The supernatural

[Thor 2]

Ya, ya, I've seen that sort of hair-splitting. I expect (that is, I know) that there are dogmatic atheists out there who claim to know that no gods exist. Since the same people tend to say that religion is an unfalsifiable claim, they have a small dilemma.

There certainly is a lot of "hair-splitting" going on here.

I, without shame, admit I believe religious indoctrination is child abuse. I would like parents not to pass their religious affliction on to their children. I think this is a big ask however. In an ideal situation parents should say to their children - "Well I believe this but you are free to believe whatever you will." Does this seem plausible? Do you think they would get instructions, from the pulpit, to do this?

Perhaps the indoctrination in schools can be addressed though. We should be able to outlaw (even in religious schools), the practice of teaching, that such and such a piece of religious dogma is true, at the expense of knowledge gained from scientific enquiry.

Personally, I'm fine with teaching children the essentials of all important religions. Preferably as unbiased as possible.

Hans

I wholeheartedly go along with this. As an atheist, did instruct my children about the existence of the major religions. I always mentioned my personal lack of belief in any of them. If that makes me a dogmatic atheist, so be it.

 

[psionl0]

Well, actually, "No" to all of that! That is NOT what I am saying, and clearly not at all what I said ...

... but I'm not going to explain it yet again.

I'm sorry you feel that way. I read your post several times and that was the best that I could understand from it. I am not trying to misrepresent what you are saying.

Perhaps if you tried not cramming too many points into one post and stuck to a central message communication would be better.

 

[Lithrael]

I think IanS is pretty clear, it seems to me the important point for him is that when the background tone of the instruction is “this is true, I believe it and so should you. Worshipping under this faith is what we all do here. We’re not going to discuss anything that might weaken its apparent authority” he considers that to be indoctrination.

When the tone is “this is what I believe in, I hope it resonates with you. Worshipping under this faith brings a lot of us spiritual fulfillment, as followers of other faiths bring them spiritual fulfillment. There’s a few pretty important bits where your main option is just to be ok, in one way or another, with how contradictory it seems to be to anything that actually happened. And some people are happy just not really bothering with it at all, which you know, since I believe it I find that sad but I’m not the boss of them. Ok so here’s how Genesis goes” then that’s just openly telling them what you are about and that you don’t have to follow to be good or happy.

 

[psionl0]

I think IanS is pretty clear, it seems to me the important point for him is that when the background tone of the instruction is “this is true, I believe it and so should you. Worshipping under this faith is what we all do here. We’re not going to discuss anything that might weaken its apparent authority” he considers that to be indoctrination.

When the tone is “this is what I believe in, I hope it resonates with you. Worshipping under this faith brings a lot of us spiritual fulfillment, as followers of other faiths bring them spiritual fulfillment. There’s a few pretty important bits where your main option is just to be ok, in one way or another, with how contradictory it seems to be to anything that actually happened. And some people are happy just not really bothering with it at all, which you know, since I believe it I find that sad but I’m not the boss of them. Ok so here’s how Genesis goes” then that’s just openly telling them what you are about and that you don’t have to follow to be good or happy.

If the idea is that you should preface everything you tell a child about God with "it is optional for you to believe that . . . " then I think it goes too far. It would effectively prevent a parent from passing their religious beliefs to their children and I don't believe that strangers have a right to force their own beliefs onto others' children. Suffice to say that believing in God requires "faith". Just as you can't bring religion into a STEM class, you can't bring atheism into a religious setting.

The converse also applies. Saying "These are the facts . . ." (big bang, evolution etc) is a misrepresentation of the scientific method. Of course, you don't have to preface every scientific teaching with "It is optional for you to believe . . ." but students should be aware that they are being taught what the current data is and the best scientific theory available that explains the data.

 

[Lithrael]

I just remember what a loop I was thrown for when during a week of classical mythology the teacher said Hercules was different from the other stories because it was real because it was basically the same as Samson from the Bible which was true and not mythology.

 

[IanS]

I think IanS is pretty clear, it seems to me the important point for him is that when the background tone of the instruction is “this is true, I believe it and so should you. Worshipping under this faith is what we all do here. We’re not going to discuss anything that might weaken its apparent authority” he considers that to be indoctrination.

When the tone is “this is what I believe in, I hope it resonates with you. Worshipping under this faith brings a lot of us spiritual fulfillment, as followers of other faiths bring them spiritual fulfillment. There’s a few pretty important bits where your main option is just to be ok, in one way or another, with how contradictory it seems to be to anything that actually happened. And some people are happy just not really bothering with it at all, which you know, since I believe it I find that sad but I’m not the boss of them. Ok so here’s how Genesis goes” then that’s just openly telling them what you are about and that you don’t have to follow to be good or happy.

