Flores
Originally posted by Flores How does a conceptual idea change, does an idea wake up all night and think of ways of changing itself, or do people like yourself contribute on twisting the facts about simple conceptual ideas to beyond recognition.
I assume since this was in reply to my statement concerning the current state of intolerant Islam. Following from this I can say that Christianity is one of the biggest contributing factors. 1400+ years is a long period in which to try to maintain a tradition. In fact any scholar who has studied culture or religion will tell you that in fact no practice can survive so long. So it is the fault of the human life cycle and not my own that change exists.
In this case intolerance is actually a rejection of change. So in fact it is self-defeating. The Christian religion on the other hand has always been intolerant. So in fact they lose nothing. Remember too that there are more complex geopolitical reasons for their frustration/condemnation of Christian states. Those things can lost in the syncopation of time. Religions always survive, but can only do so by adapting to change.
Originally posted by Flores So you have found out about the Quran from meeting with a group of Islamic student union. What did you meditate and read thousands of pages in their your one time visit and reflected on your life, 1000 years of history and science and determined that everyword has no basis. And how come PhD dissertations are big and vague including Einstein. Maybe you should just say, the Quran is a special read for those that are knowleagable in the art of understanding.
No actually I met once a week for an hour and a halffor 2 months with them. I did research on the internet and brought my questions to them. In the end I found that they were really just like Judeo-Christians with some cultural/syntactical differences. In fact I read much of the Quron. I read praise for it and criticism of it. I even made clear to them my perspective. They were always agreeable and responsive to my questions. I found the book to be more dogmatic in its structure than the bible and less narative based. In fact it sort of reminded me of Marcus Aurelius'
Meditations. Their claims of scientific parallelisms seemed spurious to me. Actually one of the students, or perhaps more, whom with I engaged was from Palestine. In that she was typically anti-Israeli, and generally persuasive in her arguments against the occupation as am I.
Let me not seem biased against the Quron in particular. Certainly there can be good and bad PhD dissertations and vagueness is a good indicator of this quality. In fact there are many deficiencies in Einstein and Darwin, yes I am a Darwinist that admits he is not perfect. But actually those deficiences do not exist because of vagueness. Rather they are borne of specificity. Darwin went into this long debate on aspeciation within modern day man and boy did he come off as a racist. In that we must remember the context of time. The problem is that religious documents don't take any chances and don't cite any evidence. Darwin and company use a system of footnotes, recreatable data with description of experiment, and otherwise form of proof. They had the courage to take a position. In the bible and the Quron there are no positions. They are indeed full of meaningless axioms and childish literature.
What are you saying, Darwin is irrefutable. Is he the new Atheist god or something. Last time I checked, scientific advancement is based on criticizing old ideas and finding errors to correct and advance. Are you saying that Darwin theoris are infaliable....He must be god then.
No in fact I just admitted to some of the failings. The difference froma religious text and a scientific theory is that theories can be revised. Just because one component is deemed wrong doesn't mean we throw the entire theory out. In a religious text repitition rules the day, can't say whether it is audience awareness or failings on behalf of the author, so when I remove a chunk the entire thing falls apart. When Darwin asserts something he tells you why. When the Quron asserts something no explanation is given.
I think you should say, I'll read the Quran myself before you recommend it to others. Actually, another language learning like arabic might even be more helpful, so you're not basing all your bull shit assault on another human translation.
I have, not the entire text, for that would be too painful, but rather enough. Translation isn't really a factor in anything outside poems where rythm can be lost. In fact even if I learned Farsi I would still, because of my brains codevelopment with language learning I would, be forced to translate only as the tranlator instead of the one reading translation. So you see it can't really be bull shit.
