• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Study: Science and Religion Really are Enemies...

outhouse

Atheistically
And because you, personally,.

Look, I wish it wasn't true.

I didn't want to learn about this, it was like opening a can of worms and you cannot get the lid back on.

I had no idea the depth of fanaticism.


It's vague enough to allow for multiple interpretations.

which is sad as hell.

You know how many muslims kill each other over that right there ????????

Part of my family migrated here to avoid being murdered by ignorant muslims.
 

outhouse

Atheistically
I wonder how many smart educated muslims are forced to identify with the religion, that would love to be free of it, in their own country but cannot out of fear for their lives.
 

outhouse

Atheistically
What do you care?

As being a top notch mechanic, I understand how to fix things that are broke.


Do you know what we do here ? Do you know the first step????????????????



Identify the faulty part.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
What do you care?

As being a top notch mechanic, I understand how to fix things that are broke.


Do you know what we do here ? Do you know the first step????????????????



Identify the faulty part.
The faulty parts are in all of us. We are all prone to misjudgements, we all believe stuff that isn't necessarily true or accurate, we all misinterpret stimuli, and we all have alot of parts.
 

outhouse

Atheistically
The faulty parts are in all of us. We are all prone to misjudgements, we all believe stuff that isn't necessarily true or accurate, we all misinterpret stimuli, and we all have alot of parts.


And the difference is how we as adults deal with said faults.
 

outhouse

Atheistically
The faulty parts are in all of us. We are all prone to misjudgements, we all believe stuff that isn't necessarily true or accurate, we all misinterpret stimuli, and we all have alot of parts.

That is also like saying when a car breaks down, all are broken.


Not really in context at all.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
That is also like saying when a car breaks down, all are broken.


Not really in context at all.
No, it's saying we are human. Pretty much any philosopher, scientist, religious leader, and even most everybody else acknowledges humans are inherently and fundamentally flawed.
 

outhouse

Atheistically
No, it's saying we are human. Pretty much any philosopher, scientist, religious leader, and even most everybody else acknowledges humans are inherently and fundamentally flawed.

Yes but different cultures have refined these flaws.

And to throw that knowledge away and to follow barbarian or primitive thinking does promote flaws more so then addressing and fixing them.

Correct?
 

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
Study: Science and Religion Really are Enemies...

It is faulty. Science does not deal in the whole, it deals only in the physical and material.

Religion has broader and meaningful realm.

Real science and the truthful religion are always friendly.

Regards
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
Study: Science and Religion Really are Enemies...

It is faulty. Science does not deal in the whole, it deals only in the physical and material.

Religion has broader and meaningful realm.

Real science and the truthful religion are always friendly.

Regards
As opposed to unreal science and untruthful religion? Just what distinguishes each of these from their counterpart? And what friendship do you see between the two?

And just to be clear,
"friendship"

Friendship: the state of being friends
"friend"

: a person who you like and enjoy being with
: a person who helps or supports someone or something
(Source: merriam-webster.com/dictionary)
 

Riverwolf

Amateur Rambler / Proud Ergi
Premium Member
I don't think you can prove to me that muslims are not all required to be literalist.

Burden of proof is on you, not me.

Every encyclopedia Ive read states they are.

Encyclopedias are not the be-all, end-all sources of information. Use them as starting points, not end points.

The Five Pillars of Islam (arkān al-Islām أركان الإسلام; also arkān al-dīn أركان الدين "pillars of the religion") are five basic acts in Islam, considered mandatory by believers and are the foundation of Muslim life


Brother, I know you know what mandatory means.

Yeah, and literalism is not in the Five Pillars.
 

Riverwolf

Amateur Rambler / Proud Ergi
Premium Member
which is sad as hell.

You know how many muslims kill each other over that right there ????????

Part of my family migrated here to avoid being murdered by ignorant muslims.

My condolences.

Thing is, you've now just admitted that its vague enough to allow for multiple interpretations, which confirms that literalism is not a requirement.

Besides, I consider the possibility of multiple interpretations to be a strength of literary work, not a weakness. After all, the same work that inspires so many to kill, also inspires just as many to protect from that same violence.
 

outhouse

Atheistically
Burden of proof is on you, not me.






Yeah, and literalism is not in the Five Pillars.

One of the pillars forces literalism on all followers, and is proof, burden met.

If you don't think muhammad talked to an angel your not muslim

And if you do, then you follow that book as gods word.
 

Riverwolf

Amateur Rambler / Proud Ergi
Premium Member
One of the pillars forces literalism on all followers, and is proof, burden met.

If you don't think muhammad talked to an angel your not muslim

And if you do, then you follow that book as gods word.

That first pillar doesn't say the Qur'an has to be literally interpreted.
 

outhouse

Atheistically
Thing is, you've now just admitted that its vague enough to allow for multiple interpretations, which confirms that literalism is not a requirement.

.

No, different interpretations does not change literalism. They are fighting over literalisms plural.
 

outhouse

Atheistically
Non-literalistic interpretations are compatible.

No, I don't see it that way.

Shahadah: declaring there is no god except God, and Muhammad is God's Messenger

If you think this warrior is a messenger from god, you follow this.

Islam is a monotheistic and Abrahamic religion articulated by the Qur'an, a book considered by its adherents to be the verbatim word of God


verbatim word of God is literalism, and viewing the warrior as gods messenger promotes this literalism.

campusalam.org : resources : Do Muslims take the Qur\'an literally?

•The belief that the Qur'an is literally the word of God, in other words it was revealed, dictated to the Prophet (pbuh); he was not divinely inspired to compose it himself

•The belief that all of the Qur'an is written in a style that is factual and concrete and the words must be understood according to their literal meanings; not as poetic, figurative, metaphorical and symbolic language



The second belief is widely contested in Islam and always has been; the first is not.
 

outhouse

Atheistically
That first pillar doesn't say the Qur'an has to be literally interpreted.

The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life has surveyed more than 35,000 Muslims in scores of countries and discovered the vast majority of Muslims believe the Koran is “the word of God.”

I will concede that different amounts of literalisms are held.

But you will be hard pressed to find a muslim that does not view the whole book as words of god.

They do fight over interpretation.
 

outhouse

Atheistically
After doing research I see many muslims claiming they are not literalist.

Yet all believe muhammad talks to angels, the book is gods word, and they believe in all the mythological claimed prophets plagiarized from the bible that never existed in reality.

Much like how our YEC literalist define the bible very different from one another.


I don't doubt some of the more liberal ones hold less literalism then others, but even some of your staff here follows literalism in mythology yet claims, a more allegorical reading in 09. They just wont admit their literalism and fight it tooth and nail.

I have noticed anything that can be used in any sort of possible negative fashion is fiercely denied by all.
 
Top