aliens and god. a few questions-

[TecK NeeX]

No, I have confidence that person will try to prove that his/her religion is wrong to strengthen their belief.

You mean try to prove their religion is right to strengthen their belief? i dont see how proving your religion wrong can strengthen ones beliefs. Islam doesnt encourage us to discover things to prove our religion is right or wrong, it encourages us to gain more knowledge on Gods artistry and design of his creations. thats the purpose of this encouragement

Whats this evidence?

Fossils that turn out not to be what evolutionists have thought all along yet still hold these so called evidences in their websites, magazines etc. Or fossils forgeries constructed and were presented as transitional fossils.

You said before that clericalism forbade such studies and religion has nothing to do with it, but these people went to these clerics (who study religion their whole lives) for answers and they told them not to do it. Religion has nothing to do with it how? And i don't mean "The books say you can't do it!" i mean how people interpret it, how the people at the top of the religious ladder dictate what people can or cannot do using religion.

At that time studies of the human body was thought to be inhumane, barbaric and cruel to the deceased and the body should not be desecrated and should bury the body as it is. Not because religion disallowed it, but for respect

 

[Glockmatic]

You mean try to prove their religion is right to strengthen their belief? i dont see how proving your religion wrong can strengthen ones beliefs. Islam doesnt encourage us to discover things to prove our religion is right or wrong, it encourages us to gain more knowledge on Gods artistry and design of his creations. thats the purpose of this encouragement

What i meant is they should look at if their religion can be wrong by questioning it. They should look at the flaws their dogma has and question them, not follow them blindly.

Fossils that turn out not to be what evolutionists have thought all along yet still hold these so called evidences in their websites, magazines etc. Or fossils forgeries constructed and were presented as transitional fossils.

You mean the forged fossils that were later disproven by...evolutionists? Post some of the fossils you're talking about

At that time studies of the human body was thought to be inhumane, barbaric and cruel to the deceased and the body should not be desecrated and should bury the body as it is. Not because religion disallowed it, but for respect

an islamic scholar from toronto said:

Ideally, after death, a person’s body must be washed, shrouded and buried as intact as possible after saying the prescribed Prayers; we are not allowed to dissect, mutilate or tamper with the body in any way. The reason for this is that the dead person enjoys a certain amount of sanctity which cannot be violated. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) is reported to have said, “Cutting up a dead person’s bones is akin to cutting him up while he is alive!”

 

[Hymnz]

No it's not, because string theory is falsifiable. If someone disproved string theory, [most] scientists wouldn't still cling to it in spite of the evidence.

im just saying that within science and religion, there are different groups of belief.

people usually bring up the "Well people lose (insert number) kilograms when they die, so that must be how much a soul weighs"

lol... i dont know anybody that uses this. its a stupid argument that never had the support of a proper study.

 

[Glockmatic]

lol... i dont know anybody that uses this. its a stupid argument that never had the support of a proper study.

you'd be suprised by posters here

 

[Preach]

picked out a few points here and there i wanted to comment on. so don't come here telling me i'm neglecting the rest of your posts. if i didn't reply to the other parts of yours posts, it means i couldn't be fucked/it's not relevant to what i want to say.

To actively argue the non-existence of a higher entity such as God you are effectively acknowledging his possible existence. Going as far as attempting to disprove his existence is also acknowledging that he does exist - enough to be the subject of discussion and debate.

these are stupid semantics.

arguing over the existance of a god is not what we are doing here anyway. we are arguing over the blindness that religion puts in people. the lack of ability to see beyond their own beliefs. that's the issue here.

and you are flat out wrong. by denying god's existance i'm not effectively acknowledging his possible existance, i am denying his existance. that's what i'm doing.

wtf are you talking about, really? When did i say religious people should try and prove their religion wrong?

he didn't, he said that IF they were to do so, that would shake their whole faith. which brings us to the actual point that you are dodging: you can't question your book because according to your religion it is the absolute truth. i'm gonna get back to this later. the point here isn't that religious people should question their holy book and shake their faith, the point here is that BECAUSE you are bound to your book and faith, you CAN'T question it. it would be unnatural for you. i don't understand how you fail to see the convenience in believing in, and using god to explain things.

you strike me as a pink person. i'm gonna bring up a comparison to show you what i mean - my ex once told me, after i told her my feelings about a thought she had, that "these are my feelings, my thoughts, how can you say that?" okay, sure, i'm all for freedom of speech, free will and all that shit. that doesn't deprive from the fact that it is still a fucking stupid thing to say. just because they are your feelings don't make them right, and likewise, just because this is your belief, that doesn't make it right. this is the fundamental difference between me and you. i AM able to say that maybe what i believe in is wrong, and one day we will see for ourselves through science or through miracles that what we (atheists) believe in is wrong. you, on the other hand, are open for the fact that a lot of the things you believe in are wrong. but ultimately, you will always believe in god, and anything that you feel science is explaining vaguely, you will use god to explain somehow. or something else that's real big and great. this means that your beliefs only exist within a confined frame, while mine stretch out everywhere.

