The Qur'an

[Bizza]

What atheistic beliefs? What those men believed was irrelevant. Galileo was condemned for proposing the heliocentric solar system, and narrowly escaped death for it. Do you think he would have made any doubts he had about Christianity public?

Galileo expressly said that the Bible cannot err, and saw his system as an alternate interpretation of the biblical texts. Like Einstein said, "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

Science has never proposed that humans are important, or that the cosmos was created for their benefit, but it has been a central belief of Abrahamic religions.

And what has 'the importance of Human's in this Universe' have anything to do with science again? You did say, "Nothing science has discovered has supported the idea that humans are important." Meaning, 'science doesn't support the Abrahamic religions' point of view' somehow?

Science has discovered many facts about the size and the age of the universe that makes it nearly impossible for an educated individual to swallow such a whopper. Countless stars, solar systems, galaxies, but it was all created for the benefit of one species on one planet?

hmmm... let's see now:
WMAP readings suggests that the Universe has a temporal age (ie. approx; 13-15 billion y.o.). Not infinite in anyway whatsoever, and no existents to suggest they are atemporal either. That is; everything is created and then destroyed. Interesting so far!

Then... there is NO empirical evidence to suggest there is/are any other intelligent life in this massive Universe, besides Humans. And doesn't necessarily mean that the Quran is actually saying this either.

Then... science tells us that the probability of life occuring in the universe is almost impossible and that there is more fine-tuning involved than we think. This also suggests that the Universe was somehow "created" by some "intelligence" and "design", but again, science would not dare say this, even though the "evidence" is in favour of the "creationist's" point of view.

And lastly... science tells us that the Universe was created due to many annihilations of dumb, mute, sensless and lifeless sub-atomic particles, coupled with the gravitational fluctuations that existed with them, via certain inherent "laws" (or programming). Where they derived from is still a mystery to scientists to this day. Amazing!

Now if you stand back and take it all in my friend, you may see another picture other that the one that has been painted for you. That is; that Human's are the most intelligent beings ever known in the Universe (as it stands). That everything surrounding them (in their environment) is to the benefit of Human's (like trees, bees, and even the protective ozone layer). And all this is so finely tuned, that if were any closer to the sun, we would burn and if we were any farther from it, we would freeze. And many more introspective observations can be derived from such empirical evidences. Amazing hey?

Rather than trying to debunk religious claims, I just want empirical evidence for them. The burden of proof is on those making a claim.

Like I said, "absence of evidence is not proof of absence". Good try though!

 

[Michael]

Which society would that be? Society for Preservation and Proliferation of War Crimes, Unlimited?

Haha from the chick who supports glorious Islamic genocide.

Hey Michael... there's a nice little white padded room with your name on it. Do take that visit to your psychiatrist like I suggested? You so dearly need it you poor poor lost child. You've gone deleriously mad with all that hate you've built up from obvious years of conditioning. Boohoo:bawl:

LOL. From someone who worships Xenu you're pretty funny.

Tell Ronny and Xenu we said hello will ya.



This fact remains:
Unlike the Greek and European Philosophers, whose ideas continue to be core curriculum at Universities from Japan and China to the USA and Europe, Mohammad's Qur'an is so lacking in originality it isn't even bothered with a mention. Not a single mention. You can easily pass through University without knowing what a Qur'an is. The so-called "Words of God" in the world's only "Perfect" book aren't even worth the smallest or slightest of mentioning. And get this, all nations that ignore the Qur'an are the most prosperous. One wonders if perhaps teaching children such bullshit actually hinders their mental development and social advancement. Remaining ignorant dimwits that dumb down their own children with Qur'anic idiotically. Just one look at any of the Islamic countries and we get a pretty good answer to the effects of brainwashing children to believe in superstitious bullshit. Your Islamic Civilization stands as a great testament to the ill effects superstition has on society. For that you have my sincere gratitude - keep up the good work!

