Natural Order and Science

[robvalue]

Yeah, it does have those things though. It contradicts itself, even within the fictional world it creates.

[little_monkey]

I think you've failed to comprehend the part in which I said, "science is not going to give all the answers, and those answers it provides are under temporary notice - should new evidence be discovered than those answers might be altered."  

I'm not blaming you, perhaps I didn't explain myself enough. Humans are prone to error. Scientists are human, therefore they will err. Religious people are humans, and therefore are prone to err too. But here's the difference. In science there is an inbuilt mechanism in case it is wrong - it's called empirical evidence - if the theory can't explain the facts then the theory needs change, and in some cases be abandoned totally to be replaced by a new theory. But religion doesn't have that feature: it takes its beliefs and morality as eternal, immutable, universal, sacred. But what if it's wrong? They are hundreds of religions on this planet, not counting those who have disappeared. So which one has the truth? Which one has the right morality? On what basis are you going to make those decisions that will distinguish the true religion from all the others? The answer is you have none. Your religion is basically determined from where you were born, who were your parents/guardians, which school you went, and so on, but there is no inbuilt mechanism in your religion for you to use.

You are expressing your thoughts in definite manner and I do not have any difficulty in understanding them. We have somewhat conflicting ideas about the existence of God which has nothing to do with comprehending each other.

I totally agree with the idea that people are “prone to errors.” However, we should not overlook the difference between a person who makes a mistake inadvertently and repent soon after realizing it and people who try to rationalise their mistakes to justify their criminal acts.

“Darwinism by itself did not produce the Holocaust, but without Darwinism... neither Hitler nor his Nazi followers would have had the necessary scientific underpinnings to convince themselves and their collaborators that one of the world’s greatest atrocities was really morally praiseworthy.”

Richard Weikart,
From Darwin to Hitler:
Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany

I also agree that people do have hard time in making their choice between God or no God.

If God, then which God?
If no God, then what?

There are many reasons behind this confusion but here I highlight only one.

Majority of people are least interested to know about God or about their own existence. That is because all their efforts are concentrated over making their lives comfortable, joyful, and pleasurable. This attitude pushes people to egocentric behaviour and once a person is self-centred then he/she lost the ability to see anything else than his/her own being.

Instead of explaining why people are confused let me explain it through the question why am I a Muslim. Why not atheist, Buddhist, etc.?

If I am a Muslim that is because of my own conscious and intentional choice and no culture in the world has forced me to be a Muslim. I think I have sufficient knowledge about the physical world, about the morals, and about different religions and that knowledge helped me in making a considerate choice.

Here I mention couple of reasons for my being Muslim:

1. Quran is the only literature (scripture) in the world that is not yet corrupted in about 1,500 years. I count it no less than a miracle.

“We have, without doubt, sent down the Message (Quran); and We will assuredly guard it (from corruption).”
Al Hijr (15)
-Verse 9-

2. Quran does not have:

a.   Historical errors
b.   Scientific errors
c.   Mathematical errors
d.   Contradictory texts
e.   Discrepancies &
f.    Evidences that may confirm human writings

“Do they not consider the Quran (with care)? Had it been from other than Allah, they would surely have found therein much discrepancy.”
An Nisaa (4)
-Verse 82-

I can give numerous rational reasons but I think what I have written above is sufficient to make my point clear.

Thank you for your frank description of your position. 

However you are still in the position that your theory does not have an inbuilt mechanism for self-correction. To that, you answer that your theory is devoid of error and so it is not in need of this inbuilt mechanism for self-correction. By insulating your theory, it can never be corrected. And therefore you have to believe the Quran as it is literally written, no interpretation is allowed.  I'm not going to debate all the verses of the Quran but just a few on women:

Quran (4:11) - (Inheritance) "The male shall have the equal of the portion of two females" (see also verse ). 
 - (Court testimony) "And call to witness, from among your men, two witnesses. And if two men be not found then a man and two women." 

A man's worth should be valued twice as highly as a woman's.


Quran (2:228) - "and the men are a degree above them [women]"
Quran (24:31) - Women are to lower their gaze around men, so they do not look them in the eye.



This reaffirms that a man is to be the superior of a woman.



You can see that such declaration goes counter to what is believed in the West: that men and women are equal, and should be treated as such in a court of law, in inheritance and in every social occasion. Your Quran states otherwise.  The danger that the belief the Quran is inerrant, is that Islam and the West will be in a perpetual war.

[Harris]

Who the fuck are you talking about?

My guess is, IBM computers and the Railroad??? Who the fuck knows!

Response for Alex K, Mathilda, and Robvalue

WOW, what an explosive reaction! As if I have thrown a bomb over your heads. And, now you are pretending as if you do not know about whom I am talking. Well I do not mind to repeat the truth.

Joseph Stalin (atheist) killed 42,672,000 people
Mao Zedong (atheist) killed 37,828,000 people
Adolf Hitler (atheist) killed  20,946,000 people
Chiang Kaikillshek (atheist) killed 10,214,000 people
Vladimir Lenin (atheist) killed 4,017,000 people
Hideki Tojo (atheist) killed 3,990,000 people
Pol Pot killed (atheist) 2,397,0003 people

If you disagree that Adolf Hitler was an atheist, then you should refer to the article “Religious views of Adolf Hitler” at Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_...olf_Hitler

Couple of excerpts from the same article:

“According to Alan Bullock, Hitler was a rationalist and materialist "who believed neither in God nor in conscience."

“His anti-Christian world view is evidenced in sources such as the Goebbels Diaries, the memoirs of Albert Speer, and the transcripts edited by Martin Bormann in Hitler's Table Talk. The historian Evans wrote that HITLER REPEATEDLY CALLED NAZISM A SECULAR IDEOLOGY FOUNDED ON SCIENCE, WHICH IN THE LONG RUN COULD NOT CO-EXIST WITH RELIGION.”


“And cover not Truth with falsehood, nor conceal the Truth when ye know (what it is).”
Al Baqarah (2)
-Verse 42-

“And say: "Truth has (now) arrived, and Falsehood perished: for Falsehood is (by its nature) bound to perish."”
Al Israa' (17)
-Verse 81-

“Verily We have propounded for men, in this Quran every kind of Parable: But if thou bring to them any Sign, the Unbelievers are sure to say, "Ye do nothing but talk vanities."”
Ar Ruum (30)
-Verse 58-

[Harris]

Who the fuck are you talking about?

My guess is, IBM computers and the Railroad??? Who the fuck knows!

Response for Alex K, Mathilda, and Robvalue

WOW, what an explosive reaction! As if I have thrown a bomb over your heads. And, now you are pretending as if you do not know about whom I am talking. Well I do not mind to repeat the truth.

Joseph Stalin (atheist) killed 42,672,000 people
Mao Zedong (atheist) killed 37,828,000 people
Adolf Hitler (atheist) killed  20,946,000 people
Chiang Kaikillshek (atheist) killed 10,214,000 people
Vladimir Lenin (atheist) killed 4,017,000 people
Hideki Tojo (atheist) killed 3,990,000 people
Pol Pot killed (atheist) 2,397,0003 people

If you disagree that Adolf Hitler was an atheist, then you should refer to the article “Religious views of Adolf Hitler” at Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_...olf_Hitler

Couple of excerpts from the same article:

“According to Alan Bullock, Hitler was a rationalist and materialist "who believed neither in God nor in conscience."

“His anti-Christian world view is evidenced in sources such as the Goebbels Diaries, the memoirs of Albert Speer, and the transcripts edited by Martin Bormann in Hitler's Table Talk. The historian Evans wrote that HITLER REPEATEDLY CALLED NAZISM A SECULAR IDEOLOGY FOUNDED ON SCIENCE, WHICH IN THE LONG RUN COULD NOT CO-EXIST WITH RELIGION.”


“And cover not Truth with falsehood, nor conceal the Truth when ye know (what it is).”
Al Baqarah (2)
-Verse 42-

“And say: "Truth has (now) arrived, and Falsehood perished: for Falsehood is (by its nature) bound to perish."”
Al Israa' (17)
-Verse 81-

“Verily We have propounded for men, in this Quran every kind of Parable: But if thou bring to them any Sign, the Unbelievers are sure to say, "Ye do nothing but talk vanities."”
Ar Ruum (30)
-Verse 58-

[Harris]

I am not a fan of Irreducible Complexity Argument but I do support the idea that if a part is taken away from an organism and it stops functioning then that organism is irreducible.

This is completely irrelevant, you are also equivocating with the word 'irreducible'. Take away banks and the economy collapses, that doesn't mean to say that the economy was created in a single instance. The role of banks grew as economies and societies developed over time.

Do you know the BEAST by the name BARTER?

[Harris]

You are expressing your thoughts in definite manner and I do not have any difficulty in understanding them. We have somewhat conflicting ideas about the existence of God which has nothing to do with comprehending each other.

I totally agree with the idea that people are “prone to errors.” However, we should not overlook the difference between a person who makes a mistake inadvertently and repent soon after realizing it and people who try to rationalise their mistakes to justify their criminal acts.

“Darwinism by itself did not produce the Holocaust, but without Darwinism... neither Hitler nor his Nazi followers would have had the necessary scientific underpinnings to convince themselves and their collaborators that one of the world’s greatest atrocities was really morally praiseworthy.”

Richard Weikart,
From Darwin to Hitler:
Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany

I also agree that people do have hard time in making their choice between God or no God.

If God, then which God?
If no God, then what?

There are many reasons behind this confusion but here I highlight only one.

Majority of people are least interested to know about God or about their own existence. That is because all their efforts are concentrated over making their lives comfortable, joyful, and pleasurable. This attitude pushes people to egocentric behaviour and once a person is self-centred then he/she lost the ability to see anything else than his/her own being.

Instead of explaining why people are confused let me explain it through the question why am I a Muslim. Why not atheist, Buddhist, etc.?

If I am a Muslim that is because of my own conscious and intentional choice and no culture in the world has forced me to be a Muslim. I think I have sufficient knowledge about the physical world, about the morals, and about different religions and that knowledge helped me in making a considerate choice.

Here I mention couple of reasons for my being Muslim:

1. Quran is the only literature (scripture) in the world that is not yet corrupted in about 1,500 years. I count it no less than a miracle.

“We have, without doubt, sent down the Message (Quran); and We will assuredly guard it (from corruption).”
Al Hijr (15)
-Verse 9-

2. Quran does not have:

a.   Historical errors
b.   Scientific errors
c.   Mathematical errors
d.   Contradictory texts
e.   Discrepancies &
f.    Evidences that may confirm human writings

“Do they not consider the Quran (with care)? Had it been from other than Allah, they would surely have found therein much discrepancy.”
An Nisaa (4)
-Verse 82-

I can give numerous rational reasons but I think what I have written above is sufficient to make my point clear.

Thank you for your frank description of your position. 

However you are still in the position that your theory does not have an inbuilt mechanism for self-correction. To that, you answer that your theory is devoid of error and so it is not in need of this inbuilt mechanism for self-correction. By insulating your theory, it can never be corrected. And therefore you have to believe the Quran as it is literally written, no interpretation is allowed.  I'm not going to debate all the verses of the Quran but just a few on women:

Quran (4:11) - (Inheritance) "The male shall have the equal of the portion of two females" (see also verse ). 
 - (Court testimony) "And call to witness, from among your men, two witnesses. And if two men be not found then a man and two women." 

A man's worth should be valued twice as highly as a woman's.


Quran (2:228) - "and the men are a degree above them [women]"
Quran (24:31) - Women are to lower their gaze around men, so they do not look them in the eye.



This reaffirms that a man is to be the superior of a woman.



You can see that such declaration goes counter to what is believed in the West: that men and women are equal, and should be treated as such in a court of law, in inheritance and in every social occasion. Your Quran states otherwise.  The danger that the belief the Quran is inerrant, is that Islam and the West will be in a perpetual war.

I was not expecting from you a cherry picking. That is bizarre. It seems you have picked up the first argument against Islam from the first propaganda website that you have encountered and thrown it right on my face without any bother of doing research.

These type of arguments are typically used by haters of Islam which they use to suppress evidence to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant data that may contradict their position. This act of yours is also proving a firm evidence about your total lack of knowledge about Quran and Islam in general. This shows that you are totally dependent over the crooks whose job is to distort the truth by misrepresenting and quoting out of context Quranic verses.

Anyway, I thank you for giving me an opportunity to expose this truth.

Background of Islamic Inheritance Law:
In nature physical body of man is superior than that of woman’s. In general, man can resist more physical exertion over his body compared to woman. If man and woman were equal in all respects as most secularists are depicting, then no wonder there were boxing matches between man and woman. If man and woman are not equal in sports events that is an enough evidence that man and woman are not equal. Both have certain natural limitations.

If man, try to behave like woman or woman try to behave like man that is unnatural. Both have their natural boundaries and both should respect those boundaries by not crossing them.

By nature, earning is a hard process. For example, although, woman can be an outstanding cook but cooking for family members or cooking for occasional parties is an entirely different activity than cooking for hundreds or maybe thousands of people every day in restaurant, hotels, hospitals, airline catering and so on. Therefore, all around the world in all big restaurants and catering companies almost all chiefs are males.

In Islam earning and fulfilling material needs of family members is the obligation of man. Man is responsible for looking after his wife, daughter if not married, sister if not married, his old parents, his mother if she is without husband or old. Even man is responsible to look after his aunties, nephews and grandparents.

On the other hand, according to Islamic laws woman is not obliged to contribute her money in fulfilling the material needs of family members even if she is a working woman. She can spend her money that she earned or got in inheritance however she wants, but a man is obliged to spend his earnings, savings and inheritance on his children and female family members.

By Islamic laws from the day a girl is born to the day she passes away in old age, she is not responsible to earn her own living. From birth to her marriage, her father or guardian is responsible to look after her material needs.  After marriage, her husband is responsible for that.  When she gets old, her children are responsible to look after her. If she is not married and have no father, then her brother is responsible to take care of her and if she is all alone then Islamic state is responsible to take care of her.

This is the foundation of inheritance law in Islam:

Here is the complete verse the incomplete part of which you have quoted to twist the reality:

“Allah (thus) directs you as regards your Children's (Inheritance): to the male, a portion equal to that of two females: if only daughters, two or more, their share is two-thirds of the inheritance; if only one, her share is a half. For parents, a sixth share of the inheritance to each, if the deceased left children; if no children, and the parents are the (only) heirs, the mother has a third; if the deceased Left brothers (or sisters) the mother has a sixth. (The distribution in all cases ('s) after the payment of legacies and debts. Ye know not whether your parents or your children are nearest to you in benefit. These are settled portions ordained by Allah. and Allah is All-knowing, All-wise.”

An Nisaa (4)
-Verse 11-

Before I go further let me clarify one more thing.

If parents who have two children one son and one daughter and they decide to give all their wealth to their daughter and left their son without anything it is perfectly permissible.

If they decide to give all their wealth to their son and left their daughter without anything, then that is perfectly permissible.

If they decide to divide their wealth in equal or in different proportions among their children, then it is perfectly permissible

If they decide not to give their wealth to any of their children and give their wealth in charity that is again perfectly permissible.

Law of inheritance is applicable if someone left his/her wealth without giving any instructions on how to distribute it among his/her close ones. However, majority of Muslims follow the law of inheritance when they write their wills in their lives.

Demanding an equal share of inheritance for both male and female Muslims, who do not have equal financial obligations and responsibilities, is an unfair and unjust demand. It is only fair and just to give preference to a male heir, in light of his financial responsibilities, over the female heir from the inheritance of the father, mother or others. Considering all this, the fact that a female is still entitled by the Islamic law to a half share of the portion of inheritance received by the male, and sometimes an equal share, is indeed fair, just, and generous.

In this response I have only touched the logical aspect of inheritance law. If you are interested in learning all scenario of Islamic inheritance law, then I recommend you to read books about the special branch of Islamic knowledge called "The science of inheritance and division of the estate."

I am not going to touch other two misquoted verses just to avoid lengthy response which is already long. However, on few things I want you to pay attention:

You have not checked Quran while you were copying and pasting Verse 2:228:

Verse 2:228 does not say:

“And call to witness, from among your men, two witnesses. And if two men be not found then a man and two women." A man's worth should be valued twice as highly as a woman's.”


Actual verse is:

“Divorced women shall wait concerning themselves for three monthly periods. Nor is it lawful for them to hide what Allah Hath created in their wombs, if they have faith in Allah and the Last Day. And their husbands have the better right to take them back in that period, if they wish for reconciliation. And women shall have rights similar to the rights against them, according to what is equitable; but men have a degree (of advantage) over them. And Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise.”
Al Baqarah (2)
-Verse 228-

You have pasted only small fraction of the verse 24:31 whereas the full verse says:

“And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what (must ordinarily) appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands, their fathers, their husband's fathers, their sons, their husbands' sons, their brothers or their brothers' sons, or their sisters' sons, or their women, or the slaves whom their right hands possess, or male servants free of physical needs, or small children who have no sense of the shame of sex; and that they should not strike their feet in order to draw attention to their hidden ornaments. And O ye Believers! turn ye all together towards Allah, that ye may attain Bliss.”

An Nuur (24)
-Verse 31-

Regarding this critique please note that the commandment about lowering the gaze first came for men and then for women.

“Say to the believing men that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty: that will make for greater purity for them: And Allah is well acquainted with all that they do.”

An Nuur (24)
-Verse 30-

[Cyberman]

Number of people killed by Stimbo (atheist) = 0. So far.

[Alex K]

My guess is, IBM computers and the Railroad??? Who the fuck knows!

Response for Alex K, Mathilda, and Robvalue

WOW, what an explosive reaction! As if I have thrown a bomb over your heads. And, now you are pretending as if you do not know about whom I am talking. Well I do not mind to repeat the truth.

The "explosive reaction" was aimed at your incoherence, not the shocking truths you offer.

Joseph Stalin (atheist) killed 42,672,000 people
Mao Zedong (atheist) killed 37,828,000 people
Adolf Hitler (atheist) killed  20,946,000 people
Chiang Kaikillshek (atheist) killed 10,214,000 people
Vladimir Lenin (atheist) killed 4,017,000 people
Hideki Tojo (atheist) killed 3,990,000 people
Pol Pot killed (atheist) 2,397,0003 people

Even if it is true what you say about these people, what you have demonstrated is that atheists possibly make worse dictators. While that is an interesting fact to keep in mind, I would like to go on record saying that I don't think dictatorships are a good idea.

That being said, you are of course technically wrong - none of these people killed a great number of victims. The killiing was done by others. In the case of e.g. Hitler, the killing was done by people, mostly formerly good Catholics and Protestants, who fell for a quasi-religion involving a personality cult directed at Adolf Hitler and the aryan race / German people. Why did they fall for it? Maybe because religion had made sure that for centuries, the general populace did not learn to, did not dare to question messianic authority figures - theistic religion paved the way by providing an uncritical following where a culture of critical thinking could have averted the catastrophe.

[Cyberman]

Number of kittens killed by Stimbo (atheist) = off the charts and climbing.

[robvalue]

What point is he making again?

Science is bad, and atheists are bad? So we should all be Christians?

I mean Muslims?

Yeah. That would solve everything.