The model for spirits is us? These spirits are the souls of dead people, maybe? Which religion speaks of.

when you know your emotions are controlled by chemical processes in your body, and when you know that our memory is stored in our brain, what then is the essence of our "soul" that remains when we die? if it's not our emotions and not our memory, what is it then? because if it's just an energy form like heat or electricity, it doesn't reflect a personality. in which case, if proof was presented to back up the claim, i would be able to believe that the energy in our body converts when we die. i don't see any possibility, however, that this energy would exist as a soul the way you mean.

There are many verses in the Qur'an that instructs us to learn about achaelogoy, astronomy, nature, botany, geology, zoology and such. Islam encourages science, and what you discover will either support your religion or prove it wrong.

the quaran encourages you to learn about science... but within the confined mentality that there IS a god.

you say that's what the quaran says, but is that the way you actually think? or do you say that to make the quaran look good? are you really, and don't lie to us nor yourself now, are you really a 100% open for the fact that maybe god DOESN'T exist? i don't mean that you think maybe there's a possibility but most likely not. do you actually question the existance of god yourself? do you actual feel genuine doubt that there is a god? because if you don't, then it's safe to say you are absolutely sure there IS a god. if this is the case, admit you have a narrower perspective than the rest of us. if it's not, and you actually do doubt god, why do you feel such a need to stand up and defend him, and your belief in him?

 

[TecK NeeX]

he didn't, he said that IF they were to do so, that would shake their whole faith.

I dont wanna speak about all religious people, But i question my religion all the time, and it doesn't shake my faith

which brings us to the actual point that you are dodging:

Not dodging anything.

you can't question your book because according to your religion it is the absolute truth i'm gonna get back to this later. the point here isn't that religious people should question their holy book and shake their faith, the point here is that BECAUSE you are bound to your book and faith, you CAN'T question it. it would be unnatural for you. i don't understand how you fail to see the convenience in believing in, and using god to explain things.

I question my book all the time. A Muslim can't be a muslim without questioning his religion/holy book. Quit talking as if you are an All knowing being

you strike me as a pink person.

You strike me as an ignorant person. Typical Atheist

i'm gonna bring up a comparison to show you what i mean - my ex once told me, after i told her my feelings about a thought she had, that "these are my feelings, my thoughts, how can you say that?" okay, sure, i'm all for freedom of speech, free will and all that shit. that doesn't deprive from the fact that it is still a fucking stupid thing to say. just because they are your feelings don't make them right, and likewise, just because this is your belief, that doesn't make it right. this is the fundamental difference between me and you.

Shitty comparison and doesn't apply here

i AM able to say that maybe what i believe in is wrong, and one day we will see for ourselves through science or through miracles that what we (atheists) believe in is wrong.

So will I if one day something proved that what i believe in is wrong than I will admit I am wrong, Until that day why should I? What difference does it make? Will you sleep better at night if I said "ok maybe I'm wrong"?

you will always believe in god

Of course I will

and anything that you feel science is explaining vaguely, you will use god to explain somehow. or something else that's real big and great.

Vaguely or not, everything is God's work, Explanations science provide on how things work i see them as how God puts things together and we know how he works by using science.

the quaran encourages you to learn about science... but within the confined mentality that there IS a god.

Actually no other book than the Qur'an challenges people of learning to a final debate of authenticity and credibility based on knowledge and verification. The Qur'an encourages us to use science as a tool, not to learn about science as if its completely incompatible with God and Religion. Everything I learn in Science IS confined within the mentality that there is a God

you say that's what the quaran says, but is that the way you actually think?

Of course it is.

are you really a 100% open for the fact that maybe god DOESN'T exist? i don't mean that you think maybe there's a possibility but most likely not. do you actually question the existance of god yourself?

Of course I do, Thats the challenge and the test of faith! But than i always come across something or someone who is more knowldgeable than i am to shed some light on my doubts. God tests our faith. How can we be judged without tests?

do you actual feel genuine doubt that there is a god? because if you don't, then it's safe to say you are absolutely sure there IS a god.

Yes its safe for you to say that I am absolutely sure that there is a God

if this is the case, admit you have a narrower perspective than the rest of us. if it's not, and you actually do doubt god, why do you feel such a need to stand up and defend him, and your belief in him?

I dont have a narrower perspective than you do, You are lost and unsure while I am not. You havent found your beliefs yet I have. If 2 people are travelling to 2 different destinations yet one arrives to that destination while the other got lost and is still insearch of that place doesnt mean he is any better than the one who found what he was insearch of.

What i meant is they should look at if their religion can be wrong by questioning it. They should look at the flaws their dogma has and question them, not follow them blindly.

Again I dont wanna speak for all religious people but i question my religion all the time not because I think what im questioning is a flaw or not but because I dont understand it. I dont know Islam inside out, I go to people better knowledged than i am to seek answers. I dont believe Islam has any flaws, Just cause you see them as flaws doesnt mean that they are. To each his own

You mean the forged fossils that were later disproven by...evolutionists? Post some of the fossils you're talking about

Later disporven by scientists who are not out on a mission to disprove creationism and prove evolution to be a fact without a shadow of a doubt by forging and constructing fossils and deception and present them as proof of evolution. Ive posted some of them in the other thread about god and evolution.

an islamic scholar from toronto said:

Ideally, after death, a person’s body must be washed, shrouded and buried as intact as possible after saying the prescribed Prayers; we are not allowed to dissect, mutilate or tamper with the body in any way. The reason for this is that the dead person enjoys a certain amount of sanctity which cannot be violated. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) is reported to have said, “Cutting up a dead person’s bones is akin to cutting him up while he is alive!”

It is still not against the Qur'an, But as to what the scholar said, it does make sense and that quote comes from the Hadith. I dont know much about that. But i did read further into this and learned that anatomy doesnt neccessarily have to come from a dead persons body but also from surgeries and work on animals. I also do find it understandable why religion would not allow such studies on this one field and allow everything else.

Now if you'll excuse me i will have to disappear for few more weeks perhaps months.

 

[Glockmatic]

Later disporven by scientists who are not out on a mission to disprove creationism and prove evolution to be a fact without a shadow of a doubt by forging and constructing fossils and deception and present them as proof of evolution.

What? Did that make sense to anyone? Archaeoraptor was announced to the public through popular press and not peer-reviewed papers where it was suppose to, and were published before complete studies were done on it. Was it a hoax by scientists to prove evolution? No, it was a fossil hunter who wanted to make a lot of money.

But i did read further into this and learned that anatomy doesnt neccessarily have to come from a dead persons body but also from surgeries and work on animals.

You can't learn the inner workings of human organs on surgery patients or animals.

I also do find it understandable why religion would not allow such studies on this one field and allow everything else.

I don't, especially when the religion encourages seeking knowledge.

 

[TecK NeeX]

What? Did that make sense to anyone? Archaeoraptor was announced to the public through popular press and not peer-reviewed papers where it was suppose to, and were published before complete studies were done on it. Was it a hoax by scientists to prove evolution? No, it was a fossil hunter who wanted to make a lot of money.

How did you come to the conclusion that their objective was money? Money or not it was fake contructed from different specimens by using glue and cement to form one and present it as a transitional fossil. Pretty much all these transitional fossils turn out not to be what they actually really are. figures. The length some people go to defend this theory

You can't learn the inner workings of human organs on surgery patients or animals.

Yes you can, On those patients who need organ surgeries

I don't, especially when the religion encourages seeking knowledge.

Oh No, Glockmatic doesn't. It's the end of the world as we know it. Religion encourages knowledge, yes but it also encourages respect for the deseased. Religious or not, millions of people would rather not let a single soul touch the body of their dead loved one. It's not only religions that disallow cutting up a dead persons body

 

[Glockmatic]

How did you come to the conclusion that their objective was money? Money or not it was fake contructed from different specimens by using glue and cement to form one and present it as a transitional fossil. Pretty much all these transitional fossils turn out not to be what they actually really are. figures. The length some people go to defend this theory

Because the person who forged it sold it for 80,000 USD. When it was bought, National Geographic got a hold of the story and published it, while two peer-reviewed scientific journals rejected the story because it wasn't studied enough. They soon discovered it was two dinosaur fossils put together.

Yes you can, On those patients who need organ surgeries

They can't study the inside of a heart, the brain or the lungs because that would involve the person dying. Studying the skeletal system of humans would probably be difficult in surgeries too. Also you can't learn much with a few hours of studying organs, the patient would have to be down for hours upon hours, and no one in the world had the technology to do that back then.

Oh No, Glockmatic doesn't. It's the end of the world as we know it. Religion encourages knowledge, yes but it also encourages respect for the deseased. Religious or not, millions of people would rather not let a single soul touch the body of their dead loved one. It's not only religions that disallow cutting up a dead persons body

So you saying you understand why its not allowed is perfectly reasonable but when i say I don't understand it, it isn't? Ya, people don't want their loved ones bodies to be touched, but a whole civilization for hundreds of years refused to gain knowledge of the human body