 

[Repo Man]

"A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage"

It was a riff by Sagan on Russell's Teapot:

Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time. It is customary to suppose that, if a belief is widespread, there must be something reasonable about it. I do not think this view can be held by anyone who has studied history. Practically all the beliefs of savages are absurd. In early civilizations there may be as much as one percent for which there is something to be said. In our own day.... But at this point I must be careful. We all know that there are absurd beliefs in Soviet Russia. If we are Protestants, we know that there are absurd beliefs among Catholics. If we are Catholics, we know that there are absurd beliefs among Protestants. If we are Conservatives, we are amazed by the superstitions to be found in the Labour Party. If we are Socialists, we are aghast at the credulity of Conservatives. I do not know, dear reader, what your beliefs may be, but whatever they may be, you must concede that nine-tenths of the beliefs of nine-tenths of mankind are totally irrational. The beliefs in question are, of course, those which you do not hold. I cannot, therefore, think it presumptuous to doubt something which has long been held to be true, especially when this opinion has only prevailed in certain geographical regions, as is the case with all theological opinions.

[B]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot[/B]

 

[786]

None need bother. The facts make the claim by theists that they (humans) are important very dubious, and aren't supported by any facts that I'm aware of.

No facts don't make claims. The fact is that science has never made the claim that Humans are unimportant (or important). To claim anything else is unscientific. Yes religions make the claim that Humans are important, but you deny by citing scientific discoveries as a reason. That means you are using science to make a counter-claim, but then again science itself never made the claim so the burden of proof for the counter-claim lies on you. That is why I said the smart thing for atheists to do is not make a claim at all

You make a claim based on dogmatic texts that maintain that the universe was created by an anthropomorphic deity, for the benefit of humans. I point out facts that make this claim seem downright silly. It might have been more easily believed in a more ignorant age, but today we know that the planet has only had humans for a very brief portion of it's existence. I have made no claim, I've merely pointed out that your claim has no support in cosmology.

I think you don't realize that you are making a judgment such as "I point out facts that make this claim seem downright silly". It is not science that said anything about religions claim to be "downright silly". This is a judgment, and a judgment entails a claim. Which YOU are claiming not science.

Again you say "I've merely pointed out that your claim has no support in cosmology." Cosmology doesn't say that religion has "no support", you say it. You base it off judgment, and as I said a judgment entails a claim. Which YOU are claiming not cosmology.

Peace be unto you

 

[Repo Man]

No facts don't make claims. The fact is that science has never made the claim that Humans are unimportant (or important). To claim anything else is unscientific. Yes religions make the claim that Humans are important, but you deny by citing scientific discoveries as a reason. That means you are using science to make a counter-claim, but then again science itself never made the claim so the burden of proof for the counter-claim lies on you. That is why I said the smart thing for atheists to do is not make a claim at all

I'm using facts to show that there is no good reason to believe the theistic claim in this case. I'm making no claim. The burden of proof is on those who would seek to prove that humans are the reason the universe was created.

I think you don't realize that you are making a judgment such as "I point out facts that make this claim seem downright silly". It is not science that said anything about religions claim to be "downright silly". This is a judgment, and a judgment entails a claim.

Again you say "I've merely pointed out that your claim has no support in cosmology." Cosmology doesn't say that religion has "no support", you say it. You base it off judgment, and as I said a judgment entails a claim.

Peace be unto you

See my above post.

 

[786]

I'm using facts to show that there is no good reason to believe the theistic claim in this case. I'm making no claim. The burden of proof is on those who would seek to prove that humans are the reason the universe was created.

See my above post.

The burden of proof is on religions, that is true. But the moment you use science as a response then the burden of proof is also on you because science NEVER makes a judgment which you are attributing to religion. So you have to prove that your claim is true, but you can't because science doesn't make that claim.

The faster you understand that you are making a judgment: "outright silly", "not supported"- the easier it will be for you to realize that a judgment entails a claim. That fact doesn't change. Or can you prove to me that saying things like "outright silly" is not a judgment?

Peace be unto you

 

[Bizza]

Your Islamic Civilization stands as a great testament to the ill effects superstition has on society. For that you have my sincere gratitude - keep up the good work!

Read up on how Western Science flourished thanks to Islamic sciences first you poor sick child. You owe alot to the past Muslim innovations. Make no mistake about it.

You want scientific advancements? Here you nimrod!

Throughout Islamic history, that is exactly what Muslims have done. Particularly in the 7th-13th centuries C.E., the Islamic world was in the midst of its "Golden Age," paving the way for the growth of modern sciences. Rather than stifling science, the religion of Islam encouraged its study. Scientific inquiry was widespread, and some of the greatest scholars and scientists of the world made wondrous discoveries and inventions. Muslims led the world in the study of medicine, astronomy, mathematics, geography, chemistry, botany, and physics. They transmitted their studies to the West, where their work was built upon and further disseminated.

