Originally Posted by Afzal

will do afterwards

and an infertile couple...that isn't their choice

normally you have good posts azfal, but you're assuming a lot of things which impact your beliefs/opinions, but these assumptions are not based on anything (ie: you thought nothing in nature did homosexual things)

and well, now this.

and even then, what's the difference? pleasure is pleasure.

Originally Posted by TedMosby

I'm not sure what you're saying here, but I think you believe gay people choose to be gay (besides those unique ones who just want to "experiment")?

I don't think that all of them choose, maybe they're attracted. But let me tell you, attraction doesn't necessarily mean that you should go get it. I believe everyone has a choice, and not just in sexual orientation

Originally Posted by lawleypop

normally you have good posts afzal, but you're assuming a lot of things which impact your beliefs/opinions, but these assumptions are not based on anything (ie: you thought nothing in nature did homosexual things)

and well, now this.

and even then, what's the difference? pleasure is pleasure.

thanks

actually the belief that God exists is based on a LOT of personal experiences (and not just "feeling") which have depended on fate

@TedMosby--> Reasons:

Hint of Big Bang:

Quran 21:30. Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit of creation), before we clove them asunder? We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?

Expanding universe

47. With power and skill did We construct the Firmament: for it is We Who create the vastness of space.

This is from a book that has verse which are around 1500 years old, but I am not proving to you that Islam is true or God exists, I am only presenting a fraction of my own reasons to believe so.

I would quote from other religious books if I had read them.

But I do realize now one thing, I know how I would feel if you tried to disprove Islam to me and in the end I would say that I have limited knowledge and cannot argue but I have faith that it is true. And I think that's why you feel the same when someone tries to prove to you that atheism is wrong.

Anyway, I believe religion is a very personal thing and I don't want to preach it because after all, I myself, am not following it as perfectly as I should.

Originally Posted by Afzal

might I remind you there are other lines than the last one that you could comment on.

Call me anti-gay, do I look like a care? At least I don't frown upon other people's beliefs
btw, I wouldn't shun a gay person (unless he is attracted to me)

Wooooow Afzal. Please reconsider your words when you say “at least I don’t frown upon other people’s beliefs”.
>It seems like the only reason why there is a heated debate on the question of homosexuality is because you have the biggest and most judgmental frown upon a subject that is personal.
> I’d like to also add, that you, yourself, can dismiss the idea of homosexuality for yourself. But do not make it a point that homosexuality is unnatural if you, yourself, are not in a position to know.

Originally Posted by lawleypop

normally you have good posts azfal, but you're assuming a lot of things which impact your beliefs/opinions, but these assumptions are not based on anything (ie: you thought nothing in nature did homosexual things)

and well, now this.

and even then, what's the difference? pleasure is pleasure.

From what I understand, sex for pleasure is not immoral according to the bible, but the hardcore Christians may have dogmatic position beyond that. In fact, I think the only opinion on sex I've read about is from Paul, who basically says "touching women is evil, but if you have a wife, at least you are only touching her". It seems that a lot of interpretations of the bible are highly cultural and common law-like, as in passages that are very ambiguous are always interpreted one way simply because biblical scholars chose to interpret that way... basically an appeal to authority instead of using your brain.

Originally Posted by arathbon

He wasn't asked to name all ten commandments he was asked (basically) which ones were important. Probably his best summary he gave was "Thou shalt love the Lord they God with all thy heart, with all thy mind and with all thy strength. This is the first and the great commandment, the second is like unto it, love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the laws and the prophets."

The reason why I like the new testament is because Jesus was a fan of summaries and parables.

You could surely interpret it that way, but he also said that "the scripture cannot be broken" in regards to the Old Testament. At the same time, the First Council of Nicea may have chopped it down to 6 due to sounding too Jewish or maybe the gospel of Judas may only listed 3 before it was torched.

Originally Posted by K.Woo

Wooooow Afzal. Please reconsider your words when you say “at least I don’t frown upon other people’s beliefs”.
>It seems like the only reason why there is a heated debate on the question of homosexuality is because you have the biggest and most judgmental frown upon a subject that is personal.
> I’d like to also add, that you, yourself, can dismiss the idea of homosexuality for yourself. But do not make it a point that homosexuality is unnatural if you, yourself, are not in a position to know.

.....

1. I was upset at that time because andrew specifically pointed out Islam (and Christianity)

2. I have already taken back that point of mine after being corrected by andrew and lawleypop about homosexuality of animals.

so...your post has no point now. Thank you

PS: nice to see a new member on macinsiders because of me

don't flatter yourself afzal.
ignorance is a bliss.

I've only had those C4C people approach me twice and they were pretty nice and not really like their god botherer bible thumper brethren in the US. Apart from that, i've only encountered religion in humanities courses, but thats to be expected..

Originally Posted by K.Woo

don't flatter yourself afzal.
ignorance is a bliss.

haha...

Originally Posted by rcrw88

I've only had those C4C people approach me twice and they were pretty nice and not really like their god botherer bible thumper brethren in the US. Apart from that, i've only encountered religion in humanities courses, but thats to be expected..

they gave me a nice free pen during Fall clubfest

Originally Posted by A.Marlowe

1) You'd be pretty hard pressed to deny the existence of the universe...
2) As in, an objection to cogito ergo sum? Do elaborate!

