Jump to content

iSilurian

Unregistered
  • Content count

    1,486
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About iSilurian

  • Rank
    TheScientist
  • Birthday 08/16/1987

Profile Information

  • Location
    Maine USA
  • Religion
    Agnostic/Deist/Atheist depending on the God and definition of that God.

Previous Fields

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

2,167 profile views
  1. Its been nice everyone, but i think its about that time i move on, as we all do. So, could a mod please close my account? It would be much appreciated. Is there anything i need to do other than sit back and watch? Also, remember the name, remember the glory and honor. Remember the science and truth. And remember the legacy that is iSilurian. oh yea, and if my topics arent deleted along suit, read them, a lot of you guys could use it. :P
  2. Homosexuality

    objection, speculation. What research do you have for this? That is also not true, recessive traits can be passed in genes that could potentially hold a multitude of traits. Also, unpronounced genes that carry such a trait could carry the trait along generations without it dying off. What you have said is simply false. Ill give an example. Lets say, instead of being homosexual, having red hair causes a person to die. Now, person A has a dominant recessive red hair allele, right, so they can carry the gene without even having it be pronounced. So the redhaired recessive gene could be passed on to a variety of offspring and none of them could even have red hear and they could still pass on the trait without dying or having their offspring die. Likewise, if homosexuality were defined by a gene, which im not saying it necisserily is, but if it were, it could proliferate around the planet without dying out due to survival of the fittest. Or, particular genes may effect multiple traits of a being. There are few ways such a thing could occur. Either way, homosexuality does not go against science or evolution. And i still want that research for your first statement too you bundle of sticks. Also, considering that we are animals, i would say that, other animals of the animal kingdom performing homosexual acts, is a clear demonstration that it is a natural act. Thats not to say its a good act, but there is nothing "evil" going on here, just animals doing what they do (having sex). And that includes people (homo sapiens sapiens).
  3. If Americans Protest War With Iran

    It sounds like the bill is made more for the defense of companies being robbed of their products. Sounds to me like youre taking it out of context and associating it to Iran, which it could be, however i wouldnt consider it as such. Debates on all of these topics have been present for generations. If something impedes on a multitude of peoples interests, then they will take action. However, as of right now, i see no threat here, just typical back and forth discussion amongst the HOR. Also, even further, this is still a stretch from americans being claimed as terrorists for supporting Iran.
  4. Abu Bakr's Greed.

    Ya sure. As for the marxist statement, its too vague to be fully true. I would gladly say that to any famous marxist or communist.
  5. If Americans Protest War With Iran

    This video really has nothing to do with anything. Ok so jews have money, tell me something i dont know. I agree with satyaban, youre taking random concepts and trying to align them together into some anti iran conspiracy. Surely a youtube video isnt your most compelling piece of evidence.
  6. Abu Bakr's Greed.

    The line where i stand is blurry, but see, that is why you will also see me defending atheist positions as well as deistic ones and everything in between. I represent each position, i dont sit around trash talking each of them as shias and sunnis do to eachother. Also, i admit that my lines are blurry, whereas i have yet to hear any shia come out on this site and say that maybe sunnis are correct. Nor vise versa. I literally have topics and posts in which i defend each of my sides. When is the last time you or any other shia has stood up for sunni beliefs? Also, i dont claim that any of my positions are absolute truth, because i know that, that is something i dont know, and i will say that i dont know and i have said that i dont know many times, even today in other topics. But i have yet to hear any shia say "you know, im not really sure if shia Islam is true", i have never heard a shia say "You know, sunnis make a good point, they may indeed have found the more correct path than i have". But i can very easily say, you know, maybe those deists got it right, just as easily as i can say, maybe those atheists got it right, because i dont subscribe to something that i dont know. I didnt make this topic for the soul purpose of finding a way to determine absolute truth in Islam, i made it so people will quit running around trash talking eachother, and maybe someone will actually provide something. Not only to satisfy my interests, but for yourselves too. Some things in Islam are simple though, and some things you can get unarguable truths out of. All muslims can agree on Muhammads visions, All muslims can agree on where certain holy sites are and things like this. There is plenty you can agree on, and a full religion can be derived souly on agreed upon concepts. At least i would assume they could. And as for your "Allahu Aa'lam" statement, yes thats absolutely true, ive ran into such discussions more times than i can count, and its quite disturbing. You know, there are disagreements amongst scientists as well, as Jebreil stated earlier. Beyond true/false evidences, we do have our interpretations. But most people arent "arrogant" about standing up for one or the other without strongly grounded evidence. Off the top of my head. The K-T extinction, alright well we have different interpretations, but geologists arent sitting around trash talking the other side as if they know their side is absolute truth. You know when there is a gap of knowledge and you know when you could be wrong, and so normal people should be humble and accept and admit that. Or, if you dont want to admit it, then provide the evidence for why you arent arrogant. Provide the evidence instead of feeding me garbage information, because im tired of people feeding me hearsay and then getting bent out of shape when i tell them theyre full of it. Which is also why i made this topic. People need to provide evidence instead of feeding me garbage. Otherwise its just garbage in ~ garbage out and nobody is ever going to get anywhere. Which is also why i asked for people to use sunni sources in a discussion that sounds anti-sunni, because i want to see universally accepted Islamic material, that way i know its something that both sides can agree on, and it can therefore be accepted because it maintains utmost credibility.
  7. Abu Bakr's Greed.

