Islam is of the Devil?

[hndog609]

And as for dogmatism of science - that is just anti-scientism at it's best/worst. This is a stretch, but you can't dogmatically seek truths. The two terms don't fit.
quote]

There is a qualified "the hell you say" to this. Al Gore and James Hansen are dogmatic to the point they make your jaw drop.

Look, I realize your take would probably be that it isn't "real" science when people pushing an agenda happen to make whatever science they can get their hands on fit whatever that agenda may be. Fine, but don't try telling anybody that people won't use the term "science" to advance an agenda even if the science in question is iffy at best.

A great example is the infamous Mann "hockey stick" temperature graph. It was positively iconic when it came out in the IPCC Third Assessment Report. It's pretty much nowhere to be found now. Make no mistake, the people pushing that thing were dogmatic as hell.

Besides, intentionally or otherwise you seem to have ignored a central point of my last post, which is that there is FAR too much disagreement about any number of scientific theories to put anything more than faith into your side beyond a certain point. If this group is on one side and this group is on another and both are claiming their "science" is correct but neither can prove anything then you're stuck with people and what they believe. Not one jot more. Heck, if the world were entirely populated by atheists this would still be the case.

 

[volinbham]

First, I don't see that as the case: a definition of knowledge that was tied to the scientific method does not seem anymore intrinsically limited than the justified true belief theory. Although, I think that the correct view is the the scientific method comes close to fitting a theory of knowledge, while religious beliefs do not even touch on knowledge.

And, second, I didn't expect this of you, but you seem to be completely misunderstanding the purpose of a definition. You can criticize the definition, which you did in your first paragraph, but you CANNOT say that, given the definition in question, it is still wrong to say that people who do not satisfy the definition lack the connected positive attribute (in this case, knowledge).

I think you are misunderstanding my point.

Religious people fail to satisfy the criteria necessary for knowledge in their religious beliefs, but that should be fine for you. They are not knowledge attempts, they are faith-based. The purpose of faith is believing in something that you cannot know.

Here's where I disagree. I speaking of a broader definition of knowledge. I'm not suggesting settled knowledge or absolute certainty.

It would be silly for me to speak of my strong and brave faith in my own existence.

.

 

[volinbham]

If the belief didn't make people feel good, would they still believe it? To me, that is a huge point being overlooked here. How many times in history have people believed things outside of empirical evidence that didn't make them feel better about themselves, or give their life comfort? There is an element of bias with what you are arguing. Feel good or not, the scientific approach to gaining knowledge is what it is. And then to say that other processes (unscientific, non-Western, etc) is somehow on equal ground or better depending on the question being asked, is in fact disengenous.

Does it make me feel good to believe that we are just a small spec of life in the wide expanse of the universe, living in a solar system that resides in a particularly boring and unspecial galaxy? No, not really, but that is what the evidence suggests. Would it make me feel better to believe that there is an all powerful creator out there somewhere looking out for my best interests, and made the entire universe with us specifically in mind? Sure that would make me feel pretty good and important, but there is zero empirical evidence backing any of that up. And philosophically backing your way into a "feel good" answer to what amounts to being an "Nobody knows" question is not approaching the intellectual honesty of empirical and scientific thought.

There is nothing dogmatic, arrogant, or shortsighted about that.

Again, you are basing your conclusion on your conception (and underlying assumption) that if it doesn't stand up to scientific inquiry it is essentially fantasy or a coping mechanism.

I don't subscribe to the "nobody knows" philosophy. I subscribe to the "we may not be able to know if we define "knowing" as only information subject to strict rule of scientific inquiry" philosophy. There is a significant difference here.

 

[turambar85]

Well, telling me how you disagree would be more helpful...

Also, you are speaking of knowledge of, not knowledge that, I believe. Knowledge of, though doesn't mean that much of anything in this context. You can have knowledge of an invisible fake entity that you made up in your head. You can't have knowledge that, though.

 

[volinbham]

Well, telling me how I disagree would be more helpful...

Also, you are speaking of knowledge of, not knowledge that, I believe. Knowledge of, though doesn't mean that much of anything in this context. You can have knowledge of an invisible fake entity that you made up in your head. You can't have knowledge that, though.

I don't have the time to fully discuss this right now - I've tried numerous attempts to explain it in this thread and others - you could seek them out if you like.

Claiming something cannot be if it cannot be subjected to the rules of scientific inquiry is a philosophical choice. If another person isn't bound by that philosophical choice it doesn't suggest they are wrong in the absolute sense, trying to make themselves feel good, superstitous or somehow less enlightened.

 

[rjd970]

Again, you are basing your conclusion on your conception (and underlying assumption) that if it doesn't stand up to scientific inquiry it is essentially fantasy or a coping mechanism.

I don't subscribe to the "nobody knows" philosophy. I subscribe to the "we may not be able to know if we define "knowing" as only information subject to strict rule of scientific inquiry" philosophy. There is a significant difference here.

That is a pretty broad stroke to define how we know things. And I don't see how it jives with your statement of undestanding the problem to be anything anybody feels or thinks:

I understand the problem with expanding knowledge to be anything anybody feels or thinks but limiting it to a specific set of rules of discovery seems overly strict and self-fulfilling.

I disagree that the rules of discovery are "overly strict" and "self-fulfilling" and taking any and all rules away compromises the integrity of the "knowledge" gained.

 

[turambar85]

I don't have the time to fully discuss this right now - I've tried numerous attempts to explain it in this thread and others - you could seek them out if you like.

Claiming something cannot be if it cannot be subjected to the rules of scientific inquiry is a philosophical choice. If another person isn't bound by that philosophical choice it doesn't suggest they are wrong in the absolute sense, trying to make themselves feel good, superstitous or somehow less enlightened.

Philosophical choice? A philosophical system or definition is not made willy-nilly, like picking which kind of ice cream to get at Baskin Robbins. It is made by removing things that obviously don't work, and progressing towards things that do or might. It is an attempt to find truth, not preference. You need more work in epistemology if that is your opinion of its work or practice.

 

[T-TownVol]

I don't have the time to fully discuss this right now - I've tried numerous attempts to explain it in this thread and others - you could seek them out if you like.

Claiming something cannot be if it cannot be subjected to the rules of scientific inquiry is a philosophical choice. If another person isn't bound by that philosophical choice it doesn't suggest they are wrong in the absolute sense, trying to make themselves feel good, superstitous or somehow less enlightened.

us Christians are just stupid, that is something we will just have to live, throughout all eternity, with

 

[T-TownVol]

Philosophical choice? A philosophical system or definition is not made willy-nilly, like picking which kind of ice cream to get at Baskin Robbins. It is made by removing things that obviously don't work, and progressing towards things that do or might. It is an attempt to find truth, not preference. You need more work in epistemology if that is your opinion of its work or practice.

that kind of sums it all up doesn't it

 

[turambar85]

that kind of sums it all up doesn't it

Prescient post, if by that you meant your misunderstanding of what I said! :banghead2:

You don't have to assume infallibility to assume and accept progress over time.

 

[T-TownVol]

Prescient post, if by that you meant your misunderstanding of what I said! :banghead2:

You don't have to assume infallibility to assume and accept progress over time.

take a joke man, all is well

 

[volinbham]

That is a pretty broad stroke to define how we know things. And I don't see how it jives with your statement of undestanding the problem to be anything anybody feels or thinks:

I'm talking about some middle ground.

I disagree that the rules of discovery are "overly strict" and "self-fulfilling" and taking any and all rules away compromises the integrity of the "knowledge" gained.

Again - I'm not advocating taking away all/any rules.

 

[volinbham]

Philosophical choice? A philosophical system or definition is not made willy-nilly, like picking which kind of ice cream to get at Baskin Robbins. It is made by removing things that obviously don't work, and progressing towards things that do or might. It is an attempt to find truth, not preference. You need more work in epistemology if that is your opinion of its work or practice.

I get the feeling you are arguing semantics rather than understanding what I'm trying to say.

I certainly have spent my fair share of time in epistemology and philosophy. Additionally, I've spent a fair amount of time in philosophy of science and practice scientific inquiry on a regular basis. I accept it as the notion on which my field and research in my field is built. In this field, scientific inquiry is likely wholly adequate for uncovering "truth".

Perhaps using the term "knowledge" is the sticking point here. My primary point is that when someone who believes "truth" or what ultimately "is" is limited to those events/phenomena/etc. that can be subject to scientific inquiry - they are placing a human constructed boundary on "truth" or what "is". I'm suggesting that is not by default an intellectually superior position.

 

[rjd970]

Again - I'm not advocating taking away all/any rules.

What rules are involved in religious belief? What rules are there with faith in general when gaining knowledge about things nobody could possibly know? What rules are you playing by when philosophically backing into a creator explanation of the universe?

Serious question...what evidence....what would constitute the "proof" you would you need to say that a creator doesn't exist, and in fact wasn't needed in the first place?

 

[volinbham]

Serious question...what evidence....what would constitute the "proof" you would you need to say that a creator doesn't exist, and in fact wasn't needed in the first place?

First, I need convincing that man's approaches to uncovering "truth" are complete in that they have the potential to explain everything.

along with compelling evidence that supranatural events/phenonema/etc. cannot exist.

Either of these satisfies the first condition that the rules of scientific inquiry (as we've been discussing them) are completely sufficient for explaining everything.

Then I would need compelling evidence that spiritually for lack of a better term is wholly explained by natural phenomena and occurences.

Then I would need a coherent and compelling explanation for the "beginning" as well as one (related to above) for why there has been a consistent thread of spirituality through human history that appears to be instinctual rather than learned.

That's the best I can come up with now.

My primary point to you though really lies with the first one - I don't share your faith in the infallibility and totality of scientific inquiry's ability to explain all - or put differently to question the existence of something simply because it might not be explainable via scientific inquiry.

 

[rjd970]

First, I need convincing that man's approaches to uncovering "truth" are complete in that they have the potential to explain everything.

along with compelling evidence that supranatural events/phenonema/etc. cannot exist.

Either of these satisfies the first condition that the rules of scientific inquiry (as we've been discussing them) are completely sufficient for explaining everything.

Then I would need compelling evidence that spiritually for lack of a better term is wholly explained by natural phenomena and occurences.

Then I would need a coherent and compelling explanation for the "beginning" as well as one (related to above) for why there has been a consistent thread of spirituality through human history that appears to be instinctual rather than learned.

That's the best I can come up with now.

My primary point to you though really lies with the first one - I don't share your faith in the infallibility and totality of scientific inquiry's ability to explain all - or put differently to question the existence of something simply because it might not be explainable via scientific inquiry.

There is some fascinating research with brain imaging going on right now that is making headway in this area. Particularly, how the brain reacts when one experiences what they call a spiritual or transformative experience.

As far as the thread of spirituality throughout humanity, I've heard compelling evolutionary arguments of natural human tendencies to find patterns and explanations for things they can't understand, especially in matters where it gives them comfort. See "Sun Gods" and "Rain Dances" as evidence of this.

Whether you believe it or not, I do respect your opinion in this debate, I just think it's wrong. I also suspect your definition of "convincing" and "compelling" evidence is different from mine.

 

[volinbham]

There is some fascinating research with brain imaging going on right now that is making headway in this area. Particularly, how the brain reacts when one experiences what they call a spiritual or transformative experience.

As far as the thread of spirituality throughout humanity, I've heard compelling evolutionary arguments of natural human tendencies to find patterns and explanations for things they can't understand, especially in matters where it gives them comfort. See "Sun Gods" and "Rain Dances" as evidence of this.

I might suggest this could also explain why man feels he can explain all via scientific inquiry...

Whether you believe it or not, I do respect your opinion in this debate, I just think it's wrong. I also suspect your definition of "convincing" and "compelling" evidence is different from mine.

I appreciate the respect on the issue - it is mutual. I'm not trying to convince you that I'm right. I'm trying to explain my position and why at the root of your position there is a massive underlying assumption - the absolute power of scientific inquiry to explain all.

 

[rjd970]

I might suggest this could also explain why man feels he can explain all via scientific inquiry...

I think the difference here is scientific inquiry doesn't make up rain dances and creators as answers. It postulates a theory based on the best evidence that is continually open to change. It never claims to have the final answer, unless we are talking about scientific law. Absolutes and certainties are rare with one method, and they are in abundance with the other.

 

[volinbham]

I think the difference here is scientific inquiry doesn't make up rain dances and creators as answers. It postulates a theory based on the best evidence that is continually open to change. It never claims to have the final answer, unless we are talking about scientific law. Absolutes and certainties are rare with one method, and they are in abundance with the other.

I'm talking more broadly that the human mind in seeking patterns and explanations could be biased to believing we have the capacity to put order and understanding to all phenomena via scientific inquiry.

 

[gsvol]

In answer to the original question posed in this thread, my opinion is; 'yes it is.'

fwiw

 

[T-TownVol]

In answer to the original question posed in this thread, my opinion is; 'yes it is.'

fwiw

+1

 

[ladyVOLfan333]

I’ve read many discussions on the internet about religion. These discussion seem to be an exercise in futility. Nothing is settled, so why waste time discussing these matters?

Because I am a Christian and my faith requires that I tell others about Jesus and what He has done for me. He saved my soul. I realize I cannot force anyone to believe on Jesus. Telling you about this is my part, what you do with it is yours. Salvation is on an individual basis - between God and you.

The question was asked, “Is Islam of the devil?”

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
John 14:6

Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.
Acts 4:12

Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber.
John 10:1

Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep
John 10:7

These verses - among others - cut out Islam, and any other belief that doesn’t have Jesus Christ as the centerpoint.

+1 :good!:

 

[gsvol]

+1

Wilders makes some very important points about the 'religion' of islam.

This week in Indonesia:

+1 :good!:

Amen and amen. :salute:

According to Ibn al-Qayyim

(After mentioning Muhammed's first two converts to Islam, which were also his slaves and were leaders of his marauding war parties)

Muhammed's other slaves include Aslam, Abu Raafi', Thawbaan, Abu Kabshah Sulaym, Shaqraan (whose name was Saalih), Rabaah (who was Nubian), Yassaar (who was also Nubian and was killed by the 'Arniyeen); Mid'am and Kirkirah (another Nubian) – these two were killed at Khaybar. They also included Anjashah al-Haadi and Safeenah ibn Farookh, whose real name was Mihraan, but the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) called him Safeenah (="ship") because they used to make him carry their luggage when they traveled, so he said, "You are a ship (anta safeenah)." Abu Haatim said that the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) freed him; someone else said that Umm Salamah freed him. The Prophet's slaves also included Anasah, whose nickname was Abu Mashrah; Aflah; 'Ubayd; Tahmaan – also known as Keesaan; Dhakwaan; Mihraan; Marwaan – although it was said that this was another name of Tahmaan, and Allaah knows best; Hunayn; Sandar; Fudaalah (who was Yemeni); Maaboor (who was a eunuch); Waaqid; Abu Waaqid; Qassaam; Abu 'Usayb and Abu Muwayhabah.

His female slaves included: Salma (Umm Raafi'); Maymoonah bint Sa'd; Khadrah; Radwa; Razeenah; Umm Dameerah; Maymoonah bint Abi 'Usayb; Maariyah and Rayhaanah.

To this very day Islam does not condemn slavery, nor for that matter rape, murder and all sorts of violence if done in the name of jihad for allah.

We are asked by some to accept islam as the religion of peace and bend over backwards in this country to accomodate and tolerate all things muslim, while in the countries they come from they practice almost zero tolerance for Christianity or anything else they may at the time find offensive.

This approach hasn't worked so well in Europe and Africa, perhaps we should learn from their experience.

No doubt LG posted the picture of the Church marquee in an attempt to ridicule Christians but looking at the current circumstance in a political sense, (and islam is no doubt a powerful political force, even in this country that was founded on Christian principles) one must remember the words of one our more prominent founding fathers; "beware of mob rule."

 

[SavageOrangeJug]

Science just can't seem to get this THEORY of Evolution nailed down.

Conventional wisdom has it that the first animals evolved in the ocean.

Now researchers studying ancient rock samples in South China have found that the first animal fossils are preserved in ancient lake deposits, not in marine sediments as commonly assumed.

These new findings not only raise questions as to where the earliest animals were living, but what factors drove animals to evolve in the first place.

Oldest Animal Fossils Found in Lakes, Not Oceans

 

[rjd970]

Science just can't seem to get this THEORY of Evolution nailed down.



Oldest Animal Fossils Found in Lakes, Not Oceans

It's why it's called a theory genius.

Nobody is disputing if evoution happened, only the processes and specifics involved.