GOD

[rileyj]

by freethinker
"god" does not "make sense". A thought process which accepts a god, which as has been stated here lacks any valid supporting evidence (can not be proved), or for that matter accepting ANYTHING that lacks verifyable proof, IS totally wrong. While by chance some elements one accepts based on a god view may be valid, that does not validate the process. It just shows what the word "coincidence" means.


you sound like a guy that would argue the world is flat cause there is no proof that it is round. just because we,like the dog in your post, can not understand the world of a supieror being,doens't mean that it is not there. you right in saying there isalwasyproofin thingsthatare true, however i doubt any of us have the ablilty to see the proof for what it is. if people only realized that the moon was round, and the earth was too, they would have never doubted people said itwas round. someday someonemay again look up at the sky,again see proof of something great in something that they have seen along.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: TINNY
During the time of Muhammad and many centuries after that, Islam was at it's prime, where the society in islamic regions was so peaceful.

Muhammad accused local Jewish tribes of conspiring to aid Mecca. After Badr, the Medinese Jews were attacked and forced to emigrate to Syria. After the defeat at Uhud, the Nadir tribe of Jews received the same fate. Two years later, after a failed Meccan siege of Medina was over, the Qurayza tribe of Jews was attacked and all the men were killed. By the 640s, Arabs possessed most of Syria, Iraq, Persia, and Egypt. Thirty years later they were conquering parts of Europe, North Africa, and Central Asia.
# 623 - Battle of Waddan
# 623 - Battle of Safwan
# 623 - Battle of Dul-'Ashir
# 624 - Muhammad and converts begin raids on caravans to fund the movement.
# 624 - Battle of Badr
# 624 - Battle of Bani Salim
# 624 - Battle of Eid-ul-Fitr and Zakat-ul-Fitr
# 624 - Battle of Bani Qainuqa'
# 624 - Battle of Sawiq
# 624 - Battle of Ghatfan
# 624 - Battle of Bahran
# 625 - Battle of Uhud. 70 Muslims are killed.
# 625 - Battle of Humra-ul-Asad
# 625 - Battle of Banu Nudair
# 625 - Battle of Dhatur-Riqa
# 626 - Battle of Badru-Ukhra
# 626 - Battle of Dumatul-Jandal
# 626 - Battle of Banu Mustalaq Nikah
# 627 - Battle of the Trench
# 627 - Battle of Ahzab
# 627 - Battle of Bani Quraiza
# 627 - Battle of Bani Lahyan
# 627 - Battle of Ghaiba
# 627 - Battle of Khaibar
# 630 - Muhammad conquers Mecca.
# 630 - Battle of Hunsin.
# 630 - Battle of Tabuk
# 632 - Abu-Bakr, Muhammad's father-in-law, along with Umar, begin a military move to
enforce Islam in Arabia.
# 633 - Battle at Oman
# 633 - Battle at Hadramaut.
# 633 - Battle of Kazima
# 633 - Battle of Walaja
# 633 - Battle of Ulleis
# 633 - Battle of Anbar
# 634 - Battle of Basra,
# 634 - Battle of Damascus
# 634 - Battle of Ajnadin.
# 634 - Battle of Namaraq
# 634 - Battle of Saqatia.
# 635 - Battle of Bridge.
# 635 - Battle of Buwaib.
# 635 - Conquest of Damascus.
# 635 - Battle of Fahl.
# 636 - Battle of Yermuk.
# 636 - Battle of Qadsiyia.
# 636 - Conquest of Madain.
# 637 - Battle of Jalula.
# 638 - Battle of Yarmouk.
# 638 - The Muslims defeat the Romans and enter Jerusalem.
# 638 - Conquest of Jazirah.
# 639 - Conquest of Khuizistan and movement into Egypt.
# 641 - Battle of Nihawand
# 642 - Battle of Rayy in Persia
# 643 - Conquest of Azarbaijan
# 644 - Conquest of Fars
# 644 - Conquest of Kharan.
# 644 - Umar is murdered. Othman becomes the Caliph.
# 647 - Conquest of the island of Cypress
# 644 - Uman dies and is succeeded by Caliph Uthman.
# 648 - Campaign against the Byzantines.
# 651 - Naval battle against the Byzantines.
# 658 - Battle of Nahrawan.
# 659 - Conquest of Egypt
# 662 - Egypt falls to Islam rule.
# 666 - Sicily is attacked by Muslims
# 677 - Siege of Constantinople
# 687 - Battle of Kufa
# 691 - Battle of Deir ul Jaliq
# 700 - Military campaigns in North Africa
# 702 - Battle of Deir ul Jamira
# 711 - Muslims invade Gibraltar
# 711 - Conquest of Spain
# 713 - Conquest of Multan
# 716 - Invasion of Constantinople
# 732 - Battle of Tours in France.
# 740 - Battle of the Nobles.
# 741 - Battle of Bagdoura in North Africa
# 744 - Battle of Ain al Jurr.
# 746 - Battle of Rupar Thutha
# 748 - Battle of Rayy.
# 749 - Battle of lsfahan
# 749 - Battle of Nihawand
# 750 - Battle of Zab
# 772 - Battle of Janbi in North Africa
# 777 - Battle of Saragossa in Spain

You were saying?

[quote]
That was the time when Islam was practiced correctly. That's how Islam should be. Peaceful, loving, harmony. But now, people don't follow it co

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: rileyj

you sound like a guy that would argue the world is flat cause there is no proof that it is round.

Interesting choice of example. Since it was RELIGION that claimed the earth to be flat well after people proved it was round. e.g. the bible REQUIRES the earth to be flat. There are many passages that only work with a flat earth.

just because we,like the dog in your post, can not understand the world of a supieror being,doens't mean that it is not there.

It has nothing to do with humans not having the ability to understand. In fact is is BECAUSE we have the ability to understand that we CAN and DO reject such nonsense. What allows us to realize that a god belief is nonsense is the complete lack of evidence to support the belief in one. That along with the requirement to REJECT our "ability to understand" in order to hold religious views.

you right in saying there isalwasyproofin thingsthatare true, however i doubt any of us have the ablilty to see the proof for what it is.

We'll make it easy on you. Rather that only relying on YOUR ability to see whether a claimed proof IS a proof or not, show us ANY proof you claim to have and we will examine it right here.

Or do you not have these proofs you claim to have?

We will not hold our breath.

[Tim_Lou]

freethinker, i got nothing else to say here, in my opinion, your just way too narrow minded.

what makes you believe in science?? have you ever question it???
try to feel god, and read something about it (i bet you never read many of them), then judge it and see the value of it.

[Tim_Lou]

if you think that people are lying about the NDEs, i can say that some other people are lying in science too. like the element 118, it is found that scientists made fake information about it.

NDEs might be fake, but there are over thousands of these experience. just like other experience done by scientists.

[Tim_Lou]

We'll make it easy on you. Rather that only relying on YOUR ability to see whether a claimed proof IS a proof or not, show us ANY proof you claim to have and we will examine it right here.



Or do you not have these proofs you claim to have?



We will not hold our breath.

ok, here, prove the uncertain principal to me, see what you can come up with.
if you cant prove it, what you believe in QMs??? since scientific proof is that important to you.

[Tormod]

Tim, why is Freethinker narrow-minded? He has shown an incredible breadth of knowledge on many things and have managed to put some spark into this discussion.

The uncertainty principle is a *theory*, which means that it is a set of ideas which try to explain a physical phenomenon, observations or other data. The principle does not need to be proven. Rather, it is in itself proof that quantum mechanics is a strange beast indeed. I think it was Niels Bohr who said that "anyone who is not shocked by quantum mechanics, has not understood anything about it." (correct me if I'm wrong here).

Like Freethinker says, quantum mechanics forms the basis of what we consider everyday electronics. There is no need to "prove" it. Do you need to prove that a TV works every time you turn it on? No - because it DOES work every time you turn it on. And when it doesn't, that does not mean QM is wrong (because other TVs work). It is due to hardware failure. It can be helpful to take a step forwards and say, "okay, what if QM is correct. What impact does that have on my opinions about things?".

However, when OP5 argues that God can be used as a pain reliever he can offer no proof except his own personal experience. That is not a good way to successfully argue a point. There is a *huge* difference between one person's inner feelings and a large body of scientific evidence.

Freethinker may come forth as a die hard and vehement opponent against creationism. He does use strong words to preach his belief in science, which he has no less right to do than everyone else around here who tout their religous belief in every single discussion we have.

Remember, though, that science is based upon a set of theories which can never be proven true. There is always a possibility that a scientific theory can be wrong. In addition, Gödel proved that we can never know everything about something. There is always something more to learn (known as his incompleteness theorem). Nobody can know everything. This discussion is not about who knows how much. It may not even be a discussion about "GOD". It has become a discussion of how scientific evidence can be applied to learn and understand things. That scientific evidence has a tendency to refute claims about religion.

If you or anyone else here are offended by Freethinker, I would like to point out that instead of throwing new arguments at him, claiming "this has been proven x number of times by so and so", try to show him what you are talking about, and provide him with the proof he asks for.

Freethinker told you that NDE can be explained scientifically, and that (as far as he knows) there is not one single case of NDE which cannot be explained scientifically. You are free to believe otherwise. Just because someone is of a different opinion there is no need to feel hurt when someone argues a case against you! Bring up the proof you are talking about (give us websites, scientific evidence and other useful items, not just "this was said by Dr. X in 1989"). I am not even sure what you want to use NDE's as proof of! I know you have a personal view of how the world was created, and that you think "god is in science", which in my eyes is a valid point of view. But like Freethinker I would like to ask for the reasons you have this view. And how does it relate to NDEs? And are NDEs a proof of a divine being? Could they possibly be caused by something else (like imagination, or reading too many books about stairways to heaven)?

Sorry for the long post...just wanted to sum things up but I guess it is too early for that.

Tormod

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: Tim_Lou
freethinker, i got nothing else to say here, in my opinion, your just way too narrow minded.

Ya gotta love it! To claim *I* have a narrow mind, because *I* ask for proof for claims Tim_lou makes. What a kick!

Yes Tim, if being narrow minded means "one that does not blindly accept false claims but asks for proof instead", then YES I am narrow minded. And PROUD of it!

However it is much more obvious that you are not able to provide FACTS to support your assertions. And we can all see that it is much easier to attack the person asking for proof, rather than being honest enough to admit you do not have any support for your claims.

I have been here before. Quite often in fact. Actually EVERY TIME I get into these discussion this happens.

Believers toss out mindless rhetoric and meaningless rejoinders, being used to talking with other believers that also blindly accept and parrot the same empty tautology. Then they run into a Skeptic. Someone that actually respects our own personal POV enough to REQUIRE proof before accepting something. We dare to challenge the unsupportable claims. This causes a panic! Suddenly the blind believer is faced with their own lack of substance. They develop a cognitive dissonence as they realize they can not even convince themselves that they have any valid proof. They KNOW their lack will be exposed if they even TRY.

So instead they go on the offensive!

So if you want to label your inability to actually provide valid support for your claims as my being narrow minded, I understand. But you are not fooling anyone but yourself.

OK, maybe I am wrong? It is easy to find out. I asked for proof. Supply it. Show us all that *I* am narrow minded rather than you lacking factual support. Show the factual support and prove to everyone how narrow minded I actually am.

what makes you believe in science?? have you ever question it???

I continually question. I questioned you did I not? The difference is that I give support when asked. I constantly look for new information. And when presented, I use it either to provide further acceptance of an idea or to reject the previously held idea. EVERYTHING in my POV is subject to OPEN evaluation... and CHANGE when shown it is needed.

How open minded are you?

I am ready to admit that I may be wrong about god. I am willing to evaluate any and all evidence for ANYTHING that would support a god belief.

Are YOU willing to admit that YOU COULD BE WRONG?

Are you willing to admit that your god belief is NOT 100%? THat you ARE willing to reject your god belief if needed?

Now who is narrow minded?

try to feel god,

OK, be glad to. Is it a matter of how high I can reach? Do I need a ladder? Climb on my roof? a 10ft pole? I have a fairly good sense of touch. Show us all where to feel for your god and we will all try to feel him.

and read something about it (i bet you never read many of them), then judge it and see the value of it.

Well, I've read the bible (KJV and the Catholic Ignatius Bible), The Urantia, Tibetan Book of the Dead, Bhagavad-Gita, I Ching, The Nag Scrolls, ... and large numbers of books laying out the history and philosophy behind many of them like McDowell's Evidence That Demands a Verdict or Joseph Daleiden's Final Superstition. I recently finished LaHaye's Mind Seige. I also recently finished Plato's Republic (and other works), Einstiens Relativity, Special and General, Amir D. Aczel's Probablity One (on the Drake equation), Gribbin's Schrodinger's Kittens (followup to Schrodinger's Cat), Kimberly Blaker's The Fundamentals of Extremism , Paul Kurtz's Science and Religion: Are They Compatible? along with every issue of Free Inquiry, Skeptical Inquirer and Skeptic... With the exc

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: Tim_Lou
if you think that people are lying about the NDEs, i can say that some other people are lying in science too. like the element 118, it is found that scientists made fake information about it.

Don't forget Piltdown man and Cold Fusion.

That is the beauty of Science. As I have posted many times, Science is self correcting. It was other scientists that exposed these false assertions. And when they were exposed, they were openly rejected.

Yet when any of religion's claims are shown to be lies, extensive Apologetic efforts kick in. All kinds of twists and obfuscation is invented to try and cover it upl New translations appear, trying to turn, thou shalt not kill, into thou shalt not murder because the obvious contradictions are finally too much to overcome by just telling people to shut up about it.

As to whether "people" are lying about NDE's. That depends on who and what is being said. Those that have experienced an NDE are just relating a NATURAL experience. But those that are desperate to find a straw to cling to and promote NDE's as something more than the natural event they are, THEY are lying.

What of people that repeat tyhe nonsense? Well that depends on how much they know and how much they bothered to validate things before spewing them.

You gave an example of an NDE. I asked for verification.

You have failed to do so.

Did you LIE about the NDE?

Or did you just (once more) blindly accept what you were told?

Can you actually support your assertion?

If not, will you repeat the claim to others?

I will give you the benifit of the doubt. I will assume you just uncritically accepted and thus while yoou may have passed a lie along, did not intentionally lie yourself.

But now are you going to either prove it is NOT a lie or be honest enough to admit you do not have any evidence? These are the only two intellectuallyl honest approaches there are.

However, if you now repeat the claim on the NDE, knowning you have no proof of it, that next time, YOU would be lying.

NDEs might be fake, but there are over thousands of these experience. just like other experience done by scientists.

NDE's are NOT "experience done by scientists". They are experiences individuals have. Scientists do do research on them.

Can you provide verification for those you have claimed, or not?

Are you honest enough to admit if you can't?

[Tormod]

Tim wrote:
what makes you believe in science?? have you ever question it???

That statement makes me wonder...what do you define "science" as?

To anyone who is interested in science, I'd argue thata personwho does *not* question scientific results, has a big credibility problem. However, science is not "one thing" or "one theory".

According to my dictionary (a battered MW Collegiate), "science" is (I have abbreviated this slightly):

1. <LI>The state of knowing: knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
   <LI>knowledge or a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena ("natural science")
   <LI>knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws esp. as obtaind and tested through scientific method.
   
   

Now, the interesting thing here is the scientific method: "principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of the hypotheses".

My question is: What is there to "doubt" in science? Science is a method, a way of learning. The goal is knowledge. However, as opposed to religion, it is not used toseek absolute truths, but "general" truths, as stated through theories. Through scientific method, a scientist tries to achieve understanding by proposing hypotheses and testing them. You don't buy into anything until it has been tested enough times to be accepted - at which point a scientist must (read: should)prove this in peer reviewed journals.

One can doubtwhether any method used is correct (that is why testing is so important to scientists!). One can doubt whether any result obtained is correct. One can disagree over whether results state this or that (which we call interpretation of results).

But it makes no sense to doubt "science". That is like saying you doubt "English" because you can use it to make lies.

Tormod