same time agree with the notion that God does not have to exist (hence does not exist) also born from evolution. Evolution does not even claim to deny God. The atheist claim it does, the more truthful will say that it merely suggests that God is not required. The more philosophical and truthful will say God not being required is a misnoma because we have not attempted to find God we have been observing from within a framework and we can’t draw conclusions about what happens outside that framework. So they will remain silent on the issue. The absolute truth about evolution is that it neither supports nor rejects the existence of God - it is silent about that. This is where they go wrong … They tie it in with mathematical ideas which sound profound and work on paper they construct algorithms and then they draw dangerous conclusions. If a God believing mathematician did the same I’m sure the maths would lead to other conclusions.
So nothing against science friend … I consider myself a scientist by the way.
To answer the illogical … Yes religion does often seem to obsess over the irrational or illogical … but that is what trust and faith does to us. It enables in us a greater understanding … Look at the Johari window …
The faithful will operate in all window segments … they will do things that don’t make much sense even to them, but they trust the instruction, because they comprehend that there will always be a part of reality that is hidden from them (by hidden I mean hidden from their view and understanding).
Trust should only be given when the top left window segment is secure. If we find that the top left window segment is broken then we can’t do the other parts either. That would be called baseless trust. Our trust is based on the firm grounding that with all the things that we can (able to) fathom and understand that all those things do make sense and are supportable, only then can we submit to the rest of things required. Submitting to the rest of things does not mean to become blindly following the top left window either where we are able to do so we should research and continually question ourselves, when we realise that certain areas cannot ever be answered by us then we should just submit and do.
how did i interfere in His(SWT) decision? i don't know what His(SWT) decision is..am just praying for what i want...
neha, its not about what you want. Its about what Allah wants. Allah's decision is the last. He is well aware of what our needs and wants are and which are legitimate and which aren't
Like someone once said here ..
Jo Allah ne diya wo usski naimat
Jo Allah ne nahi diya uss mein usski hikmat
Jo Allah ne de ke waapis le liya, uss mein hamaara imtehaan.
See which one of it do you fall under. Regardless of that, always keep thanking your Lord.