These English words are rooted in the Arabic language, demonstrating the influence of Muslim scholars in these fields:

alchemy
algebra
algorithm
alkali
almanac
antimony
average
azimuth
camphor
carat
cipher (zero)
elixir
nadir
pancreas
soda
zenith
zircon

For Further Study:

Contributions of Islam to Medicine - excellent article by Ezzat Abouleish , M. D.

How Islam Influenced Science - overview from the Islamic Herald

Islam in Medieval History - links from About.com's Medieval History Guide

Islamic Medicine - overview of Muslim contributions to the field of medicine

Medieval Science - another resource from About.com's Guide to Medieval History

Muslim Scientists and Scholars - biographies of the well-known and lesser-known

Science and Islam - overview of the many fields Muslims studied

Scientific Contributions of Muslims - in English and Arabic.

Setting the Record Straight - Westerners take credit for many discoveries that were actually made by Muslim scientists.

Timeline of Muslim Scientists - includes names and dates, but no biographical information

...
Can you count to ten (that's 10) Michael? I wonder who tought you those numbers hey? LOL! You're an absolute embarrassment to Humankind!:bugeye:

 

[Repo Man]

The burden of proof is on religions, that is true. But the moment you use science as a response then the burden of proof is also on you because science NEVER makes a judgment which you are attributing to religion. So you have to prove that your claim is true, but you can't because science doesn't make that claim.

The faster you understand that you are making a judgment: "outright silly", "not supported"- the easier it will be for you to realize that a judgment entails a claim. That fact doesn't change. Or can you prove to me that saying things like "outright silly" is not a judgment?

Peace be unto you

Saying "prove it" is not a claim. The burden of proof is on the claimant, not on me. Pointing out that the size and age of the universe makes this particular claim dubious is not itself a claim.

 

[786]

Saying "prove it" is not a claim. The burden of proof is on the claimant, not on me.

Correct, I never said it was.

Pointing out that the size and age of the universe makes this particular claim dubious is not itself a claim.

Yes it is because this is a judgment. Your source (science, cosmology) don't directly say this. But you use them to make a judgment against a claim. A judgment comes with a built in package. You can't make a judgment without making an implicit claim. That is why I said a judgment entails a claim. Or perhaps you can show us that a judgment itself doesn't include a claim, in which case I would be wrong and you right- (tempting )

Peace be unto you

 

[Repo Man]

 

[Bizza]

The burden of proof is on religions, that is true. But the moment you use science as a response then the burden of proof is also on you because science NEVER makes a judgment which you are attributing to religion. So you have to prove that your claim is true, but you can't because science doesn't make that claim.

The faster you understand that you are making a judgment: "outright silly", "not supported"- the easier it will be for you to realize that a judgment entails a claim. That fact doesn't change. Or can you prove to me that saying things like "outright silly" is not a judgment?

Peace be unto you

Excellent response.:bravo:

And peace be unto you too

 

[786]

I find my post a direct response to your assertion. The fact that you call it trolling is beyond me. I accept this as you failing to win the argument and also you being in denial.

Peace be unto you

 

[Michael]

And yet the fact remains there's equal scientific evidence for Allah as there is for Xenu.

Equal Scientific Evidence for Allah as Xenu.

Agreed?

Good,
M

 

[baftan]

Read up on how Western Science flourished thanks to Islamic sciences first you poor sick child. You owe alot to the past Muslim innovations. Make no mistake about it.

You want scientific advancements? Here you nimrod!

It is undeniable part of human history, and even specifically scientific history that Islamic scholars made great achievement and contributions.

However, it has been at least 500 years that the subject civilization stopped producing any kind of improvement for themselves and for the rest of the humanity. We also know that they did not get these scientific ideas from Qur'an, but mostly they have based upon knowledge system of ancient Greek civilization and contemporary Eastern civilizations such as India and Persia. Early Islamic civilization also allowed relatively stable and attractive environment for those who deal with the areas you mentioned in your post.

This still does not change, impress, encourage or do any other positive contribution to the lives of people who lives under Islamic or semi-islamic regimes. Because Islamic science somehow finished its mission just as many other previous civilizations had once their times. Maybe this civilization (western) will also see the end of its role as driving force, maybe it will transform into something else, this is also possible.

