Fear in the God Fearing

Do you fear?

  • YES: I fear some cosmic retribution may await me if I do not uphold my religious principles.

    Votes: 4 26.7%

  • No. The above is an unreasonable proposition.

    Votes: 11 73.3%
  • Total voters
    15
Avi1223 said:
You seem like a very nice person to me. You have responded to my comments very civilly and politely. So I am glad to discuss this further with you. But will you admit that the study of the development of humans is a scientific endeavor and must therefore be supported by scientific evidence ?
Click to expand...

Thank you, Avi... You are nicer.. Yes, I admit, Avi. And I admitted it in the previous posts..

Best wishes:)
 
nativeastral said:
hey l know we all knock the guys in power, but if islam is ummah is both politics/religion/society why are the regimes so hard on their peoples if justice and peace is paramount?
Click to expand...

Simply, because those regimes dont present their nations, and dont practice Islam fully. Nations' voice is unheard and oppressed, and the regimes are afraid of those nations.

l thought obama is going to egypt in june sometime; will it all be rhetoric or do you think some headway will emerge peaceably? btw as it is all about economics l am disillusioned about 'proper' outcomes anyways:confused:
Click to expand...

For me, development of any type must come from within...Once the regimes begin to reconceal their nations, and make their voices heared, it is the time when devolpment will emerge...

This doesnt mean that foreing relations arent welcomed, but it simply means that the two parts should be as equal as the same, So, a real cooperation can truly begin...
 
citizenzen said:
I might say something like that myself... except I live in the good old U.S.A. where we have the highest documented incarceration rate, and total documented prison population in the world... so I'd hesitate to say anything about how other nations treat their citizens.

Also, as a resident of California, a state buried up to it's eyeballs in debt, it's dismaying to see that children, the poor and those suffering from health problems will bear the brunt of massive government cuts intended to reduce the states debt... so again... nothing to brag about here, at least.
Click to expand...

hey ho world wide phenomenon confirmed then, we're all in the ....red
 
Tao_Equus said:
I am no scientist but I have worked with and have thus a deep working knowledge of evolution. There is nothing alive that cannot be demonstrated to have evolved to be the way it is. And there are many things that are not alive that can also be seen to evolve in a predictable way given the right conditions. Evolution is fact. Not theory. The theory describes the meat and bones of Darwins ideas, the parts. The whole, the statement that "evolution is fact", is just that, rock solid fact.
Now if you were really interested in the truth you would not only read the idiots like Harun or the crackpots of the fossil museum but solid peer reviewed science too. But you do not. Indeed as I have already stated, and state again in the dim hope you might actually hear it, you have demonstrated very clearly that you do not even have a basic understanding of what evolution theory states. Until such times that you do, if ever, your thinking will remain naive and full of basic errors that are visible to all.
I have a double advantage over you here. I know what you believe as well, I would argue even better, than you yourself do. I have looked at the creationist arguments in detail, understood the premises and conclusions and rejected them as nonsense. I have looked at both sides not as someone trying to prove or disprove the existence of a creator but as someone examining the observational data. Creationists have one agenda and one agenda alone, to fit the data to their religious views. An evolutionary scientists makes an observation and tries to explain it using empirical observational testing. He/she may try out 100s of theories before finding one that explains all the observations and is content to be wrong many times for the ultimate aim of demonstrating a single fact. There are now so many of these single facts in the field of evolutionary science that to deny them, and the holistic merit of the theory itself, is akin to denying the existence of water molecules and oceans. But if you continue to make idols of idiots you will never know that. Sadly, it is your loss, not mine. Evolution theory is very beautiful and, as Luna stated, there are very many believers that see evolution as fact and their holy books as non-literal when it comes to explaining the natural world. It is your bad luck to have been born in a geographical region where feudal lords still demand literalism from cradle to grave. Stockholm syndrome does not just affect high profile hostages it effects whole populations held tied fast to politico-religious paradigms.
Evolution as theory and fact - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Love and Stockholm Syndrome: The Mystery of Loving an Abuser



Living human beings trapped them in Norway, brought them to Scotland and released them. I guarantee the was no divine intercession.



It is not ignorance, it is the opposite, it is because I am educated in the facts surrounding the birth, evolution and contemporary state of Islam. I use such strong words against Islam because I despise how it poisons the human intellect and the reasons it seeks to do so. I see Islam as a disease and it pains me to see so many people suffering. It is my compassion and love of all people that drives my antipathy.
Click to expand...

sounds like you are an anti theist rather than an athiest to use such strong words as despise, and completely ignoring positive aspects of islam; do you feel the same way about other 'theisms' then, or just this one?

are we 'designed' for life or are you a pure chancer?
 
dailogue is the best said:
Simply, because those regimes dont present their nations, and dont practice Islam fully. Nations' voice is unheard and oppressed, and the regimes are afraid of those nations.



For me, development of any type must come from within...Once the regimes begin to reconceal their nations, and make their voices heared, it is the time when devolpment will emerge...

This doesnt mean that foreing relations arent welcomed, but it simply means that the two parts should be as equal as the same, So, a real cooperation can truly begin...
Click to expand...

do you mean the governments [regimes] do not represent the population [nation]? Who is at fault, the people for wanting to be more 'western' [shirk] or the regimes for being corrupt/hypocritic? or the imans being too controlling and conservative and not reconciling with the government?

we all depend on the world 'leaders' to cooperate so development must be open and apparent too, 'dialogue is the best'! but yes, the muslims in each country must rally around forward looking intellectuals to achieve the best for their countries...who knows what dialogues are going on under private tents..

l know we cannot generalise as each muslim country is a different culture:)
 
dailogue is the best said:
Thank you, Avi... You are nicer.. Yes, I admit, Avi. And I admitted it in the previous posts..

Best wishes:)
Click to expand...

Thank you Dialogue is Best !!

But you did not take me up on my challenge. Can you name even one Muslim scientist, who is a respected scientist, and who is also a creationist ?

And I will extend this challenge to Christian and Jewish scientists whom are respected as well. I cannot think of any who are creationists.
 
dailogue is the best said:
Then, Tao, your ignorance is a complex one because you are ignorant, and you dont know that you are ignorant. And the best way for others to deal with such ignorance is to ignore it.
Click to expand...

Yeh my ignorance is complex and vast.... but I know everything I need to know about Islam and all other paradigms that invoke a big benevolent/vengeful deity in the sky. I am not at all ignorant of them. However much it may suit you to think so.
 
nativeastral said:
sounds like you are an anti theist rather than an athiest to use such strong words as despise, and completely ignoring positive aspects of islam; do you feel the same way about other 'theisms' then, or just this one?
Click to expand...
I am an atheist. I believe there is no suprnatural force with any intelligence that demands things of us. The big religions are complex. I do not deny that they encompass charity, compassion, love, respect and other noble facets but I think those thoroughly human traits that exist above and beyond religion. Many people link them to their religious experience and erronously think belief is a part of it. Secular or atheistic humanism shows clearly that is not the case. Once you remove the 'good' from equation...what is left? Institutuions that milk the populace to the benefit of ruling elites. Paradigms that use their insidious propaganda to deny real education, progress and self-empowerment. So in that sense I am not only atheist but anti-theist too yes.

are we 'designed' for life or are you a pure chancer?
Click to expand...
Mostly chance and luck. Though you can also view us as having been slowly and organically sculpted by that chance/luck.
 
hi tao
was just clarifying as l had not heard of new athiests now calling themselves anti, in that not only did they not belief in a diety but that it was morally wrong [which l think you were describing] to do so. l suppose it goes back to whether morals are absolute [above/beyond human decision making] or relative [which l think you suggest they are, have evolved sequentially?]

l don't know any scientists who are creationists either but there are plenty who are thiests/believers in design, a 'proposer' of purpose, and not 'pure chance'; as the odds, the fine tuned uniqueness[scientific measurability] are so slim, it would be absurd to suggest this is all a chance 'happenance' imo.
 
nativeastral said:
hi tao
was just clarifying as l had not heard of new athiests now calling themselves anti, in that not only did they not belief in a diety but that it was morally wrong [which l think you were describing] to do so. l suppose it goes back to whether morals are absolute [above/beyond human decision making] or relative [which l think you suggest they are, have evolved sequentially?]

l don't know any scientists who are creationists either but there are plenty who are thiests/believers in design, a 'proposer' of purpose, and not 'pure chance'; as the odds, the fine tuned uniqueness[scientific measurability] are so slim, it would be absurd to suggest this is all a chance 'happenance' imo.
Click to expand...

I do get that.... until recently I tended toward that kind of belief myself. But then it hit me how little we really know. The apparent improbabilities that seem to defy rationality or chance are I believe no more than blindness or ignorance to the actual truths. Our big theories do not begin to offer a coherant and workable 'grand unified theory', until such times as we do have one I am extremely sceptical that the improbabilities that amaze us are anything more than ignorance of the facts.
 
nativeastral said:
...as the odds, the fine tuned uniqueness[scientific measurability] are so slim, it would be absurd to suggest this is all a chance 'happenance' imo.
Click to expand...

I see no problem with the slim odds. If the universe was not tuned to life, we wouldn't be here to miss it.

It's not like we'd all be waiting somewhere, glancing at our watches and wondering when a universe that could support us would crop up. Without the conditions for life, there'd be no conscious awareness. Countless universes could come and go and what would it matter?

Or here's another possibility...

We are tuned to see life (awareness) in a very limited way. Who's to say that consciousness and awareness don't have outlets beyond our limited perception? A universe that doesn't support life as we know it may still be very much "alive" and support awareness.
 
nativeastral said:
l don't know any scientists who are creationists either but there are plenty who are thiests/believers in design, a 'proposer' of purpose, and not 'pure chance'; as the odds, the fine tuned uniqueness[scientific measurability] are so slim, it would be absurd to suggest this is all a chance 'happenance' imo.
Click to expand...

Personally, what I see is speculation that there are many, many universes in existence, each with different properties, and we just happen to be in one of the universes that appears "fine tuned" for our sort of life.

To put it another way, the chance of winning the lottery yourself might be very small, but the odds that someone will win the lottery might be close to 1.

There are other speculations as well for how a universe might naturally develop regularities (laws) that are of the sort that are good for our sort of life, without life being any sort of specific purpose. Expect to see more of this.


eudaimonia,

Mark
 
Namaste nativeastral,

thank you for the post.

nativeastral said:
are we 'designed' for life or are you a pure chancer?
Click to expand...

i hope you don't mind my response to your query even though it was asked of someone else.

i'm curious what you mean by "pure chancer", can you elaborate?

i think that you are suggesting that life, the universe and everything was created by a deity or arose by chance. i'll respond presuming that is the case.. if not.. i reserve the right to change my answer :)

chemistry is not chance, random or luck.. chemicals combine in certain ways and manners which is observable and repeatable in a myriad of contexts and circumstances. i have never understood why chemistry is considered to be pure luck except as a way to denigrate the idea and the person that holds the idea vis a vis the arising of life, the universe and everything.

ultimately i've never really understood why the question was particularly relevant in any day to day way... there are a great many things that i don't know and probably more things that i don't know about to not know that i don't know them and yet none of that lessens my existence, calls into question any meaning my arising may or may not have or any of the other things which a great many beings seem to be overly concerned with.

intellectually i'm very interested and curious about those things but irrespective of how everything came about.. even if our universe is just a mote of dust in another universe... i can't see how they would alter or effect my own sense or alter my religious tradition and practice and thus i cannot really see how such questions are of any ultimate value.

this is, i'm sure, due to a radically different world view than that which is typically presented in the West.

metta,

~v
 
Tao_Equus said:
Are you a speech writer for Donald Rumsfeld?

YouTube - donald rumsfled known unknowns
Click to expand...

:)

glad theres interest still in these unknowns that we may not know or even ever be privileged to know and vaj's philosophy l think may be the same as wittgensteins point in what is the point in pondering the imponderables, but we do all the same because we want to know the true reason of our existence, dont we? really?

a pure chancer is a colloquial term for someone who chances their luck.

chance/luck is providence no? l should not have used the loaded term diety but some other; the athiest fred hoyle even speculated that the [universe] odds are for an intelligent designer of some sort.

science may seem objective but it has an agenda, a naturalistic one, but it still can't adequately explain the phenomenon of light; as you all say we know very little.

here is a quote from darwin, 'all observation must be for or against some view if it to be of any service', [page 2 in:]

Amazon.com: Why Darwin Matters: The Case Against Intelligent Design: Michael Shermer: Books

physical scientists have less reason to not postulate some sort of higher reality/design principle, particularly those involved in the beauty of mathematics [does that come from our puny brains too?] compared to the biologists, for as soon as you posit this there is no retracting, hence the scepticism, through lack of 'empirical evidence' despite accepting specified complexity tests.
 
I think the need and desire to have a daddy is always going to be profound. It goes to the core of our conscious and subconscious interface with reality at such a fundamental level it is hard to get past. Just accepting you know nothing at that place in the psyche can be frightening, it can create a world of despondent existentialism, a nihilism and sense of futility. So they shy away.
At the other end, like with Hoyle, you see such amazing and vast richness and complexity that 'appears' to rest on implausible chance's built upon implausible chance. Scientists like Hoyle still have that eye for beauty, atheism does not destroy our aesthetic abilities, on the contrary it can positively aid them. My life long love of astronomy was built on a foundation of awe for the scale and beauty of the cosmos. I do want to know the truth. Of course I do. Most of us do. There is so much truth to know though and even if you could know everything then the complexity of interaction between everything is dizzying, vast, beyond all calculation. Yet our minds are uniquely equipped to synthesise all the disparate parts and form a kind of sense that there is order there. I think it is this order that Hoyle refers to. Unfortunately that is only a human aesthetic. It is his own inner need to paint a picture.
 
well said. truth can be and maybe, the imagination. but l don't want a daddy; l'm still looking for my mummy:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top