If the Chinese people were Muslims, we would not have Covid -19!!

[SalixIncendium]

So person to person transmission doesn't happen among vegetarians? That's how the disease is being spread today, regardless of origins.

Food animals get infected by contamination of their food. We eat the food animal. We become infected and pass it on to a dozen vegetarians just by talking to them.

I think you misunderstood the OP.

If the Chinese were vegetarians, no one would have eaten the infected food. The virus never have started because no one there eats meat.

 

[exchemist]

Come on, masks are of course useful when dealing with a virus. That is a fact. I don't claim they protect 100%. Why would doctors use masks? It's for protecting the patients + protecting themselves. So, 2 way protection. So it is a fact that masks protect against virus.

I understand why they gave first the advice "masks are not needed"
Because it is a fact that China bought most of the masks, so in the West they did not have enough masks to give such advice.

This has nothing at all to do with my point that "just sharing information" found on the internet, without checking its provenance, is how fake news is spread.

 

[Windwalker]

However, according to Islam, not eating animals completely, will have some negative effects on Humans.

What does this mean? That if someone is given a burger, that if they only eat that 1/3 lb of meat, and not consume the remaining 2000 lbs of meat from that animal, you will suffer a curse? Or is it saying that if you butcher the animal, but say discard eating it's eyes and ears, and other bits people normally discard, that that brings about negative karma or something?

I don't understand the connection between not eating the entire animal, and health? Can you explain, with a citation possibly?

I am almost sure that I have almost noticed these effects on some of the vegetarian people I knew.

Are you referring to people who are new to vegetarian diets and are not getting sufficient proteins in their diets, or something like that? That's just developing the proper balance of types of food you need to eat. It's the same thing if all you ever do is eat red meat and get no other source of food, such as green vegetables. That can screw you up too.

However, it is a complicated issue. and some may say that there are other hidden factors causing these effects on those people.

What effects? Typical going to a nutritionist who specializes in the science of diet, can help if someone is not getting a proper balanced diet and is experiencing deficiencies. But I don't see where not eating the whole animal itself can have any effect. That's puzzling.

I can understand a "law" that says don't waste your animal parts when you butcher them because it wastes good resources, but I don't see how that affects the individual themselves, other than wasting resources. Not eating cow eyes, is not going to cause blindness, or depression or something. But in reality, if you really wanted all those other 'bits', then add hot dogs to your menu.

 

[stvdv]

@Thief did not claim it to be true, just sharing information

I do remember that with Corona people/governments did not take it serious in the beginning, hence trouble later on

"Just sharing information", without checking if it is true, is exactly how fake news is spread on the internet.

When I read on the internet then I consider all China virus news "fake news", except when they claim it's "peer reviewed". I remembering that W.H.O. and Governments were even spreading "false information" (1 day masks are not needed, but finally admitting it is needed).

You are confusing facts and advice.
Advice commonly changes. When advice changes, it does not make the previous advice "fake".

Come on, masks are of course useful when dealing with a virus. That is a fact. I don't claim they protect 100%. Why would doctors use masks? It's for protecting the patients + protecting themselves. So, 2 way protection. So it is a fact that masks protect against virus.

I understand why they gave first the advice "masks are not needed"
Because it is a fact that China bought most of the masks, so in the West they did not have enough masks to give such advice.

This has nothing at all to do with my point that "just sharing information" found on the internet, without checking its provenance, is how fake news is spread.

You claimed that I confused facts and advice, that was false.

We were both speaking on different issues here
My focus was on the blue line
Your focus was on the green line

And of course I agree with what you said about sharing information, advice and facts

 

[Left Coast]

***THREAD MOVED TO RELIGIOUS DEBATES***

 

[Piculet]

Come on, masks are of course useful when dealing with a virus. That is a fact. I don't claim they protect 100%. Why would doctors use masks? It's for protecting the patients + protecting themselves. So, 2 way protection. So it is a fact that masks protect against virus.

I understand why they gave first the advice "masks are not needed"
Because it is a fact that China bought most of the masks, so in the West they did not have enough masks to give such advice.

Really at first it was all about how they don't work, according to the doctors. I don't believe in them

 

[Shia Islam]

What does this mean? That if someone is given a burger, that if they only eat that 1/3 lb of meat, and not consume the remaining 2000 lbs of meat from that animal, you will suffer a curse? Or is it saying that if you butcher the animal, but say discard eating it's eyes and ears, and other bits people normally discard, that that brings about negative karma or something?

