Do You Know the Real Islam?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark

There's also a misunderstanding of the word theory, in general usage theory means something that is supposed but without much evidence.

However; the scientific definition is much different, in that a theory is a hypothesis that has been proven - as much as humanly possible - to be true. It's still called a 'theory' as most things in science cannot be proved 100% and so the word theory rather than 'law' is used.

---

That bs lie excuse has been floated before on many forums, i.e. "We do not like what the word says, there is no other word to replace it because we do not have proof; therefore let's change the meaning of the word."
If the scientific community uses that lie, they is proves they are no better than street hustlers, playing con-games.

Word mean things, when words do not mean what they say, the speaker has resorted to grammar babble, i.e. he knows he cannot tell the truth because the truth may prove him wrong.

So let's go to the OED (Oxford English Dictionary) the one used by scholars with preference over others.

THEORY

1--Mental view, contemplation.

2- A conception or menatal view of someting to be done, or of the method of doing it.

3-A scheme of system of ideas or statements held as an explanation.

4- Without article: Systematic conception or statement of the principles of something; abstract knowledge, or the formulation of it: often used as implying more or less unsupported hypothesis.

5-In loose or general sense; A hypothesis proposed as an explanation; hence a mere hypothesis, speculation, conjecture.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by donKey jote

Virtual particles are used to explain facts seen every day in experiments at the LHC, for example.
Show me one fact that backs up your theory of god, other than the fact that "we" haven't a clue why we are here without divine beings putting us here, apparently with the sole purpose to believe in them, and then you can compare science and faith.


Before we wander too far into metaphysics (when you say "always", do you also mean before time "began" ? ;) . Regarding "nothing": is "0" nothing or is it a number? Is emptiness empty, or full of nothing? Is nothingness something and if it is, then what exactly is it? ;) )...
let us simply imagine that "something" has "always" "existed".
Two items:
Something evolves spontanously out of it to eventually become the everything we perceive now, or a personal god with a "mind" of it's own "intentionally" creates everything as we see it now.
Which is more fanciful?
Clearly, a god. Specially one who supposedly created everything in seven days, 6000 years ago, and does miracles and guides you though his son or holy ghost or whatever other religious theory you might hold... talk about raving loonies :laugh:


Continually failing is your interpretation..-----. IF a theory is floated as truth, their is only one truth, truth cannot change. If it changes it was never truth, but a lie ----continually improved upon is more like it. There are no everlasting bibles in science. Theories aren't written in stone, they evolve naturally. -----Because they are all guesses based on what one wants non-provable guesses to say, not facts or truths ;) :p

---

As I said there is nothing-- which has only one meaning, unless one is so cornered in a lie that the one resorts to Clinton's "that depends on what the meaning of is, is" destruction of grammar-- that supports your faith based notion of how all came to be.
As without a guiding force it is strictly a true chaos (of course the scientific community has its own definition for chaos as the true meaning does not fit their fairy tale physics) and out of a random order and steady state order does not form.

For one to have faith in a intelligent being that has knowldege of physics man does not, as it says in the Bible, is far more logical than putting faith on unprovable theories based on all that is- just was- and by accident- life formed etc., etc., etc.
That is a faith based on the logic of people who are either narcissists or raving lunatics.

Many years ago, before the internet existed, a betting firm in Vega ran the odds on creation verses evolution-- creation won.

So, you class Religion as 4 then Bob?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

That is a faith based on the logic of people who are either narcissists or raving lunatics.

---

Where believing in gods is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise... :dozey:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Knock-on

So, you class Religion as 4 then Bob?

---

More like a three or five.


Words mean things, when words do not mean what they say, the speaker has resorted to grammar babble, i.e. he knows he cannot tell the truth because the truth may prove him wrong.
So let's go to the OED (Oxford English Dictionary) the one used by scholars with preference over others.

THEORY
1--Mental view, contemplation.

2- A conception or mental view of someting to be done, or of the method of doing it.

3-A scheme of system of ideas or statements held as an explanation.

4- Without article: Systematic conception or statement of the principles of something; abstract knowledge, or the formulation of it: often used as implying more or less unsupported hypothesis.

5-In loose or general sense; A hypothesis proposed as an explanation; hence a mere hypothesis, speculation, conjecture.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

Many years ago, before the internet existed, a betting firm in Vega ran the odds on creation verses evolution-- creation won.

---

So you think a single bookmaker is in a better position to educate us about our origins than scientist who have dedicated their careers to testing the evidence? That is ignorance on an unprecedented level, Bob.

So come, Bob. Tell us how you think we got here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

For one to have faith in a intelligent being that has knowldege of physics man does not, as it says in the Bible, is far more logical than putting faith on unprovable theories based on all that is- just was- and by accident- life formed etc., etc., etc.
That is a faith based on the logic of people who are either narcissists or raving lunatics.
.

---

If that is what you think then I'm afraid you will have to exclude yourself from this discussion, because you have declared yourself incompetent to proceed with an open mind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brown, Jon Brow

So you think a single bookmaker is in a better position to educate us about our origins than scientist who have dedicated their careers to testing the evidence? That is ignorance on an unprecedented level, Bob.

So come, Bob. Tell us how you think we got here.

---

If that is what you think then I'm afraid you will have to exclude yourself from this discussion, because you have declared yourself incompetent to proceed with an open mind.

I have been really disappointed with the intolerance and even hatred directed at the Muslim faith on here. Growing up in the 70's, I can only liken it to xenophobic distrust of Blacks and Asians of that era.

As for the age old debate between Christian believers and Atheists, nobody on here is ever going to change their mind and the debate will just rage on regardless. Science gives so many answers to age old mysteries but people with belief in God will ignore inaccuracies and tolerate subjugation of women, capital punishment, genocide, religious wars, incest and religious hatred depicted in the bible. Yet the Bible also preaches tolerance, compassion and a moral structure that, although derived from older beliefs, still offers a code of conduct relevant for modern society.

Science has opened our eyes to to a fascinating understanding of who we are but is still only just scratching the surface. The more we discover, the more we find we need to understand. Looking at particle and neotic sciences, perhaps the more we realise that what we know is nothing and perhaps the more we might come to appreciate that which we don't know and accept at face value some of the teachings from our past. There may not be any truth in a God that created our planet but once we get past the spurious mythology, perhaps there is something more meaningful underneath.

For me the main point of a religion is not a 'God' itself, but the way it affects the lifestyle and thinking of human beings in everyday life. Genuinely religious people tend to be genuinely good-hearted, friendly, open, warm and caring for others. So they have put the main philosophical aims of their life in place, which are the basis of achieving real happiness. And this is what I really value in their case. Discussions about the existence of God are unimportant to me in this context.

Of course all these good virtues can be reached without being religious. But religion has traditionally been one way of achieving this, being helpful to people to stay energetic and positive in life despite rough rides.