Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Belial

  • Rank
    Level 2 Member

Profile Information

  • Location
    Gloria in excelsis Deo. Et in terra pax
  • Religion

Previous Fields

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

1,304 profile views
  1. May I have my IP address permanently banned from sc? Is it acceptable to ask for that? It would ban my account while making it impossible for me to return with another. Gracias.
  2. This is what I get for asking a simple question, peanut gallery commentary and childish passive aggressive statements.
  3. Ill have a look at the 28 questions topic again. And its ok, we can let the second part go if you arent interested.
  4. haha, I feel your pain man. Thanks for shareing. I know a few people who will be voting libertarian, as more of a statement of interest in third party candidates. You never know when guys like Ron Paul or those with more unique views will slip their way into the interests of more people.
  5. Just some commentary on the phrases Ive highlighted in blue. In recent times, we have seen companies like solyndra go bankrupt after the administration provided millions and billions in subsidies and loans. Meanwhile schools in various cities are on the brink of being shut down due to lack of funding. So, could it be said that the administrations funding to solar resources and education, is failing? Also with Governer Romney, he supports the idea of using both government funded and private health insurance. Would it not be wise to let the best of the best succeed on their own merit, be it government funding or private? Also, if the few percentile of rich citizens of the US, account for ~30% of total spending on consumer products, would it not be wise to support that 1% because they proportionally benefit the economy and the middle class, far more than the middle class themselves?
  6. I agree with your first and second statement. In 28 contradictions of the Quran, the OP being capable of having an alternative interpretation of a verse, demonstrates the verses lack of objective support. The same goes for the second comment "where speculation can occur". Exactly. As for your third, we can look at any one of your examples if youd like, and we can see if they could be demonstrated through, or have been subjected to the scientific method. Ask the question and we may proceed.
  7. Notice how I said, grab a law or truth found within the theory of evolution. You went ahead and specified on an idea that is unique to certain ideas about evolution, rather than a law or truth. For example, "Random mutations". This, we know random mutations occur. If the truth were that they occur, biologists would agree. If you are describing an idea that it is the only driver for evolution, then they would disagree. One is a truth while another is an idea of darwinian evolution. One idea you will find published and accepted by all. while the other is something that can be spoken of, but cannot be known by the shear nature of what a theory is. For the second part, that is not my argument. I was never really arguing anything to begin with. Just making a statement. You and I both know, that if certain sect related ideas were subjected to scientific methodology, there is no way their unique ideas would ever get anywhere. I was attempting to describe the scientific method, and why these ideas wouldnt pass. If all muslims used the scientific method, no sect would exist, or at the very least, no person would claim any others were definitively wrong, nor would they claim they were certainly correct. And I gave examples, such as the subjective leach or blood clot commentary of the video, and a lighter example of Jesus raising from the dead. These ideas are unscientific claims. I cant imagine you would deny this. And if you really disagree, then let us ask a question and see how it may be work out through the scientific method. Its that easy to demonstrate.
  8. For people who will be casting votes for the US presidential election. Who will you be voting for, and why?
  9. Also, Id like to add. This is a problem for many muslims in the sense that, the subjective cookie jar claims are what they use to define truth. So when someone comes along and says...no the cookie jar doesnt have 3 cookies, it has 3000....nobody seems to be bright enough to figure out how to solve the conflict. If we look in this very forum, we have shias and sunnis debating over concepts and debating over how verses in the Quran are supposed to be interpreted... but the bottom line is, we shouldnt be relying on interpretations to begin with. By the shear nature of mankind, they will be flawed by default. People dont seem to understand this. And instead they go back and forth saying....youre wrong! no youre wrong! I'm wrong? No youre wrong! But, grab a law or truth found within the theory of evolution, give it to two biologists on different sides of the planet, and both biologists will have no problem agreeing...99.9% of the time. And we can look at that subject "28 contradictions in the Quran" and "How did kerbala save Islam?" right now and see this very thing happening.
  10. I hope ive explained fairly clearly. If you would like, we can try it. Ask a question and we can follow the steps to find out if its scientific.
  11. For those sincerely interested in what science truly is, and whether or not the videos posted above are scientific. Ask questions about the video. Recall the scientific method I explained above. Observation, testability. Cross examination. If I said Jesus was God, how would you cross examine my claim? You would need to see it, you would need observation of something that would define him as divine. For example, If jesus had risen from the dead. You would need observation. Some claim they have seen Jesus rise from the dead. Ok, so now we must ask ourselves about testability. Can I take Jesus, open him up and find out how he came back to life? Can I crucify him again and will he rise again? If he was revived, were his wounds healed? What can we learn about the healed wounds? If jesus was revived, where is his body? Is it hidden? Can I see it? Can I touch it? How do I know this is true? What about the boulder he moved when he existed the crypt, can we see his handprints on it? How about his foot prints where he pushed dirt back from the pressure of his body on the rock? Is there blood on the ground from where he exited? Where are the people who observed this, and did they have any evidence themselves? When he opened the coffin, did he leave any evidence? handprints, blood? Broken wood? If his body dissapeared in thin air, did he leave anything behind? Did his body physically float away? If so, was there anything around him that we can look at, that allowed for that? The questions we can ask are truly endless and many would give us a clear idea of if he was divine, upon our observation of that evidence. But if people just keep saying things, if we arent observing anything, then its doing us no good. For example, if someone said Jesus rose from the dead and dissapeared. Well, how do we know this? People saw him, well who? How? Can I see anything that they saw, or is anything left behind aside from the claim on paper? The answer is no. Which is why most people dont believe the story. People say many things, but when we really examine the claims, we find that many of these definitive questions....actually all of them...can not be answered. The claims are made, but upon cross examination, we discover a lack of science behind the claim. We can ask a million questions. Many of which would prove Jesus as God if we could answer them. Also, ask yourself about subjectivity of claims. For example, if I go to someone and say...there are a small number of oreo cookies in your cookie jar. Well, what does that mean? A small number to you is not the same as a small number to me. So understand that many words can be interpretted in different ways if not properly examined. If it says something in the Quran about something being the shape of a leach. Well, what does that mean? Your idea of a leach isnt the same as mine. Your idea of a clot of blood, is not the same idea as mine. So, I can say something, and your mind, automatically makes an image out of it. When I mentioned cookies in a cookie jar, your own subjective idea came into your mind and I can assure you, it is nothing like mine. So what if I had a jar of cookies, and my cookie jar was yellow, square and made of glass, and it had 5000 cookies in it (i like eating cookies). But all I said was "I have a few cookies in my cookie jar.". Now if you read that 2000 years later, you could have your own cookie jar and you could say "AH! This man is honest, I have his cookie jar and it truly has a few cookies in it!", while simultaneously holding your own small cylindrical plastic jar with 3 cookies in it. Think about it. However, if we follow scientific practices, we could observe that jar. We could count the cookies in it. We could dissolve the cookies in milk. We could take picture and show others the jar. Thus definitively recognizing what was originally meant in my statement. This is why the videos above are not scientific, they are the claims, without the science. It is the subjective idea of a jar of cookies, rather than the live observation of it. Read above. I too am a scientist who has converted to Islam, but I can assure you, there is no true scientist who would disagree with me now. There are far more superior ways to understand Islam, than silly videos from the 80s with subjective claims. IMHO. In the shia/sunni discussion thread, there is a person....wing I think their name is, who recognizes this too. I would recommend everyone have a look at our conversation over the past couple weeks. http://www.shiachat....m/page__st__125 People, particularly muslims of the east, have yet to truly recognize the power of scientific methodology. Instead, we have crazy sauds calling shia non believers and heretics. Its foolish to say the least.
  12. I dont know if the videos posted above are for me, but even these videos are unscientific. Though im not sure if the commenter actually wants to discuss this.
  13. I keep meaning to respond to this and never seem to get around to it. I believe that your idea of how to work with Islam, is acceptable. It is a wise way of going about it. I will add though, if everyone holds this view, shia and sunni Islam, or any specific deviation, probably wouldnt exist. Which isnt necessarily a bad thing.
  14. You must distinguish between beliefs and knowledge. If I say "X Y and Z is true", I may be speaking of my beliefs, or I may be speaking of my knowledge, or I may be speaking of both. Or neither if I am trying to deceive you. Charles Darwin never spread knowledge that he didnt have. He never said "Darwinian evolution is the only case of descent with modification through mutations and natural selection". He "Theorized" it and promoted an idea based around facts. He explained his observations. For example, X Birds on Y islands hold these traits suitable for their land. It indicates a form of adaptation through slow changes. And this is why we call it the theory of evolution. It is a theory (beliefs and ideas), based on facts (laws/observation/testability/repeatability and all that good stuff). What darwin spread, were his ideas on a small number of facts, which lead to the gain of greater knowledge over generations, supported by more facts. Which is why he is popular amongst scientists. Realistically, his research wasnt that..."astonishing", however it was "ground breaking", and through its truth, it opened up doors for thousands of applications that we use to this very day. And so, he never contradicted himself. He simply described the truth (birds on islands) and promoted the truth with his ideas (the theory of evolution). His own personal controversy was over his ideas, not his facts/truths. Thank you for posting this btw. It is indeed very important to take time to analyze peoples facts, and distinguish those facts from the ideas that they build around them. Examine the application they provide. If you look into the scientific method and peer review, you will see how scientists work to distinguish "ideas" from "facts". With use of methods that are, in my opinion, superior in comparison to methods used by historians and politicians. I dont know what you mean by the second part, so I wont comment. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Also, Ill add this. (I had thought about this just recently) The topic is titled Islam and Science. If you think about it though, Islam, in the current way it is practiced by many muslims (most muslims), is unscientific. I know many people will be offended by me saying that, but to explain... In science, we have objective methods in understanding scientific matters. We have our scientific methods that we use which allow science to prosper and to be...appreciated by everyone on this planet. It is appreciated due to its application and value amongst everyone. But in order to build this science that is loved by the world, we use methods that involve observation, testability, repeatability of tests. We also use peer review to cross examine claims made by other scientists. For example, if a shia came up to a sunni and said "this Imam is infallible". If I were a scientific sunni, id ask for that persons observation (has anyone seen him? Can I see him in his infallible life?), his tests (if he is alive, can we make him make a mistake?), can we repeat the test for the world to see? Things like this. And if the shia could not demonstrate it, then I would fairly say "you are incapable of demonstrating your own claim, it is therefore a belief and not actual knowledge". But what we find is, muslims in the world today, do not do this. They do not even do anything even remotely close to this. Yet both shia and sunni still claim truth in their words. How is this possible? Well, it is most certainly possible, however, it is not science. It is, even offensive to many scientists, it is the opposite of science which is why we commonly hear about this stereotypical "scientist-non theist" relationship. However, Islam doesnt need to be this way itself, and many muslims do not need to treat it in an unscientific way. The issue resides with the people, not the religion. And as long as they keep it up, they will never come to agree nor truly ever know, what Islam truly is (IMHO).
  15. Sorry to see you go. but if you must. then you should. Hope to see you back here soon. Take care my friend.

  • Create New...