It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

I had a chat conversation with a self described "moderate Muslim" and here it is

page: 4
9
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 4 2015 @ 03:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ghost147
a reply to: luthier
a reply to: TheBulk

Yes, I am perfectly aware that science can be used improperly. The actions taken by a few scientists, and certainly by politicians, do not reflect what science is, it represents how man kind is easily swayed by self progression. Science, however, is merely a way we can study something. It has as much sway in philosophical claims as mathematics does.


originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Ghost147

I think Science is very like a religion.

Science thinks Humans are special.


How? Because we have a more developed brain? Yes, we are 'special' in that way. But, that doesn't mean we're the center of focus, or have a special purpose. We say that the Mantis shrimp is special too, because they have several unique mutations in their sight. We say that the Tardigrade is special too, because of it's ability to survive in vacuum of space; among a plethora of other fascinating adaptations.

I think you're viewing the word "special" in the wrong light.
Science also casts out heretics and persecutes all other religions.


originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Ghost147
Science reveres Its own saints.


No. there are no 'saints' in science. We acknowledge accomplishments, and we recognize when a scientist accumulates a well rounded reputation by the successes of their research, but they aren't consider 'saints' in any way.


originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Ghost147
Science makes up stories to explain our origins.


We make observations that give evidence towards our origin. Nothing in science is considered absolute because all we have is our observations, which are subject to change among new evidence.


originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Ghost147
I can keep drawing parallels and similaritys if you wish?


I haven't seen you give a single trait that resembles the definition of a religion, in science.

A religion is a belief system. Religion seeks meaning and the answer to "why" the world is as we know it, based on the unquestioned assumption that such meaning and purpose exist.
Science searches for mechanisms and the answer to "how" the universe functions, with no appeal to higher purpose, without assuming the existence of such purpose.

Beliefs cannot be arbitrated to determine which is valid because there is no objective basis on which to compare one set of beliefs to another. Where as Science requires criticism, and it can receive criticism because the claims made within science are based off of observations and evidence. If there's new evidence discovered, that old claim will be rewritten to be more accurate thanks to that new evidence.

Religion claims absolute certainty

Science acknowledges that we cannot know anything for certain.

I can keep educating you on the contrast between the two, if you wish?


originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Ghost147
The difference being, with science it requires experimentation, and repetition of said experiments to gain credence and merit. All in all Science is rather synonymous with religion. It also requires faith.


Religious faith, and faith that when 'something goes up, it will come down' are two different definitions of the word faith. I have faith that my next breath I take will be filled with air that my body can use to continue to survive. This terminology of 'faith' is not identical to 'religious faith', which is a belief not based on proof, and one that surrounds a belief system.


I think you missed the whole point. And the comparisons are obvious.

Science comes from the human exploration of reason and truth which has its foundation in both philosophy and theology. If you study cosmology you will see the direct link between theology and science. The scientific method in its modern definition comes from enlightenment era philosophy.

If you use Hume's fork you may find it hard to defend you are not just going on faith.


It's also not a few scientist. It's becoming the majority especially in pharmaceuticals.
edit on 4-12-2015 by luthier because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 4 2015 @ 03:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
I think you missed the whole point. And the comparisons are obvious.


The comparisons you think are their are delusional. I can cite the information in my response to back up my claims if you wish?


originally posted by: luthier
Science comes from the human exploration of reason and truth which has its foundation in both philosophy and theology.


Science doesn't deal with exploring 'truths' at all, as I've already stated, Science acknowledges that certainty is an impossibility. Science only deals with the study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. It certainly applies reason, if you're referring to the power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic. If you're referring to reason from the perspective of 'why are we here', a philosophical standpoint, then no, it has nothing to do with it.


originally posted by: luthier
If you study cosmology you will see the direct link between theology and science.


I'm not seeing the connection.


originally posted by: luthier
The scientific method in its modern definition comes from enlightenment era philosophy.


Yes, the advent of the Scientific Method was likely perceived by philosophers. That doesn't mean it involves philosophy, simply because it was created by them.


originally posted by: luthier
If you use Hume's fork you may find it hard to defend you are not just going on faith.


Hume's fork is a philosophical explanation, not a scientific one. I'm not sure what you're trying to get at



posted on Dec, 4 2015 @ 04:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: luthier
I think you missed the whole point. And the comparisons are obvious.


The comparisons you think are their are delusional. I can cite the information in my response to back up my claims if you wish?


originally posted by: luthier
Science comes from the human exploration of reason and truth which has its foundation in both philosophy and theology.


