• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The supernatural

For the article Supernatural

  • thank you

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I hope my article is reviewed

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I am waiting for your opinion, dear ones

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Hoping for your success and health

    Votes: 1 100.0%

  • Total voters
    1
Status
Not open for further replies.
Well, that is the bubble that believers put themselves in. Look back up thread and you will find the quote "What makes you love god?" I would go as far as calling that intellectually dishonest. And I get a little peeved with the whole "Even atheists still believe in god" crowd.

Otherwise agree with the rest.


Not very clear what the first paragraph refers to. Your "otherwise" seems to indicate you're speaking of something other than what I'd said, that is, other than the lack of intellectual integrity of this particular theist, or of theists in general (bar some honorable exceptions who do own their irrational faith squarely and honestly).
 
My definition is: God who is one. And it has no definition and limit. It is pure and clean. This is the definition of the true God. Religion is the next priority. The first is the one God. Second, belief in religion. Religion is a set of rules. To guide man to a good life. It is important to believe in one God. The rest are all subsidiaries.
The important thing is to believe in God. If God believes. So it is good.

Your definition is something without definition? That is your definition without definition?

The law is a set of rules. You don't need religion for rules.
 
Shamelessness in terms of utterly abandoning all semblance of intellectual integrity.

And I wasn't referring to the incoherence due to the language thing --- it is what it is, and obviously no one's fault --- but to the fact that I simply cannot wrap my head around this kind of complete absence of intellectual integrity. That's the part I find incomprehensible.

heydarian's very first post was a lie. Why anyone would expect honesty out of him after that became apparent, is beyond me.
 
heydarian's very first post was a lie. Why anyone would expect honesty out of him after that became apparent, is beyond me.


It had always been a possibility, sure; but, and color me gullible, but for the longest time I gave him the benefit of the doubt, because I could see how cultural and language reasons, not to mention the deep-seated religious indoctrination, might have someone respond in all honesty as he was doing. But after a point there simply was no room for any more doubt.

Should we have given up on him from the get-go, given past experience not with him but with other people, here and elsewhere? And thought of him as a fraud, out only and solely to preach his superstitions --- guilty until proved innocent? That’s one way to go, sure; but then there isn’t really much point in engagement with any discussion of this kind in that case, other than maybe to mock. For the longest time it seemed --- to me, at any rate --- that he was actually engaging honestly, at some level and to an extent. Clearly I was wrong.
 
It had always been a possibility, sure; but, and color me gullible, but for the longest time I gave him the benefit of the doubt, because I could see how cultural and language reasons, not to mention the deep-seated religious indoctrination, might have someone respond in all honesty as he was doing. But after a point there simply was no room for any more doubt.

Should we have given up on him from the get-go, given past experience not with him but with other people, here and elsewhere? And thought of him as a fraud, out only and solely to preach his superstitions --- guilty until proved innocent? That’s one way to go, sure; but then there isn’t really much point in engagement with any discussion of this kind in that case, other than maybe to mock. For the longest time it seemed --- to me, at any rate --- that he was actually engaging honestly, at some level and to an extent. Clearly I was wrong.


Actually, I think heydarian has been engaging honestly.

He thinks that what he is saying, and the way that he replies to us, is completely honest. The problem is that he is so besotted with religious belief, and so submerged under the spell of that belief, that he is now unable to understand or accept why his way of understanding is not really an honest approach in terms of looking objectively at the material which he is using as evidence to support his preconcieved religious faith.

For example, although I've raised the following so many times now that it's began to sound like a cracked repetitive old record (which is not a good look, I know) - he is unable and unwilling to have a genuine discussion or examination of why no real scientific papers have ever been published supporting his claim of modern science revealed 1400 years ago in the Quran.

Instead he tells us that Roger Penrose and Stephen Hawking have actually published "articles" which support his beliefs ... but that claim (and several others like it) appears to be untrue ... he's quoted bits of what he claims Penrose and Hawking have said, but he does not give a reference to the where the quoted words were published, and the quotes appear to be inaccurate and/or taken out of context. AFAIK, those claims about things said by Penrose and Hawking are commonly found in the so-called "Ijaz" literature of Islam, which is precisely this same set of claims of "scientific miracles revealed in the Quran" ... in other words it looks very much like heydarain is reading all of this stuff from that Ijazz literature and wholeheartedly believing it all.

Of course, being charitable towards heydarain in that above sense is somewhat at odds with his apparent parting message where he described himself as an intellectual giant of man who is treading on us as mere insects being scattered beneath his feet. But, … oh well ... :shrug: :boggled:
 
Actually, I think heydarian has been engaging honestly.

He thinks that what he is saying, and the way that he replies to us, is completely honest. The problem is that he is so besotted with religious belief, and so submerged under the spell of that belief, that he is now unable to understand or accept why his way of understanding is not really an honest approach in terms of looking objectively at the material which he is using as evidence to support his preconcieved religious faith.

I'm sorry, but I can't agree with this. He claimed to have done research in a lab to prove the supernatural. It quickly emerged that he had not done any research, nor did he even have a lab. This was quickly followed by a denial that the supernatural even existed. That's not a result of indoctrination: that's clickbait dishonesty.
The later discussions, though, showed more of what you say here. I do agree that he has been so brainwashed that he is unable to see that the kinds of arguments that seem so strongly persuasive to him, simply don't work outside of that doctrinal bubble. Religious belief, of the orthodox, Abrahamic kind, is riddled with contradictions, so the multiple conflicting claims thrown out by heydarian are to be expected. (As an aside, we've seen the same thing with Scorpion.) It is entirely possible that this cognitive dissonance is unrecognised by a zealot like heydarian, who may actually believe that there are no contradictions, inconsistencies or absurdities in his faith, and that it is also both honest and desirable to cherry-pick quotes from the likes of Hawking, so as to make them appear to support his beliefs when in fact they do not. Moreover, the idea that you only have to look around to see the evidence of the existence of a god is commonplace among believers: they just don't seem to understand that, out here in the real world, confirmation bias and other cognitive biases do not count as evidence, no matter how strongly they think they do.
 
I'm sorry, but I can't agree with this. He claimed to have done research in a lab to prove the supernatural. It quickly emerged that he had not done any research, nor did he even have a lab. This was quickly followed by a denial that the supernatural even existed. That's not a result of indoctrination: that's clickbait dishonesty.
The later discussions, though, showed more of what you say here. I do agree that he has been so brainwashed that he is unable to see that the kinds of arguments that seem so strongly persuasive to him, simply don't work outside of that doctrinal bubble. Religious belief, of the orthodox, Abrahamic kind, is riddled with contradictions, so the multiple conflicting claims thrown out by heydarian are to be expected. (As an aside, we've seen the same thing with Scorpion.) It is entirely possible that this cognitive dissonance is unrecognised by a zealot like heydarian, who may actually believe that there are no contradictions, inconsistencies or absurdities in his faith, and that it is also both honest and desirable to cherry-pick quotes from the likes of Hawking, so as to make them appear to support his beliefs when in fact they do not. Moreover, the idea that you only have to look around to see the evidence of the existence of a god is commonplace among believers: they just don't seem to understand that, out here in the real world, confirmation bias and other cognitive biases do not count as evidence, no matter how strongly they think they do.


I think you may be unfairly holding him to his precise opening words from the very first post of this thread. I think we could be a bit more charitable there because (a) heydarain is not writing here in his native language, and (b) it could quite easily be the case that what he meant by saying “I did some work in the lab”, is that he was reading about what modern science has discovered “in the lab”, and he believed that he had found that those lab discoveries of science were in fact described or predicted 1400 years ago in the Quran.

It was also he himself who corrected that opening statement of a “lab” pretty quickly on page 2 of this now very long thread, where he said that he himself did not have or use a lab.

He also said that his article was written a long time ago, in 2004 iirc. So in his opening post of effectively just 1 single line, he may have been giving an ultra brief summary of what he had concluded in his article 17 years previously (i.e. that “lab” experiments had shown to him that modern science was described 1400 years before in the Quran).
 
Last edited:
The above is yet again just another whole mass of ridiculous religious preaching. Claims all made with zero evidence.

Why can't you ever produce this God? Where is he? Why can no Muslim ever show anyone the God in any way that can ever be independently (that means "honestly") checked, tested or confirmed? ...

... it's worthless fanatical preaching simply to claim that "god is love ... God is everything ... God is everywhere etc." ... anyone else might just as easily claim that God is actually an old piece of rock that someone once found in the desert ... or that he is a parrot that lives in London Zoo! ... the idiotic claims are all completely useless and without any merit of honesty unless & until you can actually produce the God in front of independent expert witnesses to be observed, tested and checked ...

... where is the object of your claims? ... why can't you ever produce what you claim to have?

Hello dear philosopher
What is your school of philosophy? What are the basic principles of logic in your philosophy? I do not expect you to provide me with a complete site - book or article for these two questions. Just answer these two questions for me briefly in a few lines. I am waiting.
I enjoy discussing with you. Because you think realistically.
Thank you very much
 
I think you may be unfairly holding him to his precise opening words from the very first post of this thread. I think we could be a bit more charitable there because (a) heydarain is not writing here in his native language, and (b) it could quite easily be the case that what he meant by saying “I did some work in the lab”, is that he was reading about what modern science has discovered “in the lab”, and he believed that he had found that those lab discoveries of science were in fact described or predicted 1400 years ago in the Quran.
It was also he himself who corrected that opening statement of a “lab” pretty quickly on page 2 of this now very long thread, where he said that he himself did not have or use a lab.
He also said that his article was written a long time ago, in 2004 iirc. So in his opening post of effectively just 1 single line, he may have been giving an ultra brief summary of what he had concluded in his article 17 years previously (i.e. that “lab” experiments had shown to him that modern science was described 1400 years before in the Quran).

All of this message is completely correct. And I agree. In particular: I believe that all the discoveries of modern science in the twentieth century are predictions of the Qur'an in the seventh century. My dear friend, the Quran is not a laboratory. It is a religious book. He talked about all human needs. And it has content. Approximately 2,500 verses out of 6,200 are about science.
Thanks
 
Everyone else is wrong, including all other Muslims as well as the forum members here, and only you are right, because of a particular and tortured translation of a particular magic book favoured only by you?
No. Seriously, no.
Have you considered the possibility that the rest of the world is right, and you are wrong?

Hello dear philosopher
I agree with exactly what you are saying in this message. We respect all religions - schools - ideas and human thoughts. We check. We accept some of their ideas. And we do not accept some. And we are free to comment on it. Is not this the approach of
freedom? On the other hand, we are ready to accept rational criticisms of our own religion by others.
Do you not see that in this group all my friends are attacking my beliefs and religion? And I answer everyone. Of course, they do not accept any of my answers. no problem. Because they are not the same as their own beliefs. And this is a natural thing. Infidels never accept the beliefs of Muslims or any other religion.
They chant that we are fanatical and superstitious Muslims. If it is exactly the opposite. The disbelievers are fanatics and superstitious. I told you some of the superstitions of my religion. And I said that I do not believe in these superstitions at all. And it's wrong. You see, I'm not prejudiced.
And I'm not superstitious. But unfortunately, your mind is not clear at all. Why do you think this about me? I do not care what you think of me. I'm sorry for you.
They do not even argue logically. This bubble that you think I am in is your mistake. I'm not in the bubble. You are imprisoned in your own bubble. In any case, I am ready to accept your logical criticisms. And I am responsible. And I do not expect you to accept my words. Let's just talk in a friendly and logical way. I do not expect much from you. Please be reasonable. Thank you
 
It's our friend the "Vague God of Vague Vagueness" that wonderful God who no believer actually believes in, yet is the only one we're allowed to acknowledge in discussions about God.

Hello
God is very clear. Everything in the universe is a sign and work of God. Do not you see? Is it not clear to you? Shapes from your point of view. Otherwise, God is completely clear. It is the most enjoyable for me.
Thanks
 
It's hard, no impossible, to make any sense of these ramblings.

On the subject of the God you believe in. That would be the Abrahamic God, would it not? As I understand it the scriptures referring to this God are accepted by Jews, Christians, and the followers of Islam.

I have asked this question of Christians before and now ask it of you - a Muslim.
How do you deal with the fact that the Abrahamic God had a chosen people, the Jews, for so long and all the rest where the enemy?

Hello dear philosopher
God is not the enemy of anyone. They were relatives and human beings. And they are now. Who are enemies with each other. They fight and bleed. They commit sin and corruption. God punishes them for a while so that they understand. Their approach is completely wrong and ugly. And behave according to human principles. Love each other.
Unfortunately, you do not read about the history of the Jewish and Abrahamic peoples. Please read the history books of these tribes. To understand what they did that God punished them. Unfortunately, do not judge one-sidedly. The plaintiff that you are, along with the complained that it is God, are both present in this court of yours.
Please do not just say what you say and do not misjudge. See that God has punished them for this. God hates war and bloodshed. And He severely torments those who wage war, bloodshed, and oppression. This is God's approach. And that's absolutely right. What do you do if someone invades your privacy? Do you welcome him? Or do you severely punish him? Answer please.
All human beings are servants of God. And are the privacy of God. If anyone wants to start a war and bloodshed, he will be severely punished. God is fully aware of the behavior of all human beings.
Thanks
 
So the crazy blathering starts off yet again. Amazing. I find this utter shamelessness incomprehensible.

Hello
Thank you. Your eyes are always open to everyone. You have beautiful thoughts and words. Sometimes it gets bitter. We eat coffee with sweets. And we make up for the bitterness of the coffee.
Thank you
 
Okay. Take away the crazy blathering and all we're left with is... *checks notes* oh yes a completely mainstream, widely held idea.

Again it's not more or less crazy because it's badly formatted.

You would get some version of a blustering "Ah well he's like love or ah some thing... listen just stop asking and have faith" non-answer if you asked the question in any pulpit in America. The difference would only be in tone and style.

Hello
It was a beautiful interpretation. Thank you
 
Shamelessness in terms of utterly abandoning all semblance of intellectual integrity.

And I wasn't referring to the incoherence due to the language thing --- it is what it is, and obviously no one's fault --- but to the fact that I simply cannot wrap my head around this kind of complete absence of intellectual integrity. That's the part I find incomprehensible.



Actually Joe's quite right, it isn't as if this is in any way exclusive to him. The "better formatted" are, by and large, exactly like him in this (bar a few honorable exceptions). What I guess this forum lets us do is put their thinking --- heydarian's thinking, in this case --- under the microscope in a way that would generally not be possible in real life. And it's difficult to see how one can possible think in those terms.

I agree, it's religious indoctrination, plain and simple. But why the intellectual dishonesty?

If heydarian would man up and admit --- to himself, and to us --- that, as is evident, his beliefs do not square up with science, but that he nevertheless chooses faith over science, as is his right if he so wishes, then I'd respect that. I mean, it wouldn't be rational, but I'd still respect that. But this constant lying, lying to oneself and lying to others, about what one is saying, despite the fact that those lies are clearly and transparently seen for what they are when you look at his past comments, that ...words fail me. It's ...ghastly, this demonstration of what the religious mind actually looks like. (Again, not to single out heydarian in this; it's just that his case is what we're examining here, and they happen to be so transparently dishonest.)


eta: Agreed, Scorpion's done a great job patiently referencing Islamic scripture to show up that faith for what it actually is.

Hello
Do not bother too much. And do not say this. I am sorry.
 
Not very clear what the first paragraph refers to. Your "otherwise" seems to indicate you're speaking of something other than what I'd said, that is, other than the lack of intellectual integrity of this particular theist, or of theists in general (bar some honorable exceptions who do own their irrational faith squarely and honestly).

Hello
I did not understand any of what you said. Just tell me the meaning of this:
Your "otherwise" seems to indicate you're speaking of something other than what I'd said, that is, other than the lack of intellectual integrity of this particular theist, or of theists in general (bar some honorable exceptions who do own their irrational faith squarely and honestly)
Thanks
 
We are not good painters, but I draw lines around you… Because you are different from the rest ...
I can not paint people. I'm looking for a colorless person. You do not know?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom