View Full Version : Freedom of Belief and Religion according to Islam


Maiwand
11-21-2011, 02:58 PM
jtR9Zmfjrrs
PTKMSXPtiZc

Al Hanif
11-21-2011, 03:09 PM
Salam Alaykum

Did you followed religious studies in Netherlands ?

Maiwand
11-21-2011, 03:17 PM
Salam Alaykum

Did you followed religious studies in Netherlands ?

No, I am a student at regular university, but I read about Islam on my own. :)

Al Hanif
11-21-2011, 03:25 PM
No, I am a student at regular university, but I read about Islam on my own. :)Well, I did not watched your video so I can't judge but if you share the same message as the orthodox scholars from Ahl Al Sunna Wa Al Jama'a, then may Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala reward you for your deeds. Ameen.

Just be careful brother to not make your own interpretations because the science of tafsir and hadiths is hard and not for the muslim who has no knowledge.

Just share the same message as the orthodox sunnis scholars and there will be no problem.

JazakAllah Khayr

Insaaf_انصاف
11-21-2011, 04:14 PM
Cowards living in west with cosy beds

Soldat_Amir
11-21-2011, 04:26 PM
Banning other religions to preach, prohibit the construction of their buildings and enforcing them to pay separate taxes will lead to state sponsored discrimination and disorder.

We no longer live in the middle ages, we live in the information age, whereby people are free to follow what they want.

Thanks.

Soldat_Amir
11-21-2011, 04:30 PM
No, I am a student at regular university, but I read about Islam on my own. :)

You live in a Christian Secular country that has paid for your upbringing and education on the tax payers money yet you wish upon your own kin in Afghanistan to follow values totally opposite to the ones you were brought up with.

What makes it even more insulting to the Dutch people who were so kind to even provide you a stage and right to speak your mind, is that you want to spread this virus(Talibanism) upon them that has resulted in the whole of Afghanistan going backwards.

Afghanistan2010
11-21-2011, 04:34 PM
Banning other religions to preach, prohibit the construction of their buildings and enforcing them to pay separate taxes will lead to state sponsored discrimination and disorder.

We no longer live in the middle ages, we live in the information age, whereby people are free to follow what they want.

Thanks.

Yes , why can't you accept that the pope can have sex with children and young boys , its the information age.

And the communits/secularists forbid everything in China and ba a slave of the state you have no free will everything belongs to the state , even your ass.

Bigmo
12-01-2011, 07:16 AM
Koran gives complete freedom

2:256 There is no compulsion in religion, for the right way is clearly from the wrong way. Whoever therefore rejects the forces of evil and believes in God, he has taken hold of a support most unfailing, which shall never give way, for God is All Hearing and Knowing.

16:82 But if they turn away from you, your only duty is a clear delivery of the Message .

6:107 Yet if God had so willed, they would not have ascribed Divinity to aught besides Him; hence, We have not made you their keeper, nor are you a guardian over them.

4:79-80 Say:'Whatever good betides you is from God and whatever evil betides you is from your own self and that We have sent you to mankind only as a messenger and all sufficing is God as witness. Whoso obeys the Messenger, he indeed obeys God. And for those who turn away, We have not sent you as a keeper."

11:28 He (Noah) said "O my people! think over it! If I act upon a clear direction from my Lord who has bestowed on me from Himself the Merciful talent of seeing the right way, a way which you cannot see for yourself, does it follow that we can force you to take the right path when you definitely decline to take it?°

17:53-54 And tell my servants that they should speak in a most kindly manner. Verily, Satan is always ready to stir up discord between men; for verily; Satan is mans foe .... Hence, We have not sent you with power to determine their Faith.

21:107-109 (O Prophet?) 'We have not sent you except to be a mercy to all mankind:" Declare, "Verily, what is revealed to me is this, your God is the only One God, so is it not up to you to bow down to Him?' But if they turn away then say, "I have delivered the Truth in a manner clear to one and all, and I know not whether the promised hour is near or far."

22:67 To every people have We appointed ceremonial rites which they observe; therefore, let them not wrangle over this matter with you, but bid them to turn to your Lord. You indeed are rightly guided. But if they still dispute you in this matter, `God best knows what you do."

24.54. Say: "Obey God, and obey the Messenger. but if ye turn away, he is only responsible for the duty placed on him and ye for that placed on you. If ye obey him, ye shall be on right guidance. The Messenger's duty is only to preach the clear (Message).

88:21 22; And so, exhort them your task is only to exhort; you cannot compel them to believe.

48:28 He it is Who has sent forth His Messenger with the Guidance and the Religion of Truth, to the end that tie make it prevail over every religion, and none can bear witness to the Truth as God does.

36:16 17 (Three Messengers to their people) Said, "Our Sustainer knows that we have indeed been sent unto you, but we are not bound to more than clearly deliver the Message entrusted to us.'

39:41 Assuredly, We have sent down the Book to you in right form for the good of man. Whoso guided himself by it does so to his own advantage, and whoso turns away from it does so at his own loss. You certainly are not their keeper.

42:6 48 And whoso takes for patrons others besides God, over them does God keep a watch. Mark, you are not a keeper over them. But if they turn aside from you (do not get disheartened), for We have not sent you to be a keeper over them; your task is but to preach ....

64:12 Obey God then and obey the Messenger, but if you turn away (no blame shall attach to our Messenger), for the duty of Our Messenger is just to deliver the message.

67:25 26 And they ask, "When shall the promise be fulfilled if you speak the Truth?" Say, "The knowledge of it is verily with God alone, and verily I am but a plain warner."

10.99-100. If it had been thy Lord's will, they would all have believed,- all who are on earth! wilt thou then compel mankind, against their will, to believe! No soul can believe, except by the will of God, and He will place doubt (or obscurity) on those who will not understand

28.55-56 And when they hear vain talk, they turn away therefrom and say: "To us our deeds, and to you yours; peace be to you: we seek not the ignorant," It is true thou wilt not be able to guide whom thou lovest; but God guides those whom He will and He knows best those who receive guidance.

109.1-6 Say : O ye that reject Faith,! I worship not that which ye worship, Nor will ye worship that which I worship, And I will not worship that which ye have been wont to worship, Nor will ye worship that which I worship, To you be your Way, and to me mine.

74.11-17 Leave Me with whom I created alone!, To whom I granted resources in abundance, And sons to be by his side, To whom I made (life) smooth and comfortable, Yet is he greedy-that I should add (yet more);- By no means! For to Our Signs he has been refractory!, Soon will I visit him with a mount of calamities!

"So have We appointed for every Prophet an enemy - devils of men and Jinns; who inspire each other with seductive, deceptive speech which leads astray; but had thy Lord willed they would not have done so. So leave them with what they do devise. And let the hearts of those who believe not in the Hereafter listen to it; and let them be well pleased with it; and let them gain what they can gain!" 6:113-114

"And when you see those who meddle with Our revelations, withdraw from them until they meddle with another topic. And if the devil causes you to forget, sit not, after the remembrance, with the congregation of wrongdoers. 6:68

Complete freedom unparalleled in human literature.

Real islam is only Quran. Quran is peace!

ozymandias
12-01-2011, 04:23 PM
I didnt say that so i dont knwo which part you agree.



You said that Judiasm and Christianity borrowed a lot from paganism, which is what I agreed with.



the religion of abraham was islam



Not true. This is a retroactive editing of history.




and yes as it is called nowadays abrahamic religion still i didnt say islam borrowd anything from paganisma ,but i would say nice try by you.


All the religions stemming from the judiasm of Abraham are considered "Abrahamic religions" -- it's the actual name of the category of religions. Since Abraham's religion was based on paganistic beliefs, any religion that stems from that includes basis as well.



see thats your problem you call a knowledgeable man a fool cuz he doesnt agree with you and your pre picture.



That has nothing to do with it. The fact remains that he *is* a fool. The fact that it is called the theory of evolution is not proof it is not true, it is proof that he doesn't understand what the word means in a scientific context, and is unwilling to learn.




i didnt say watch his video about evolution i said watch his video abotu islam and christianity but hey atheists are always the same.



I have seen enough videos from him, and they are all poorly done, and based on flawed arguments and illogical statements, so I stopped wasting time on him.



He does speak english well if you can see through your prejudice glasses and forget about his accent for a minute.



I disagree. The statements he makes about the theory of evolution is proof of that. It has nothing to do with his accent, and everything to do with his illogical statements, and abuse of the definitions of words.



well they have their testimonies and they were more fanatic than you are.



I'm not a fanatic.



so i dont know ahy i should take what you say serious and not them.

You should only take me serious if you wish to understand my view of the world. You are welcome to ignore me, and those like me if you want.

ozymandias
12-01-2011, 04:29 PM
by criminals he means all the soldiers involved in the occuaption of his country ,not just the ones doing the torture in abu ghraib.



Plumbers and trashmen do needed jobs. Doesn't mean I glorify them for doing what was needed.

I disagree that they were all criminals, but you are welcome to have a different opinion -- but it's hard for me to understand the link between understanding they did a needed job and 'glorifying' them.




bro you really need to be honest and dont try to twist words and sneak through backdoor.

I am being honest. I recognize that they had a job to do, but that is not 'glorifying' them, and I also recognize that they were preforming actions of war, between two countries that had declared war on each other, and were operating under the guide lines and
treaties covering war on this planet. The war itself was not illegal, so not all participants are criminals -- only those that actually broke the laws, and treaties, and guidelines are criminals.

Soldat_Amir
12-01-2011, 04:49 PM
Bigmo, this is the problem, you only take the favorable and good parts out of the Quran and ignore the rest.

I could quote many parts of the Quran that would contradict what you have just posted but it will land me in trouble with the authorities here.

Under an Islamic state, there is no such thing as a minority religion. Religions beside Islam, are prohibited to practice in public or build their places of worship. They are forced to pay a separate tax called Jizya.

Now, we are kind and historically tolerant Pashtun society, how are we going to progress with such backward laws.

We have sikhs, hindus, buddists, pagans, communists,secularists, liberal muslims, shia muslims all living in our region, do you seriously think we are going to succeed living under middle age Arabia laws?

You are looking at a never ending civil war in our region.

Al Hanif
12-01-2011, 05:03 PM
Bigmo, this is the problem, you only take the favorable and good parts out of the Quran and ignore the rest.
All parts of the Qur'an are good.
Indeed he is a stupid Quranist who fails at life.

I could quote many parts of the Quran that would contradict what you have just posted but it will land me in trouble with the authorities here.
It is explained in the Quran itself that there are verses which abrogates other verses. There are Meccan verses and Medinan verses. Some verses are for Dar Al Islam, others are for Dar Al Kufr.

Under an Islamic state, there is no such thing as a minority religion. Religions beside Islam, are prohibited to practice in public or build their places of worship. They are forced to pay a separate tax called Jizya.
They are forced to pay a special tax but they are not forced to pay zakat in exchange. They have the right to practise their religion freely. Islam was the most toleant religion before secularism. But I agree that secularism is more liberal than Islam and this is why Islam is superior.

Now, we are kind and historically tolerant Pashtun society, how are we going to progress with such backward laws.

We have sikhs, hindus, buddists, pagans, communists,secularists, liberal muslims, shia muslims all living in our region, do you seriously think we are going to succeed living under middle age Arabia laws?

You are looking at a never ending civil war in our region.

kill them all, Allah SWT will recognize his own

ozymandias
12-01-2011, 06:20 PM
Islam was the most toleant religion before secularism. But I agree that secularism is more liberal than Islam and this is why Islam is superior.



HAHAHAH!
As a non-muslim, I often hear that apostasy in Islam is punished by death -- and the laws of several Islamic countries seem to follow this. Could you explain why people would have that view of Islam, if Islam is tolerant, and allows the freedom of religion?

al-arab
12-01-2011, 06:32 PM
[/B]HAHAHAH![/COLOR]
As a non-muslim, I often hear that apostasy in Islam is punished by death -- and the laws of several Islamic countries seem to follow this. Could you explain why people would have that view of Islam, if Islam is tolerant, and allows the freedom of religion?

Maybe you should do yourself a favor and [---EDITED---] and turn off your Fow channel and read a little about Islam, Islamic law (Sharia) and Islamic history just to name a few areas in order to understand Islam as it should be.

Understanding and studying Islam is something that acquires years of extensive study.

You certainly are not qualified to understand Islamic juristiction in the right contect.

Apart from that your redneck country (without any history) executed juvenile people until a few years ago.

And Al-Hanif is completely right about Islam being a much stronger force than anything man-made.

Al Hanif
12-01-2011, 06:41 PM
[/B]HAHAHAH![/COLOR]
As a non-muslim, I often hear that apostasy in Islam is punished by death -- and the laws of several Islamic countries seem to follow this. Could you explain why people would have that view of Islam, if Islam is tolerant, and allows the freedom of religion?

In an Islamic state.

Non-Muslims (Christians, Jews) are allowed to change their religion, they can practise their religion freely. If a non-muslim sodomizes a non-muslim, it is not our business, as long as they don't do it in public. We will not punish them, they have their own laws and their own courts.

The only thing they have to do is paying a special tax (in exchange they don't have to pay the muslim tax) but they are under our protection. It is our duty to protect them.

Muslims, on the other hand, face severe punishments for apostasy : from exile to death. And if a muslim practicises fornication, he will be lashed 100 times. The same thing does not apply for non-muslims.

The reason why apostasy is punished is because it is viewed as an act of betrayal towards the community and as you know, in all societies, in all times, treason has be punished with the most severe punishment.

ozymandias
12-01-2011, 06:45 PM
In an Islamic state.

Non-Muslims (Christians, Jews) are allowed to change their religion, they can practise their religion freely. If a non-muslim sodomizes a non-muslim, it is not our business, as long as they don't do it in public. We will not punish them, they have their own laws and their own courts.

The only thing they have to do is paying a special tax (in exchange they don't have to pay the muslim tax) but they are under our protection. It is our duty to protect them.

Muslims, on the other hand, face severe punishments for apostasy : from exile to death. And if a muslim practicises fornication, he will be lashed 100 times. The same thing does not apply for non-muslims.



So where is this supposed freedom of religion you *just* claimed Islam has?



The reason why apostasy is punished is because it is viewed as an act of betrayal towards the community and as you know, in all societies, in all times, treason has be punished with the most severe punishment.

Ah, so there is no freedom of religion then, at least not fully. I get it. Thank you for clarifying.

Al Hanif
12-01-2011, 06:48 PM
So where is this supposed freedom of religion you *just* claimed Islam has?.


freedom of religion for the non-believers

no freedom of religion for the muslims


Ah, so there is no freedom of religion then, at least not fully. I get it. Thank you for clarifying.

You are welcome, dear Dawkinist

ozymandias
12-01-2011, 06:51 PM
freedom of religion for the non-believers



But you *just* stated that this is not true.



no freedom of religion for the muslims



That's fine. If they choose to follow your rules, that's their choice. But what about freedom of religion for former Muslims?





You are welcome, dear Dawkinist

Who is a Dawkinist?

al-arab
12-01-2011, 06:53 PM
So where is this supposed freedom of religion you *just* claimed Islam has?



Ah, so there is no freedom of religion then, at least not fully. I get it. Thank you for clarifying.

Do you have difficulties with understanding your native language?

Where is the injustice exactly from a non-Muslim point of view?

Or do you just prefer burning at the stake which was the Christian solution?

Or the so called Western model where Muslims de jure have the same rights to practice their religions but de facto are not allowed to built Mosques or give their children an Islamic upbringing? Italy being a clear example of that as several other European countries who do not allow/have not built any mosques even though they have a significant Muslim minority?

Al Hanif
12-01-2011, 06:57 PM
But you *just* stated that this is not true.
English, fornicator of matriarchs, are you fluent in it ?

freedom of religion for the non-believers

no freedom of religion for the muslims

I think I can't be clearer.


That's fine. If they choose to follow your rules, that's their choice. But what about freedom of religion for former Muslims?[B][COLOR="Blue"]
Former muslims will be granted the right to exile from muslim territory in times of peace.
The right to be beheaded in public places in times of war.



Who is a Dawkinist?
Someone who accepts Richard as his Lord and Saviour.

Wahe Guru
12-01-2011, 07:05 PM
Maybe you should do yourself a favor and remove your head from your ass and turn off your Fow channel and read a little about Islam, Islamic law (Sharia) and Islamic history just to name a few areas in order to understand Islam as it should be.

Understanding and studying Islam is something that acquires years of extensive study.

You certainly are not qualified to understand Islamic juristiction in the right contect.

Apart from that your redneck country (without any history) executed juvenile people until a few years ago.

And Al-Hanif is completely right about Islam being a much stronger force than anything man-made.

I wondered how many other religions and, how often, you have studied apart from Islam?

Insaaf_انصاف
12-01-2011, 07:16 PM
All parts of the Qur'an are good.
Indeed he is a stupid Quranist who fails at life.


It is explained in the Quran itself that there are verses which abrogates other verses. There are Meccan verses and Medinan verses. Some verses are for Dar Al Islam, others are for Dar Al Kufr.


They are forced to pay a special tax but









they are not forced to pay zakat in exchange. They have the right to practise their religion freely. Islam was the most toleant religion before secularism. But I agree that secularism is more liberal than Islam and this is why Islam is superior.
[/

[COLOR="Blue"]kill them all, Allah SWT will recognize his own
Kill them all ? You are dangerous dude :S

Al Hanif
12-01-2011, 07:19 PM
Kill them all ? You are dangerous dude :S

voyons voyons voyons

tu ne connais pas le proverbe : tuez les tous, dieu reconnaîtra les siens ?

al-arab
12-01-2011, 07:54 PM
I wondered how many other religions and, how often, you have studied apart from Islam?

There is no need to study other religions because the only truth and right path in the earthly life is Islam.

Apart from that I have enough knowledge about Christianity and Judaism to know how they treated non-Christians and still do in some European countries.

Moreover my knowledge about Christianity/Judaism probably extends ozymandias knowledge.

Wazir-Warrior:

Instead of writing pointless PM's to me asking about how my wife look and other shameless questions you should be able to dare to ask them in public.

I found you out long time ago. You are a troll and probably one of the many double profiles that appeared in November. I should publish your messages to me and my replies.

al-arab
12-01-2011, 08:02 PM
What is this kind of shameless messages you would not dare to say in front of me?

Why are you trolling?

graveyardofempires
12-01-2011, 08:04 PM
Al arab bro this guy has mutiple accounts and is not a pashtun or muslim.
you should ask the admin to take action,but you are an arab so i dont know if they will take action or not.

al-arab
12-01-2011, 08:16 PM
Al arab bro this guy has mutiple accounts and is not a pashtun or muslim.
you should ask the admin to take action,but you are an arab so i dont know if they will take action or not.

Brother, that is my suspicion as well. But since he does not dare to answer me I want him to learn a lesson about behaviour even if he is trolling.

I have contacted brother thor-khan who for my part has been a rightous moderator here and asked him to see if that wazir_warrior is a troll as I suspect.

Normally I would not bother with such nonsense but since he does not know limits and do not answer there is nothing else to do other than see if he in fact is a troll.

Bigmo
12-02-2011, 07:59 AM
Bigmo, this is the problem, you only take the favorable and good parts out of the Quran and ignore the rest.

I could quote many parts of the Quran that would contradict what you have just posted but it will land me in trouble with the authorities here.

Under an Islamic state, there is no such thing as a minority religion. Religions beside Islam, are prohibited to practice in public or build their places of worship. They are forced to pay a separate tax called Jizya.

Now, we are kind and historically tolerant Pashtun society, how are we going to progress with such backward laws.

We have sikhs, hindus, buddists, pagans, communists,secularists, liberal muslims, shia muslims all living in our region, do you seriously think we are going to succeed living under middle age Arabia laws?

You are looking at a never ending civil war in our region.

16:82 But if they turn away from you, your only duty is a clear delivery of the Message

4:79-80 Say:'Whatever good betides you is from God and whatever evil betides you is from your own self and that We have sent you to mankind only as a messenger and all sufficing is God as witness. Whoso obeys the Messenger, he indeed obeys God. And for those who turn away, We have not sent you as a keeper."

17:53-54 And tell my servants that they should speak in a most kindly manner. Verily, Satan is always ready to stir up discord between men; for verily; Satan is mans foe .... Hence, We have not sent you with power to determine their Faith

24.54. Say: "Obey God, and obey the Messenger. but if ye turn away, he is only responsible for the duty placed on him and ye for that placed on you. If ye obey him, ye shall be on right guidance. The Messenger's duty is only to preach the clear (Message).

88:21 22; And so, exhort them your task is only to exhort; you cannot compel them to believe.

42:6 48 And whoso takes for patrons others besides God, over them does God keep a watch. Mark, you are not a keeper over them. But if they turn aside from you (do not get disheartened), for We have not sent you to be a keeper over them; your task is but to preach

64:12 Obey God then and obey the Messenger, but if you turn away (no blame shall attach to our Messenger), for the duty of Our Messenger is just to deliver the message.

28.55-56 And when they hear vain talk, they turn away therefrom and say: "To us our deeds, and to you yours; peace be to you: we seek not the ignorant," It is true thou wilt not be able to guide whom thou lovest; but God guides those whom He will and He knows best those who receive guidance

As we can clearly see, many of the verses that talks about obeying the prophet also emphasises the prophet's limited authority, something that the Islamic sects do not recognize. The ruler to them has the authoirty to punish people for what they consider sins like drinking alcohol, eating pork, not fasting Ramadan, watching pornos etc.

The Koran meanwhile focuses on crimes against another like stealing, killing, slandering of women falsely and oppression. It gave the believers the right to fight against those who fight them but not to transgress. It also gave people the right to defend themsleves against evictions from their lands. There is no talk about punishing people for something that does not concerning somebody else's right.

Adultery is the only place where the Koran diverted from this due to the fact that a adultery affects another party. But even then it placed strict standards on that but was lenient when it came to punishing slanders of women. Adultery needs four witnesses but the slander can get punished just from opening his mouth without four witnesses. Its clear that the verse made it very difficult to impliment on adultery but very easy to impliment on the slanderer. Further reading of the verse about the Zani and Zania shows us that the issue came up concerning slandering of one of the porphet's wife presumably. But adultery still affects another party as its a breaking of an oath between a man and a woman and is an act of betrayal.

The Koran can not order the porphet to punish people for sins, that God's job. The Koran gave people the right and freedom to disbelieve let alone sin. Plus how the Koran understands sins is very different than how the sects understand sins.

In the end the sects had no choice but to abrogate many of these verses, usually invoking the "sword verse". They claim that many of these verses that gave the prophet limited authority(over those who chose to disobey him) has been abrogated by verse 9-5 or verse 9-29.

However these verses were about the wars with the pagans, and verse 9-13 and many other verses makes it clear who instigated these battles and why. The Jizya verse (9-29) also was claimed by the sects to be a tax to be paid by non Muslims in an Islamic state for protection. However Jizya never came concerning the Medina community where the prophet and his followers had a community. And only came upon the believers entering of Mecca. Jizya could have easily been compensation for the loss of property and homes that the believers suffered after being forced into exile.The Koran forbade prophets from seeking any form of reward. They can however accept charity on behalf of the believers.

But the Sunnah claimed otherwise. In it the prophet was ordered to fight the people till they acknowledge monotheism and also in it the prophet ordered the execution of those who apostated. Thats why they abrogated many of the verses that limited his authority. Then they simply transfered that authority for the Muslim ruler by default. The Ridda war story about Abu Bakr is a case study of this. In that story Abu Bakr apparently fought people for not paying Zakat. Now the authority was transfered from God to the prophet to one of his companions. This made it very easy to then transfer that authority to the ruler. This is why you see places where Shariah law is implimented filled with such concepts like searching cars for alcohol or flogging people for watching pornos or not wearing proper attire.None of this should concern anyone but it has become a punishable sin. God only punishes those who did not get caiught and punished in this world. The sects claim that once punished the sin falls away and dissapears. You will not find such a concept in the Koran. There God punishes in a million ways and does not need humans to punish for him. I think the sects introduced this conc3ept to make people more accepting of this by making them think its better for them since God's punishment is more severe. They also introduced stoning the adulterer by claiming the Zina verse in the Koran is concerning fornification and not adultery. They claimed that the verse about stoning was lost and is not included in the Koran but the ruling remains.

This of course violated not only the freedom aspect of the Koran but also an eye for an eye and a life for a life. In the Koran, any punishment must be recipricol and proportionate to the crime and it also must be targeted towards the actual perpetraters of the crime and not someone else associated to the criminal as the case with tribal laws that simply targets anyone from that tribe. They broke this by lower the bar for executions. Some Sunni scholars also gave the authority to execute homosexuals and enslave female prisoners and execute male prisoners. Something the Koran forbade. The Koran gave two options for prisoners, either freedom or ransom of some sort. They gave this authority to the ruler. This is all very sad as the taking of someones life is no easy matter in the Koran. God should take life and not humans, but if a person takes a life then he lost his right to live, but even then the Koran gave exile from the community as another option for murder esepcially if the person shows repentance. So an eye for an eye and a tooth for tooth somehow ended up being an eye for an eye lash and a tooth for a jaw.

To be fair the Sunni orthodoxy rarely practiced some of these laws. We know of no time in history where adulterers were stoned to death. Apostasy was rarely practiced, unlike the Christians in Europe that practiced these laws left and right. So the Sunni jurist knew that some of these laws could be controversial. There is a rumor about Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab the founder or rather the revivalist of Salafism (some call it wahhabism) stoned a women to death. This was the only time in Islamic history that we heard such a thing.

Its very unfortunant the current Islamist in Iran and Sudan and the Salafis in generally never understood why these laws were controversial. But in doing so they exposed many aspect of the sects that people were not aware of. The Sufis provided a convenient cover as they shunned legalism. But even the clerics understood that these laws were controversial. Its not easy in Islam to execute outside of murder. But this wise tradition was broken. Thats very unfortunant as now we see the culture of death has spread among Muslims till Islam became synonymous with violence and killing. Once you lower the bar it spirals out of control.

One thing is crystal clear from all this. The Koran's take on human authority and freedom is RADICALLY different than how the sects understand it. Therefore the biggest difference between a Koranic state and a Sunni or Shia state will come in the form of the state's authority over the masses. It is this, more than anything else, that seperates the Koran from the Sunnah. Thats why the Abbasids championed the Sunnah over the Mutazilites. The Mutaziltes couldn't find the ink inthe Koran to give them such draconian authority. The sects did that by first bringing the divine authority from God to prophet, then propet to Caliph (companions) and now that authority is in Omar Al Bashir, Khamenei, Mullah Omar and Al Saud. And thats very sad.

ozymandias
12-02-2011, 10:52 AM
Do you have difficulties with understanding your native language?



Nope.



Where is the injustice exactly from a non-Muslim point of view?



The fact that there is no freedom of religion. "Stay a muslim, or die" is not freedom of religion.



Or do you just prefer burning at the stake which was the Christian solution?



Nope -- and that's not freedom of religion, either.



Or the so called Western model where Muslims de jure have the same rights to practice their religions but de facto are not allowed to built Mosques or give their children an Islamic upbringing? Italy being a clear example of that as several other European countries who do not allow/have not built any mosques even though they have a significant Muslim minority?

I prefer actual religious freedom, where you have the right to choose your own religion, and how you practice it, as long as you harm no one but yourself.

ozymandias
12-02-2011, 10:55 AM
English, fornicator of matriarchs, are you fluent in it ?

freedom of religion for the non-believers

no freedom of religion for the muslims

I think I can't be clearer.



Perhaps I should try again: That's not freedom of religion then.




[B][COLOR=Blue]
Former muslims will be granted the right to exile from muslim territory in times of peace.
The right to be beheaded in public places in times of war.


Perhaps I should try again: That's not freedom of religion then.





Someone who accepts Richard as his Lord and Saviour.


Ah, then that's not me. I have no lord, nor a savior. I have no need, for I am an atheist, and am free of such silly things.

ozymandias
12-02-2011, 10:58 AM
There is no need to study other religions because the only truth and right path in the earthly life is Islam.



How can you say that if you have never even looked at other religions? If you don't know anything about them, how can you know they are false?



Apart from that I have enough knowledge about Christianity and Judaism to know how they treated non-Christians and still do in some European countries.



So we should judge all Islam by how a few countries treat people?



Moreover my knowledge about Christianity/Judaism probably extends ozymandias knowledge.



I doubt that. You don't appear to be exactly knowledgeable of these topics, and take pride in your ignorance.

graveyardofempires
12-02-2011, 11:10 AM
How can you say that if you have never even looked at other religions? If you don't know anything about them, how can you know they are false?



So we should judge all Islam by how a few countries treat people?



I doubt that. You don't appear to be exactly knowledgeable of these topics, and take pride in your ignorance.
ozy jan

i think you are wasting your time if you think you can deislamise us muslims.

your problem is you think you know while the fact is that you know nothing about religion,Islam,christinity,Judiasm,and i bet you dotn even know who nazis were.

ozymandias
12-02-2011, 11:20 AM
ozy jan

i think you are wasting your time if you think you can deislamise us muslims.



I don't think I can do that, nor am I trying to. I am just following up on an ignorant comment he made that he knows all other religions are wrong, while taking pride in knowing nothing about them.



your problem is you think you know while the fact is that you know nothing about religion,Islam,christinity,Judiasm,and i bet you dotn even know who nazis were.

I'm not sure why you get that impression. I know quite a lot about Christianity, Judiasm, and German history (including the Nazis -- who *doesn't* know about them?). I am fairly well educated about religion in general, and I have made it no secret that I am posting here to talk with actual Muslims, so I can get a better feel for that religion, and not just how the western media chooses to portray it, and the dry academic papers on the topic.

If I don't know something, I try not to make assumptions about it, but learn about it and come to informed conclusions.

graveyardofempires
12-02-2011, 11:34 AM
I don't think I can do that, nor am I trying to. I am just following up on an ignorant comment he made that he knows all other religions are wrong, while taking pride in knowing nothing about them.

Well it is not necessary to know them all,we can put them some in list of ahlel kitab(people of the book ,judiasm and christianity ,offcourse the real ones) and idolators(christians are sometimes also idolators especially catholics.

so it is not necessary for us to waste out time on something alreadhy refuted hundreds if not thousands of years ago.

I'm not sure why you get that impression. I know quite a lot about Christianity, Judiasm, and German history (including the Nazis -- who *doesn't* know about them?). I am fairly well educated about religion in general, and I have made it no secret that I am posting here to talk with actual Muslims, so I can get a better feel for that religion, and not just how the western media chooses to portray it, and the dry academic papers on the topic.

dear ozy
when you say you know quite alot,thats when you make a mistake.
nobody knows quite enough let alone quite alot.

what do you know about judiasm?why is it called judiasm?
is it the original religion of moses(pbuh)?

who was jesus/Esa of nazareth? did they kill him?
you say who doesnt know about Nazis,ok lets get to that.

were the nazis racists or were they anti imerialsm?
how many people did they kill?

you say you wanna get a better picture yet you dont want to listen and cling to your own picture amde by the media or by yourself or someone else.

If I don't know something, I try not to make assumptions about it, but learn about it and come to informed conclusions.
im not claiming to be knowing it all but im sure informed on subjects.

al-arab
12-02-2011, 11:36 AM
Haha you are not very clever Ozymandis not that is surpirse me since you are american.

You obviously do not know what I know about other religions but since I can see with my own eyes that you do know nothing about Islam and is a atheist I can see where this is going.

Please challenge me on everything concerning the Christian faith (Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant not all the other sects in usa) or Judaism.

Islam is the last and fully truth revelation of Allah Almighty's word. That including it teachings make it the only righteous religion.

ozymandias
12-02-2011, 11:40 AM
im not claiming to be knowing it all but im sure informed on subjects.

Then we are on the same page -- al arab was acting proud of the fact that he is not even informed of non-islamic religions, but rejected them anyway. All I am saying is that you should be informed about something before accepting or rejecting it.

ozymandias
12-02-2011, 11:43 AM
Haha you are not very clever Ozymandis not that is surpirse me since you are american.

You obviously do not know what I know about other religions but since I can see with my own eyes that you do know nothing about Islam and is a atheist I can see where this is going.



You stated "There is no need to study other religions because the only truth and right path in the earthly life is Islam." This implies that you have a very basic, or non-existent knowledge of the topic. All I know about your knowledge is what you have stated.



Please challenge me on everything concerning the Christian faith (Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant not all the other sects in usa) or Judaism.