Science doesn't deal with exploring 'truths' at all, as I've already stated, Science acknowledges that certainty is an impossibility. Science only deals with the study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. It certainly applies reason, if you're referring to the power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic. If you're referring to reason from the perspective of 'why are we here', a philosophical standpoint, then no, it has nothing to do with it.


originally posted by: luthier
If you study cosmology you will see the direct link between theology and science.


I'm not seeing the connection.


originally posted by: luthier
The scientific method in its modern definition comes from enlightenment era philosophy.


Yes, the advent of the Scientific Method was likely perceived by philosophers. That doesn't mean it involves philosophy, simply because it was created by them.


originally posted by: luthier
If you use Hume's fork you may find it hard to defend you are not just going on faith.


Hume's fork is a philosophical explanation, not a scientific one. I'm not sure what you're trying to get at


First off you don't speak for science and what it is.

Second the scientific method is directly related to Newton and Locke in the emperical philosophy movement. Which corresponds to realists like Decarte. Obviously you are a little fuzzy on the history of science and the anthropology of logic.

What does cosmology ask? What is it looking for.

There are many branches of theoretical physics looking for truth.

I think you are mistaking aplied science for the whole field. My brother is a leading particle physicist doing weather modelling for its effect on the market.

He had full scholarships all the way through both his Dr at the U of chicago and was selected to work at fermilabs for his second Dr in cosmology. They ask what is true all the time.

If you don't understand how philosophy led to science and how it is crucial for scientists in theoretical work I can't convince you. Science and religion have been copartners for thousands of years. Who came up with the big bang? A priest. By asking a cosmological question. How and when did it start. That is the search for what is true.

PS Hume's fork is not a philosophical explanation at all. Maybe you should review
dangerousidea.blogspot.com...

edit on 4-12-2015 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2015 @ 04:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
I think you are mistaking aplied science for the whole field. My brother is a leading particle physicist doing weather modelling for its effect on the market.


Yes, I can agree to this. I was referring to applied sciences. Nevertheless, the term "faith" when used to describe some fields in physical sciences, is still a gross misrepresentation to the word 'faith'. Again, it has nothing to do with a 'religious faith'.


originally posted by: luthier
If you don't understand how philosophy led to science and how it is crucial for scientists in theoretical work I can't convince you.


I stated in the post you quoted that it did stem from philosophy.


originally posted by: luthier
PS Hume's fork is not a philosophical explanation at all. Maybe you should review


From what I understand, Hume's fork was developed by David Hume (a philosopher), in an explanation on defining what evidence is, in reference to a number of fields.

EDIT: The link you provided has this in it's last words:

This is called, in philosophy, Hume's Fork.

EDIT2: This is getting very off-topic
edit on 4/12/15 by Ghost147 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2015 @ 09:42 PM
link   
From my understanding; the tax that applies to non Muslims in a caliphate is to offset the percentage of wealth Muslims are legally required to donate to charity. Non muslims arent required to make this donation so they pay a tax. It's also a guarantee of access to public services and protection by the state. The fact that this makes up part of their laws indicates non Muslims are able to peacefully co-exist without the threat of imminent decapitation or forced conversion; which seems to contradict the other points you attempted to make.

The guy you were talking to wasn't very smart but you were incredibly antagonistic in your approach. This was less of a conversation than it was a thinly veiled criticism of his beliefs designed to reinforce a pre-existing bias. Perhaps you should ask yourself whether having this convo did anything to change his perception of non Muslims and achieve something productive.

There are many of us who find all of the abrahamic faiths abhorrent and backwards but respect their right to believe whatever they want without continually poking them over their glaring inconsistencies.



posted on Dec, 4 2015 @ 11:55 PM
link   
a reply to: MagnaCarta2015

TechniXcality: omar should i be killed for disbelief
Omar: no its not like that
Omar: well Quran says to open these countries and spreed islam on it
Omar: and only kill the ppl who come against islam
TechniXcality: what about apposty should someone be killed or stoned for turning from Allah
Omar: jihad goes for the ppl who are against muslims and fights them
Omar: not the peace ppl
Omar: u mean if someone was muslim then he turns to another religion ?
TechniXcality: yes
Omar: yea
Omar: that one should be killed in our religion

, either your reading comprehension is lacking ,or you are purposefully ignoring this conversation and specifically this part. Which says "open these countries and spread Islam and only kill people who come against Islam" how can you twist this? The caliphate is a world wide aspiration, and the tax, death,and conversion that is the beliefs he espoused, congratulations on being the first one to try to claim these aren't extremist ideas and this is a compatible ideology.



posted on Dec, 5 2015 @ 12:42 AM
link   
a reply to: TechniXcality

I am purposely ignoring it yes; because it's idiocy to think a conversation with a moron is going to be representative of over a billion people all with nuanced ideas about their faith and the way it's interpreted; especially when even Islamic scholars can't reach a meaningful concensus on it and most Muslims arent able to read the qu'ran in arabic while fluent Arabic speakers struggle with it.