    Sounds false just because it attributes culture to a single source. An Islamic culture exists due to the religion rather than its economics. You could find truth within the statement though. You could find ways in which the economy manipulates people as a whole. Then you could use that to create truth statements about whether or not the economy dictates culture, or how it does. sure, however we admit when material moves outside of that paradigm. And i wouldnt sit here and base my life off of debatably material as a shia would dedicate their lives in the name of the Ahlul Bayt. So if they want to stand up and act as if theyre speaking the truth, then they should provide support for that. --- --- You could take environments with one type of economy and you could compare them with other economic values, see if there are correlations. Most concepts are grounded in reality, and you can find answers to them using some form of scientific inquiry. If people want to prove scripture, at least amongst themselves, i see no reason that they wouldnt be able to come to agreed upon concepts around the ahlul bayt and sahaba. Which they do in some cases. There needs to be clarity on what is agreed upon vs what is disagreed upon in regards to this material. For what is disagreed upon, people should be more open toward other possibilities, and they should admit to the unknowns. In the case of muslims proving scripture amongst themselves, id argue that its possible because...well muslims either know something or they dont in regards to thier scripture. Using hadith they can logically come to agreements upon concepts. Thats all you need to do, to discover truth within Islamic literature. In regards to relating culture and an economy, you would need a multitude of cultures over time, and you could probably set up probabilities for certain types of cultural developments based on economic values. You could find answers to be likely true based on probabilities and past experience. The material needs to be grounded in reality. X number of credible hadith state this, Y number of credible hadith state that. Or X and Y agree with eachother, therefore theyre likely to be true. Of course there are methods of determining credibility with succession, and yet even with this there still seems to be strong division and independent identity between shia and sunnis, and thats something i still dont quite understand. Either people are ignorant of their scripture, or the methods of determining credible hadith are...themselves not very helpful.
  8. If Americans Protest War With Iran

    and? If there are blatently obvious issues with what comes about, then the govt will hear from the people about it. I really dont think a handful of these topics have anything to do with Iran. Nor should anyone be worried about some mysterious zionist shadow government arresting you for protesting a war. This isnt china, we have more rednecks with assault rifles than fighters in al queda. If people have a problem with something, it will not be suppressed. Nor do i think these "shadow rulers" are even existent, and if they are, they dont have true power here. In all honesty though, i dont think many people even would protest such a war, the govt would have no need to react in an oppressive way because there wouldnt be anyone to oppress, much like the occupy movement. Nobody cares about the occupy movement. I personally know a few people involved and they arent hardcore about it or anything, its more like a hobby from what I can see. and by rednecks with assault rifles, i mean conservatives.
  9. Abu Bakr's Greed.

    for the first, yes, they are for seeking truth. The humanities should present truths if people will claim them to be such. For example, if someone says that Abu Bakr's greed led him to fight against Imam Ali, well, we should have universal agreement on such a thing if you want to go around saying it as if its common knowledge. And if someone disagrees, then you should have universal means of showing them that its true. Basically, i think people should agree on these things. Something reasonably true shouldnt have such mass disagreement. Things like scripture should provide unarguable truths and people should then form interpretations around them, as opposed to forming interpretations around other interpretations into a complex web of subjection. for the second part, sure, sounds fine. and for the third part, Yes i would imagine empirical evidence is given its objectivity by the criteria it uses. i believe that empirical evidence does make solving disputes far easier than using hearsay. Regardless though, if people have scriptural agreement, then to them, nothing else matters. This discussion isnt exactly for the purpose of convincing me of anything, but rather, to see what people are capable of doing with their beliefs, aside from opinionated trash talk about other peoples holy figures. Something that laymen are familiar with and capable of doing themselves.
  10. Abu Bakr's Greed.

    Sure, so, do we have hadith from Bukhari's collection that would at least imply that Greed was a primary source of Abu Bakrs issues with Imam Ali? Yes, they should clarify. And i would assume it is grounded in their opinion, which is why i called them out on it, and i was then asked to make a topic on it, so here i am awaiting their response. It seems to me, and this is from talking to sunnis for years and then shifting over and talking to you guys. Most sunnis and shia really dont seem to have knowledge of why they side with their sect as opposed to the other. They speak as if they know things. And they describe these detailed reasons of how so and so Imam did this and that in their life and so and so of the Sahaba did this and that. But then when you really try to get details out of them, they just kind of shy away and no point is ever made. Then, when someone does actually come up with scriptural works that appear to stump the other side, all the other side does is says "oh im not an Imam, i dont have the answer for that". Then they just kind of go on about their business and again no impression is ever made on the other side. I want to see someone stand up and make an irrefutable, scriptural agreed upon point, and i want to see the other side acknowledge its truth. And thats really not so easy to do. With something like science, i can just take a microscope and stick it in someones face and say "see, now you know its true and you cant argue it". But with Islam, its not so simply, but i think it should be. People of reason shouldnt disagree on things that they claim to know as truth. Because if its truth, then nobody should disagree, and if its subjection, then people shouldnt be walking around like they know it all.
  11. If Americans Protest War With Iran

    A lot of people protest such a war all the time on national tv...They arent considered terrorists. You seem to be taking a variety of random concepts and youre bringing them together trying to make sense of all of them. Protestors exist for every war and always will, but that doesnt mean the govt is going to kick down your door to ship you to Alcatraz over it.
  12. And merry zombies rising from the dead to you too person whos name i cant read! Im sorry i still dont see your point. I believe though, when something is "dead", its cells are failing to replicate themselves or are completely done doing so. So if a seed is completely dead, then i would assume the DNA within it would slowly decay until its gone. DNA duplicates due to mutations which can be caused by a multitude of things. You should describe your point to me, if you do, then perhaps we can wrap this discussion up quickly rather than beating around the halila bush for weeks. The problem with that statement is, the laws of physics really arent applicable to the origins of everything. So what youre saying isnt really true. This discussion is beyond the means of science, at least at our present time in history. Thats not true. You cant call on science for this, and you most definitely cannot call upon common sense. Im the guy who uses science, if i could call on it to help my reasoning, then i would. If anything scientifically we wouldnt make such a claim simply because we dont have such scientific knowledge. Its like saying, scientifically we should believe in God. The statement simply doesnt make sense because science really has nothing to do with this. And if there is one thing ive learned as a scientist over the years, its that, you cant simply use common sense with a great deal of science, because the reality is, there is nothing commonly sensical about a lot of the things we find utilizing it. I used to say that calculus based physics created concepts were common sense, then i realized that nobody ever knew what i was talking about and nobody would ever understand unless you sit and describe it to them, so let us not act like this subject is common sense. I would say its far from common sense. We would be wise not to simply assume such things. Just because energy isnt present within a system, doesnt mean that it doesnt exist elsewhere. And yes, prior to touching the ball, your foot was there, attached to your leg a few inches away from the ball. What do u think your foot just sprang into existence the moment it touched the ball? Even still the food itself gets its energy from elsewhere. The energy isnt springing into existence from nothing. You should try to get to your point, were just wasting time now. I wouldnt call it a "designer" either. That sounds as if youre implying that it were sentient, but even thats a bit of a leap. I wouldnt even necisserily call it a being, and our universe is far from beautiful and perfect. Last i checked on this planet alone billions were starving to death and black holes were swallowing us alive. Beautifully regulated haha, thats subjective. Also, our discussion is still caught in the realm of atheism vs agnosticism vs deism. We havent even begun to move toward theism so i dont know why youre even using the word :P. And dont imply the possibility that i am arrogant, you still have yet to make a convincing argument for anything. Ive read a handful of religious books and scripture, in all honesty though i dont really have time to sit and read every religious work that ive been asked to. And believe me ive been asked to read a lot in these same cenarios, and i have read a lot. If im given reason to believe that shia works are any better than anyone elses, then perhaps i will put in some time with it. ------ Again, i wouldnt know the origins of the universe, i understand what youre saying about cause and effect, but common sense and manmade logic is quite difficult to simply accept for such a topic. And again, the description the Imam gave at the end really doesnt mean anything and holds no real value to this discussion. If there were a cause, and we couldnt sense it or even fathom it, it sounds a bit too abstract to even be able to derive things from even if it did exist, which we wouldnt really know if it even did, as many people seem to say it does (in various ways). Lets not skew the lines between theist/deist and atheist either. If this isnt specifically a discussion on theism, then lets try to keep Imams and Islam out of it. We havent gotten past step one, let alone could we start using scripture for the discussion just yet as a step 2. We havent really gotten anywhere since the beginning of the discussion.
  13. YAY! PRAISE JEBUS! ty Jebriel, now i can resume the discussion!
  14. shenanigans! how do i solve this visual issue?
  15. why are you replying in black print? There are other colors that are far more visible u know. Like yellow or blue or red or green etc.
×