Thank you. And yes, that's more-or-less what I am saying. But maybe see also my reply to Psion's response below -

If the idea is that you should preface everything you tell a child about God with "it is optional for you to believe that . . . " then I think it goes too far. It would effectively prevent a parent from passing their religious beliefs to their children and I don't believe that strangers have a right to force their own beliefs onto others' children. Suffice to say that believing in God requires "faith". Just as you can't bring religion into a STEM class, you can't bring atheism into a religious setting.

The converse also applies. Saying "These are the facts . . ." (big bang, evolution etc) is a misrepresentation of the scientific method. Of course, you don't have to preface every scientific teaching with "It is optional for you to believe . . ." but students should be aware that they are being taught what the current data is and the best scientific theory available that explains the data.

Please look at your opening sentence (highlighted) – you are talking there about what parents say to their children, as if I had said we should somehow legislate to stop parents telling children about their own religious beliefs … but I had not said any such thing!

You keep disputing things that I had not said at all.

For example; in your previous reply you seemed to think (or assumed) I was talking about parental pressure in the USA to have creationism taught in senior school science lessons, i.e. the state of affairs that we all know from the Dover State Trial … but I had never mentioned any such thing! So why on earth did you think I was talking about that!

 

[Mojo]

You have ripped the "lack of belief" cloak right away from this forum.

Which includes you.

 

[Lithrael]

IanS’s subject of that post was clearly stated and it was the tone of religious education classes in the UK. Not creationism in school and not parents passing on their religion at home.

 

[IanS]

IanS’s subject of that post was clearly stated and it was the tone of religious education classes in the UK. Not creationism in school and not parents passing on their religion at home.

Again I am indebted to you for that. So, … thank you.

 

[psionl0]

IanS’s subject of that post was clearly stated and it was the tone of religious education classes in the UK. Not creationism in school and not parents passing on their religion at home.

I think that IanS intended to respond to the part of post #2090 which began "I agree with you that religious instruction should not be a part of a public school's curriculum . . . ." but accidentally quoted the wrong part of the post and that is why I had so much difficulty getting his point.

In my childhood, public schools allowed one period per week for religious classes. These were conducted by teachers from outside the school (volunteers from the students' relevant church). Students who had no religion were given an alternate class in that period. Of course, that was at a time when the primary school still recited the Lord's Prayer and sang the national anthem ("God save the Queen") at its weekly assembly. Such a thing could never happen today but it neatly solved the question of how to teach what in religious classes.

Private (religious) schools are still a different matter. I don't see how outsiders can direct the teaching in religious classes. Other classes, sure.

 

[heydarian saeed]

It's not a new question. It's one of the 5 or 6 that I asked you long long ago, and where you could never answer any of them.

Why are we still "waiting"; it's not a difficult question - the answer is clearly stated in your Koran (which you have "read 1000 times").

What is the answer in your Koran?... How Did God Make Man ?

Hello noble. I apologize for taking the time to answer this question. I was researching the Qur'anic content in the field of human creation according to the logic of the Qur'an. "How did God create man?" All friends of the group, please read the following article. After the article, if you have any questions, I am at your service. I will review and respond. by the grace of God.

 

[heydarian saeed]

And yada, yada.

Dear heydarian saeed: You are surely aware that others who claim to share your religion do interpret your holy texts differently.

However, let me ask you, who are YOU to claim that you have the right interpretation? When I read your holy book, I get a different message from what you claim. What are your credentials with your god that you claim that YOUR interpretation is the gospel?

Hans

Hello. I am pleased with what you said. I have no claim. My reason for my interpretation of the Qur'an is this: The meanings and interpretations given to the Qur'an are all based on the science of the seventh century. As you know, most scientific laws of the seventh century have fundamental changes. And is not valid. Therefore, the same science of the seventh century is based on the beliefs of the commentators and interpreters of the Qur'an. And unfortunately the meaning and interpretation of the past has not been updated. Therefore, when you read those meanings and interpretations, you will be confused and confused. And you see nothing but myths and superstitions. And you are right. Thanks to God, I try to study and extract the scientific and up-to-date contents of the Qur'an in similar verses. And to interpret and interpret the Qur'an according to modern science.
And I try my best in this. My goal is to update the meaning and interpretation of the Qur'an. This is approved by God, the Prophet and our Imams.
Thanks

 

[heydarian saeed]

Hello to all
"How man was created and evolved from the perspective of the Qur'an and Darwin's evolution and their differences" Introduction
The creation of living beings and man as the first intellectually and intellectually evolved human beings on earth in different nations with myths similar to myths and according to the Qur'an, the first myths, false myths.
The reason is about the creation of man and the seven heavens which are the collection of life on earth. There are many differences between similar verses of the Quran. And most of them refer to the phenomenon of life. Stopping our way of thinking since the beginning of Islam. it's wrong. Our thinking should not be misplaced. And should not remain constant. The verses of the Qur'an have stated the contents very clearly. But we are not careful.
Because we have reached an ancient belief in our minds. And we are not willing to give up that belief. And we are prejudiced against it. Because of these similar verses, we interpret the Qur'an in favor of our old mental imaginations.
The Muslims of Muhammad's time interpreted the Qur'an based on the prevailing mentality of that time. And we have put them all in the same belief. And we insist on them with prejudice. This is our big mistake. And to justify ourselves, we have pointed the finger at the natural sciences. And we blame it. And our reason is that theories are changing. And can not be cited.
And we are wrong to say that science has no application in religion. While this is not a good reason. And that's a big mistake. We are unaware that our forefathers interpreted similar verses with the prevailing perceptions of that time (science of that time). The prevailing conceptions in astronomy at that time were the theory of Ptolemy or the central earth.
And in the creation of living beings and human beings, it has been based on the hypothesis of "proof of types" or "fixism". And the interpretations of similar verses were based on the same ancient hypotheses. And all this has changed in our time. And it is not acceptable. Therefore, we must interpret similar verses of the Qur'an based on modern science. According to the old hypothesis, all living things were created independently in the same form and shape!
That is, they appeared in an instant. And Adam was created in the same way according to the stories told in the Torah. But the true story of human creation from the perspective of the Qur'an is as follows:
...

 

[heydarian saeed]

... God said to the angels: Go and bring a mixture of water and soil (Mud). I want to create a person from mud with my own hands. I will not go into the details of the stories. I will summarize the points that many commentators believe are current. God made mud with soil and water. And let the mud rest. And stink. And with it he built the body of man.
And waited for it to dry. And then breathed in that spirit. And Adam came to life. And he created Eve from a single piece of Adam's mud. These kinds of thoughts are all unrealistic superstitions. But he believes in us. And its effects are obvious in translations and interpretations.
I do not look at the verses of the Qur'an from the point of view of the ancients. And I cite natural sciences and similar verses as documents of my opinion. Our discussion is the evolution of Darwin and the evolution of the Qur'an.
And the basis of comparison is the verses of the Qur'an, the science of biology and the origin of life. Darwin's theory of evolution is flawed in detail. But in general it is approved by science. I consider three principles of evolution. And I have to get to that in the review process.
...

 

[Pixel42]

I prefer the Bokononist version.

In the beginning, God created the earth, and he looked upon it in His cosmic loneliness.

And God said, "Let Us make living creatures out of mud, so the mud can see what We have done." And God created every living creature that now moveth, and one was man. Mud as man alone could speak. God leaned close as mud as man sat up, looked around, and spoke. Man blinked. "What is the purpose of all this?" he asked politely.

"Everything must have a purpose?" asked God.

"Certainly," said man.

"Then I leave it to you to think of one for all this," said God.

And He went away.

The first book of Bokonon, verses 2-4.

 

[Scorpion]

My goal is to update the meaning and interpretation of the Qur'an. This is approved by God, the Prophet and our Imams.
Thanks

So now you have the approval of God and Muhammad.

HOW DO YOU KNOW THIS?

As for the approval of Imams, name one.

 

[Scorpion]

Heydarian, Here is what happened to Rashad Khalifa, the last person who tried to update the Quran. And he did not go anywhere near as far as you. He only updated a few verses into modern English. And made a few adjustments to try and make the Quran more credible.

Rashad Khalifa (Arabic: رشاد خليفة‎; November 19, 1935 – January 31, 1990) was an Egyptian-American biochemist, closely associated with the United Submitters International (USI), an offshoot of Quranist Islam.[5] His teachings were opposed by Traditionalist Muslims and he was assassinated on January 31, 1990.[6][7] He is also known for his claims regarding the existence of a Quran code, also known as Code 19.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rashad_Khalifa

 

[IanS]

Hello to all
"How man was created and evolved from the perspective of the Qur'an and Darwin's evolution and their differences" Introduction
The creation of living beings and man as the first intellectually and intellectually evolved human beings on earth in different nations with myths similar to myths and according to the Qur'an, the first myths, false myths.
The reason is about the creation of man and the seven heavens which are the collection of life on earth. There are many differences between similar verses of the Quran. And most of them refer to the phenomenon of life. Stopping our way of thinking since the beginning of Islam. it's wrong. Our thinking should not be misplaced. And should not remain constant. The verses of the Qur'an have stated the contents very clearly. But we are not careful.
Because we have reached an ancient belief in our minds. And we are not willing to give up that belief. And we are prejudiced against it. Because of these similar verses, we interpret the Qur'an in favor of our old mental imaginations.
The Muslims of Muhammad's time interpreted the Qur'an based on the prevailing mentality of that time. And we have put them all in the same belief. And we insist on them with prejudice. This is our big mistake. And to justify ourselves, we have pointed the finger at the natural sciences. And we blame it. And our reason is that theories are changing. And can not be cited.
And we are wrong to say that science has no application in religion. While this is not a good reason. And that's a big mistake. We are unaware that our forefathers interpreted similar verses with the prevailing perceptions of that time (science of that time). The prevailing conceptions in astronomy at that time were the theory of Ptolemy or the central earth.
And in the creation of living beings and human beings, it has been based on the hypothesis of "proof of types" or "fixism". And the interpretations of similar verses were based on the same ancient hypotheses. And all this has changed in our time. And it is not acceptable. Therefore, we must interpret similar verses of the Qur'an based on modern science. According to the old hypothesis, all living things were created independently in the same form and shape!
That is, they appeared in an instant. And Adam was created in the same way according to the stories told in the Torah. But the true story of human creation from the perspective of the Qur'an is as follows:
...

Well the above is just a complete mass of irrelevant Gobbledygook", and is clearly your hopeless attempt of trying to flood the forum with words in an effort to decieve everyone with a blatant cover-up for whatever you going to actually say in your follwing post ! … that is a dishonest disgrace for you try that here (actually trying it AGAIN, for the 50th time or more!) … but anywhay, below is what you finally actually admit in that following post -

... God said to the angels: Go and bring a mixture of water and soil (Mud). I want to create a person from mud with my own hands. I will not go into the details of the stories. I will summarize the points that many commentators believe are current. God made mud with soil and water. And let the mud rest. And stink. And with it he built the body of man.
And waited for it to dry. And then breathed in that spirit. And Adam came to life. And he created Eve from a single piece of Adam's mud. These kinds of thoughts are all unrealistic superstitions. But he believes in us. And its effects are obvious in translations and interpretations.
I do not look at the verses of the Qur'an from the point of view of the ancients. And I cite natural sciences and similar verses as documents of my opinion. Our discussion is the evolution of Darwin and the evolution of the Qur'an.
And the basis of comparison is the verses of the Qur'an, the science of biology and the origin of life. Darwin's theory of evolution is flawed in detail. But in general it is approved by science. I consider three principles of evolution. And I have to get to that in the review process.
...

Right, so … look at that first highlighted sentence of your above post – there you grudgingly admit that the Koarn, which you claim to be the actual words of God himself, says that he made humans from some mud! ...

… that claim of human creation in the Koran is flat-out 100% wrong isn't it!? You cannot make human people from some mud & water … Can You?? No!... , the answer is “No, you cannot do that, your Koran and the God are wrong”! ...

That is the central foundational claim of your religion, a claim on which the whole religious belief in God stands or falls, and the claim is 100% lauagbly wrong!

Your Koran is untrue & wrong. Your God is untrue & wrong … and in fact it's so badly wrong in it's very most important belief, that even a child of 10 would burst out laughing at how hopelessly uneducated and ignorant your belief/god/koran is!

 

[abaddon]

Well the above is just a complete mass of irrelevant Gobbledygook", and is clearly your hopeless attempt of trying to flood the forum with words in an effort to decieve everyone with a blatant cover-up for whatever you going to actually say in your follwing post ! … that is a dishonest disgrace for you try that here (actually trying it AGAIN, for the 50th time or more!) … but anywhay, below is what you finally actually admit in that following post -





Right, so … look at that first highlighted sentence of your above post – there you grudgingly admit that the Koarn, which you claim to be the actual words of God himself, says that he made humans from some mud! ...

… that claim of human creation in the Koran is flat-out 100% wrong isn't it!? You cannot make human people from some mud & water … Can You?? No!... , the answer is “No, you cannot do that, your Koran and the God are wrong”! ...

That is the central foundational claim of your religion, a claim on which the whole religious belief in God stands or falls, and the claim is 100% lauagbly wrong!

Your Koran is untrue & wrong. Your God is untrue & wrong … and in fact it's so badly wrong in it's very most important belief, that even a child of 10 would burst out laughing at how hopelessly uneducated and ignorant your belief/god/koran is!

Yup. Heydarian is promoting some bizarre version of islam which could very well get him killed as a heretic.

 

[psionl0]

You cannot make human people from some mud & water … Can You?? No!...

That reminds me of the "clever" creationist who asked the evolutionist, "Is it from your mother's side or your father's side of the family that you claim to have descended from a monkey?"

The abiogenesis theory is that living matter arouse from non living matter through a series of chemical reactions. That original non living matter or "primordial pool" may indeed have been "mud & water".

Of course, the Qu'ran text about mud and water is about as likely to have been dictated by Allah as the Genesis account of Adam being created from dust to have been dictated by God. It doesn't take a Mensa mind to speculate that life arose from some matter from this planet.