If you actually wanted serious answers instead of run here with your arms flailing at the imminent violent destruction of the kuffar because of a slanted chatroom convo with some random mental patient you could have spent 5 minutes on Wikipedia and got the answers yourself. You would have at least discovered how disputed these issues are within islam.

I don't think I claimed it was a compatible ideology anywhere. Do you struggle to comprehend what the word abhorrent means?



posted on Dec, 5 2015 @ 12:54 AM
link   
a reply to: MagnaCarta2015

Do you struggle to understand the first paragraph of your post to which I responded?



posted on Dec, 5 2015 @ 01:25 AM
link   
a reply to: TechniXcality

I should hope not if I wrote it. Look, you seem like a nice guy. Stop being afraid. There will never be an Islamic caliphate because muslims can't agree on what one should look like and even if it there was it would be destroyed from the inside with all the bickering. Yes they can coexist peacefully in the West the same way we peacefully coexist in a lot of their countries. Go to your local mosque and ask the imam, you'll get much more detailed and intelligent answers.



posted on Dec, 5 2015 @ 03:00 AM
link   
a reply to: TechniXcality

Losing battle mate . The PC crowd here either doesn't see things for what they are , or , they believe their heads are safe because they can point to a post where they say the moderate Muslims are all good people . Radical Muslims dont give a crap . Geez they kill each other .



posted on Dec, 5 2015 @ 02:30 PM
link   
a reply to: hutch622

Deus lo vult!

Another lost battle, but some pseudo Christians never learn. Unable to see the whole picture due to this narrow field of view under tinfoil helmets and behind shielding visors of ignorance. Always ready to take a blow, self-proclaimed paladins act as living reminder of Platos allegory of the cave. Apparently, context is not their friend.

Violent assholes kill each other, just go ahead and watch some vids. ISIS-retards for example are mainly westernized and don't give a flying sh!t about Islam, I have yet to see one radical Muslim in their flock. And don't link some talking head of Iman, I mean real fighters.





Self-radicalization doesn't automatically lead to violence. Thing is, there is no supreme supreme in collective punishment and arrogance either. Being in my head, I just see another form of self-radicalization happening right here on ATS.
Deny ignorance, don't embrace it!



posted on Dec, 7 2015 @ 10:14 AM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant





In fact, how many husbands anywhere and from any religious or ideological background are going to let a guy they don't know or approve of meet their wife in a garage?


Lots. Only insecure pee holes have a problem with another man around their wife. Your oppression of women is showing. In fact, your comment is full of a male dominated ideology to even consider or suggest no husband would want another man around his wife. What you just did in one sweeping statement is suggest that women can't be trusted and men can't be trusted around women, alone. Why not? Is he gonna rape her? Is she going to perform adultery? I've got this little saying I like to use. "one who looks under the bed, hides under the bed" Know what that means? It means if you're able to do it yourself, then you think everyone is capable of the same thing. It's telling you believe no husband would want a man to be alone with his wife. Regardless of the circumstance.

Pfft, you try to pass yourself of as a moderate muslim but in reality, you're just as misogynistic as the rest of Islam. Aren't you?



posted on Dec, 7 2015 @ 04:44 PM
link   
a reply to: FlySolo




you're just as misogynistic as the rest of Islam


Yeah, right. And all Christians follow the Ten Commandments categorically.



Star for you anyway, besides from that ironic part of yours I would be tempted to agree with you.



posted on Dec, 10 2015 @ 12:37 PM
link   
a reply to: TechniXcality

No screenshots of this apparent chat-room conversation?

How does anybody know that you didn't pull this out of your butt?



posted on Dec, 10 2015 @ 09:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Prezbo369

Actually I did post screen shots, and the mods removed them and fixed the text.. Would you like them again?



posted on Dec, 11 2015 @ 02:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: TechniXcality
a reply to: Prezbo369

Actually I did post screen shots, and the mods removed them and fixed the text.. Would you like them again?


Well it would certainly add some authenticity to the OP....

And did you post images of your entire screen onto ATS? even on a tiny monitor that'd be crazy.

A link to an image hosting page would have been more appropriate.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join