The supernatural

[Myriad]

But you seem quite content that the God described in the Bible burns people in eternal hellfire and drowns almost all life on Earth, and you seem to approve of it.

"You seem"... how? Scorpion has been pretty clear about being neither a Bible literalist nor a believer in any doctrine of hellfire or any other eternal punishment. Not sure where he stands on the Flood narrative but spiritualists in general apprehend individual and/or collective human spiritual development on very long time scales that would preclude any recent (ca. 6000 ya) "creation" event or any recent human near-extinction.

 

[IanS]

I mean the "type" of your questions. That is, you take the same objections to the Qur'an as the infidels of the seventh century did to Muhammad. You criticize the scientific references of the Qur'an and make fun of it. This is exactly what the infidels of the seventh century said. And they mocked Muhammad and the Qur'an. I did not mean that the infidels of Muhammad's time knew something about modern science and objected to Muhammad. No.
The people of Muhammad's time were as illiterate as Muhammad himself. Who has been illiterate. None of them knew anything about modern science today. And they did not understand anything. And they did not ask the scientific questions you mean.

What you were talking about, and what I replied to, was precisely that claim or idea from you, that when people here tell you that there are no scientific explanations in the Koran, and that science in general has shown that religious belief in gods and miracles is simply not credible any more, you said that was exactly the same criticism that people had at the time of Mohamed ... I was simply pointing out (as you in fact agree above), that at the time of Mohamed none of those critics knew anything about modern 19th - 21st century scientific discoveries ... so whatever criticisms of Islam people had in the 7th century, they were not criticisms made from a knowledge of modern science … whereas today (and here in this thread), science is now the main reason why educated people dismiss religious beliefs like yours.

The following are some of the objections of the disbelievers of Muhammad's time who are one with you:
You say that: Muhammad was mad - Muhammad was a liar - his words were not his own - His words are baseless - He told myths - He fantasized - He said ancient words - He was caught in magic - Idiot And he is ignorant - he has been misguided - he has no superiority over you. - He wants to mislead you from your knowledge - The promises of God and Muhammad are false - A gang and a group helped him - He was under pressure - He was weak - His words were baseless and false - Most importantly; You deny God, the Qur'an, Muhammad, the Resurrection, and the truth. Because disbelievers habit is to cover up the truth. And the habit of the disbelievers is stubbornness in denying God. And they continue this ugly approach for the rest of their lives. It is better to think wisely. The way to repentance is always open.
You talk more out of speculation. While the suspicion is unfounded. And is rejected. These are the objections you make to the Qur'an and me. I do not seek to acquit myself - the Qur'an - Muhammad and God. Because I do not see any need for acquittal. The truth is clear. You can not deny the existence of the sun. Because it is. It has light. Can be seen. Everything I said about God, the Qur'an and Muhammad is as clear as the sun. Does anyone understand with reason and logic who is right?

Well the above is yet again just completely 100% untrue, isn't it! I have never discussed anything here about Mohamed! And I don't think many others here have mentioned much if anything at all about Mohamed. I have not said any of things that you just claimed above! And I don't remember seeing anyone else post all of that stuff in your highlight. As I just explained above – that was not the criticism of your belief … the criticism is that religious beliefs like yours, are shown by modern science to be completely without foundation and simply not educationally credible any more!

And by the way – you still have never answered the 3 or 4 questions that I asked you about over a week ago and which I have now had to ask you about for the 6th time! Are you ever going to answer the questions?

 

[IanS]

No no, I'm not suggesting his closed-mindedness is at all unusual. It's just that it is so clearly starkly on display here.

In fact the perversion of his faculties and of his thinking, that is interesting precisely because it is so representative, broadly speaking, of so many religious folks. Working out the exact hows and wherefores of that perversion would help shed (more) light on that exact kind of perversion that we see all around us, but that we do not actually have the opportunity to examine in detail like this. It's fascinating, actually. Reading OP's comments, it is clear that he looks on us as just as irrational and just as pigheaded as we find him. How, I wonder, might one break through and actually open the eyes of someone who keeps their eyes shut tightly as hard as they can like that?

One's interest in OP is genuine but only very casual and limited after all. It is that generalization, that extrapolation on to other more meaningful interactions IRL --- if only we could derive anything meaningful to generalize and to extrapolate, which we haven't so far! --- that is what is, or can be, of wider interest.

Well, just re that highlight, let me put this as a question - how do any of us decide what to believe as true (or likely true)? How does heydarain decide that?

For most of us, I hope that we are using what we believe to be genuine "evidence". And wherever possible we try to use scientifically credible/derived evidence. But do devout religious believers such heydarain do that? Is that the standard that they are also using? I think the obvious answer is no! No, they are actually not using scientifically well established or valid evidence ... on the contrary, in all of these discussions with theists, you inevitably reach a point where they actively reject the scientific evidence, and they claim instead that other non-scientific sources provide the really essential evidence for their beliefs.

So what is heydarian using as his sources of evidence to believe in God and the inerrancy of the Koran? Well, he's told us the answer repeatedly, in almost every post. He has two sources; the first is the Koran itself. And the second is his preferred Islamic “scholars” who he believes to have what they call the “correct interpretation” of the Koran. That really comes down to just using the Koran as it's own source of evidence.

For example, when heydarian says that any particular sentence in the Koran actually describes or predicts some “fact” of 21st century science (which he has claimed perhaps 50 or 60 times here already), his evidence for that is to say that various scholars have declared particular words to be describing the science. But that is a claim or belief from those scholars, made without evidence. And the source which the scholars are using for a claim of “evidence”, is again the Koran itself. Really that's a claim or belief that the Koran is it's own evidence, or in fact it's being claimed as actual proof (since they all insist that the Koran can never be wrong … because it's the word of God … and the evidence for that? … well the evidence proof is that the Koran claims it is the word of God!).

So in other words – heydarian (and other theists) are not using what the rest of us would call genuine “evidence”. Instead they are using belief (ie religious faith) … whenever they are asked for evidence to support any belief that they have, they only ever respond with more beliefs of the same sort.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

So in other words – heydarian (and other theists) are not using what the rest of us would call genuine “evidence”. Instead they are using belief (ie religious faith) … whenever they are asked for evidence to support any belief that they have, they only ever respond with more beliefs of the same sort.

Another well-stated and thoughtful post: If I haven't said before, I find this to be true of a lot of your posts.
Anyway.... What heydarian is doing is basically exercising confirmation bias. He's been taught since he was a child that the Quran is correct in all things, and so rejects anything that contradicts this view. This is also why he only picks translations that fit his preconceived ideas, and rejects those which do not. The more heated of his posts are a symptom of the discomfort caused by cognitive dissonance. The dissonance is the conflict between his claim, on the one hand, to be interested in discussion, evidence, the scientific method, and being friendly towards unbelievers, and the absolute inflexibility of his beliefs, rejection of science, refusal to debate and unwillingness to consider contradictory evidence on the other.

 

[Mojo]

There is no science in the Qu'ran.

Heydarian Saeed has as good as admitted it, by using the lack of human knowledge at the time it was written as an excuse for its failings:

And the subject you are raising was not known to any human being in the time of Muhammad. Therefore, there is no objection to the Qur'an and its author.

 

[Chanakya]

Well, just re that highlight, let me put this as a question - how do any of us decide what to believe as true (or likely true)? How does heydarain decide that?

For most of us, I hope that we are using what we believe to be genuine "evidence". And wherever possible we try to use scientifically credible/derived evidence. But do devout religious believers such heydarain do that? Is that the standard that they are also using? I think the obvious answer is no! No, they are actually not using scientifically well established or valid evidence ... on the contrary, in all of these discussions with theists, you inevitably reach a point where they actively reject the scientific evidence, and they claim instead that other non-scientific sources provide the really essential evidence for their beliefs.

So what is heydarian using as his sources of evidence to believe in God and the inerrancy of the Koran? Well, he's told us the answer repeatedly, in almost every post. He has two sources; the first is the Koran itself. And the second is his preferred Islamic “scholars” who he believes to have what they call the “correct interpretation” of the Koran. That really comes down to just using the Koran as it's own source of evidence.

For example, when heydarian says that any particular sentence in the Koran actually describes or predicts some “fact” of 21st century science (which he has claimed perhaps 50 or 60 times here already), his evidence for that is to say that various scholars have declared particular words to be describing the science. But that is a claim or belief from those scholars, made without evidence. And the source which the scholars are using for a claim of “evidence”, is again the Koran itself. Really that's a claim or belief that the Koran is it's own evidence, or in fact it's being claimed as actual proof (since they all insist that the Koran can never be wrong … because it's the word of God … and the evidence for that? … well the evidence proof is that the Koran claims it is the word of God!).

So in other words – heydarian (and other theists) are not using what the rest of us would call genuine “evidence”. Instead they are using belief (ie religious faith) … whenever they are asked for evidence to support any belief that they have, they only ever respond with more beliefs of the same sort.

Agreed, absolutely, to all of that.

----------

Thing is, it goes beyond just that. Which is what makes the thing so …remarkable, so fascinating a study.

For one thing: In this whole series of exchanges, see how OP so very blatantly ignores every argument that he has no answer to (at least not without compromising his "mountain-like" blind faith). You say five things to him, four of which he cannot address at all, at least not with any degree of coherence, and he’ll blithely ignore all four of those things; and he'll go ahead and focus on just the fifth thing you’d said, where he’ll try to get by by replying with some irrelevant non sequiturs or suchlike.

And further: It’s remarkable, how he’s able to totally twist what his interlocutor has said, as if what was said meant exactly the opposite of what was in fact actually said. It’s totally weird, this phenomenon, that you see in display repeatedly here.

And it’s all so very remarkable precisely because he probably isn’t deliberately out to troll, like people sometimes do in discussions in politics. It’s totally bizarre how --- over and above the evidence thing, and the indoctrination thing, that you very rightly speak of here --- how he’ll see ten points that go against his belief system, and apparently his mind will entirely block out nine of those that he has no answer to, and the tenth his mind will somehow twist entirely out of all recognition so that he sees there something wholly different than what was actually said. And to that he’ll respond with a whole flood of non sequiturs and irrelevancies.

For quite a while I’d put this weirdness down to translation issues, but having followed this thread for a while now it is fully clear that that is not the case, at all.

----------

All of which seems remarkable, because we do see exactly these things all around us IRL as well. Maybe not so very blatantly, and maybe not every aspect of it all at once from the same person and in the same exchange, as we’re seeing here, but still.

What this is is kind of an extreme example of Picardian There-are-five-lights-ism. What happens when one surrenders for good one’s intellectual integrity --- or, worse, when one’s indoctrination has never left any place nor, perhaps, even any conception of intellectual integrity. Which is not to say they are without honor; but that honor is, as they proudly proclaim, time and time again, predicated on “standing like a mountain” by the items of one’s blind faith. So that not only does one actually see five lights, but one’s self-worth seems to have gotten tied into being able to see five lights.

The mind’s a funny thing. This discussion fascinates me in as much as, just perhaps, it might end up providing some clue about how to penetrate through in the case of similar discussions and individuals IRL, that one is more invested in than in this present instance, here. And also, I suppose, as an object lesson about the kind of thing to guard against in oneself?

 

[Chanakya]

... cognitive dissonance. The dissonance is the conflict between his claim, on the one hand, to be interested in discussion, evidence, the scientific method, and being friendly towards unbelievers, and the absolute inflexibility of his beliefs, rejection of science, refusal to debate and unwillingness to consider contradictory evidence on the other.

Right on target! That’s clearly exactly what’s happening here. It’s fascinating to so clearly see the whole cognitive dissonance thing in action, right in front of us. How the bits and pieces of the machinery move all awry, seen clearly under the glass. Absolutely, and like I was saying just now in the post immediately preceding, the mind’s a funny thing!

 

[turingtest]

I think it's pretty important, when talking to the heydarians of the world, whether fundie Muslim or Christian, to differentiate between science as a process and science as a mere product. Heydarian needs to frame it as strictly the latter- that way, he's free to interpret what his holy books said then to accord with what science has found since then, and (maybe more importantly for his viewpoint), he can frame the process (of science) as nothing but the product- it's all just stuff written down in books, and who's to say which book is better?

There's isn't, of course, any science in either sense, in any religion, especially as a process, since that would be a contradiction in terms. But you have to pin down folks like heydarian to the distinction to get them to understand the point that it's not what is written but how it got there that's meaningful.

 

[Chanakya]

I think it's pretty important, when talking to the heydarians of the world, whether fundie Muslim or Christian, to differentiate between science as a process and science as a mere product. Heydarian needs to frame it as strictly the latter- that way, he's free to interpret what his holy books said then to accord with what science has found since then, and (maybe more importantly for his viewpoint), he can frame the process (of science) as nothing but the product- it's all just stuff written down in books, and who's to say which book is better?

There's isn't, of course, any science in either sense, in any religion, especially as a process, since that would be a contradiction in terms. But you have to pin down folks like heydarian to the distinction to get them to understand the point that it's not what is written but how it got there that's meaningful.

Insightful observation. Absolutely, science as, as you say, product, as opposed to process. OP probably knows no better, but you sometimes see others, who have absolutely no excuse in terms of education to not understand this nuance, think in those same terms. And, yes, clearly explaining/highlighting this difference --- or trying to, at any rate --- would probably be the way out.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Heydarian, for a "polite" person you're strangely averse to answering questions. Almost as if you weren't really here for discussion but to preach at us.

 

[IanS]

Another well-stated and thoughtful post: If I haven't said before, I find this to be true of a lot of your posts.
Anyway.... What heydarian is doing is basically exercising confirmation bias. He's been taught since he was a child that the Quran is correct in all things, and so rejects anything that contradicts this view. This is also why he only picks translations that fit his preconceived ideas, and rejects those which do not. The more heated of his posts are a symptom of the discomfort caused by cognitive dissonance. The dissonance is the conflict between his claim, on the one hand, to be interested in discussion, evidence, the scientific method, and being friendly towards unbelievers, and the absolute inflexibility of his beliefs, rejection of science, refusal to debate and unwillingness to consider contradictory evidence on the other.

Hi ... thanks very much for those kind words. It's always nice when others appreciate what any of us write or say.

I do try always to be constructive, but of course it is frustrating sometimes trying to have a reasoned discussion with any committed theist like heydarian.

I think that perhaps at this point in his life heydarian is very set in his ways and fixed in his beliefs, so that no matter what the evidence against him, or how clear and undeniable the evidence is, it remains almost impossible to shake his faith and to get him to genuinely consider the possibility that his God does not exist.

What I think may happen with many theists (or at least, some theists), however, is that eventually they themselves start to have doubts for various reasons, such that they finally move slightly off that fixed intransigent standpoint, and then do begin to think genuinely, honestly, about things like evolution (and how that is a completely incompatible clash with the belief that God made Mankind ... which afaik is really the entire basis of religions like Christianity (and Islam?) ... ie where God's entire purpose was to create Mankind ... except that the discovery of evolution shows that homo sapiens definitely arose by purely natural processes & not by any Godly miracle), or if they are of a less scientific bent then they might eventually have cause to question why God apparently lets completely innocent children suffer and die in appalling ways (or indeed consider that it is medical, scientifically supported, intervention that saves those children/people, and not ever any acts from a God).

But they have to come to that stage themselves where that crack opens up in their position/faith, such that they are finally willing to honestly examine the evidence for what they believe. Discussions like this may eventually help move them to that position, but they need the time (often many years) to get to that point themselves.

Personally I would not care if religion were not harmful at all. But unfortunately, it clearly is very harmful indeed.

 

[heydarian saeed]

You don't know that, you are just making it up, like Muhammad himself made up the horrible verses about hellfire. These verses are not true, and are an insult to the real God.

If God burns anyone in eternal hellfire for any reason then he is a terrible monster. All humanity should unite against him and cry out defiance with one voice. But you seem quite content that the God described in the Quran burns people, and you seem to approve of it.

God does not burn anyone. The nature and quality of hell is not what you and the rest of the group think. No. Not so. The universe goes back to singularity. To the point of no. There is a temperature of ten to the power of 30 degrees Kelvin. Not everyone stays there. Some stay. And do not return. And some come back. And they will have eternal life. It is a little difficult to understand these words. My attitude towards understanding the Qur'an has changed. I want to understand the Qur'an only with the knowledge of the day. And the Qur'an guides me. I will tell you things I have not said before.

 

[heydarian saeed]

What you were talking about, and what I replied to, was precisely that claim or idea from you, that when people here tell you that there are no scientific explanations in the Koran, and that science in general has shown that religious belief in gods and miracles is simply not credible any more, you said that was exactly the same criticism that people had at the time of Mohamed ... I was simply pointing out (as you in fact agree above), that at the time of Mohamed none of those critics knew anything about modern 19th - 21st century scientific discoveries ... so whatever criticisms of Islam people had in the 7th century, they were not criticisms made from a knowledge of modern science … whereas today (and here in this thread), science is now the main reason why educated people dismiss religious beliefs like yours.





Well the above is yet again just completely 100% untrue, isn't it! I have never discussed anything here about Mohamed! And I don't think many others here have mentioned much if anything at all about Mohamed. I have not said any of things that you just claimed above! And I don't remember seeing anyone else post all of that stuff in your highlight. As I just explained above – that was not the criticism of your belief … the criticism is that religious beliefs like yours, are shown by modern science to be completely without foundation and simply not educationally credible any more!

And by the way – you still have never answered the 3 or 4 questions that I asked you about over a week ago and which I have now had to ask you about for the 6th time! Are you ever going to answer the questions?

very well. You want to hear about new science in the Quran. So listen right. To tell you. Of course, I must say that my attitude towards understanding the Qur'an has changed. According to your knowledge, I will try to tell you about the Holy Quran. Listen well.

 

[heydarian saeed]

I have read the Qur'an more than a thousand times. And I have read its various interpretations and meanings.
The views expressed in the commentaries on the creation of man are all related to the views of the past about 14 centuries ago. And with the advancement of science, there is no new theory that is consistent with modern science. It only justifies past opinions. The Qur'an explicitly states: "Assess the subjects of the Qur'an with its knowledge and be up-to-date. And with mental imagery you will not go anywhere to achieve the truth of the verses." All the similar verses I have said before speak of scientific subjects.
. And refers to one or more scientific topics. And it should be examined with the relevant knowledge.
Since joining your group, I have read the Qur'an with a view to studying the supernatural. First, I put my previous theory in my article on early messages in this group. And to a large extent, I believed in that. I looked carefully and saw that: "There are no words or phrases in the Qur'an about the supernatural! And he has not spoken about the existence of the supernatural!"! I paid more attention. And I checked. I saw in the Qur'an that the world he has introduced is only one thing: the universe (material world) and the unseen. I thought that perhaps the unseen is the supernatural. Did not see. Not so. The unseen world means hidden and hidden from everyone. That is, no one can say anything about the unseen. In verse 20 of Sura 10, he says: The unseen belongs only to God. And it says nothing else.
That is, we do not have an unseen world. We only have the unseen. And God is special. And no one knows about it. The rest of the talk is superstitious.
...

 

[MarkCorrigan]

The Qu'ran is a book of fairy stories written by a warlord who wanted more power than he already had. The small amount of "good" bits in it were cribbed from other sources like the Bible (although they did not originate there either) and most of it is bloodthirsty trash.

Why on earth do you put any stock in a book that regularly says that other human beings are evil just because they don't believe the same things as you?

 

[heydarian saeed]

... God also says in different words in the Qur'an: See only the signs and symptoms of my existence in the universe. Do not follow my nature. No one will ever be able to understand my nature and what I am. I thought again. I saw: So everything that is other than God must be in the universe and matter. And I came to the conclusion that; Yes. It is. The soul - the angels - the devil - the demons and everything we have heard is material only in this world. They are made of matter - energy and force. I looked for the nature and what these are in the Qur'an. The Qur'an introduced these to me.
Angels are "laws of nature" according to the first verse of Surah 35. Which rule the material world system. And together they form the order of creation and nature. It is the command of God. And differs from the message embedded in the article. God manages the material world by His command. Creation and matter are inseparable. This, which is the main factor in the order of the material world in solids, is the soul in living beings. The soul is the command of God. It is mentioned in verse 85 of Sura 17. It is present in all manifestations of matter. And the separate soul is placed only in living beings.
That God is everywhere. And manages all the reactions of life in the form of chemical and physical reactions. And in man, God is closer to him than the jugular vein. It indicates that the soul is located somewhere in the body of living beings. Which monitors the vital developments of living things. And it regularly sends the information to everyone's data hard drive. "In fact, it is the presence of the soul in living things in their genomes." By His command, God conquers the whole material world. That is, it has its management and order in its hands. And matter is separate from creation. And without it the material world does not survive.
...

 

[abaddon]

God does not burn anyone. The nature and quality of hell is not what you and the rest of the group think. No. Not so. The universe goes back to singularity. To the point of no. There is a temperature of ten to the power of 30 degrees Kelvin. Not everyone stays there. Some stay. And do not return. And some come back. And they will have eternal life. It is a little difficult to understand these words. My attitude towards understanding the Qur'an has changed. I want to understand the Qur'an only with the knowledge of the day. And the Qur'an guides me. I will tell you things I have not said before.

"degrees kelvin" You serious? Nothing is expressed in "degrees kelvin". And exactly where in the Quran does it describe anything as 10³⁰ degrees kelvin? Because it doesn't. Nor does the hadith.

Wanna know why? Because there was no such thing back when those idiotic things were written so those old scribes had never heard of it.

 

[heydarian saeed]

The Qu'ran is a book of fairy stories written by a warlord who wanted more power than he already had. The small amount of "good" bits in it were cribbed from other sources like the Bible (although they did not originate there either) and most of it is bloodthirsty trash.

Why on earth do you put any stock in a book that regularly says that other human beings are evil just because they don't believe the same things as you?

wait. Do not rush. Do not rush. Let me finish all my talk. Do not believe too soon. And do not judge too soon. You know nothing about the Qur'an. And you are only talking about speculation. If you want to convince me of your thoughts. This is not the way. You should talk to me about the Quran itself. Now see how I will tell you the new contents of the Qur'an. It will be hard to believe.

 

[heydarian saeed]

... Angels are the agents of the laws of nature. These are the four principles of physics. It is stated exactly in verse 1 of Sura 35. Note the translation:
Thanks be to God, who opened the universe, expanded it, and placed the angels in it as God's message or command. Russell means messages and has nothing to do with man or the prophet. It is energy and strength. The wings have been shown solely to give a sense of proportion. And on the wing there are two components of force and energy that drive the flight, this force we create with the engine. And for example, the plane moves. The elementary particles are given to matter by the laws of communication, which are angels. And quarks and leptons start making protons and neutrons with the help of bosons.
It does not mean angels. This is a superstition. Rather, angels are the four forces of physics. In the Qur'an, in order for people to understand the superstitions of the seventh century, it is introduced by angels with two wings or three wings and four wings. But in fact he means the four laws of physics that made the universe.
And the creation of the universe begins. The main factor in the consistency and stability of the fundamental particles are energy and strength. Which provide the basic laws of physics to matter. These forces are dual, triple, and quadruple. And physics has reached the four laws of physics. Strong nuclear forces, weak nuclear forces, electromagnetism and gravity. Scientists have discovered only matter and energy in the universe, which make up a very small percentage of our material world. We have dark matter and the dark energy that scientists are trying to discover. The universe is created in six short periods. Angels are made of force.
Force is not separate from energy, and energy is the agent of force, and matter is inextricably linked with energy. According to the Qur'an, angels are a wide range of natural objects that are located in inanimate objects and living beings as the message of God. As mentioned earlier, angels operate in a wide range as God's command in the material world.
In verse 27 of Sura 53, about the wrong mentality, some people think that they are angels. And they know them as women. Explicitly reminds them of their mistakes. Meaning of the verse: Those who do not believe in the Hereafter. Angels have been named women. They use a word that evokes being a woman. And unfortunately, despite banning the use of the word angel instead of angels in all interpretations, they use the word angel. They do not know this. And follow their own mental imaginations. And they say superstitions. In fact, mental imagery is of no use in achieving the truth. (Or does not go anywhere)
Therefore, mental imaginations or fantasies that are not based on science are not the right choice to reach the facts.
...

 

[abaddon]

very well. You want to hear about new science in the Quran. So listen right. To tell you. Of course, I must say that my attitude towards understanding the Qur'an has changed. According to your knowledge, I will try to tell you about the Holy Quran. Listen well.

If your understanding of the Quran has changed over time, then your understanding of the Quran is necessarily imperfect. How can you know if you got it right this time around? You can't.