Before you expect some kind of miraculous proof that we don't exist, I'm only pointing out that such simple things we take for granted cannot be proven. This does not, again, reflect my personal stance or opinion of the situation. Yes, I think it's silly to go through life believing you do not exist, and yes I believe I, and you, exist...but I'm only arguing that we cannot know for certain.

"I think therefore, I am" is a philosophical standpoint...it is not proof of existence. In essence, Descartes was saying "I can envision my own thoughts and perceive my own actions...this is far too wonderful to deny." But be careful not to fall into that trap...this is not proof, it's as with everything, a belief.

1) and 2) go hand in hand. The key is in recognizing that perception is far from proof (and in fact tends to mislead us on occasion). I'd like to say right off the bat that I do believe in the universe...it does seem silly to deny something so tangible doesn't it? However I understand that having definitive proof of its existence is much harder to come by, than simply 'sensing' it.

Creating a paradox to demonstrate my point is easy, but choosing the right one is difficult...by 'right one' I mean the one that convinces you. Not everyone will be convinced by every specific example, but hopefully you can see what I'm trying to accomplish even if neither of the examples I'm about to present affect you personally. I can think of two at the moment:

1: The mental approach (ie. 'what you see may not be what you get').

After writing this first one, I think I could word it much better...but I'll post it anyway, and if it's not very effective I'll try again at a later time. (I'm rather tired, just came from a wedding).

The mind is its own paradox...it in essence, interprets the world around us. Much like how 'velocity' is a relative concept (ie. if two objects are moving in space, can you conclude neither one is at rest? You need a common point of reference with which to measure), what our minds perceive must be verified against some level of mental normacy.

Suppose there is some catastrophic event that wipes out most human beings...at least one human being survives. This human being, a scientist by fluke, sees another survivor.

How does the scientist prove this survivor exists, and is not just a construct of their own mind? Can the scientist ever really know? You're probably thinking 'sure' but what I'm getting at is the fact that mental illness may be a factor. The scientist can test their existence by talking to them, even touching them** but is this enough?

Does the scientist have a history of schizophrenia? Even if not, could he have developed it? It's always a possibility...without other people telling him 'yes, this is a tangible person' he has no way of knowing for certain that it's not just a construct of his mind.

(**I'm sure you know (unless I've made a mistake here), but for other readers, schizophrenia can manifest itself in such severe ways that someone suffering from it believes there is a living entity which is actually produced squarely in their mind. It can be so severe that the person suffering can actually feel physical interactions with these visions).

Now extend this concept to normal situations, objects besides people. Colour-blind people for instance, only know colour exists because others told them. The average joe only knows atoms exist because someone told them...but this means the problems are two-fold:

a) We may perceive something which does not actually exist (like as a result of schizophrenia)
b) We may not perceive something which does (like say, atoms before the advent of sufficient techology)

For these two reasons, or perceptions, and interpretations of our senses, may be way off the mark.

2: The theistic approach (ie. 'you may not have existed yesterday').

I'm sure you can acknowledge that God is never provable, nor is he disprovable beyond all possible doubt. So this means, no matter how avid an atheist or believer someone may be, there is always some form of doubt buried deep inside whether we acknowledge it or not (since we believe in absence of proof). Of course if this doubt is negligible, then we're willing to make the leap and believe/disbelieve whole-heartedly, but bear with me.

So there is some probability, whether large or small that God exists (since we cannot conclusively say He does not exist).

If God exists, He could be any number of different things...what I mean is, what we think of when we say God could be way off the mark. But there's some probability, large or small, that God is omniscient and omnipotent.

If God is omniscient and omnipotent, He can do anything He wants. Of course our probability of guessing what God did is probably rather small, but still...it is possible that God created you at this exact moment, or a brief instant in time ago...with your memories intact. Why not? He's God, He can do anything.

So in this (largely improbable) scenario, which I point out is not disprovable and hence on a probabilistic level has some finite, nonzero probability, you did not exist yesterday...even though you're probably reasonably sure you did, there is no way of being completely certain, since we cannot disprove this case exists.



Regardless, if either of these two examples is not convincing, hopefully you can at least see what I'm trying to say here...I'm not that clever, but some clever people can surely present some clever paradoxes.

Originally Posted by A.Marlowe

You are correct, that statement is just as illogical. However, you'd be hard pressed to find a (rational) person making that statement. The absence or presence of a feeling clearly has no bearing on whether God exists or doesn't exist.!

The 'absence of something tangible' is precisely why many (rational) people choose not to believe, even though it ultimately has no bearing on whether He exists or not.

So in other words, I see lots of people making that statement, just with prettier wording.

Mowicz I want to construct paradoxes like you D Does math help?

Originally Posted by Afzal

@TedMosby--> Reasons:

Hint of Big Bang:


Expanding universe


This is from a book that has verse which are around 1500 years old, but I am not proving to you that Islam is true or God exists, I am only presenting a fraction of my own reasons to believe so.

I would quote from other religious books if I had read them.

But I do realize now one thing, I know how I would feel if you tried to disprove Islam to me and in the end I would say that I have limited knowledge and cannot argue but I have faith that it is true. And I think that's why you feel the same when someone tries to prove to you that atheism is wrong.

Anyway, I believe religion is a very personal thing and I don't want to preach it because after all, I myself, am not following it as perfectly as I should.

That quote hints at the Big Bang? Seriously? There is no reference to any "Bang", Muslim scholars only seem to be translating/interpreting it as THAT now since the Big Bang Theory has gained a lot of ground, and even then, the Earth was created billions of years after the Big Bang. Furthermore, if the Big Bang was acknowledged 1500 years ago, why did no one ever bring it up before?

Now on to the expanding universe one. Huh? No universe is mentioned, and no expanding is mentioned.

It's all just wishful interpretation from a language thousands of years old.

Now let's look at some errors in the Quran, which is the "Word of Allah".

Quran 86:6-7 says that semen comes from between a man's backbone and ribs.

Quran 51:49 says that everything living thing is made in pairs. Was whoever wrote this Holy Book oblivious of asexual producing organisms?

Qur’an 22:65 says "He witholds the sky from falling on the earth except by his leave: for Allah is most kind and most merciful to man." So there is an invisible man holding the sky from falling down on us?

Muhammad says that a fever is caused by the fires of hell, in the Hadith (Bukhari 4:483, 486).

I can see how most of these verses could have been accepted 1500 years ago, but come on, in the 21st century? How can the Quran reference (if you could call it that) the Big Bang and an expanding universe, yet it can't get something as simple as (compared to) where semen comes from right? There's also plenty of verses where the Quran says that the Earth is flat, a verse that says the Sun is orbiting the Earth, and that mountains were placed on the Earth so that it will not float away (like a rock on paper). All good stories 1500 years ago, not in this day and age though.

What I'm saying is don't let the basis of your belief in God come from a book that was written by people who were most likely less knowledgeable than you. Have faith in God if you believe he exists, not because some Book says so.

Originally Posted by TedMosby

That quote hints at the Big Bang? Seriously? There is no reference to any "Bang", Muslim scholars only seem to be translating/interpreting it as THAT now since the Big Bang Theory has gained a lot of ground, and even then, the Earth was created billions of years after the Big Bang. Furthermore, if the Big Bang was acknowledged 1500 years ago, why did no one ever bring it up before?

Now on to the expanding universe one. Huh? No universe is mentioned, and no expanding is mentioned.

It's all just wishful interpretation from a language thousands of years old.

Now let's look at some errors in the Quran, which is the "Word of Allah".

Quran 86:6-7 says that semen comes from between a man's backbone and ribs.

Quran 51:49 says that everything living thing is made in pairs. Was whoever wrote this Holy Book oblivious of asexual producing organisms?

Qur’an 22:65 says "He witholds the sky from falling on the earth except by his leave: for Allah is most kind and most merciful to man." So there is an invisible man holding the sky from falling down on us?

Muhammad says that a fever is caused by the fires of hell, in the Hadith (Bukhari 4:483, 486).

I can see how most of these verses could have been accepted 1500 years ago, but come on, in the 21st century? How can the Quran reference (if you could call it that) the Big Bang and an expanding universe, yet it can't get something as simple as (compared to) where semen comes from right? There's also plenty of verses where the Quran says that the Earth is flat, a verse that says the Sun is orbiting the Earth, and that mountains were placed on the Earth so that it will not float away (like a rock on paper). All good stories 1500 years ago, not in this day and age though.

What I'm saying is don't let the basis of your belief in God come from a book that was written by people who were most likely less knowledgeable than you. Have faith in God if you believe he exists, not because some Book says so.

This is so sad, before you go pointing errors in religious books you need to read the actual transcripts, these are all interpretations and most of them have been proven to be flawed. The Quran is very complex and often errors in translation are made. I suggest you look here http://www.islamic-life.com/forums/q...refutation-973 regarding the sperm and backbone quote.
Also take a look at the Quran and Embryology its amazing.

Originally Posted by healthsci1

This is so sad, before you go pointing errors in religious books you need to read the actual transcripts, these are all interpretations and most of them have been proven to be flawed. The Quran is very complex and often errors in translation are made. I suggest you look here http://www.islamic-life.com/forums/q...refutation-973 regarding the sperm and backbone quote.
Also take a look at the Quran and Embryology its amazing.

I'm not sure how interpretations can be proven flawed with other interpretations? You do see what's going on here, right? There are several interpretations for quotes in every ancient religious book, but if each one is slightly different than the other, and people only choose to believe the ones that fall with the logic and facts we know today, then what's the point of using these quotes to "prove" anything at all? In that webpage, the poster takes a word that could have several different meanings, and then picks and chooses what he he/she wants it to be so that it would be scientifically correct. That's not a translation, that's an interpretation. People are only going to make what they want to make of the quotes (i.e. make them scientifically correct in that case). That's why I'm saying, believe in God if you want to, not because some book says so.