One mistake, misjudgement, or impossibility of Islamic achievements was, and it has always been -probably due to its nature- that those achievements have never found their reflections in social life. It was conducted behind closed doors, some of the works (especially astromy) were intentionally left premature by Islamic politicians and religious bodies, just because they might have contradicted to Qur'an in the first place.

So Islam had its time, but it could not improve its social environment during the "Golden Age", could not adapt, mutate, modify its understanding about people, and things ended up here. Today we know that if an Islamic country would make any contribution to science in particular and humanity, planet in general, it will not be the result of some "return to the Golden Age", it would only happen if they start to prefer the principles of modern science over the doctrines of their ancient religion and its ancient demands.

It's "back to life, back to reality" situation for those who still follow Islam as a source of illumination. The light is off for centuries now... And the light was not coming from Qur'an anyway, it was coming from human ancestors.

 

[786]

And yet the fact remains there's equal scientific evidence for Allah as there is for Xenu.

Equal Scientific Evidence for Allah as Xenu.

Agreed?

Good,
M

Actually you are the only one who knows about Xenu

Peace be unto you

 

[Bizza]

It is undeniable part of human history, and even specifically scientific history that Islamic scholars made great achievement and contributions.

However, it has been at least 500 years that the subject civilization stopped producing any kind of improvement for themselves and for the rest of the humanity. We also know that they did not get these scientific ideas from Qur'an, but mostly they have based upon knowledge system of ancient Greek civilization and contemporary Eastern civilizations such as India and Persia. Early Islamic civilization also allowed relatively stable and attractive environment for those who deal with the areas you mentioned in your post.

This still does not change, impress, encourage or do any other positive contribution to the lives of people who lives under Islamic or semi-islamic regimes. Because Islamic science somehow finished its mission just as many other previous civilizations had once their times. Maybe this civilization (western) will also see the end of its role as driving force, maybe it will transform into something else, this is also possible.

One mistake, misjudgement, or impossibility of Islamic achievements was, and it has always been -probably due to its nature- that those achievements have never found their reflections in social life. It was conducted behind closed doors, some of the works (especially astromy) were intentionally left premature by Islamic politicians and religious bodies, just because they might have contradicted to Qur'an in the first place.

So Islam had its time, but it could not improve its social environment during the "Golden Age", could not adapt, mutate, modify its understanding about people, and things ended up here. Today we know that if an Islamic country would make any contribution to science in particular and humanity, planet in general, it will not be the result of some "return to the Golden Age", it would only happen if they start to prefer the principles of modern science over the doctrines of their ancient religion and its ancient demands.

It's "back to life, back to reality" situation for those who still follow Islam as a source of illumination. The light is off for centuries now... And the light was not coming from Qur'an anyway, it was coming from human ancestors.

Thanks Baftan. My response was to Michael's comment that, "Your Islamic Civilization stands as a great testament to the ill effects...". It was not about whether the scientific discoveries were derived from the teaching of the Quran, rather, it was to display the sheer immense contribution the Islamic Civilization has had on the Western world, even till today.

Why the Golden Age didn't continue has nothing to do with the civiliations will to continue, instead, for other reasons (such as war), were the main causes in the deteriation of the Islamic Golden Age.

There's no reason why the Golden Age of Islam cannot be revived for the benefit of Humans, once again.

 

[baftan]

There's no reason why the Golden Age of Islam cannot be revived for the benefit of Humans, once again.

There is actually:

"You can not step into the same river twice"
or,
"History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce." (Karl Marx)

 

[786]

There is actually:

"You can not step into the same river twice"
or,
"History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce." (Karl Marx)

I wouldn't consider these "reasons"- I don't think you do either but just making sure.

Peace be unto you

 

[baftan]

I wouldn't consider these "reasons"- I don't think you do either but just making sure.

Peace be unto you

Sorry, but I do , because unfortunately -or maybe fortunately- human universe works according to above statements, which are slightly different than natural universe where the similar results can be reached (not exactly same though) when similar conditions are provided.

 

[Bizza]

There is actually:

"You can not step into the same river twice"
or,
"History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce." (Karl Marx)

These are not "reasons" whatsoever.:bugeye: