Divine Inconsistencies
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Scholarly Pursuits
Forum Name: Philosophy and Theology
Forum Discription: Topics relating to philosophy
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=21129
Printed Date: 27-Apr-2024 at 20:01
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Divine Inconsistencies
Posted By: Lmprs
Subject: Divine Inconsistencies
Date Posted: 09-Aug-2007 at 12:59
|
Based on Zagros' question, http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=21099 - 'Do babies have souls?' , I'd like to learn about religions and their incoherent nature in a broader discussion.
Disclaimer and warning: I do not intend to mock anything, but if you are easily offended, this topic is not for you. I need a few questions answered to begin with, as there is nothing original in my mind right now: 1. Do all animals have souls? If not, why not? Doesn't that contradict with the simplest biological fact that humans are animals too? What do you think about 'evolution'? Do you also deny 'gravitation'? 2. Dinasours dominated this planet for over 160,000,000 years, whereas humans exist since 200,000 ago and will probably be extinct in near future. Now really, what was the purpose of dinasours? Did god design them to decorate our museums? 3. Do you really think that all existence depends on our planet? Maybe you should reconsider: 
|
Replies:
Posted By: HEROI
Date Posted: 09-Aug-2007 at 14:45
|
Of course,let me take a very simple example but true.
If a human had a very comfortable skin on all seasons of the year,would he bother inventin cloth??
If human coul comfortably eat row meat,would he realy bother frying a steak??????
And from the very basic needs of a vulnerable form of life,comes all the inventions of humanity,which separates it from the animal kingdom.In co-habiting with nature animals are much more efective then us,science is still strugling with animal ability to predict the nature and the food areas and all things which concern their own existence much better then humans do.Does that make them somehow more special???No ,as the post above explains it already,we ,all creations on this planet,are to insignificant before the vast solar system of ours,not to talk of our galaxy,not to mention our mega galaxy,and not to mention universe,and how many universes there may be. ------------- Me pune,me perpjekje. |
Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 09-Aug-2007 at 16:10
|
Well at the end of the day one must remember that all holy books were written with the hand of man so their accuracy, as far as I concerned, cannot be 100% relied upon.
So God gave life, well... for all you know, he may have intended everyting to unfold, biologically, as we understand it.
This thread should be entitiled, "religious inconsistencies" not divine. ------------- |
Posted By: Lmprs
Date Posted: 09-Aug-2007 at 16:51
I'd love to hear some answers from our devout Muslim, Christian, Judaist members, besides 'Humans are simply not supposed to understand these!' thing.
There are non-theistic religions. I don't think a Buddhist can be expected to answer these questions. ------------- |
Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 10-Aug-2007 at 01:59
|
1) Not specified by religion 2) Not specified by religion 3) I don't even understand what you mean by this question, and what is the point of the relative sizes? All existence doesn't depend on Earth, thats kinda the point. If I may ask a few questions, Why do you think religion is supposed to answer ever question? Why do you ask irrelevant questions? Why don't you think a Buddhist can be expected to answer these questions? Why does the loading on logic affect timing? ------------- |
Posted By: HEROI
Date Posted: 10-Aug-2007 at 05:27
|
No,but come on,as soon as humans through sciense achive some kind of understanding backed up by hard scientific evidence,the religion is up there try to give answers and explain how it all was said before in their religion.I bet once science finds the cure of cancer the religion will come up tellin us that it already was there in their religion.
Science is the greatest thing that has happend to humanity,it made us self-conscious of our own insignificance.It made us moving in trying to understand our place in THE EVERYTHING,and therefore made us think on how we can continue our reproduction without stupidity,or wether it really matters. ------------- Me pune,me perpjekje. |
Posted By: HEROI
Date Posted: 10-Aug-2007 at 05:33
|
Why do you expect religion to answer all the questions?????????
Because religion demands our ,intelectual,phisical,spiritual freedoms.Thats why it must first satisfy our logical reasoning.Otherwise why does one belive in a religion?????????? ------------- Me pune,me perpjekje. |
Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 10-Aug-2007 at 06:13
Religion is about leading your life decently, piously, and justly. Not about answering every single question humans can come up with. Most of those questions have nothing to do with the goal of religion.
A trifle arrogant aren't we? You are fully aware that you are using the word science in a completely incorrect context. "Science" is just facts and methodology, not as you make it sound a religion. As far as I am concerned, theology is a soft science. ------------- |
Posted By: HEROI
Date Posted: 10-Aug-2007 at 06:22
1---- People dont need religion to lead a decent and just life.
2 --- Fact and Methology of science made us enhance our understanding,this is not exluded by what i have posted already.
3-- Everything i have posted still stands. ------------- Me pune,me perpjekje. |
Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 10-Aug-2007 at 06:34
Many if not most of Biologists, Physisists and probably Chemists are rather religious. The greatest thing happened to humanity is its (humanity's) existance.
None of so far proposed theories of creation of life is convincing. Evolution theory cannot most critical periods of evolution-- basically all aromorphoses -- transition from procariotes to eucariotes, from unicellular to multicellular, how anymals went to dry land, appearance of birds, appearance of mammalians, etc. etc.etc. ------------- . |
Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 10-Aug-2007 at 06:36
Looks like you don't have much clou about methodology of science. ------------- . |
Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 10-Aug-2007 at 06:39
Science and Religion do not contradict each other. They are simply different ways of describing and understanding the Universe. You can be a scientist and believe in God in the same time. ------------- . |
Posted By: Lmprs
Date Posted: 10-Aug-2007 at 06:49
You can always answer them yourself.
It's only too clear. According to religion, Earth is located at the center of the universe, whereas moden science proves that it's just an insignificant planet.
Because it claims to understand god and pretty much everything, right? And it makes demands about my personal life too. It should prove that it's not a league of charlatans and delusional fools.
Irrelevant to what?
As far as I know, Buddhism is nontheistic and does not claim to know about god. ------------- |
Posted By: HEROI
Date Posted: 10-Aug-2007 at 06:55
|
Anton what you reply to my posts is not something that in my opinion coresponds to what i was try to explain,therefore i am not continuing a debate on which we dont have common ground,such as understanding each other.Feanor for example has posted answeres simmilar to what i have posted,if you dont really get what i am try to say then read what he is try to say,is quite simmilar. ------------- Me pune,me perpjekje. |
Posted By: Lmprs
Date Posted: 10-Aug-2007 at 06:55
Idealism and god cannot be disproven by epistemological means. God and science do not contradict with each other, agreed, but religion and science do. ------------- |
Posted By: JanusRook
Date Posted: 10-Aug-2007 at 06:55
I believe the correct response for the Catholic belief, is that animals do have some sort of soul but they are inferior to human souls, and individual animals will not experience the resurrection that individual humans will. The reasoning behind this is that if animals were given souls equal to humans that would mean things like to kill an animal would be as heinous to kill a human, and it is apparently obvious that humans and animals are not equals at all. Also in the Bible man is charged with being the masters of creation, and thus animals are merely another property of mankind.
Evolutionary theory (and Gravitational theory for that matter) does not contradict the theological teachings of the Catholic church, therefore they are a non-issue as far as religion is concerned. They are merely unimportant scientific theories up to each individual to decide.
First off I would argue that as the most adaptable multi-cellular organism anything short of the moon crashing into the earth, human beings will be around for a long time, but that is not for this thread. Now onto the question....
There is only one "purpose" in the universe and that purpose is to fulfill God's divine plan for said universe. Perhaps in order for humanity to exist it was necessary for the dinosaurs to exist first. Paleontoligists will certainly tell you that the reason mammals came to dominate the planet was because of the deaths of the dinosaurs, and whose to say that humans wouldn't have the survival instincts they have now, if they hadn't had the inherited racial memories of the rat-like creature we evolved from.
Do you really have proof there is existence elsewhere? Proof now, not likelihood..... Now then, I do believe that there is strong suggestion that life may exist elsewhere in space, but their existence (and salvation) is as of now independent of ours. To go into detail, the Christian religion says that only man fell into sin and thus only man required God's salvation. However this raises certain theological issues with say alien intelligence. Do aliens have souls? If so are they human or animal souls? If they are human souls do they require salvation? If animal does this mean we are allowed to subjugate and dominate them? And not to get into the myriad of relatively minor theological concerns, such as would a christian woman be allowed to marry a christian alien even though they are of vastly different species. On these things though religion has a "wait and see" policy. If it is found we are not alone I believe that Vatican officials have said that there would be an Ecumenical council to clarify the issue. ------------- Economic Communist, Political Progressive, Social Conservative. Unless otherwise noted source is wiki. |
Posted By: HEROI
Date Posted: 10-Aug-2007 at 06:59
Take a look at this,your reply has no conction to what i have posted.I have answered a questin before put foward by another member.And my answer is a self-evident fact,which has absolutely nothing to do with what you have posted. ------------- Me pune,me perpjekje. |
Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 10-Aug-2007 at 07:02
Animals have souls to me.
This is not according to religion but according to official Church.
You are wrong. ------------- . |
Posted By: JanusRook
Date Posted: 10-Aug-2007 at 07:06
Actually......according to Big Bang Theory there is no "center of the universe" since all points in space are equidistant from the singular point of creation due to expansion theory. Therefore it is just as logical and correct to say earth is the center of the universe as it is to say Alpha Centauri is the center of the universe. And I wouldn't say science considers earth an "insignificant planet" after all, every scientist that we know of has an earth-bias.
Says who? There are many religions in this world that do not contradict the majority if at all any of science. It is the perception of others that inconsistencies are found. Although I will tell you that certain religious teachings such as those held by young earth Creationists most certainly must hold non-conventional scientific views. ------------- Economic Communist, Political Progressive, Social Conservative. Unless otherwise noted source is wiki. |
Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 10-Aug-2007 at 07:08
I don't know what is your ground but I studied Biology and got PhD in this field. I was particularly interested in creation of life and do not find scientific explanation convincing. As many of my colleagues by the way. Do not try to scare me with your refusal to debate.  ------------- . |
Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 10-Aug-2007 at 07:11
No, Church (a group of humans who try to force people to believe in some way) and Science might contradict. But Religion and Science are not contradicting each other. ------------- . |
Posted By: HEROI
Date Posted: 10-Aug-2007 at 07:12
Anton dont get me wrong,i am here to debate,if i did not take pleasure out of debating with you then i would not but i clearly am.I thought that you might have got me wrong there and thats why i posted that,for example you were in that post disagreing with me on something which i did not in the first place gave an opinion upon. ------------- Me pune,me perpjekje. |
Posted By: Lmprs
Date Posted: 10-Aug-2007 at 07:18
Are you sure? Humans having same ancestors with apes do not contradict with your church?
Cool conclusion. The point is, dinosaurs were more far more significant.
'Existence' is not a synonym of 'life'.
What about plants, unicellulars etc.?
Thanks, that's quite enough for my argument.
That tells more about you than scientific explanation, if you ask me. ------------- |
Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 10-Aug-2007 at 07:19
Looks like I didn't understand you indeed. But that's your fault, I might better formulate your thoughts. Look at your question number three for instance.
Because religion demands our ,intelectual,phisical,spiritual freedoms.Thats why it must first satisfy our logical reasoning.Otherwise why does one belive in a religion??????????
For a person who is solicitous about his "intellectual freedom" you use available information too frivolously. Process it first and then use it and share with us. ------------- . |
Posted By: HEROI
Date Posted: 10-Aug-2007 at 07:20
|
If you are suporting the theory that religion has no questions to answer then my answer to that is that it surely has questions to answer.
Because,religion demads the intelectual,phisical and spiritual freedom of the human being,and to donate this to just anbody who asks for it is not enough is it??????????
One should rapresent the human with all explanations that satisfy the logical reasons of beliving and sacrificing your present and future to something that is real,otherwise you might end up donating what you will probably not have again.
That is were i stand,i think is fair enough. ------------- Me pune,me perpjekje. |
Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 10-Aug-2007 at 07:32
Too.
That was not my argument.
And Einstein, Chain, Schrödinger, Plank, Carrel, Murray, Eccles, and many others?  ------------- . |
Posted By: Lmprs
Date Posted: 10-Aug-2007 at 07:38
Unicellulars have souls? That's great. What about a human then? Does she / he have just one soul or as much as the number of her / his cells?
I always screw up when quoting, sorry.
Hehe, that's possible, but you are just religion - biased in my opinion. ------------- |
Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 10-Aug-2007 at 07:47
Use your logical reasoning to explain me creation of first molecules of DNA, proteins, lipids. Explain me what conditions are needed to create those molecules. Please do not cite Miller's experiment it does not explain anything apart from simple low molecular weight molecules.
Then using this logical reasoning explain me how were they organized in a single cell. You can also calculate the probabilities of those processes and make some conclusions about a time needed to create a single cell. After thinking a bit on these simple questions you will realize that Scientific explanation looks pretty much like Church explanation -- they are both questionable.
And finally, who is forcing you, personally, to be religious in 21st century? Who is raping your mind and encroach upon your mental freedom? ------------- . |
Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 10-Aug-2007 at 07:51
Two pints of beer is still a beer.
Might be. That is why I brought much more known people than me But you make too fast conclusions. That might be your problem. ------------- . |
Posted By: Lmprs
Date Posted: 10-Aug-2007 at 08:05
Quantum mechanics rendered Newton's laws and classical physics obsolete in a way. Only another scientific theory / experiment can replace Miller, not a metaphysical object such as god. ------------- |
Posted By: JanusRook
Date Posted: 10-Aug-2007 at 08:09
Um?.....yes.....
You know what I meant.   Anyway, I was trying to elude to intelligent life. ------------- Economic Communist, Political Progressive, Social Conservative. Unless otherwise noted source is wiki. |
Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 10-Aug-2007 at 08:12
I will remind you that halv of those religious scientists were involved in creation of quantum mechanics.
Create it first. Then we will discuss it. Antireligious people's logic is that -- "look your brainwashing stuff cannot explain this and that. Science can. " This is wrong. Science cannot explain it either. ------------- . |
Posted By: Lmprs
Date Posted: 10-Aug-2007 at 08:21
I know, but that's completely irrelevant. Their personal life had no direct effect on their professional career.
Unlike religion, science is not static and will be able to explain it later. ------------- |
Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 10-Aug-2007 at 08:34
This kind of hope is baseless. You believe in Science like many others believe in God. There is no difference between you and them. ------------- . |
Posted By: HEROI
Date Posted: 10-Aug-2007 at 08:39
|
Science is constantly in progress,of course it can not answer questions,and it does not pretend to do so.But religion it claims to be an absolute form of sciense,and as i explained to you,and you nor any religious person is not answering is a direct question,dont reply by asking why science can not explain it nither,of course science can not,and does not explain it,but it might in the future,but religion is not,but it shoul explain direct questions,because it limits your intelectual freedom.
All those scientist that you mention were not religios,they belived in God,is a masive difference there.God is not contradictory to science,but religion is.Thats what we try to explain. ------------- Me pune,me perpjekje. |
Posted By: Lmprs
Date Posted: 10-Aug-2007 at 08:54
You are gravely mistaken, I am afraid. Being a metaphysical concept, god cannot be observed / experimented on. That's why science simply ignores it. God is irrelevant from a scientific point of view. But absence of evidence is not equal to evidence of absence, so science is not atheistic, but nontheistic. ------------- |
Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 10-Aug-2007 at 09:03
Where did you take this crap about limiting of intellectual freedom? Show me an example of such a limiting. Schrödinger or Max Plank were limited in their intellectual freedom? Have you read them? I read. Althoug I understood some 5-10 percent, the thing I got is that their logic (especially with the case of Plank) is far from being limited by something or somebody. And Heroi, from your posts I realize that intellectual freedom for you is using information in your interests without critical thinking. God forbid me from that kind of freedom! ------------- . |
Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 10-Aug-2007 at 09:11
That is demagogy. Science and Religion are two different ways of attempt to understand the being. Science is majorly based on logic whereas religious way of understanding is insight and feelings. Both ways are valid and none of them cannot be completely succesfull, sort of speak. You have many other ways of understanding of the being too -- arts, music, theatre, novels etc. etc. etc. They are not based on logic either. But somehow you are not willing to criticize them I suppose.
What I wrote is demagogy too  ------------- . |
Posted By: Lmprs
Date Posted: 10-Aug-2007 at 10:08
|
What demagogy? I am dialectical materialist and positive atheist, but I'm not manipulating any facts to hjack science. ------------- |
Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 10-Aug-2007 at 10:14
Poor you Who is manipulating facts? ------------- . |
Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 11-Aug-2007 at 03:52
Oh well, if your talking about my personal view. 1) Don't know. Nor do I have any satisfactory definition of soul to conduct any sort of investigation. 2) Don't know. But will point out if we don't know our purpose how are we supposed to know any other form of lifes purpose. Besides, why do we need a purpose?
According to Islam at least Earth is an insignificant little planet too. I'll also point out that size doesn't matter.
Wrong... where did you get that idea from?
People spend most of their lifes following charlatans and delusional fools. Thats not an argument not to follow a religion. Besides, my religion does do a pretty good job proving just that.
Well pretty well everything actually, what is it relavent to?
In China, Buddhism is theorically monothestic, but certainly appears high polytheistic. However the questions you asked don't have much to do with Theism, and I'm fairly sure they are contemplated by Buddhists. By the way, you never answered my last (and most important) question: Why does loading affect the behaviour of logic circuits?
That is so true. Let no one speak of science again unless they have at least done science at some sort of university level
I am sorry, but I read this as "Dialectric Material" the first time
No, but you are inventing a new meaning for the word. ------------- |
Posted By: Lmprs
Date Posted: 11-Aug-2007 at 10:19
We don't have any purpose? Doesn't Islam consider human beings slaves of god?
According to Islam, humans are the most precious beings (The most precious slaves, I guess.) in this universe. Science tells us that humans are just insignificant species who live on an insignificant planet which is located in a insignificant solar system in an insignificant galaxy.
Not all charlatans and delusional fools are religious, agreed, but all religious people are either... I think you get the idea.
Because I didn't understand it. Can you rephrase it please?
Religion and science are fundamentally different. I don't say this because I dislike religion. I love philosophy, but science and philosophy are very different as well. ------------- |
Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 11-Aug-2007 at 10:59
That last masterpiece of yours tells much how do you love philosophy. First lecture in any University course is about Philosophy and its place among other Sciences. Go to study and come back prepared.  ------------- . |
Posted By: Lmprs
Date Posted: 11-Aug-2007 at 12:27
|
No single definition is uncontroversial, but philosophy is distinctive to formal, natural and social sciences due to its subjective nature. ------------- |
Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 11-Aug-2007 at 12:51
|
Well some philosophers distinguish it from a science, but even they consider philosophy as a precussor of any science. Philosophy determines science's methodology. ------------- . |
Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 11-Aug-2007 at 12:52
I didn't get the idea. Could you please finish the statement? ------------- . |
Posted By: Lmprs
Date Posted: 11-Aug-2007 at 13:00
No, you will have to use your imagination. ------------- |
Posted By: Lmprs
Date Posted: 11-Aug-2007 at 13:06
I never said that they are not related with each other, but that doesn't make philosophy a form of science like formal, natural and social sciences. Example: Mathematics, physics and history, respectively. ------------- |
Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 11-Aug-2007 at 13:38
According to Philosophy, Mathematics is not Science. Becasue it does not have an object to study. ------------- . |
Posted By: Lmprs
Date Posted: 11-Aug-2007 at 14:12
Debatable. It's generally considered a type of formal sciences along with logic and statistics. I'm sure you have heard of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom - axiom . ------------- |
Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 11-Aug-2007 at 14:46
|
Heard a bit. Why? How is related to the question?
Logic, statistics etc. are instruments that mathematics supply to other sciences (or to sciences without "other" as philosopers say). People who consider Mathematics as a type of formal Science are not philosopers I suppose ------------- . |
Posted By: Mortaza
Date Posted: 11-Aug-2007 at 14:49
|
We don't have any purpose? Doesn't Islam consider human beings slaves of god?
According to Islam, humans are the most precious beings (The most precious slaves, I guess.) in this universe.
Related to human. He can be worse than animal and better than angels.
Science tells us that humans are just insignificant species who live on an insignificant planet which is located in a insignificant solar system in an insignificant galaxy.
which science say this? Until now, human being is most complicated creature we know. Heart is a small part of body too but absolutely not insignificiant part..
Anyway, Human being is not accepted as superior. I dont remember anyone said human being is better than jins.(quran doesnot talk other beings but that does not mean they dont exist.)
Cool conclusion. The point is, dinosaurs were more far more significant.
Because they are bigger? size does not matter.
By the way, I want to ask a question too. I am curious what science say about this..
When did time begin?
|
Posted By: Lmprs
Date Posted: 11-Aug-2007 at 15:54
Spare me of your demagogy, will you? Humans being slaves of god is the most basic Islamic fact along with Islam meaning 'submission'.
You don't have to believe in a metaphysical concept to treat your mother well.
I'm not talking about morality. According to Islam; animals, plants, environment and pretty much everything else exist to serve human needs. Can you tell me how Antares, the red giant star in the initial post which would include the orbit of Mars if it was in the place of Sun, is serving humans?
Yes, because humans evolved into what they are now. If you value science, that is the case. Still, what you say is irrelevant. I am pointing out the fact that religions are undeniably human - centric about existence.
No, because they lived on this planet eight hundred times longer than we did until today. ------------- |
Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 11-Aug-2007 at 16:09
|
It is a matter of interpretation. No religion supppose that human is a slave of God.
------------- . |
Posted By: Lmprs
Date Posted: 11-Aug-2007 at 16:22
No, otherwise I wouldn't use 'the most basic Islamic fact' expression. 'Muslim' literally means one who submits to god. ------------- |
Posted By: Mortaza
Date Posted: 11-Aug-2007 at 16:33
|
I submit law of Turkey. am I slave?
God put some law, You must not follow them.. You should(advice not order.) Noone force you(Take a gun and try, be sure God will not stop you.It is your free will) You are free to do what you want..
killing is a banned action by god. I am not slave so I should kill someone for my freedom.. Yes I agree with you. This looks like funny.
You should not play with words.(No, You are not my slave. I am just advicing.) |
Posted By: Theodore Felix
Date Posted: 11-Aug-2007 at 17:09
But wouldnt that be there to negate the concept? Generally, when there is no evidence in something that defies the basic laws of out understanding of the universe and evidence cannot be collected, people then dismiss it. Outside of "because God says so", how exactly does science and religion work together? |
Posted By: Lmprs
Date Posted: 11-Aug-2007 at 17:35
Dear Mortaza, I was expecting better of you. Aren't human beings mentioned as 'Allah'ın kulları' in our language? Note that it's not a Turkish interpretation, but universally accepted fact among Muslims. Anton may know little about Islam, but you shouldn't abuse it. ------------- |
Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 11-Aug-2007 at 17:38
|
Well in slavonic languages there is also expression "rab bozhi" (God's slave) which does not necessarily mean word for word. This is I repeate, matter of interpretation. And absolutely does not affect human freedom. ------------- . |
Posted By: Lmprs
Date Posted: 11-Aug-2007 at 17:45
Yeah, god doesn't lash or chain people, for obvious reasons, if that's what you mean. But it undeniably affects intellectual freedom of human beings. ------------- |
Posted By: Mortaza
Date Posted: 11-Aug-2007 at 17:46
http://www.tdk.gov.tr/TR/sozbul.ASPX?F6E10F8892433CFFAAF6AA849816B2EF05A79F75456518CA&Kelime=kul%20hakkı&EskiSoz=kul&GeriDon=2 - http://www.tdk.gov.tr/TR/sozbul.ASPX?F6E10F8892433CFFAAF6AA849816B2EF05A79F75456518CA&Kelime=kul%20hakkı&EskiSoz=kul&GeriDon=2
kul hakkı
God does not see human as slaves. Infact Allah totally respect human rights.
That is why God say, "Bana ne günahla gelirsen gel ama kul hakkıyla gelme."
when It comes to slavery. God give "free will". If There is freewill we cannot talk about slavery.
Lets not produce everything from a word.
I am not abusing Anton knowledge, I am sure he have enough idea about free will.
We are not doing what god say, we are doing what we want.. Repeating some slogans wont help us..
|
Posted By: Mortaza
Date Posted: 11-Aug-2007 at 17:48
|
Yeah, god doesn't lash or chain people, for obvious reasons, if that's what you mean. But it undeniably affects intellectual freedom of human beings.
Pardon me. how does God do this?
You are trying to protect unprotectable ideas..
why do you think god gives people "mind".
to think.
Now, tell me how god effected your intellectual freedom?
By the way, You dont even believe god. How can you accuse someone you dont believe..
|
Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 11-Aug-2007 at 17:52
Show me one example for illustration. ------------- . |
Posted By: Lmprs
Date Posted: 11-Aug-2007 at 18:06
If you can't see that first meaning evolved from the second, that's your problem. Murtaza, dalga mi geciyorsun abi? Sestes sozcuk mu bunlar? Cok acik bir sekilde ilk anlam ikincisinden turemis iste. Mortaza, are you joking? Are these 'sestes' words? Apparently the first meaning has evolved from the second one.
God exists as a concept, otherwise we couldn't talk about it. But it's as much real as a flying pink unicorn.
You are joking, right? ------------- |
Posted By: Mortaza
Date Posted: 11-Aug-2007 at 18:19
|
God exists as a concept, otherwise we couldn't talk about it. But it's as much real as a flying pink unicorn.
You are talking as god personally effect you.
If you want to talk about untolerant religious people talk about them, not God.
Lets differentiate God, Religion, and people.
|
Posted By: Lmprs
Date Posted: 11-Aug-2007 at 18:24
From my point of view, god is merely a tool of those intolerant religious people. ------------- |
Posted By: Mortaza
Date Posted: 11-Aug-2007 at 18:32
|
what about democracy? laicism? Ataturk? nationalism? socialism? capitalism? even liberalism? They are also merely a tool of those intolerant people. |
Posted By: Lmprs
Date Posted: 11-Aug-2007 at 18:43
Just pretend I said something leftist about that.
Perhaps, or perhaps not. Way off-topic either way. ------------- |
Posted By: Mortaza
Date Posted: 11-Aug-2007 at 18:46
|
ok. But I hope now we are agree, God is innocent and some people abused his name?
Or God is guilty with interfering your ideas?
|
Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 11-Aug-2007 at 19:04
Not at all. ------------- . |
Posted By: Lmprs
Date Posted: 11-Aug-2007 at 19:07
How? Using which method?
Right, they dismiss it, not disprove. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. ------------- |
Posted By: Lmprs
Date Posted: 11-Aug-2007 at 19:12
In that case you may want take look at the history of this planet before the rise of secularism, which is a nontheistic concept. ------------- |
Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 11-Aug-2007 at 19:17
|
This says nothing to me. Behaviour of atheists in Communists Russia didn't differ much from behaviour of people you would like to point. They were not intellectually free anyway. You may find free people among both religious people and atheists.
------------- . |
Posted By: Lmprs
Date Posted: 11-Aug-2007 at 19:24
|
Do you really think that injustice and oppression in USSR existed due to atheism? ------------- |
Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 11-Aug-2007 at 19:53
|
No I am talking about relationship between the state (and regular people) and the church in USSR.
------------- . |
Posted By: Lmprs
Date Posted: 11-Aug-2007 at 21:34
|
Atheism is not a religion. It cannot destroy, or even limit intellectual freedom. The very same thing can be said about theism, deism, pantheism, pandeism, agnosticism, nontheism etc. as none of these is religion.
By the way, I don't want to discuss politics right now, but it's important to note that Bolsheviks didn't ban religions or anything related, initially. Contrary to popular belief, Russian revolution may even symbolize a progress in terms of religious freedom. Back in imperial era, Orthodox Christianity was the state religion and I don't imagine religious minorities weren't oppressed. Lenin, an atheist, said: 'Muslims of Russia... All you whose mosques and prayer houses have been destroyed, whose beliefs and customs have been trampled upon by the tsars and oppressors of Russia: your beliefs and practices, your national and cultural institutions are forever free and inviolate. Know that your rights, like those of all the peoples of Russia, are under the mighty protection of the revolution.' After Stalin took over, dictatorial measures were taken and churches & mosques were turned into bureaus and warehouses, respectively. ------------- |
Posted By: Theodore Felix
Date Posted: 12-Aug-2007 at 01:46
When was this statement made? Was it during the revolution period?
Then god is just as real as dragons and unicorns. But what would you to a person who believes in the latter? |
Posted By: Lmprs
Date Posted: 12-Aug-2007 at 10:56
On 24 November 1917, according to Wikipedia.
It's less real than those, if you ask me. ------------- |
Posted By: Theodore Felix
Date Posted: 12-Aug-2007 at 14:17
Well then, that looks like a good way to rile up support in a time of need. |
Posted By: Lmprs
Date Posted: 12-Aug-2007 at 15:27
I don't think so. That policy remained as it was even after the civil war. It was changed by Stalin. ------------- |