I don't understand the connection between not eating the entire animal, and health? Can you explain, with a citation possibly?


Are you referring to people who are new to vegetarian diets and are not getting sufficient proteins in their diets, or something like that? That's just developing the proper balance of types of food you need to eat. It's the same thing if all you ever do is eat red meat and get no other source of food, such as green vegetables. That can screw you up too.


What effects? Typical going to a nutritionist who specializes in the science of diet, can help if someone is not getting a proper balanced diet and is experiencing deficiencies. But I don't see where not eating the whole animal itself can have any effect. That's puzzling.

I can understand a "law" that says don't waste your animal parts when you butcher them because it wastes good resources, but I don't see how that affects the individual themselves, other than wasting resources. Not eating cow eyes, is not going to cause blindness, or depression or something. But in reality, if you really wanted all those other 'bits', then add hot dogs to your menu.

What does this mean? That if someone is given a burger, that if they only eat that 1/3 lb of meat, and not consume the remaining 2000 lbs of meat from that animal, you will suffer a curse? Or is it saying that if you butcher the animal, but say discard eating it's eyes and ears, and other bits people normally discard, that that brings about negative karma or something?

I don't understand the connection between not eating the entire animal, and health? Can you explain, with a citation possibly?


Are you referring to people who are new to vegetarian diets and are not getting sufficient proteins in their diets, or something like that? That's just developing the proper balance of types of food you need to eat. It's the same thing if all you ever do is eat red meat and get no other source of food, such as green vegetables. That can screw you up too.


What effects? Typical going to a nutritionist who specializes in the science of diet, can help if someone is not getting a proper balanced diet and is experiencing deficiencies. But I don't see where not eating the whole animal itself can have any effect. That's puzzling.

I can understand a "law" that says don't waste your animal parts when you butcher them because it wastes good resources, but I don't see how that affects the individual themselves, other than wasting resources. Not eating cow eyes, is not going to cause blindness, or depression or something. But in reality, if you really wanted all those other 'bits', then add hot dogs to your menu.

Hi,
It seems that I did not express the idea well.

I will give quick traslation of the meaning of the Hadith. This is a rough translation.

The hadith says something like this:
"Don't make your stomachs tombs for the animals."

which means for example don't eat meat everyday.

All the best

 

[Shia Islam]

Hi,
It seems that I did not express the idea well.

I will give quick traslation of the meaning of the Hadith. This is a rough translation.

The hadith says something like this:
"Don't make your stomachs tombs for the animals."

which means for example don't eat meat everyday.

All the best

To add,
In Islam, cooking meat before eating it is mandatory.

Also, there are regulations regarding how to slaughter the animal, where the Islamic way ensures the removal of most of the blood from the meat.

Also there are regulations regarding which parts of the animals are allowed to eat and which parts are not.

Also there are non-obligatory regulations, such as encouraging people not to eat too much, to fast from eating more days than the mandatory fasting of the month of Ramadhan.

All the best.

P.S.
I know the Jewish religion have its regulations too. And I have to say that according to Islam the God of all the Abrahamic religions is one, and in reality these religions are one. The Quran Says:

"Say, Indeed, my Lord has guided me to a straight path - a correct religion - the way of Abraham, inclining toward truth. And he was not among those who associated others with Allah ." Quran 6-161.

 

[Shia Islam]

Semi breaking news

China bubonic plague: Inner Mongolia takes precautions after case:

Bubonic Plague Found in a Herder in Inner Mongolia, China Says

 

[Augustus]

Can't beat "rationalists" whose "evidence-based rationalism" abruptly ends when they talk about religion. While he may know a lot about astrophysics, he knows very little about the history, philosophy and theology he is pontificating on.

He puts the end of the 'Golden Age' down to al-Ghazali writing about how "Mathematics is the work of the devil", the main problem is that he didn't even say anything like this. It's just an internet myth that people uncritically repeat based on the most egregious misrepresentation. It basically says "just because you are good at maths, doesn't mean you are good at religion too".

If he had actually bothered to read it, Tyson could have learned from the following passage:

It does not follow that a man who excels in one branch of knowledge excels in all others, nor that he should be equally versed in jurisprudence, theology, and medicine. It is possible to be entirely ignorant of metaphysics, and yet to be an excellent grammarian. There are past masters in every science who are entirely ignorant of other branches of knowledge.

He says this combined with al-Ghazalis occasionalism to end the GA, the problem again being that 1. occasionalism existed throughout the GA 2. AG's occasionalism is an argument for why miracles can exist even though there are laws of nature, not an argument for why science is pointless.

So his argument is based on something completely made up, paired with a ridiculous strawman. Hooray for Reason!

Strangely not quoted from the same text, I wonder why...

The second evil comes from the sincere but ignorant Muslims who thinks the best way to defend religion is by rejecting all the exact sciences. Accusing their professors of being astray, he rejects their theories of the eclipses of the sun and moon, and condemns them in the name of religion.

It is therefore a great injury to religion to suppose that the defense of Islam involves the condemnation of the exact sciences. The religious law contains nothing which approves them or condemns them, and in their turn they make no attack on religion

He could have fact checked this in 5 mins, or by actually reading the text himself rather than parroting an internet meme. It's hilarious how credulous "sceptical rationalists" become when they hear anything that chimes with their ideological worldview whilst confirming their own sense of superiority.

Can check for yourself how easy it would have been: http://faculty.smu.edu/jclam/western_religions/gazali.html

 

[Altfish]

Can't beat "rationalists" whose "evidence-based rationalism" abruptly ends when they talk about religion. While he may know a lot about astrophysics, he knows very little about the history, philosophy and theology he is pontificating on.

He puts the end of the 'Golden Age' down to al-Ghazali writing about how "Mathematics is the work of the devil", the main problem is that he didn't even say anything like this. It's just an internet myth that people uncritically repeat based on the most egregious misrepresentation. It basically says "just because you are good at maths, doesn't mean you are good at religion too".

If he had actually bothered to read it, Tyson could have learned from the following passage:

It does not follow that a man who excels in one branch of knowledge excels in all others, nor that he should be equally versed in jurisprudence, theology, and medicine. It is possible to be entirely ignorant of metaphysics, and yet to be an excellent grammarian. There are past masters in every science who are entirely ignorant of other branches of knowledge.

He says this combined with al-Ghazalis occasionalism to end the GA, the problem again being that 1. occasionalism existed throughout the GA 2. AG's occasionalism is an argument for why miracles can exist even though there are laws of nature, not an argument for why science is pointless.

So his argument is based on something completely made up, paired with a ridiculous strawman. Hooray for Reason!

Strangely not quoted from the same text, I wonder why...

The second evil comes from the sincere but ignorant Muslims who thinks the best way to defend religion is by rejecting all the exact sciences. Accusing their professors of being astray, he rejects their theories of the eclipses of the sun and moon, and condemns them in the name of religion.

It is therefore a great injury to religion to suppose that the defense of Islam involves the condemnation of the exact sciences. The religious law contains nothing which approves them or condemns them, and in their turn they make no attack on religion

He could have fact checked this in 5 mins, or by actually reading the text himself rather than parroting an internet meme. It's hilarious how credulous "sceptical rationalists" become when they hear anything that chimes with their ideological worldview whilst confirming their own sense of superiority.

Can check for yourself how easy it would have been: http://faculty.smu.edu/jclam/western_religions/gazali.html

So, he gave the wrong quotation but he is correct that Islamic research/advances slowed/stopped around that time.

 

[Augustus]

So, he gave the wrong quotation but he is correct that Islamic research/advances slowed/stopped around that time.

No, he was wrong on what he said about that too, and basically everything else he says about history (St Augustine had a 'recipe' for burning witches ).

Also "gave the wrong quotation" is a very generous interpretation of "said several things that are obviously completely fictitious in order to completely misrepresent a situation for his own ideological purposes".

 

[Altfish]

No, he was wrong on what he said about that too, and basically everything else he says about history (St Augustine had a 'recipe' for burning witches ).

Also "gave the wrong quotation" is a very generous interpretation of "said several things that are obviously completely fictitious in order to completely misrepresent a situation for his own ideological purposes".

So, Islamic research, etc. continued apace after that time?
Why is there so little today in Islamic countries; I'm not talking about Islamic students in 'western' countries.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Really at first it was all about how they don't work, according to the doctors. I don't believe in them

It was never about how they supposedly don't work, especially not according to doctors - because those same doctors use them all the time when dealing with patients where transmitting pathogens and virusses and what-not is considered dangerous.

During the first wave and the lockdowns, masks were rather not necessary, as contact outside of your social bubble was minimal, plus the masks were being rationed for health workers who had the deal with enormous influx of covid19 patients.

After the lockdowns, the social world slowly opened up again and the influx in hospitals was drastically lower as well - so more masks for non-health workers became available. Also, by then mask production was upscaled immensly, making even more masks available.

Now that social contacts are again much more frequent, it DOES become important to wear them in certain settings, like everywhere where social distancing can't be guaranteed and in closed indoor places.



I'm sure you can find the odd doctor left and right who has a different opinion. Loons are everywhere, unfortunatly, even among the highly educated.

Here in Belgium, there's a plastic surgeon who literally sued the Belgian government for "economic damages" for "unnecessary shutting down the economy" for something akin to a "simple flu".

The judge dismissed the case and judged their argumentation to be exceptionally ignorant and counter scientific consensus pretty much accross the board.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So, Islamic research, etc. continued apace after that time?
Why is there so little today in Islamic countries; I'm not talking about Islamic students in 'western' countries.

For reference... today, the entire islamic middle east accounts for not even 1% of annual scientific literature. And the little they do publish, is of much lower quality then all others.

A single ivy league US based university accounts for more scientific literature, of higher quality, then the entire islamic middle east combined.


And this is nothing new.
For the past 500 years, not a single mentionworthy original scientific discovery or innovation was made in the islamic middle least.

Their scientific contributions are as rare as water in the Sahara.



I don't think there is a single cause for this. It's a general shift in mentality, more then likely triggered by multiple events and / or figures of authority which indeed happened around the 11th and 12th century. It must have been very impactfull as it clearly still resonates till this day and age.


What I find very curious also, is that if you go through the list of nobel-prize winning discoveries in the natural sciences... while muslims are extremely underrepresented, not to say completely absent, jews are majorly overrepresented. Considering the amount of jews and muslims in the world, it's quite interesting just how many nobel prizes were won by jews. Far, far out of proportion as compared to the rest of the world's religions and ethnicities.

It's very curious.

 

[Augustus]

So, Islamic research, etc. continued apace after that time?.

There was actually an increase in philosophical output after al-Ghazali as his arguments against the philosophers raised awareness of their ideas.

Then you get things like the Mongol Conquest, plague, rise of the Ottomans, changing patterns of world trade, the rise of Europe, etc.

Listening to NDT talk about history actually makes you less knowledgable than if you had spent the time sleeping.

 

[Altfish]

There was actually an increase in philosophical output after al-Ghazali as his arguments against the philosophers raised awareness of their ideas.

Then you get things like the Mongol Conquest, plague, rise of the Ottomans, changing patterns of world trade, the rise of Europe, etc.

Listening to NDT talk about history actually makes you less knowledgable than if you had spent the time sleeping.

You are still skating round the edges of the issue. Islamic countries current scientific output is minimal, that is a fact.

 

[Augustus]

You are still skating round the edges of the issue. Islamic countries current scientific output is minimal, that is a fact.

How is this relevant unless you believe that if you end with a fact, you are free to make up anything you like to explain how that fact came to be?

People are destroying statues in the US, if Trump said "this is because the Dems are all commies and hate America and want to to turn you all into slaves of George Soros" would you say anyone who pointed out he was talking out of his arse was simply "skating round the edges of the issue"?

Tyson made a completely fictitious explanation that severely misrepresents the issue, why the need to defend his ignorant musings on a subject he clearly has made no real effort to understand?

Someone who cares about reason should be critical of such nonsense no matter who the target is, rather than seek to justify simply because it is 'their side' who says it.

 

[Altfish]

How is this relevant unless you believe that if you end with a fact, you are free to make up anything you like to explain how that fact came to be?

People are destroying statues in the US, if Trump said "this is because the Dems are all commies and hate America and want to to turn you all into slaves of George Soros" would you say anyone who pointed out he was talking out of his arse was simply "skating round the edges of the issue"?

Tyson made a completely fictitious explanation that severely misrepresents the issue, why the need to defend his ignorant musings on a subject he clearly has made no real effort to understand?

Someone who cares about reason should be critical of such nonsense no matter who the target is, rather than seek to justify simply because it is 'their side' who says it.

Change the subject, why don't you?

 

[Augustus]

Change the subject, why don't you?

The subject I was talking about was "NDT is clearly pig ignorant on this topic so posting videos of him talking about it simply spreads pig ignorance and should be avoided".

It is a problem because well meaning people like yourself see such nonsense and uncritically repeat it as fact as they trust high profile people feted for the "rationality" like NDT.

As always though, "rationalists" feel it is perfectly fine to be completely irrational whenever the target is religion, and consider it somewhat churlish to object to such blatant untruths.

What did he say that you consider to be true?