You should join our great online community now - you can win great prizes
Register now
You should subscribe to our free MyBroadband newsletter


+ Reply to Thread
Page 11 of 18 FirstFirst ... 789101112131415 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 165 of 260

Thread: A Muslim journey through Creationism and Evolution

  1. #151
    Super Grandmaster SoulTax's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Less sun, more peace
    Posts
    5,865

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by porchrat View Post
    LOL.

    3000 years ago someone talking about radio waves would have been burnt at the stake for witchcraft, not asked to scientifically support his/her stance.

    A scientific investigation is a pretty new concept.

    Even guys like Newton, lauded as great scientists of the past, were involved in an awful lot of pseudoscience.

    Just saying...
    Yeah that I know. Falcon was using a terrible example of Radio waves 3000 years ago, obviously implying a hypothetical state of scientific inquiry as being equal to the current one. So I kept it there. That hypothetical person would surely have been burnt alive for heresy.

  2. #152
    Ulysses Everett McGill OrbitalDawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Aboard the Nostalgia For Infinity
    Posts
    36,382

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by porchrat View Post
    There we go. Islam is different. Your deity doesn't have to be a moral one. It can produce evil too. It can be immoral.

    In my experience Christianity is different. Their deity is incapable of evil acts.
    Can a 'perfect' being be immoral?
    "Poets have been mysteriously silent on the subject of cheese."

  3. #153
    Super Grandmaster porchrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    /\/ŻŻŻŻŻ\/\
    Posts
    29,187

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sodan View Post
    I think I addressed this earlier, about us (humans) needing proof of our bad actions before accepting punishments for it.
    and I think I countered by explaining that, an omniscient and omnipotent deity would, by definition, have all the proof it needs of your bad actions already. What you would or wouldn't want to see in order to be convinced is irrelevant. You aren't the judge and you don't get a say.

    This is like arguing that you can't send a murderer to prison even if you have DNA evidence because the murderer doesn't believe in DNA.

    It doesn't matter what the murderer believes in or thinks of his actions, it matters what evidence the judge has at his disposal and what he thinks.


    If I understand you correctly, this reduces to:
    no one is ever harmed in any way, nor does anyone ever experience any hardship of any kind, ever.

    Is that what you're aiming for?
    An all powerful, all good, perfect deity should be aiming for that yes. Isn't that what you would aim for if given those sorts of powers? Wouldn't you consider aiming for anything less to be immoral and akin to someone without those powers, ignoring a rape even if he/she could stop it?



    I don't get it. If you're in a sparring session with your trainer, is your trainer never to lay a blow on you? Would you consider that to be "immoral", even though there are obviously some significant gains to be had from allowing the trainee to suffer some hardship? For the purpose of this example, lets assume the trainer loves the trainee and wants only the best for the trainee.
    Wow this counterpoint was a real stretch mate.

    Of course I use harm in the legal and human rights sense, not the biological sense. Things like rape, murder, theft, slavery etc..

    Then of course when you are a deity this also now covers 'accidents' as those are within your power to control too so you carry responsibility if you choose not to act to prevent them. This is like when a parent could have saved his/her child from drowning by pulling it out of the bathtub and instead stands by and chooses to watch as the child drowns. The parent is responsible through his/her inaction, for that death.

    It even does as far as people stubbing their toes because this deity is "all good". Omnibenevolent. There are no half measures when you use the prefix "omni". It is all or nothing.
    Last edited by porchrat; 17-07-2013 at 03:27 PM.
    "The problem with internet quotes is that you can't always depend on their accuracy" -Abraham Lincoln, 1864

  4. #154
    Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    /\/ŻŻŻŻŻ\/\
    Posts
    2,627

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OrbitalDawn View Post
    The point I'm making, and that only SoulTax apparently grasps, is that religions (specifically abrahamic ones) consistently apply a fallacy when discussing the nature of the deity they believe in.
    Can you explain exactly what this fallacy is, and how you come to that conclusion?

    How am I moving the goalposts? I'm addressing this idea of reward/punishment in the afterlife, which is what your post was about?
    I may have referenced those things, yes, but what my post (in fact, my whole point) is about is mentioned in a previous post:

    Quote Originally Posted by a previous post of mine
    I was discussing the claim that the deity is judged as "immoral" for allowing bad things to happen to people on Earth, and I demonstrated how considering the rest of the religious system, which includes the After life, effectively refutes this claim.
    If that's not what you're claiming, then I apologize for thinking you claimed that.


    I don't quite get this analogy of yours. A child of 5 gets murdered. No chance to 'train' for anything. Does the child get the same reward as an 80-year old that kicks the bucket? If the perpetrator gets killed by police immediately afterward, is he sent straight to hell, no chance of repentance? What about someone who does atone, does he get punished less?
    What would you think is fair?

    I didn't miss it. Falcon said the opposite.
    I'm having trouble finding the post where Falcon says humans should not help other humans out of their suffering. Please can you tell me the post number?

    And Mother Teresa lived the opposite. She purposefully perpetuated people's suffering because she believed it was necessary and brought people closer to Jesus.
    I'm sure wayfarer, falcon and mineer will all tell you that she was probably not representative of all muslims.

    My knickers aren't in a twist.
    Good, good. I'd hate to be the one to anger you.

    And we're discussing beliefs. Beliefs that have real world implications.
    Nope, I am only discussing (refuting) the claim as mentioned above. I don't know much about religious beliefs, and would not presume to be capable of discussing the ins and outs of whichever religious system(s). However, I can (usually) spot a (logically) false claim when I see one, and that is all I feel comfortable discussing.

    I believe I addressed the 'whole system'.
    Aah, you did, my apologies. Though a more accurate term (from the religious folks' point of view) would then be "put into perspective" as opposed to "glossed over".
    Quote Originally Posted by JustAsk View Post
    gEEZUZ, is it an "IN" thing to be so incredibly ignorant?

  5. #155

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by porchrat View Post
    There we go. Islam is different. Your deity doesn't have to be a moral one. It can produce evil too. It can be immoral.
    He transcends beyond notions of morality that defines interaction between created beings. He has Mercy and Rigour, but is ultimately Good. God is Owner and Lord of everything, so what He does is by definition good. Evil is a moral category that God made relevant to the Earthly context for human beings. There is no universal principle of good to which God is bound. What people mean by evil is usually an anthropocentric view of harm or benefit.

    ...As far as I can see having to live out the horror of rape on this Earth when your deity already knows it is going to happen seems to be pretty pointless.

    I'm asking why your deity allows this pointless charade to play out instead of just judging one with his infinite knowledge right off the bat and saving one the torment of something like rape.
    Actions are judged according to intention, i.e. an actual action is judged, not one that would have taken place but did not. As I said previously:

    Quote Originally Posted by wayfarer View Post
    ...Furthermore, God holds us accountable for the actual deeds that accompany our free will, as that is how His Justice works. Even in our Earthly justice systems, attempted murder is generally not the same as murder...
    Finally, I must agree with Sodan that there is a tremendous amount of goal shifting taking place. And Falcon is correct, this thread was supposed to be about "A Muslim journey through Creationism and Evolution".

  6. #156
    Super Grandmaster falcon786's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Where I can see what I breathe.
    Posts
    8,747

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SoulTax View Post
    Sorry if I don't take your word for it, as your obvious lack of understanding of the burden of proof is in fact proof to the contrary.
    See your statement below:


    My retort about the burden of proof was related to this claim. You are making the claim, and so you are the one that must show evidence to support it. I am not claiming that there is no afterlife. I am rejecting your claim of there being an afterlife, based on the lack of evidence to support this claim. I have ZERO, burden of proof, in rejecting an unfounded claim that has not met it's own burden of proof.
    As I already said, someone 3000 years ago could make the claim that radio waves existed. But without evidence nobody would have taken him seriously. So why must we take your claim of an afterlife seriously when you have ZERO proof that there is one?...... Oh because it is about belief and faith, not scientific evidence.... Well screw that.
    Now you're getting it,science was never invented to disprove religion,in fact science is simply a way of broadening our understanding of the universe and multiple times along the way we have been forced to concede that our deductions were incorrect.So the one aspect of it is that we cannot claim something does not exist in a system if we don't know about the system in its entirety.

    The second aspect is that GOD has made himself undetectable to humans so surely he would know what our science can't achieve.Hence its not unthinkable that we may never be able to prove of the existence GOD using science because our science may be incapable of it.Hence it follows that we may not ever know the whole system in its entirety.Judging by the amount of new discoveries in science each and every single day its not hard to picture that scenario....every time we get answers we just open up more questions.No single theory in science today does not have questions surrounding it or its validity.Infinity?Seems like it from here and yet you would try to make a claim that it simply does not exist.

    It amazes me how people try to use science which opens up doors to justify closing doors.How very unscientific .

  7. #157
    Super Grandmaster porchrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    /\/ŻŻŻŻŻ\/\
    Posts
    29,187

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wayfarer View Post
    He transcends beyond notions of morality that defines interaction between created beings. He has Mercy and Rigour, but is ultimately Good. God is Owner and Lord of everything, so what He does is by definition good. Evil is a moral category that God made relevant to the Earthly context for human beings. There is no universal principle of good to which God is bound. What people mean by evil is usually an anthropocentric view of harm or benefit.
    Now you have lost me in poetic stuff. So Al could sodomise a baby and it would be a good act?


    Actions are judged according to intention, i.e. an actual action is judged, not one that would have taken place but did not. As I said previously:
    So you deity can't know intentions before an event actually occurs?



    Finally, I must agree with Sodan that there is a tremendous amount of goal shifting taking place. And Falcon is correct, this thread was supposed to be about "A Muslim journey through Creationism and Evolution".
    You are right that we have wondered off topic a little but in the domain of the current discussion (which seems to be about the morality of deities) the goalposts don't seem to be shifting much. All that has been said is that if you take that stance it doesn't suddenly make the deity moral, it just makes it immoral in another way.
    "The problem with internet quotes is that you can't always depend on their accuracy" -Abraham Lincoln, 1864

  8. #158
    Super Grandmaster falcon786's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Where I can see what I breathe.
    Posts
    8,747

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by porchrat View Post
    LOL.

    3000 years ago someone talking about radio waves would have been burnt at the stake for witchcraft, not asked to scientifically support his/her stance.

    A scientific investigation is a pretty new concept.

    Even guys like Newton, lauded as great scientists of the past, were involved in an awful lot of pseudoscience.

    Just saying...
    Quote Originally Posted by SoulTax View Post
    Yeah that I know. Falcon was using a terrible example of Radio waves 3000 years ago, obviously implying a hypothetical state of scientific inquiry as being equal to the current one. So I kept it there. That hypothetical person would surely have been burnt alive for heresy.
    Yep it was hypothetical,that said not all civilizations of the past were anti-science many like the greeks had some great concepts and theories for their time.

  9. #159
    Super Grandmaster SoulTax's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Less sun, more peace
    Posts
    5,865

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by falcon786 View Post
    Now you're getting it,science was never invented to disprove religion,in fact science is simply a way of broadening our understanding of the universe and multiple times along the way we have been forced to concede that our deductions were incorrect.So the one aspect of it is that we cannot claim something does not exist in a system if we don't know about the system in its entirety.

    The second aspect is that GOD has made himself undetectable to humans so surely he would know what our science can't achieve.Hence its not unthinkable that we may never be able to prove of the existence GOD using science because our science may be incapable of it.Hence it follows that we may not ever know the whole system in its entirety.Judging by the amount of new discoveries in science each and every single day its not hard to picture that scenario....every time we get answers we just open up more questions.No single theory in science today does not have questions surrounding it or its validity.Infinity?Seems like it from here and yet you would try to make a claim that it simply does not exist.

    It amazes me how people try to use science which opens up doors to justify closing doors.How very unscientific .
    So anything that you do not have evidence for, you can claim that we can never know the infinite or the spiritual realm. But then something that you do "Supposedly" have evidence for, God's message to mankind (ie Scripture), now it is perfectly reasonable to use this scripture as a basis for believing. And attempt to apply historical and scientific practices to it, to prove it's validity and authenticity. But then when the merits of many of the claims in that scripture are questioned and sometimes even shown to be untrue, you hop back onto the "We cannot use science to evaluate religion" bandwagon.

    How very convenient for you.

  10. #160
    Super Grandmaster falcon786's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Where I can see what I breathe.
    Posts
    8,747

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sodan View Post
    I'm having trouble finding the post where Falcon says humans should not help other humans out of their suffering. Please can you tell me the post number?
    I second that.I cant seem to recall having ever said that,doubt I would ever even think it! Where on earth did you make that one up from orbitaldawn?

  11. #161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by porchrat View Post
    Now you have lost me in poetic stuff. So Al could sodomise a baby and it would be a good act?
    The question is invalid as it anthropomorphises God.

    So you deity can't know intentions before an event actually occurs?
    His justice is such that He judges action, and He judges it according to the intention. This is so regardless of His Fore-Knowledge.

  12. #162
    Super Grandmaster SoulTax's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Less sun, more peace
    Posts
    5,865

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by falcon786 View Post
    Yep it was hypothetical,that said not all civilizations of the past were anti-science many like the greeks had some great concepts and theories for their time.
    Yip, and any concepts or theories put forward without any supporting evidence would have been laughed out of the door. So I am sure you can see how we can quite easily laugh your unsupported claims out of the door.

