The supernatural

[heydarian saeed]

Gravity.

Wow. I turned on. Thanks

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Unfortunately, you only read God's punishment for the infidels and polytheists in the Qur'an. Please see what the disbelievers and the polytheists did that they deserved to be punished.

What did they do? It looks as if what they did was believe something different. There are a lot of religions in the world and you can't believe them all. Some promise horrible torments to those who fail to believe in them. It's more effective at scaring those who already believe into being careful about what they say and do; it's entirely unpersuasive to people who do not already believe. But it does also have the tragic effect of making some think that unbelievers deserve to have terrible things done to them and that their God will be pleased if they do it.

 

[Pixel42]

But it does also have the tragic effect of making some think that unbelievers deserve to have terrible things done to them and that their God will be pleased if they do it.

It also has the tragic effect of making the unbelievers think the believers are horrible people who deserve to have terrible things done to them.

 

[heydarian saeed]

Hello, heydarian.

My point was, rather than perfunctorily touching on all posts and actually resolving (or even effectively addressing, or for that matter even properly understanding) any of them, it might be better to choose one single post from one single poster, and clearly resolve that, before moving on to something else.


For instance, in your exchanges with Pixel42 on this page, your ignorance about evolution is in clear display. Perhaps you could exchange a few posts with her until you clearly understand your mistake. Towards that end, you might begin with where you'd suggested to her that since cars and buses clearly have a manufacturer, therefore the universe must also, necessarily, have a creator. Pixel42's clearly explained to you how that is mistaken, but apparently you did not understand. You could revisit that single and simple issue, and exchange a few posts with her until you clearly understand what is being said to you, and in what respect you are mistaken. (Of course, you don't have to take my word for it that you're mistaken. Just get into the discussion sincerely, and make sure not to bail out from that simple focused subject until you've discussed it clearly and thoroughly.)


You've asked me to tell you what a laboratory is, and what that quote of Philip K Dick actually means. That's very easily answered, but so as not to take away from the focus that I suggested just now, perhaps you could, instead, just finish with that portion of the discussion with Pixel42. Good luck.




(None of this is to remotely suggest that you ignore other posters, only that you actually engage with what's said to you. The small focused issue I identified above seemed simple enough and straightforward enough, and shouldn't take too much time and effort to resolve, even given the translation software thing, if discussed sincerely.)

Hello good and dear friend.
- They often ask questions and most of them have little to do with my article. And if I do not answer. They repeat again. Or get upset. I do not want anyone to be upset in this friendly discussion. You see, I have even repeated some answers. Because they asked the same question!
Talk about pixels. I gave an example to have a constructive world. To reach the whole from a partial analogy. And this is a logical procedure. I still think the same. This logical procedure has nothing to do with the complexity and grandeur of the world at first. Because it should be discussed in the next priority.
Does the complexity and grandeur of the world prevent an answer from being constructive? That is, because the universe is large and complex, it has no creator? Or can we not say that God is the creator of it? You know, dear friend, this question is difficult for us because we do not have sufficient and complete scientific reasons for it. On the other hand, because of the greatness of the world, we imagine it with our minds. While for the creator (God) it is by no means big and complicated.
Thank you very much for your time for me.

 

[heydarian saeed]

Don't you jusy love someone who clearly does not understand Darwin and evolution trying to tell you how Darwin is wrong and how evolution doesn't work, especially while mangling scientific terminology?

Hello and have a good time. I agree with science, logic and philosophy. And I have no objection to this. And I am looking for the same in the Quran. Darwin's theory is not rejected in the Qur'an. And has not discussed it. And as it turns out, he considers it possible. Although it has defects and is not complete. The most important drawback to Darwin's theory is that: it has neglected human dignity. And he knows man as an animal that has evolved. We do not accept this and reject it.

 

[heydarian saeed]

"Why are they still fish?" was especially hilarious. It's just not possible to have anything like a productive conversation about the TOE with someone whose understanding of it fails at such an elementary level.

Hello. I mean the original animal that evolved into modern man. My example was the early fish. By the way, I have seen the complete slide of this subject. From a reputable site. Maybe the slide was a lie !!!

 

[heydarian saeed]

I spent a fair amount of time going through yout post point by point, and addressing those points.
This....this is just rude. I see no point in continuing with this discussion: you are content to spam this forum with copy-and-paste bilge, and blithely ignore most responses, not just from me, but from many others too.
I wish the rest of you luck with heydarian, but I'm out. Life's too short for this.

Hello . Good time. Thank you for taking the time to read my posts. Help me if you want. Thanks

 

[heydarian saeed]

heydarian, I know that in now introducing a fresh question I'm actually pushing you to deviate from my own advice of focusing on and resolving one issue before moving on to another, but I can't help asking you at this point: What exactly might be a "divine religion"?

To my knowledge only Theravadin Buddhism, and maybe Daoism, might be thought of as religions that aren't (overtly) theistic. Is that what you mean, all religions apart from these two? But that still leaves all the rest of them there, bar these two, including the ones that Susheel mentioned upthread (and in response to whose post, if I remember correctly, you first mentioned these "divine religions").

Or do you mean only the Abrahamic religions? That makes no sense, because why wouldn't the others be divine as well, since they all claim divinity of some kind or the other, and in any case you claim that the Quran supports all religions?

----

Short question: What are "divine religions", as you used that term in this thread? (And an additional question: What, according to you, is the Quran's take on non-divine religions and the followers of those religions?)

-Feel free to ask. Yes, it is a divine religion. But over time, and especially in the implementation of the divine religion, they have deviated and there are many problems and even distortions.
- These two religions that you say I do not study much about. And here I agree with you. The school that does not accept God is an infidel. And if he accepts different gods, he is a polytheist. That is, he has created a partner for God. These two sects are atheists in terms of Islam. But some schools, the symbol of their god is different. In fact, they believe in God, but the name of their God is different. Their religious practices are also different. These are not infidels, but they have flaws. We do not follow these and we do not say a word.
- The Qur'an speaks of all the divine religions and confirms them and also confirms their book. Other religions that you say are acceptable if they are divine. But because of their shortcomings, we do not follow them. But we recognize. And we have a special respect. But we do not acknowledge or deny.
- Divine religions accept only one God. Religions are non-divine or polytheistic, that is, they associate partners with God. And they are rejected according to the Qur'an. Or they are infidels, meaning they do not accept God at all. For example, everything is considered matter.
Thanks for listening. I have a question for you: who is not the Inquisition here? I wanted to know. Thanks

 

[heydarian saeed]

No you didn't. Doesn't your God have rules against lying?

Hello. Yes, lying in Islam and the Qur'an is rejected. A liar is the enemy of God. But I did not understand what you meant. Did I not answer your questions? Or do you think I lied? The problem is that I am not in the same way with you. And our thoughts and opinions are different. That's why you may think I're lying to you. No, this is not the case. I express my opinion with the utmost respect that I have for you. This. Thank you for your kindness.

 

[Mojo]

Hello and have a good time. I agree with science, logic and philosophy. And I have no objection to this. And I am looking for the same in the Quran. Darwin's theory is not rejected in the Qur'an. And has not discussed it. And as it turns out, he considers it possible. Although it has defects and is not complete. The most important drawback to Darwin's theory is that: it has neglected human dignity. And he knows man as an animal that has evolved. We do not accept this and reject it.

In what way has the theory of evolution by natural selection “neglected human dignity”? And how does this make the theory defective?

 

[Little 10 Toes]

You can't brush the issue aside that easily. The crucifixion is more than mentioned in the bible. There are lengthy and detailed accounts of it taking up many verses. The Quran, on the other hand, says he was not crucified. So either the bible is fiction or the Quran is lies.
(For the skeptics there is also the option that both books are lies)

Of course Christians think Jesus is still alive, because according to the bible he was resurrected after three days.

What is mentioned in the Qur'an and the Bible is one with a slight difference. And it is absolutely correct. And it is not a lie. Do not insist. If you do not accept the Qur'an and the Bible, I suggest you read the history of Jesus. To be completely clear to you. I do not want to continue this discussion and other questions about the text of the Qur'an. Please do not continue. If you have any questions, refer to these books with their complete and correct meaning. sincerely

Please stop. As a follower of Islam, you are lying.

From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_in_Islam
"The Quran differs from the New Testament in proclaiming that Jesus was neither crucified nor died on the cross,[4] and especially in rejecting the divinity of Jesus as God incarnate, or the literal Son of God.[5][6]"

Hello. Yes, lying in Islam and the Qur'an is rejected. A liar is the enemy of God. But I did not understand what you meant. Did I not answer your questions? Or do you think I lied? The problem is that I am not in the same way with you. And our thoughts and opinions are different. That's why you may think I're lying to you. No, this is not the case. I express my opinion with the utmost respect that I have for you. This. Thank you for your kindness.

Please explain Taqiya^WP.

 

[Lothian]

man as an animal that has evolved. We do not accept this and reject it.

You reject science and evidence in favour of a religious position that has no evidential backing.

Not just on this issue but on many others.

Please, please don't print out your paper. It would be a grotesque travesty for trees to die for such a worthless purpose.

 

[heydarian saeed]

Lies. These are the posts of mine you haven't dealt with:

Hello. I read all the posts you have left here. I have answered all of them. Unfortunately, you either do not read and then say that I did not answer or you have forgotten !! Of course, thank you for claiming that you are reading my posts. But how do you read that you forget my answers and leave this long post. Maybe my answers are inconsistent with your thinking. And so it is. I express my opinion. You are free to choose.
The Quran is not a myth. This is a lie. Provide credible evidence to prove your wrongdoing. I have already answered your question. I'm sorry
- The story of Adam and Eve is symbolic. Do you understand? Full of ironic meanings of extremely high importance. But we do not understand it. How can I tell you the meanings of this story? Do you understand ?! Give me a corner of it:
- What were the names that God taught Adam? Do we understand what happened ?! When God taught Adam names, then he told the angel to prostrate to Adam because he is superior to you! Do you understand? What's up here? The words of the Qur'an in its stories are far beyond our intellectual capacity and understanding as human beings. Not everyone understands it. It requires high skill and knowledge.
- Unfortunately, you and some of your dear associates do not think about the Qur'an fairly and correctly. And you fight it for no reason. Of course, you are free to choose. But this is not a logical procedure.
- The Qur'an does not teach a terrible moral lesson. Rather, it states and promotes the correct practice of good morals. Those bad and ugly moral issues that say that we humans are like this. And then he says you should not be like this and behave properly.
- I have left a few posts for the story of Ant and Solomon. Why don't you read? Please be reasonable.
I do not want to answer your repetitive questions. Ask an important and simple question. Get out of the Quran too because it requires capacity.
Thank you and good health to you and other dear associations.

 

[Scorpion]

The words of the Qur'an in its stories are far beyond our intellectual capacity and understanding as human beings. Not everyone understands it. It requires high skill and knowledge.
.

You just told me you did not want to discuss the Quran, and here you are justifying it.

Who do you think you are fooling with the idea the Quran is so profound it is beyond our understanding.

I want to tell you that if the Quran is the words of God then he Is a mumbling semi literate monster. There is nothing profound about it. It is largely plagiarism from the bible and other sources, and it is poor in narrative, mostly just mentioning bible characters without saying much about them. When it does speak at length about a bible character like it does in surah 12 about Joseph, the surah is incomprehensible unless you have already read the bibles genesis account of the story. The story of Joseph in the bible is rich in detail and narrative and it is four times longer that the Quran surah 12. Most of the essential details for understanding are left out of surah 12.

You are largely talking to educated people, and you think you can pull the wool over our eyes telling us we are not intelligent enough to understand the Quran.

 

[Scorpion]

If you do not accept the Qur'an and the Bible, I suggest you read the history of Jesus.

Exactly where, other than the bible , am I going to find the history of Jesus?

 

[Chanakya]

Hello good and dear friend.
- They often ask questions and most of them have little to do with my article. And if I do not answer. They repeat again. Or get upset. I do not want anyone to be upset in this friendly discussion. You see, I have even repeated some answers. Because they asked the same question!
Talk about pixels. I gave an example to have a constructive world. To reach the whole from a partial analogy. And this is a logical procedure. I still think the same. This logical procedure has nothing to do with the complexity and grandeur of the world at first. Because it should be discussed in the next priority.
Does the complexity and grandeur of the world prevent an answer from being constructive? That is, because the universe is large and complex, it has no creator? Or can we not say that God is the creator of it? You know, dear friend, this question is difficult for us because we do not have sufficient and complete scientific reasons for it. On the other hand, because of the greatness of the world, we imagine it with our minds. While for the creator (God) it is by no means big and complicated.
Thank you very much for your time for me.

heydarian, of all the things you've touched on this thread --- to be fair, including some issues that others have raised and that you've only responded to --- you've been mistaken about many things, of which among the most ...pardon me, laughable... were your ideas about evolution. From within that discussion of yours with Pixel42, I picked one focused argument that you'd presented to her, which was, in effect, that because we see that cars have manufacturers, therefore it is clear that the universe also must have a maker. Pixel42 had clearly explained why that is wrong, and, once more, laughably so. I assumed you were sincere in your intentions in this discussion, and that you could honestly not understand her argument. Therefore, I suggested that you revisit her argument, and clarify with her what you did not understand there.

Now if even that entirely elementary point you cannot or will not clarify with her, an argument that a ten-year-old should be able to grasp --- pardon me, I don't mean to be rude, but it's quite true --- then I don't see any point in even attempting any discussion about anything else at all. (To say which is not to be dismissive of your efforts, but to encourage you to clarify at least that elementary issue with Pixel42 --- not by asking her to repeat her arguments, but by reivisiting the arguments she's already presented and, if you find anything specific you don't understand, to ask her about it. But your call entirely, naturally.)

-Feel free to ask. Yes, it is a divine religion. But over time, and especially in the implementation of the divine religion, they have deviated and there are many problems and even distortions.
- These two religions that you say I do not study much about. And here I agree with you. The school that does not accept God is an infidel. And if he accepts different gods, he is a polytheist. That is, he has created a partner for God. These two sects are atheists in terms of Islam. But some schools, the symbol of their god is different. In fact, they believe in God, but the name of their God is different. Their religious practices are also different. These are not infidels, but they have flaws. We do not follow these and we do not say a word.
- The Qur'an speaks of all the divine religions and confirms them and also confirms their book. Other religions that you say are acceptable if they are divine. But because of their shortcomings, we do not follow them. But we recognize. And we have a special respect. But we do not acknowledge or deny.
- Divine religions accept only one God. Religions are non-divine or polytheistic, that is, they associate partners with God. And they are rejected according to the Qur'an. Or they are infidels, meaning they do not accept God at all. For example, everything is considered matter.

OK, so by "divine religions" you're basically referring to monotheistic religions. Understood.

Of course, what you say does not actually begin to justify, or even to discuss, why only monotheistic religions should be "divine", or to answer my question about what per your religion Allah has in store for followers of non-monotheist faiths, but leave that be: I don't see much chance of penetrating the translation software, not to mention the conceptual blinkers, and getting a coherent discussion about those somewhat larger issues. Thanks for the clarification about the sense in which you were using that term.

Thanks for listening. I have a question for you: who is not the Inquisition here? I wanted to know. Thanks

Thanks to you too, heydarian.

I'm happy to answer your question to me, but it seems the translation software garbled it up, so that what I read here makes no sense at all. Would you like to rephrase the question?

 

[Carrot Flower King]

The most important drawback to Darwin's theory is that: it has neglected human dignity. And he knows man as an animal that has evolved. We do not accept this and reject it.

The highlighted is meaningless: the universe does not give a stuff for an artificial construct like "dignity".

As for the rest: oh, goody, you don't accept it. Very scientific, logical, full of reasoning...

 

[Pixel42]

As for the rest: oh, goody, you don't accept it. Very scientific, logical, full of reasoning...

Let's face it, "I don't want it to be true" seems to be adequate reason for a large percentage of humanity to reject proven facts, heydarian is unfortunately not unusual in that respect. And there are few facts more conclusively proven than that man is an animal that, like all other animals, evolved.

 

[Myriad]

Exactly where, other than the bible , am I going to find the history of Jesus?

How about the Book of Mormon?

Besides relating the Further Adventures of Jesus, the Book of Mormon is a sacred text revealed by a prophet of the creator God, and it's more recent than the Quran. By the same reasoning by which heydarian presumes to avow the superiority of Islam over Christianity, he and all other Muslims should become Mormons.

 

[Chanakya]

Let's face it, "I don't want it to be true" seems to be adequate reason for a large percentage of humanity to reject proven facts, heydarian is unfortunately not unusual in that respect. And there are few facts more conclusively proven than that man is an animal that, like all other animals, evolved.

To be fair, there's also people who don't rightly know what's actually been "proved" and what not, or even what "proof" might actually amount to. Often that's willful ignorance, which is deserving of ridicule; but often enough it is, or at least it might be, one's circumstances, upbringing, education, all that. (I'm not suggesting OP isn't educated, clearly he is that, what I mean is one might well not understand what one simply hasn't had proper exposure to.)