I see no need to challenge you on anything, since you already admitted to not knowing much about these topics. If you would like to retract your earlier statement, that is fine.



Islam is the last and fully truth revelation of Allah Almighty's word. That including it teachings make it the only righteous religion.

*sigh* Every religion since the dawn of time has claimed that.

graveyardofempires
12-02-2011, 11:47 AM
Then we are on the same page -- al arab was acting proud of the fact that he is not even informed of non-islamic religions, but rejected them anyway. All I am saying is that you should be informed about something before accepting or rejecting it.
me by saying informed means more than majority christians.
for example i think that christians (cant say about all of them)are actually following paganism which was pushed on them after the departure(to heaven)of Jesus son(pbuh) of Mary(pbuh).

if you want to know about christianity and Islam you must listen to Dr Zakir Naik ,Yusef Estes.

they are all over youtube.

i would also listen to why athesist are convertign to islam,or the same for christians and jews.

al-arab
12-02-2011, 11:49 AM
When I say there is no need to study Christianity nor Judaism that does not mean I have not done it myself just that the one and final truth is Islam.

So do you expect me to say otherwise when I am Muslim?

I suspect you of provoking me again by talking bad about Islam just like your glorified your criminal soldiers in Iraq.

graveyardofempires
12-02-2011, 11:53 AM
^
he glorified the invaders fo Iraq?

ozy

it seems you arent informed about that subject/

ozymandias
12-02-2011, 11:54 AM
me by saying informed means more than majority christians.
for example i think that christians (cant say about all of them)are actually following paganism which was pushed on them after the departure(to heaven)of Jesus son(pbuh) of Mary(pbuh).



I agree that the Abrahamic religions have borrowed a lot from paganism, and co-opted most of the holidays.



if you want to know about christianity and Islam you must listen to Dr Zakir Naik ,Yusef Estes.



I'm amazed that people still recommend Naik. He is an ignorant fool, and consistently is wrong, and illogical. Watch a video about him on evolution sometime -- his only argument against evolution is he doesn't speak English very well.



they are all over youtube.

i would also listen to why athesist are convertign to islam,or the same for christians and jews.

Well, we all know why they are not converting *away*, since this *is* a thread on the lack of freedom of religion for Muslims. That said, I have seen the reasons many gave for converting, and most of them never really understood their original faith, anyway.

ozymandias
12-02-2011, 11:57 AM
When I say there is no need to study Christianity nor Judaism that does not mean I have not done it myself just that the one and final truth is Islam.



I'm sorry your comment was misinterpreted.



So do you expect me to say otherwise when I am Muslim?



Actually, yes. Any intelligent person would not simply dismiss the other topics and say 'they don't matter', but would rather explain *why* they don't matter.



I suspect you of provoking me again by talking bad about Islam just like your glorified your criminal soldiers in Iraq.

I did no such thing. I have never, and will never glorify criminals, unless they are fighting unjust laws that violate the basic rights of man.

ozymandias
12-02-2011, 11:59 AM
^
he glorified the invaders fo Iraq?

ozy

it seems you arent informed about that subject/

It's amazing how fast you accept lies and slander as truth. I have never glorified the 'invaders of iraq'. I think al arab is once again making an uniformed statement without first understanding the topic he is discussing.

al-arab
12-02-2011, 12:09 PM
I remember clearly that you said that your soldiers where doing good things in Iraq and that they were implementing so called democracy with success. You know this is provocation and not truth. The current Iraqi government is the most corrupt in the world and the Iraqi people want Islam not man-made laws. We are very religious people.

I remember clearly that you supported the war in Iraq. That is for me the same as supporting the thousands of war crimes commited in Iraq by your soldiers.

Do you really wish for me to say why judaism and christiniaty is wrong? Maybe you should learn the history about the bible and by whom it was written. It has been written by several persons over long period of time. Judaism the same.

There are many opposites in christianity (Old and new testament) and the Torah. You can not find such thing in the Holy Quran.

graveyardofempires
12-02-2011, 12:12 PM
It's amazing how fast you accept lies and slander as truth. I have never glorified the 'invaders of iraq'. I think al arab is once again making an uniformed statement without first understanding the topic he is discussing.
now its on you to explain otherwise,and tell me what did he lie about?

ozymandias
12-02-2011, 12:20 PM
now its on you to explain otherwise,and tell me what did he lie about?

He stated I 'glorified my criminal soldiers in iraq', and I have done no such thing.

ozymandias
12-02-2011, 12:26 PM
I remember clearly that you said that your soldiers where doing good things in Iraq and that they were implementing so called democracy with success.



Agreeing that this had to be done is a far cry from 'glorifying' them -- and there is a huge difference between soldiers enforcing the UN declarations, and being 'criminals'. I made it very clear that I see a difference, and did not support the criminals.



You know this is provocation and not truth. The current Iraqi government is the most corrupt in the world and the Iraqi people want Islam not man-made laws. We are very religious people.

I remember clearly that you supported the war in Iraq. That is for me the same as supporting the thousands of war crimes commited in Iraq by your soldiers.



I'm sorry you can't see the difference between supporting the UN and supporting criminal acts by individuals. To explain this a different way, to help you understand, Bin Laden was a criminal. You saying I support the criminal acts in the Iraqi war because I support Human Rights, is like me saying you support criminal acts because you are Islamic. It's just silly.



Do you really wish for me to say why judaism and christiniaty is wrong?



I agree that they are wrong. It would be interesting to see what makes them wrong that does not also apply to Islam.



Maybe you should learn the history about the bible and by whom it was written. It has been written by several persons over long period of time. Judaism the same.



No disagreement here. I have no problem with that statement. What's your point? The Book of Mormon has a single author. Does that make it true?



There are many opposites in christianity (Old and new testament) and the Torah. You can not find such thing in the Holy Quran.

I can find scientific falsehoods in both books. I can find wishy-washy statements in both books. Heck, look at this very thread. Some are claiming the koran supports religious freedom, and others are saying the punishment for apostasy is death. what do you mean, we can't find opposing statements in the koran?

graveyardofempires
12-02-2011, 12:27 PM
I agree that the Abrahamic religions have borrowed a lot from paganism, and co-opted most of the holidays.


I didnt say that so i dont knwo which part you agree.

the religion of abraham was islam and yes as it is called nowadays abrahamic religion still i didnt say islam borrowd anything from paganisma ,but i would say nice try by you.

I'm amazed that people still recommend Naik. He is an ignorant fool, and consistently is wrong, and illogical. Watch a video about him on evolution sometime -- his only argument against evolution is he doesn't speak English very well.
see thats your problem you call a knowledgeable man a fool cuz he doesnt agree with you and your pre picture.
i didnt say watch his video about evolution i said watch his video abotu islam and christianity but hey atheists are always the same.
He does speak english well if you can see through your prejudice glasses and forget about his accent for a minute.


Well, we all know why they are not converting *away*, since this *is* a thread on the lack of freedom of religion for Muslims. That said, I have seen the reasons many gave for converting, and most of them never really understood their original faith, anyway.
well they have their testimonies and they were more fanatic than you are.
so i dont know ahy i should take what you say serious and not them.

graveyardofempires
12-02-2011, 12:28 PM
He stated I 'glorified my criminal soldiers in iraq', and I have done no such thing.
by criminals he means all the soldiers involved in the occuaption of his country ,not just the ones doing the torture in abu ghraib.

bro you really need to be honest and dont try to twist words and sneak through backdoor.

al-arab
12-02-2011, 12:48 PM
Ozymandias:

So you admit to saying that you are a supporter of the Iraqi war and thus the prescence of the invadors? If you say otherwise know I will find the thread were we last discussed the Iraqi war.

I like how you try to potray yourself as the supporter of UN laws.

Where were you when your government lied about Saddams supposed chemical weapons or contacts with Al-Qaeda?

Are you even aware of the fact that the UN did NOT agree on the Iraq war and that according to international laws the war was illegal?

Do you not understand that invadors who have invaded a country without the international societies backing are nearly always regarded as criminals? Especially when they, as the americans have proven, have commited horrible crimes in Iraq?

Why do you not take a look at the two threads consisting of american Iraqi war veterans who tell how they and many, many others killed civilians for fun? How bad the strategy was? How the soldiers did not know what they did in Iraq?

I had long discussions with you about democracy and how long the western world struggled with dictatorship before they implemented democracy. I also explained to you that we Muslims regard man-made laws differently than secularists like you?

I fell this is pointless debate because unlike you my country was illegaly invaded by your country. This has done tremmedous harm for us and the Muslim and Arab world. For example your invasion has meant that the Iranians have gained control of Southern Iraq and are exposing their Shia Islam and trying to interfere in a Arab country as Iraq.

But well we all know why you invaded Iraq. (Oil, Iraq importance in the Middle East and strategic place, Saddam Hussein (one of the few leaders who were not a puppet of usa nor their allies)

Proving what makes Christianity and Judaism wrong in comparison with Islam would require a lot of time and a great understanding of Islam. As you do not have the latter it would be pointless as you are a staunch atheist according to yourself.

But if I get the required time I would gladly tell you the basics. If you want a complex discussion who would have needed to study Arabic (Quranic Arabic) and a lot of other aspects to fully understand the word of Allah.

ozymandias
12-02-2011, 02:53 PM
Ozymandias:

So you admit to saying that you are a supporter of the Iraqi war and thus the prescence of the invadors? If you say otherwise know I will find the thread were we last discussed the Iraqi war.



I am saying that I do not glorify those that had to go to war. I am saying that not every soldier was a criminal. I am saying that given the information that *started* the war, that war was required to prevent a despot from abusing weapons of mass destruction. I am saying that the laws of Iraq violated UN declarations, and needed to be rectified to guarantee the basic rights of it's citizens, as the dictators were unwilling to change otherwise.

It was a horrible war, and should have been avoided, and a better solution was desirable, especially after it was found out he did not have WMD.



I like how you try to potray yourself as the supporter of UN laws.



Thank you. It's the least decent humans can do.



Where were you when your government lied about Saddams supposed chemical weapons or contacts with Al-Qaeda?

Watching the news. It's debatable that the government 'lied', as many of the inspectors and studies indicated that the weapons existed. It is not a lie to be wrong, if you are mistaken.



Are you even aware of the fact that the UN did NOT agree on the Iraq war and that according to international laws the war was illegal?

You're kidding right?



Do you not understand that invadors who have invaded a country without the international societies backing are nearly always regarded as criminals? Especially when they, as the americans have proven, have commited horrible crimes in Iraq?

When was the entire military complex found guilty of these crimes?



Why do you not take a look at the two threads consisting of american Iraqi war veterans who tell how they and many, many others killed civilians for fun? How bad the strategy was? How the soldiers did not know what they did in Iraq?

I had long discussions with you about democracy and how long the western world struggled with dictatorship before they implemented democracy. I also explained to you that we Muslims regard man-made laws differently than secularists like you?

I fell this is pointless debate because unlike you my country was illegaly invaded by your country. This has done tremmedous harm for us and the Muslim and Arab world. For example your invasion has meant that the Iranians have gained control of Southern Iraq and are exposing their Shia Islam and trying to interfere in a Arab country as Iraq.

But well we all know why you invaded Iraq. (Oil, Iraq importance in the Middle East and strategic place, Saddam Hussein (one of the few leaders who were not a puppet of usa nor their allies)

We are well aware that you feel this is true.



Proving what makes Christianity and Judaism wrong in comparison with Islam would require a lot of time and a great understanding of Islam. As you do not have the latter it would be pointless as you are a staunch atheist according to yourself.

Feel free to educate me. Unlike you, I am willing to research and look into topics that I feel are wrong. I don't say there is no point in understanding them.



But if I get the required time I would gladly tell you the basics. If you want a complex discussion who would have needed to study Arabic (Quranic Arabic) and a lot of other aspects to fully understand the word of Allah.Feel free to try and educate me. I will make the time to read and reply to those posts.

ozymandias
12-02-2011, 02:55 PM
I didnt say that so i dont knwo which part you agree.



You said that Judiasm and Christianity borrowed a lot from paganism, which is what I agreed with.



the religion of abraham was islam



Not true. This is a retroactive editing of history.




and yes as it is called nowadays abrahamic religion still i didnt say islam borrowd anything from paganisma ,but i would say nice try by you.


All the religions stemming from the judiasm of Abraham are considered "Abrahamic religions" -- it's the actual name of the category of religions. Since Abraham's religion was based on paganistic beliefs, any religion that stems from that includes basis as well.



see thats your problem you call a knowledgeable man a fool cuz he doesnt agree with you and your pre picture.



That has nothing to do with it. The fact remains that he *is* a fool. The fact that it is called the theory of evolution is not proof it is not true, it is proof that he doesn't understand what the word means in a scientific context, and is unwilling to learn.




i didnt say watch his video about evolution i said watch his video abotu islam and christianity but hey atheists are always the same.



I have seen enough videos from him, and they are all poorly done, and based on flawed arguments and illogical statements, so I stopped wasting time on him.



He does speak english well if you can see through your prejudice glasses and forget about his accent for a minute.



I disagree. The statements he makes about the theory of evolution is proof of that. It has nothing to do with his accent, and everything to do with his illogical statements, and abuse of the definitions of words.



well they have their testimonies and they were more fanatic than you are.



I'm not a fanatic.



so i dont know ahy i should take what you say serious and not them.

You should only take me serious if you wish to understand my view of the world. You are welcome to ignore me, and those like me if you want.

graveyardofempires
12-02-2011, 06:50 PM
You said that Judiasm and Christianity borrowed a lot from paganism, which is what I agreed with.

Islam is also Abrahamic religion

Not true. This is a retroactive editing of history.
NO its not its the TRUTH which you hate to hear,the term christin and jew was introduced later and thats when the paganism got into it no twith because of abraham.


All the religions stemming from the judiasm of Abraham are considered "Abrahamic religions" -- it's the actual name of the category of religions. Since Abraham's religion was based on paganistic beliefs, any religion that stems from that includes basis as well.
wrong

people mix it with paganism at the time of oppression.
for example the jews did it at babylon when they werent allowd to practice their religionand christianity was created by the Romans after the persecuted many followers of christ and made their religion incorporated with paganism.


That has nothing to do with it. The fact remains that he *is* a fool. The fact that it is called the theory of evolution is not proof it is not true, it is proof that he doesn't understand what the word means in a scientific context, and is unwilling to learn.
First of all ,theory of evolution is a pack of lies created by racists to feel superior,thats why the most evolve species are considered white people.
Zakir Naik is a million times more knowledgeable than you are and you must show respect or do you feel threatend by him exposing the theory of evolution?How about Harun Yahya,guess now you are going to attack him as well,typical atheist evolutionist tactic.



I have seen enough videos from him, and they are all poorly done, and based on flawed arguments and illogical statements, so I stopped wasting time on him.

or you couldnt take the truth,and how about all those atheist statements and christians and jews who are muslism now?



I disagree. The statements he makes about the theory of evolution is proof of that. It has nothing to do with his accent, and everything to do with his illogical statements, and abuse of the definitions of words.
not really,sicne the theory of evolution is not a fact and a theory which can never be true,even though they teach it at schools in europe.If you object to it they simply will say ,its complix you wouldnt understand it,JUS BELIEVE IT BLINDLY as we say.


I'm not a fanatic.

you are fanatically opposing anything which doesnt suite your little world view and try to avoid the facts and evidence cuz you were taught differently.


You should only take me serious if you wish to understand my view of the world. You are welcome to ignore me, and those like me if you want.
I understand your view of the world and thats why i reject a view of the world where eugenics/population reduction is seen as something totally normal and where the white man is the most evolved among the people.
come on now tell me that im wrong and it is much more complex and i dont understand evolution.

ozymandias
12-02-2011, 07:19 PM
Islam is also Abrahamic religion


Yes, yes it is. Where is the confusion?


NO its not its the TRUTH which you hate to hear,the term christin and jew was introduced later and thats when the paganism got into it no twith because of abraham.


You can label it 'Truth' with a capital T all you want, but until you present archaeological or historical evidence, it's not fact.



wrong

people mix it with paganism at the time of oppression.
for example the jews did it at babylon when they werent allowd to practice their religionand christianity was created by the Romans after the persecuted many followers of christ and made their religion incorporated with paganism.



Not true. The Torah, and OT both clearly show that they are a part of a polytheistic faith redacted into a monotheistic faith. Many events, and 'miracles' are simply plagiarized from older pagan religions.



First of all ,theory of evolution is a pack of lies created by racists to feel superior,thats why the most evolve species are considered white people.


So now you are making up opinions and claiming that they are proof evolution is wrong? Because you don't agree with the fake interpretation of evolution you made up it is wrong?



Zakir Naik is a million times more knowledgeable than you are and you must show respect



When he apologizes for his gross misuse of the term evolution, we might make progress, until then, he is just a fool.



or do you feel threatend by him exposing the theory of evolution?



He only exposed his ignorance. His proof that evolution is not fact is that it is called a 'theory' -- that is not proof of anything but his inability to understand what a 'theory' is in science.




How about Harun Yahya,guess now you are going to attack him as well,typical atheist evolutionist tactic.



Actually, I am unfamiliar with this person, so I have no comments to make.



or you couldnt take the truth,and how about all those atheist statements and christians and jews who are muslism now?



What about them? I already pointed out that many of them did not even understand atheism -- like that video of Naik 'converting' someone from atheism by asking stupid, easily answered questions.

What about all the converts away from Islam? Unfortunately, while there is a huge pressure to pretend to be Muslim, there is also a huge pressure not to admit to leaving the faith, so you cannot accurately count the defectors from the faith.

Interesting that despite the risk in leaving the faith, many still do, though.



not really,sicne the theory of evolution is not a fact



Actually, it is.



and a theory which can never be true,



Despite the fact that it is true....



even though they teach it at schools in europe.If you object to it they simply will say ,its complix you wouldnt understand it,JUS BELIEVE IT BLINDLY as we say.



I have never heard, nor seen a science teacher do that. Any that do should be fired, since it is their job to teach it.



you are fanatically opposing anything which doesnt suite your little world view and try to avoid the facts and evidence cuz you were taught differently.




Actually, no. I just oppose illogical statements made with no evidence. It may be because I was taught that way -- but it makes it no less true.



I understand your view of the world and thats why i reject a view of the world where eugenics/population reduction is seen as something totally normal



So do I. I also oppose the death penalty for any crime. What's your point?



and where the white man is the most evolved among the people.



I also agree with this statement. Interesting that you made it up....



come on now tell me that im wrong and it is much more complex and i dont understand evolution.

Actually, it appears you don't understand evolution. The white man is no more or less evolved than any other race, nor is evolution too complex to teach or understand. It's fairly easily understood. First off, you are making the same mistake Naik is -- the word 'theory' does not mean less true than a fact, or law. It is just a different term used.

graveyardofempires
12-02-2011, 07:25 PM
^
you just love to argue for the sake of it and i have no time to waste.

anyway check Harun Yahya on youtube.

al-arab
12-03-2011, 07:28 AM
I am saying that I do not glorify those that had to go to war. I am saying that not every soldier was a criminal. I am saying that given the information that *started* the war, that war was required to prevent a despot from abusing weapons of mass destruction. I am saying that the laws of Iraq violated UN declarations, and needed to be rectified to guarantee the basic rights of it's citizens, as the dictators were unwilling to change otherwise.

It was a horrible war, and should have been avoided, and a better solution was desirable, especially after it was found out he did not have WMD.



Thank you. It's the least decent humans can do.

Watching the news. It's debatable that the government 'lied', as many of the inspectors and studies indicated that the weapons existed. It is not a lie to be wrong, if you are mistaken.

You're kidding right?

When was the entire military complex found guilty of these crimes?

We are well aware that you feel this is true.

Feel free to educate me. Unlike you, I am willing to research and look into topics that I feel are wrong. I don't say there is no point in understanding them.

Feel free to try and educate me. I will make the time to read and reply to those posts.
´
I think I will just end this discussion before I say something that is not appropriate here.

I can only say that I feel sorry for your ignorance.

The UN declared the war illegal and now you are claiming that your country are not breaking any laws. Shameless, absolutely shameless.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-10770239 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-10770239)

You are deliberately provoking about such sensitive matters and I will not allow that even though you are clearly ignorant.

Try and take a look at the Wikileaks published about the Iraq War. They obtained secret files from your army intelligences on reports of casualties, torture, mass killings etc.

May people of your kind be cursed by Almighty Allah if you do not regret your views/actions from the bottom of your heart.

I will post the documentary brother Graveyardofempires posted in the Pashtun category. I will post it in the political forum. I do not expect you to be able to answer it or say any other thing that your normal nonsense that is packed in "pleasant" but empty words.

ozymandias
12-05-2011, 10:32 AM
´
I think I will just end this discussion before I say something that is not appropriate here.

I can only say that I feel sorry for your ignorance.



Not as sorry as I feel about you, and yours.



The UN declared the war illegal and now you are claiming that your country are not breaking any laws. Shameless, absolutely shameless.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-10770239 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-10770239)



Care to find an article to back that claim up? The article you linked was *not* a formal UN declaration, but the opinion of a retired inspector, and stated that the UN *DID* pass resolutions justifying the war. This single person does not speak for the UN, nor does he overrule declarations and resolutions with his mere opinion.



You are deliberately provoking about such sensitive matters and I will not allow that even though you are clearly ignorant.



I'm not deliberately provoking anything. You are the one twisting words, and lying about my opinions on matters. You are the one trying to cause issues here.



Try and take a look at the Wikileaks published about the Iraq War. They obtained secret files from your army intelligences on reports of casualties, torture, mass killings etc.



Funny little fact you are overlooking -- the wikileaks material came out *AFTER* the war started. They have nothing to do with the facts presented to the American public before the war to justify it to the people.



May people of your kind be cursed by Almighty Allah if you do not regret your views/actions from the bottom of your heart.



Good thing most Americans don't believe in your god, then. Those that believe in a god believe in a more forgiving one, that is able to understand honest mistakes.



I will post the documentary brother Graveyardofempires posted in the Pashtun category. I will post it in the political forum. I do not expect you to be able to answer it or say any other thing that your normal nonsense that is packed in "pleasant" but empty words.

Sorry you are unable to understand my comments any better than that. We can work on your understanding of the English language when you try and teach me about Islam.

Afghanistan2010
12-05-2011, 11:53 AM
Disproving Evolution in Less Than 3 Minutes - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHmQhyUH1TM)

brother graveyardOE he ( ozy) has no reply to this.

ozymandias
12-05-2011, 12:13 PM
[/URL][URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHmQhyUH1TM"]Disproving Evolution in Less Than 3 Minutes - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHmQhyUH1TM)

brother graveyardOE he ( ozy) has no reply to this.


You are right -- I have no answer, because I have never seen that video before. I will watch it as soon as I am able and I will address it at that time.

Why would you think this video is any better than any of the other 'evidence' you have provided that was disproven already?

Afghanistan2010
12-05-2011, 12:57 PM
I will wait for your reply....

ozymandias
12-05-2011, 02:10 PM
I will wait for your reply....


HAHAHAHA!

Ok, seriously? He 'disproved' evolution by stating that somehow the proteins of your body are not controlled by DNA -- but then provides no evidence to back up that claim? Proteins are very much controlled by DNA, and the cells that excrete the proteins are the ones that control where the non-growth proteins are arranged.

He jumps from 'DNA only works in cells' to 'here is a protein outside of a cell' to 'evolution disproven', with no discussion of the middle steps, nor citations for the sources of his claim.


NEXT!

al-arab
12-05-2011, 02:23 PM
I urge everyone to ignore ozymandias he has clearly lost it and was exposed as an liar and un-Islamic person who try to provoke and divide us Muslims.

Are you that ignorant?

Maybe you should read about the veto power in the United Nations Security Council. Both France and Russia vote veto agains the war which means, according to the rules of the UN that it was an illegal war.

Maybe you should give yourself some time and read this. (there are plenty of references). Maybe your arrogant ignorance will disappear in a second.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_the_Iraq_War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_the_Iraq_War)

You are again either stupid or ignorant. The secret information Wikileaks acquired was not only from before the war but also before.

You have figured out that the infidels and its coalition lied openly in the UN by providing false information? You do know that the Russian security service dismissed usa's claims of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and links with Al-Qaeda as did the zionist intelligence? And the French and German...

You are a laughing stock.

Now you are lying again. Shall I find the exact thread were you glorifyed american presecence in Iraq? Know don't lie to me again.

"Good thing most Americans don't believe in your god, then. Those that believe in a god believe in a more forgiving one, that is able to understand honest mistakes."

Is that a provocation against Almighty Allah and Islam? If so I think there should be taken action against this ozymandias.

"Sorry you are unable to understand my comments any better than that. We can work on your understanding of the English language when you try and teach me about Islam."

I understand everything you say, it's not that complicated even though you might think that yourself....

English may not be my first language but I wonder how your Arabic and Spanish skills are. Or any other languages that resemble those two (especially those who resemble Arabic and there are quite a lot).

Again a poor attempt of being personal yet again from you.

What are you trying to do? You already has proven your ignorance about Islam. I am not going to waste my time explaining it to you what is requirred to understand Islam correctly and in the right context.

Afghanistan2010
12-05-2011, 02:26 PM
HAHAHAHA!

Ok, seriously? He 'disproved' evolution by stating that somehow the proteins of your body are not controlled by DNA -- but then provides no evidence to back up that claim? Proteins are very much controlled by DNA, and the cells that excrete the proteins are the ones that control where the non-growth proteins are arranged.

He jumps from 'DNA only works in cells' to 'here is a protein outside of a cell' to 'evolution disproven', with no discussion of the middle steps, nor citations for the sources of his claim.


NEXT!

Oh you seems to be winner ? are you serious...

you should have taken up a look on Sciencemag.org, which i gíve more credibility than such fake scientists trolling around.

what they say about the cell and what you just dropped (crap) here.

Regarding the sh** you produced

John Travis said :
Somehow, a cell must get all its proteins to their correct destinations-and keep these molecules out of the wrong places. The mystery of how cells place their protein repertoire is far from solved.


Discussed in this issue :

Mysteries of the Cell

http://www.sciencemag.org/site/special/cellbio2011/ (http://www.sciencemag.org/site/special/cellbio2011/)

au revoire Mon Chéri

Alchemist
12-05-2011, 02:56 PM
HAHAHAHA!

Ok, seriously? He 'disproved' evolution by stating that somehow the proteins of your body are not controlled by DNA -- but then provides no evidence to back up that claim? Proteins are very much controlled by DNA, and the cells that excrete the proteins are the ones that control where the non-growth proteins are arranged.

He jumps from 'DNA only works in cells' to 'here is a protein outside of a cell' to 'evolution disproven', with no discussion of the middle steps, nor citations for the sources of his claim.


NEXT!

.
The argument in the video is that genes code for a variety of type of proteins. Some of the functions of the proteins is to regulate the function of other proteins, for example chaperones, which fold protein. One gene cannot know the function of another gene, so how would the gene code for a protein that regulates for the function of multiple genes...especially when the function of those regulated proteins could not be known without their assembly. The only this would happen is if they are produced concurrently...and the chances of that happening are too low to be probable.

Get it?

ozymandias
12-05-2011, 03:08 PM
I urge everyone to ignore ozymandias he has clearly lost it and was exposed as an liar and un-Islamic person who try to provoke and divide us Muslims.



When did I lie -- and when did I ever profess to be anything other than an Atheist?



Are you that ignorant?

Maybe you should read about the veto power in the United Nations Security Council. Both France and Russia vote veto agains the war which means, according to the rules of the UN that it was an illegal war.



Citation needed. Find a link that says that -- and not one about the opinion of a retired member of the UN.



Maybe you should give yourself some time and read this. (there are plenty of references). Maybe your arrogant ignorance will disappear in a second.

[/URL][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_the_Iraq_War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_the_Iraq_War)

You are again either stupid or ignorant. The secret information Wikileaks acquired was not only from before the war but also before.



But it was not released *until after the war started*. You cannot hold the US public accountable for information they did not have at the start of the war.



You have figured out that the infidels and its coalition lied openly in the UN by providing false information? You do know that the Russian security service dismissed usa's claims of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and links with Al-Qaeda as did the zionist intelligence? And the French and German...

You are a laughing stock.

Now you are lying again. Shall I find the exact thread were you glorifyed american presecence in Iraq? Know don't lie to me again.



Go for it. Let's see the context.



"Good thing most Americans don't believe in your god, then. Those that believe in a god believe in a more forgiving one, that is able to understand honest mistakes."

Is that a provocation against Almighty Allah and Islam? If so I think there should be taken action against this ozymandias.



Take action if you feel it needs to be taken. You threatening me with actions of your god are no more threatening to me than a hippy threatening to punch me in my aura. If I don't believe in your god, threats of punishment from your god are not threatening at all.



"Sorry you are unable to understand my comments any better than that. We can work on your understanding of the English language when you try and teach me about Islam."

I understand everything you say, it's not that complicated even though you might think that yourself....

English may not be my first language but I wonder how your Arabic and Spanish skills are. Or any other languages that resemble those two (especially those who resemble Arabic and there are quite a lot).



My foreign language skills are admittedly poor, and are rusty these days. I would never try to tell a native speaker their language skills are poor if I can't understand what they say.



Again a poor attempt of being personal yet again from you.

What are you trying to do? You already has proven your ignorance about Islam. I am not going to waste my time explaining it to you what is requirred to understand Islam correctly and in the right context.

Interesting. This seems to be a common thread. Anything that is questionable about Islam results in this comment to a non-believer. Almost like you don't know enough to explain it.

ozymandias
12-05-2011, 03:10 PM
Oh you seems to be winner ? are you serious...

you should have taken up a look on Sciencemag.org, which i gíve more credibility than such fake scientists trolling around.

what they say about the cell and what you just dropped (crap) here.

Regarding the sh** you produced

John Travis said :


Discussed in this issue :

Mysteries of the Cell

[/URL][url]http://www.sciencemag.org/site/special/cellbio2011/ (http://www.sciencemag.org/site/special/cellbio2011/)

au revoire Mon Chéri

Exactly. It is far from solved, so to claim it could only happen by DNA is false, and proves his whole argument is based on false premises.

graveyardofempires
12-05-2011, 03:10 PM
ozymendis now you are just being anti intelligence.

ozymandias
12-05-2011, 03:12 PM
.
The argument in the video is that genes code for a variety of type of proteins. Some of the functions of the proteins is to regulate the function of other proteins, for example chaperones, which fold protein. One gene cannot know the function of another gene, so how would the gene code for a protein that regulates for the function of multiple genes...especially when the function of those regulated proteins could not be known without their assembly. The only this would happen is if they are produced concurrently...and the chances of that happening are too low to be probable.

Get it?

Evolution is not the same as 'chance', get it? Genes don't need to 'know' anything about other genes, get it? You clearly are rejecting evolution based on your not understanding evolution here. You act like 'chance', and 'genes knowing about other genes' is even part of evolution, and that's not even remotely true.

Alchemist
12-05-2011, 08:08 PM
Evolution is not the same as 'chance', get it?

The major component of Evolution is descent with modification and the process for descent with modification is "random mutation" and "Natural Selection". Which means that it is guided by "unintelligence", hence it is called random, 'chance' mutation.

If you didn't know this then it is you who is the most ignorant of what evolution is.

In order for this theory to be scientific you have to present the evidence that that historic mutation and selection events were unguided by intelligence. This would make the assertion that all mutations and selection mechanisms used by evolution to produce what exists falsifiable. But no such evidence exists or ever will.

Genes don't need to 'know' anything about other genes, get it? You clearly are rejecting evolution based on your not understanding evolution here. You act like 'chance', and 'genes knowing about other genes' is even part of evolution, and that's not even remotely true.[No, you are rejecting my argument based on your misunderstanding which is likely due to your own ignorance of biological concepts beyound grade 10 of highschool.

Different genes code for proteins that are a part of one complex mechanism, if one gene is missing then their cellular function would cease.
So when you say "genes don't know anything about other genes", you are speaking out of ignornace of the complexity of these mechanisms. For example, a protein called secb acts as a chaperone for specific proteins, without which the pathway would cease to function. So here we have one gene producing a protein, the function of which is depandent on the production of another protein. The secb is so specific to the protein that if you induce a mutation to one of it's genes, then it wouldn't function. These are highly specified proteins that are created for other proteins..therefore, these proteins could not have developed indepandently!

Get it?

Or should I draw you pictures?

Afghanistan2010
12-06-2011, 07:16 AM
[QUOTE=ozymandias;552756]USA war in Iraq legal QUOTE]


You are the most stupid person i ever met,you are truely brainwashed by the american mass propaganda....

sadly you did not went to iraq otherwise luckly you would have ended like the Islamic army in iraq did to the pilot that survived the downing of his helicopter....

http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/077378.php (http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/077378.php) ( anti muslim page)

The Iraq was well known to the american terrorists,they invaded it to get its oil and butcher its people,no weapons of mass destruction no atom bomb,no al qaeda.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=7ad2561232 (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=7ad2561232)

:hmm:

ozymandias
12-06-2011, 10:31 AM
The major component of Evolution is descent with modification and the process for descent with modification is "random mutation" and "Natural Selection". Which means that it is guided by "unintelligence", hence it is called random, 'chance' mutation.



Once again your ignorance is showing. The DNA mutations are random, but the natural selection is not. Saying evolution is merely chance ignores the selection portion. Me rolling 1 through 6 sequentially with a die would be a matter of chance. Me rolling 1 through 6 sequentially, with me rejecting any roll that does not fit is not chance. See the difference?



If you didn't know this then it is you who is the most ignorant of what evolution is.

In order for this theory to be scientific you have to present the evidence that that historic mutation and selection events were unguided by intelligence.



Done.



This would make the assertion that all mutations and selection mechanisms used by evolution to produce what exists falsifiable. But no such evidence exists or ever will.



Only because you decided to ignore it.



No, you are rejecting my argument based on your misunderstanding which is likely due to your own ignorance of biological concepts beyound grade 10 of highschool.



Interesting claim. If my knowledge of biology is only grade 10, what does that make yours considering I am consistently correcting you?



Different genes code for proteins that are a part of one complex mechanism, if one gene is missing then their cellular function would cease.
So when you say "genes don't know anything about other genes", you are speaking out of ignornace of the complexity of these mechanisms. For example, a protein called secb acts as a chaperone for specific proteins, without which the pathway would cease to function. So here we have one gene producing a protein, the function of which is depandent on the production of another protein. The secb is so specific to the protein that if you induce a mutation to one of it's genes, then it wouldn't function.



Where are the neurons? Where is this 'knowledge' stored? Aside from your abuse of the language, you now need to show that secb's evolutionary predecessors have no function. It's interesting to note that no reputable modern biologist believes in irreducible complexity. Behe has been completely refuted many times over.

Could you please cite some reputable sources on your claims of secb? A google search resulted in nothing.



These are highly specified proteins that are created for other proteins..therefore, these proteins could not have developed indepandently!



False logic. You have not shown anything other than they compliment each other in their current forms.



Get it?

Or should I draw you pictures?

You are welcome to break out the finger paints if it makes you feel better.

ozymandias
12-06-2011, 10:32 AM
[QUOTE=ozymandias;552756]USA war in Iraq legal QUOTE]


You are the most stupid person i ever met,you are truely brainwashed by the american mass propaganda....

sadly you did not went to iraq otherwise luckly you would have ended like the Islamic army in iraq did to the pilot that survived the downing of his helicopter....

[/URL]http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/077378.php (http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/077378.php) ( anti muslim page)

The Iraq was well known to the american terrorists,they invaded it to get its oil and butcher its people,no weapons of mass destruction no atom bomb,no al qaeda.

[url]http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=7ad2561232 (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=7ad2561232)

:hmm:


Could you please try and re-state that? I have no idea what you are trying to say.

Afghanistan2010
12-06-2011, 10:58 AM
Could you please try and re-state that? I have no idea what you are trying to say.

American terrorists has illegally invaded iraq and killed over a half million people and should be taken responsible....iraqis have the right to take revenge.

i wished american could stay longer and die more of them in iraq for their crimes.


and to the last , i enjoyed watching this ....

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=7ad2561232 (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=7ad2561232)

ozymandias
12-06-2011, 11:26 AM
American terrorists has illegally invaded iraq and killed over a half million people and should be taken responsible....iraqis have the right to take revenge.

i wished american could stay longer and die more of them in iraq for their crimes.


and to the last , i enjoyed watching this ....

[/URL][url]http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=7ad2561232 (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=7ad2561232)


I think I understand now. Thanks.

Alchemist
12-06-2011, 07:05 PM
Once again your ignorance is showing. The DNA mutations are random, but the natural selection is not. Saying evolution is merely chance ignores the selection portion. Me rolling 1 through 6 sequentially with a die would be a matter of chance. Me rolling 1 through 6 sequentially, with me rejecting any roll that does not fit is not chance. See the difference?



Done.



Only because you decided to ignore it.



Interesting claim. If my knowledge of biology is only grade 10, what does that make yours considering I am consistently correcting you?



Where are the neurons? Where is this 'knowledge' stored? Aside from your abuse of the language, you now need to show that secb's evolutionary predecessors have no function. It's interesting to note that no reputable modern biologist believes in irreducible complexity. Behe has been completely refuted many times over.

Could you please cite some reputable sources on your claims of secb? A google search resulted in nothing.



False logic. You have not shown anything other than they compliment each other in their current forms.



You are welcome to break out the finger paints if it makes you feel better.


I don't know why you keep deluding your self like this.

I'll try to dumb it down for you this time so you don't argue out of ignorance again.

To say that selection is nonrandom is to say that there is intelligence involved in the "selection for" assumption of evolution.

Who or what does the selection? Complex mechanisms are built with sophistication and are linked in meaningful ways. Not a single protein floats in your system without purpose or function. So these "intermediate" proteins that have yet to find a purpose or be a part of a mechanism - do not exist. Every gene codes a purposeful and functional protein with a specific job.

You are asking me for proof?
You are a hypocrite and an intellectual fraud for not showing any proof your self and always asking for it. (So far I didn't press you for any because I know you are completely ignorant of evolution but only blindly follow it). But from now I am going to squeeze you for every idiotic and unsubstantiated bluff you make.

1) What are secb's evolutionary predecessors?

2) Show the evidence that that historic mutation and selection events were unguided by intelligence.

3) Who are the scienitsts that reject "irreducible complexes". Keep in mind that Michael Behe is himself an accredit scienist!

^ you answer the above and we'll see how you have "corrected" me.

ozymandias
12-07-2011, 11:07 AM
I don't know why you keep deluding your self like this.

I'll try to dumb it down for you this time so you don't argue out of ignorance again.

To say that selection is nonrandom is to say that there is intelligence involved in the "selection for" assumption of evolution.



Not at all. If I take a bag of sand, and pour it through a screen, some of the particles will pass through, and some will not -- in a non-random manner. That screen is selecting based on given criteria (the size of the holes in the screen), and I cannot imagine anyone in the world would claim that screen is intelligent.

You are assuming that the only two choices are 'random' and 'intelligent', which is clearly not the case.



Who or what does the selection?



The environment. What survives to breed.



Complex mechanisms are built with sophistication and are linked in meaningful ways. Not a single protein floats in your system without purpose or function. So these "intermediate" proteins that have yet to find a purpose or be a part of a mechanism - do not exist. Every gene codes a purposeful and functional protein with a specific job.



And you need to prove that these intermediate forms have no purpose. Irreducable complexity has been debunked over and over again in scientific papers. You have to show that it exists.



You are asking me for proof?



Yes. You are claiming that modern science, and modern biology is false and wrong, and are claiming that all modern scientists are wrong, and don't even know it. Of course I need more than your opinion on that topic as evidence you are right -- especially considering you don't even understand the discussion topic.



You are a hypocrite and an intellectual fraud for not showing any proof your self and always asking for it.



Unfortunately, this is also untrue. I provided plenty of evidence and cited my sources while refuting your claims in the evolution threads.



(So far I didn't press you for any because I know you are completely ignorant of evolution but only blindly follow it). But from now I am going to squeeze you for every idiotic and unsubstantiated bluff you make.



Good. Since I don't make bluffs, I am fine.



1) What are secb's evolutionary predecessors?



That's up to you to provide. You claimed that they would be non-functional in any way. I am not doing your research for you.



2) Show the evidence that that historic mutation and selection events were unguided by intelligence.



Again, you are abusing the scientific system. You need to prove your claims that it was. It is not my job to disprove your extraordinary claims. It is your job to show that evolution does not fit the evidence, and that your claim does.



3) Who are the scienitsts that reject "irreducible complexes". Keep in mind that Michael Behe is himself an accredit scienist!



All modern and respected biologists. Accredited does not mean respected, or correct. Rather than provide a list of scientists that disprove him, here is a link to a fairly recent ruling, where a judge sumarized the topic, and stated that irreducable complexity is not science, and has been throughly refuted in peer reviewed journals:
Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/4:Whether ID Is Science - Wikisource (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District/4:Whether_ID_Is_Science#Page_79_of_139)



^ you answer the above and we'll see how you have "corrected" me.

You want cases of me correcting you? feel free to look up that evolution thread again. It was chock full of them.

Alchemist
12-07-2011, 11:03 PM
Not at all. If I take a bag of sand, and pour it through a screen, some of the particles will pass through, and some will not -- in a non-random manner. That screen is selecting based on given criteria (the size of the holes in the screen), and I cannot imagine anyone in the world would claim that screen is intelligent.

You are making a circular argument.

If the screen is built intelligently than the sand won't fall through it in a non-random manner. Meaning that screen is built to screen out only sand grains of upto a certain size ONLY.

If the screen is a mesh of random straws, like that the roof of a hut made out of straws, then all types of different sizes of grains of sand will pour through, in a random manner.

The screen itself is an inanimate object, but it is built and used by an intelligent being to screen for "something" specifically.



You are making some ridiculous arguments.

You are assuming that the only two choices are 'random' and 'intelligent', which is clearly not the case.
What is a third case?
Just humour me ...



The environment. What survives to breed.
Now you are making a tautological argument.
What is the environment? An intelligent being?

John's being a bachelor is his being an unmarried man, John's being a bachelor doesn't explain his being an unmarried man.

There aren't any laws of selection!

It's obvious that no trait could be adaptive for creatures across the board. Traits in isolation don;t' get selected for at all - Creatures don't have traits in isolation but what they have is whole phenotypes.
Ecological property just is whatever some phenotypic trait is an adaptation to; and adaptations just are phenotypic traits that solve ecological problems.
So 'adaptations are always solutions to ecological' isn't after all a bona fida empirical claim; it's just a truism, like 'bachelors always turn out to be unmarried.'

And you need to prove that these intermediate forms have no purpose. Irreducable complexity has been debunked over and over again in scientific papers. You have to show that it exists.

You are being deceptive here.
I clearly said that purposeless intermediate forms DO NOT EXIST.
And you are asking me to prove they have a purpose?
(Are you dyslexic?)

Here is where it exists:
http://www.biocarta.com/pathfiles/h_rhodopsinPathway.gif

Now you show me how it is REDUCIBLE. Meaning that you can make it work in a much more simpler form...even if with a reduced function.


Yes. You are claiming that modern science, and modern biology is false and wrong, and are claiming that all modern scientists are wrong, and don't even know it. Of course I need more than your opinion on that topic as evidence you are right -- especially considering you don't even understand the discussion topic.
No...just your delusions.
I know science better than you do. Especially biological sciences so I know where the gaps are and why biology, unlike the other sciences, hasn't progressed far in the last century. You take it as a matter of faith and believe it in like I believe in the Qur'an. I don't understand the Qur'an 100%. But I believe in it 100%. I understand biology, and I know evolution, and it is only a secular narrative on creation. It is not a scientific theory.


Unfortunately, this is also untrue. I provided plenty of evidence and cited my sources while refuting your claims in the evolution threads.

I asked you for proof and instead you shrug your shoulders and make excuses ...telling me that I have to find proof for your claims?

Good. Since I don't make bluffs, I am fine.



That's up to you to provide. You claimed that they would be non-functional in any way. I am not doing your research for you.


You are the genius who said something about "evolutionary predecessors" of SecB genes.

I never made the claims that SecB has had an evolutionary predecessor. You did.

So what is it?

You are caught bluffing ...so you are lying to your self by believe that "they" even exists or existed! (Blind faith)

Again, you are abusing the scientific system. You need to prove your claims that it was. It is not my job to disprove your extraordinary claims. It is your job to show that evolution does not fit the evidence, and that your claim does.

You are obviously an idiot because you don't know what a null hypothesis is.

You are probably so stupid you don't even know what the hypothesis for evolution is ...I just stated to you the null hypothesis and I can assure you that it doesn't exist. And you are so stupid..that you are asking me to present you the evidence that I AM TELLING YOU DOESN'T EXIST!

Seems like I have psychologically traumatized you because you have gone into a defensive shell. You are more concerned with countering me than answering me or debating me. Stop this charade ...

All modern and respected biologists. Accredited does not mean respected, or correct. Rather than provide a list of scientists that disprove him, here is a link to a fairly recent ruling, where a judge sumarized the topic, and stated that irreducable complexity is not science, and has been throughly refuted in peer reviewed journals:
Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/4:Whether ID Is Science - Wikisource (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District/4:Whether_ID_Is_Science#Page_79_of_139)



You want cases of me correcting you? feel free to look up that evolution thread again. It was chock full of them.

I remember you made some asinine remark like...How can I be related to my father 50% if I am related to Chimpanzees 95%?or...Bacteria evolved resistance to antibiotic drugs because humans developed antibiotics recently...

You are just a delusional and distraught fool who is too high off himself. Go educated your self in biology. I just caught you making a series of bluffs all over again ...

You are free to believe what you want...but don't bs me and tell me it is all "Scientific".

The court trial that you are quoting is in regards to ID being a scientific theory...which it is not. And whether ID should be taught in schools. It shouldn't be. I don't hold any pretence on how He creates or created. ID holds as much water as Evolution...they are both just narratives. Neither are scientific.

But read this:
Evolution of the eye - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye)

^ Let's discuss the above, and you tell me...
"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications,

my theory would absolutely break down." (Origin of Species)

does such an explanation exist in the above wiki paper?

ozymandias
12-08-2011, 08:45 AM
You are making a circular argument.

If the screen is built intelligently than the sand won't fall through it in a non-random manner. Meaning that screen is built to screen out only sand grains of upto a certain size ONLY.

If the screen is a mesh of random straws, like that the roof of a hut made out of straws, then all types of different sizes of grains of sand will pour through, in a random manner.

The screen itself is an inanimate object, but it is built and used by an intelligent being to screen for "something" specifically.



You are kidding right? That was an example of a non-intelligent item making selections, and you grasped at the straw of 'it took intelligence to make the object'?

What about gold setting out into the riffles of a stream? What about the grains of sand on the beach? There are tons of other examples that avoid your silly argument.




You are making some ridiculous arguments.



Says the man that thinks a screen is intelligent.




What is a third case?
Just humour me ...



Reality -- non random, non intelligent. There is no need for intelligence to 'decide' what is the most fit organism, since the definition of 'most fit' is 'that which has the most surviving offspring capable of breeding'. Nothing actually needs to count the offspring to decide what is most fit, you just let it breed.






Now you are making a tautological argument.
What is the environment? An intelligent being?



Now you are being a moron. Why are you bringing intelligence into this? There is absolutely no need for intelligence to determine what is most fit. It is a direct result of the definition of 'fit'. You keep acting like events fail to happen without an intelligence nearby to observe, when reality does not work that way.



John's being a bachelor is his being an unmarried man, John's being a bachelor doesn't explain his being an unmarried man.



What does that have to do with anything?



There aren't any laws of selection!



Correct. There are no laws of selection, there is only a measure of fitness, which changes from case to case. What is most fit in one case, is not necesarily the most fit in another. Why are you assuming there are laws controlling this?



It's obvious that no trait could be adaptive for creatures across the board.



You are the only one that has ever argued that it did, while I kept trying to explain to you that this is the case. Glad you finally realize that.



Traits in isolation don;t' get selected for at all



Right. You need an environment for the selection.



- Creatures don't have traits in isolation but what they have is whole phenotypes.
Ecological property just is whatever some phenotypic trait is an adaptation to; and adaptations just are phenotypic traits that solve ecological problems.
So 'adaptations are always solutions to ecological' isn't after all a bona fida empirical claim; it's just a truism, like 'bachelors always turn out to be unmarried.'



Now you lost me. This is not even discussing natural selection. You are talking about the traits of a single organism. Natural selection requires more than one organism (with more than one phenotype) so that the two can compete, and the most fit can more successfully propagate it's genes.





You are being deceptive here.
I clearly said that purposeless intermediate forms DO NOT EXIST.
And you are asking me to prove they have a purpose?
(Are you dyslexic?)



No, I am stating that you need to prove your claims that the intermediate forms of secb have no purpose -- but now you have expanded it to an all encompassing statement that they do not exist anywhere. You need to prove your claim. We won't just take you at your word.

And no, I am not dyslexic -- but I am concerned about the evident learning disability you are showing.



Here is where it exists:
http://www.biocarta.com/pathfiles/h_rhodopsinPathway.gif

Now you show me how it is REDUCIBLE. Meaning that you can make it work in a much more simpler form...even if with a reduced function.



Not my job. You make the claim, you prove it. That's how science works. It is not up to me to disprove your baseless claims, it is up to you to show they have a base, and have merit to even investigate. You claim that there is no reducible form that has a function of any sort. Now you need to enumerate the possible reductions, and show that there is no function for any of those.





No...just your delusions.
I know science better than you do.



Clearly not. You have stated speciation has never been observed. I corrected that. You claimed that donkeys and horses are the same species. I corrected that. You claimed that every single living bacteria is it's own species, I corrected that. You claimed that it is the role of science to disprove all crazy claims, when it is the role of the claimant to prove it. Where is this mythical knowledge of science you claim to have?



Especially biological sciences so I know where the gaps are and why biology, unlike the other sciences, hasn't progressed far in the last century.



Seriously? You claim *that*?



You take it as a matter of faith



False. I am a scientist, and take nothing on faith.



and believe it in like I believe in the Qur'an.



False. Science is not a matter of faith. It is a matter of reproducible and 'best fit' of theories and laws to the evidence known. They are nothing alike.



I don't understand the Qur'an 100%. But I believe in it 100%. I understand biology, and I know evolution, and it is only a secular narrative on creation. It is not a scientific theory.



And clearly you understand science, particularly biology and evolution far less than you understand the koran. Blind faith is not a virtue.






I asked you for proof and instead you shrug your shoulders and make excuses ...telling me that I have to find proof for your claims?

[quote]

No, I tell you that you have to find proof for *your* claims. It is not up to me to disprove your baseless claims. It is up to you to prove them.

[quote]



You are the genius who said something about "evolutionary predecessors" of SecB genes.

I never made the claims that SecB has had an evolutionary predecessor. You did.



No, you claimed that there is no possible evolutionary predecessor -- that any possible predecessor would have no function. You now need to prove that claim.



So what is it?




*shrug*

I'm not putting any effort into disproving your claim until you provide some sort of evidence to validate your claim -- at which point, I will correct your mistakes, and once again, you will learn more about biology.



You are caught bluffing ...so you are lying to your self by believe that "they" even exists or existed! (Blind faith)



Not at all. I am simply waiting for you to attempt to substantiate your claim.




You are obviously an idiot because you don't know what a null hypothesis is.



Actually, I am quite aware of what a null hypothesis is -- in fact, that is why I don't believe in the supernatural. The null hypothesis is that all known events can be explained with natural laws, and no one has yet proven otherwise.



You are probably so stupid you don't even know what the hypothesis for evolution is ...I just stated to you the null hypothesis and I can assure you that it doesn't exist.



Don't 'assure me'. Given your failings at science and logic, I will not take your word for anything -- and no one should take *anyones* word as scientific proof. I am simply asking you to stop acting like a religious person, and act like a scientist -- and prove your claims.

You claim that their is no possible evolutionary predecessor of secb that has a benefit to the organism. Don't assure me that it does not exist -- prove it.




And you are so stupid..that you are asking me to present you the evidence that I AM TELLING YOU DOESN'T EXIST!



No. I am asking you to prove the claim you made.



Seems like I have psychologically traumatized you because you have gone into a defensive shell. You are more concerned with countering me than answering me or debating me. Stop this charade ...



I have no idea what you are talking about. I am simply sticking to science, and the scientific method. I am not interested in 'debating' you -- I lost that interest a long time ago, and am simply working to educate you so that one day we can have a debate.





I remember you made some asinine remark like...How can I be related to my father 50% if I am related to Chimpanzees 95%?



Your memory is slipping again.




or...Bacteria evolved resistance to antibiotic drugs because humans developed antibiotics recently...



Further evidence of your slipping. That was the straw man you created and pretended to refute. No one other than you made that claim.



You are just a delusional and distraught fool who is too high off himself. Go educated your self in biology. I just caught you making a series of bluffs all over again ...



I can't decide if you are just a troll, or if you actually believe that.



You are free to believe what you want...but don't bs me and tell me it is all "Scientific".



You are also free to believe what you want. I assure you, I have never, and will never 'bs' you, though. Feel free to accept my claim, or reject it -- it doesn't matter to me in this case.



The court trial that you are quoting is in regards to ID being a scientific theory...which it is not.



Right.



And whether ID should be taught in schools. It shouldn't be. I don't hold any pretence on how He creates or created. ID holds as much water as Evolution...they are both just narratives. Neither are scientific.



Wrong.



But read this:
Evolution of the eye - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye)

^ Let's discuss the above, and you tell me...
"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications,

my theory would absolutely break down." (Origin of Species)

does such an explanation exist in the above wiki paper?

No -- and if it does, it is because of vandalism of wikipedia. The eye is a constant claim from creationists of 'irreducible complexity' and it has been constantly debunked. There is absolutely no merit to the claim it is irreducibly complex.