  13. #163
    Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    /\/ŻŻŻŻŻ\/\
    Posts
    2,627

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by porchrat View Post
    and I think I countered by explaining that, an omniscient and omnipotent deity would, by definition, have all the proof it needs of your bad actions already. What you would or wouldn't want to see in order to be convinced is irrelevant. You aren't the judge and you don't get a say.
    Wow. That's quite severe. And not to mention unfair. Getting punished for stuff you literally didn't do?

    An all powerful, all good, perfect deity should be aiming for that yes.
    And I agree. And how do you decide who gets to enjoy this, oh, I don't know, let's call it a "paradise".

    Wow this counterpoint was a real stretch mate.

    Of course I use harm in the legal and human rights sense, not the biological sense. Things like rape, murder, theft, slavery etc..
    Come now, surely you can see that an analogy using the human legal definition of harm wouldn't fly, since it'd be (by definition!) illegal. But harm is harm. When someone experiences harm (in any sense of the word), a good deity will adequately compensate that person. Try to view the After life part of the religious system together with the Earthly life. Does it matter that compensation is received in the After life? In fact, if the After life is all that the religious claim it to be, isn't it better to be receiving the compensation in the After life?

    Then of course when you are a deity this also now covers 'accidents' as those are within your power to control too so you carry responsibility if you choose not to act to prevent them.
    Sounds like a paradise to me.

    This is like when a parent could have saved his/her child from drowning by pulling it out of the bathtub and instead stands by and chooses to watch as the child drowns.
    Or a parent allowing a his/her child to learn to walk, even though that parent knows the child is going to fall his/her arse time and time again. The parent is responsible letting harm come to the his/her child by allowing him/her to learn to walk.

    The parent is responsible through his/her inaction, for that death.
    Also keep in mind that given the concept of an After life, death is simply a transition from this Earthly life to the After life. So if we replace the parent with the deity in your example, you're saying the deity is responsible for allowing the child to transition from this life to the next.

    It even does as far as people stubbing their toes because this deity is "all good". Omnibenevolent. There are no half measures when you use the prefix "omni". It is all or nothing.
    Well, if this heaven does exist that the religious folk are talking about, then perhaps there will, in fact, be no toe stubbing in heaven?
    Quote Originally Posted by JustAsk View Post
    gEEZUZ, is it an "IN" thing to be so incredibly ignorant?

  14. #164
    Super Grandmaster porchrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    /\/ŻŻŻŻŻ\/\
    Posts
    29,187

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by falcon786 View Post
    Yep it was hypothetical,that said not all civilizations of the past were anti-science many like the greeks had some great concepts and theories for their time.
    While the Greeks get a lot of credit in the media for having some good ideas (and they did, credit where credit is due) they were not what I would call scientific. Mixed in with their musings about the world was a bucket load of mysticism and folklore.
    "The problem with internet quotes is that you can't always depend on their accuracy" -Abraham Lincoln, 1864

  15. #165
    Super Grandmaster falcon786's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Where I can see what I breathe.
    Posts
    8,747

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SoulTax View Post
    But then when the merits of many of the claims in that scripture are questioned and sometimes even shown to be untrue, you hop back onto the "We cannot use science to evaluate religion" bandwagon.

    How very convenient for you.
    I'm afraid you're generalizing now.I have done no such thing.What a lousy comeback.No facts,again ironic how you try to be the purveyor of science yet hardly speak facts.I myself don't see the need to reconcile the two however when push comes to shove ask people like Porchrat I do try to explain my views scientifically instead of just brushing things off by saying "we cannot use science to evaluate religion".

    My point is there are things science doesn't know about,you cannot deny that so get over it.I'm not degrading science or undermining science,I'm just saying stop trying to make science your b!atch like most atheists do and try to use it to disprove religion, it cant be used to that effect.Tough.

    God can't be proved, either believe in him or don't the choice is yours,just leave science out of it for crying out loud.It doesn't have all the answers yet and you are making yourself seem ignorant of scientific method by trying to claim that it does already.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 11 of 18 FirstFirst ... 789101112131415 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 242
    Last Post: 20-03-2013, 01:32 AM
  2. Muslim medical students boycotting lectures on evolution
    By Apache in forum News and Current Affairs
    Replies: 287
    Last Post: 17-12-2011, 06:09 AM
  3. Evolution, Creationism, and the 'Cautious 60 Percent'
    By DigitalSoldier in forum Philosophical Debates
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 27-02-2011, 01:28 AM
  4. Half of Muslim men and three-quarters of Muslim don't work in Britain
    By Chris_the_Brit in forum News and Current Affairs
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 13-10-2010, 12:28 AM
  5. Creationism VS Evolution - FIGHT !
    By Necuno in forum Philosophical Debates
    Replies: 521
    Last Post: 22-03-2010, 12:54 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •