6 ms·

Proper religion and science do not disagree. I am a person of faith (which is backed by evidence), and my faith pushed us to seek knowledge. The Islamic Golden

Proper religion and science do not disagree. I am a person of faith (which is backed by evidence), and my faith pushed us to seek knowledge. The Islamic Golden age is a testament to that fact. Scientism is not what you defined. From wikipedia (which I take with a big grain of salt) > Scientism is the opinion that science and the scientific method are the best or only way to render truth about the world and reality. Watch this to get a different perspective on the matter: https://youtu.be/If3cNUixEBM https://youtu.be/If3cNUixEBM

nnoitra 4y ago
Yes yes and sperm comes from between backbone and ribs.
- al_mandi 4y ago
  Sounds like another straw man (answer here by the way https://youtu.be/rvrqwD4I9Nc https://youtu.be/rvrqwD4I9Nc). Did you watch the video I posted earlier?
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
michaelmrose 4y ago
Faith by definition isn't something which can be backed by evidence otherwise it would by definition just be a type of science. It would be the study of God via experimentation, accumulation of evidence, and logical extrapolation. There are religious folks that are big on logical deduction and extrapolation but they all start with terribly unlikely axioms pulled straight out of their ass or equally made up fictions rendered sacred somehow by the passage of time.
- al_mandi 4y ago
  > Faith by definition isn't something which can be backed by evidence There is evidence backed belief in the unseen, and there is blind faith. So your claim that by definition faith is without evidence is not correct. Secondly, even science needs to accept certain axioms as a given so that we can build upon them. Scientism is believing that the only way to arrive at truth is through experimentation, which is a false view. There are many things we accept, even though we cannot prove them through experimentation. Watch the lecture I posted to broaden your horizons.
  - michaelmrose 4y ago
    Science chooses minimal axioms and builds the flesh of the world based on the existing bones ready to revise when new bones are discovered. Religion chooses a substantial set of axioms derived from a mixture of philosophy and fantasy dreamt up by our pre scientific ancestors who thought bad smells caused disease then makes many forms of revision sinful. A set of beliefs without ability to revise everything from the ground up will forever be limited.
    - al_mandi 4y ago
      Just because the sets are of different size does not mean one is incorrect. You're also straw manning by talking about pre ancestors and bad smells.
      - michaelmrose 4y ago
        You can't win arguments by playing logical fallacies like they are uno cards. I was pointing out that the same ancestors who dreamt up the axioms you aren't allowed by religious law to fully revise or toss out had understandings limited by the information available in that antique period. Only hundreds of years ago medical professionals believed in the miasma theory of disease and before that both of our ancestors believed that sickness had paranormal causes. The problem with your set of axioms isn't MERELY the size. It's that you are asked to buy them in a box sealed millennia ago by people who if they were transported to our time frame would be regarded as lunatics because they believe crazy shit. Worse you are offered imaginary immortality and the threat of imaginary perdition in order to obtain actual service in exchange for wholly fictional benefits.
  - michaelmrose 4y ago
    It took him 8 minutes to actually set himself up to actually start talking and the first thing that came out of Dr Ali's mouth is a lie. He said of 4 prominent authors promoting atheism that he described as the four horsemen of atheism that their primary argument is that god isn't good ergo god isn't real. This...just isn't true. It's a gross reduction. I'm 8 minutes in and your speaker's only substantial point is a lie. Now we go on to a false rant about Islam being inherently peaceful when it didn't arise in a peaceful time nor promote what we would today think of as peace, atheists being bigots, random comparison of atheism to antisemitism. Some hate for the Beatles. Comparison of Beatles fandom to satanism. I have to admit that this is entertaining. Having someone smart enough to read books and speak well while being absolutely committed to falsehood is like watching someone dress up their dog as a human being. The forms are there but not the substance. People have been declaring society was going to hell in a hand basket for at least the last several thousand years and were we really going to hell we should have long since arrived in perdition. It is common to mistake change in social norms as decay instead of progression because one who is anchored in a particular set of mores and forms is unable to see the value in change. They perceive only the losses and never the gains. Your speaker declares that a fiction is the root of all morality and I find myself unimpressed with his insight because people hold all sorts of beliefs including none at all and this seems positively uncorrelated with their observed degree of morality and decency. He has it in fact entirely backwards and the necessary fictions we create to explain our world our rooted in our essential nature as sympathetic and empathetic creatures. We look at our fellow man and see the need to care about them as we do ourselves and thus we elevate that concern to a natural law and produce something better than ourselves to defend it. If we were inherently so lawless the need for law and justice as each society understands it wouldn't flow so effortlessly from our pens or spring so readily to our minds. The reasoning is simple we developed a mind too complex for direct meta analysis of all its internal workings and a need to work beside others of our own species as complex as ourselves and the tools to understand and predict their behavior works well turned inward. We perceive the difference between a desired state and a present state even if its not actually physically painful as suffering and produce a society where at least an in group minimizes suffering because its adaptive surely but also because we live not in the world but in our own heads in a model of the world constantly rewritten full of individuals we imagine with the same tools we use to imagine ourselves. If we destroy them or diminish them we must necessarily live in an internal world wrought in part of the blight we have brought about which we must perceive again with the same internal tools we use to experience ourselves. All evil and harm is self mutilation. For a being capable of sympathy and meta-cognition morality would seem to come naturally even if the end results differ wildly in thoughts, results, and methods. Assigning it ex post facto to the god you created to enforce it is the tail wagging the dog. It's illogical because empathy came millions of years before your particular species of god. 13 minutes in and his argument seems to be that it would be really bad if God weren't real ergo God then some people who promoted atheism were bad dudes ergo we must reject atheism. This mirrors the exact argument he first falsely put in the mouths of his opponents and then helpfully debunked. Now we are suggesting that atheism suggests that survival of the fittest be applied as a moral principal rather than a description of the evolution of life on Earth. This is a tired trope. If rabbits are different degrees of brown and the browner guys blend in better and the coyotes each more of the other fellows then more browner rabbits will on average breed over time leading to browner rabbits. Trying to apply this moralistically towards human beings is both a misunderstanding of humanity, ethics, and science. We don't need Jesus or Allah to tell us this is a bad idea. At 16 we segway into shitty parts of American history with a sideline into why Muslims are better because they don't kill women and children. Notably given the religious make up of American leaders these actions were largely perpetrated by people who also believe in God. This is neither here nor there but keeping score on that point seems pretty important to him. At this point it looks like its important to him to establish a hierarchy of morality Islam > Christianity > Godless. Since I don't have all day I'm going to skip from minute 18 to 45. Ok now we are proving the existence of gods we have the same tired arguments about a watch implying a watch maker and various aspects of our solar system being particularly amenable to life. One would expect such a discussion to happen on worlds,solar systems, and universes that themselves are amenable to our kind of life while silence is likely to reign in environments were life is impossible or unlikely. If he had read more of the books he degrades by the "four horsemen" of atheism he might already have good answers to these arguments. Likely he has but he hopes you will click a youtube video and sit back and passively absorb re-enforcement of your existing beliefs than actually reading a book yourself. I watched at least half the lecture you posted and I found it deceptive, manipulative, and ill founded. It did a reasonable job of lobbing critiques at America's geopolitical actions which one might say are fairly easy targets but a poor job of addressing any big questions. May I suggest you read something written by one of the "four horsemen" of atheism?
wruza 4y ago
I’m only 10:33 into this video and already facepalming so much. The guy starts with explaining logic basics, which is cool, then goes to blaming some people “leading the atheist movement” (whom I never really listened to and agree that they devote too many of their attention to fight religion, but hey everyone chooses their own way) and then summarizes “if you don’t have any moral authority then what’s your moral anchor” backing it by some citation of classics lacking any context. Right after talking about logic and how these atheist leaders manipulate it. Then goes to repeat some worship nonsense. Don’t expect many people to watch this hour long blah blah blah. Edit: beared with it to 19:18 and stopped, sorry, this guy is full of populistic bullshit he tries to refute. Does god exist or not, we will not know ftom this. But you are literally following a fanatic.
- al_mandi 4y ago
eis 4y ago
You don't need to post the video numerous times. I have commented on it on one of your other replies. > Proper religion and science do not disagree. What makes a proper religion? And can you tell me how it agrees with science? > I am a person of faith (which is backed by evidence), and my faith pushed us to seek knowledge. The Islamic Golden age is a testament to that fact. Well for me personally, curiousity pushed me to seek knowledge but each to their own. My problem is that any religion who believes in an all powerful God quickly runs into logical problems. Here is one quick example and I'd love for you to explain to me where my reasoning went wrong: 1. Assume there is an omnipotent being called God 2. If God is omnipotent then he can create two other omnipotent beings that have the following two goals: 1. destroy the other being 2. protect itself from being destroyed. 3. Clearly both of these created beings cannot both achieve their goals because they cannot both destroy the other and at the same time protect themselves. 4. If these beings cannot do what they were created for then clearly they cannot be omnipotent. 5. If God cannot create such beings then clearly he himself is not omnipotent
- al_mandi 4y ago
  > What makes a proper religion? And can you tell me how it agrees with science? One that is backed by proofs and evidence. Islam does not disagree with science. Your argument is not very different from can God create a rock so heavy that He cannot cary it? The answer is simple, it's a logical absurdity to even go there. God told us about his Attributes, and we are not to hold Him or His Attributes to our worldly logic.
  - eis 4y ago
    > One that is backed by proofs and evidence. I have seen zero proofs for the existance of god. Not in your video or anywhere else. If such proof existed then that would be the biggest scientific breakthrough in history and it would be the absolute focus for science to understand more. > Your argument is not very different from can God create a rock so heavy that He cannot cary it? The answer is simple, it's a logical absurdity to even go there. God told us about his Attributes, and we are not to hold Him or His Attributes to our worldly logic. Yes it's the same argument. I can't follow your logic though. You just claim that we cannot comprehend the concept of god. You say that logic cannot be applied. If we cannot comprehend god and have to give up logic then why would we follow the word of certain people who claimed that god spoke to them? How can we tell apart a true prophet who really was contacted by god from a random imposter? To tell those apart would mean we already know what god would or would not say. But if god does not have to follow logic then how can we deduce what is correct or not? As you see once you leave the realm of logic the whole house of cards falls. Another thing you could deduce from your argument btw is that god created humans intentionally in a way that they cannot comprehend. Isn't that painting god in a pretty bad light?

nnoitra 4y ago

Yes yes and sperm comes from between backbone and ribs.

al_mandi 4y ago
Sounds like another straw man (answer here by the way https://youtu.be/rvrqwD4I9Nc https://youtu.be/rvrqwD4I9Nc). Did you watch the video I posted earlier?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

michaelmrose 4y ago

Faith by definition isn't something which can be backed by evidence otherwise it would by definition just be a type of science. It would be the study of God via experimentation, accumulation of evidence, and logical extrapolation. There are religious folks that are big on logical deduction and extrapolation but they all start with terribly unlikely axioms pulled straight out of their ass or equally made up fictions rendered sacred somehow by the passage of time.

al_mandi 4y ago
> Faith by definition isn't something which can be backed by evidence There is evidence backed belief in the unseen, and there is blind faith. So your claim that by definition faith is without evidence is not correct. Secondly, even science needs to accept certain axioms as a given so that we can build upon them. Scientism is believing that the only way to arrive at truth is through experimentation, which is a false view. There are many things we accept, even though we cannot prove them through experimentation. Watch the lecture I posted to broaden your horizons.
- michaelmrose 4y ago
  Science chooses minimal axioms and builds the flesh of the world based on the existing bones ready to revise when new bones are discovered. Religion chooses a substantial set of axioms derived from a mixture of philosophy and fantasy dreamt up by our pre scientific ancestors who thought bad smells caused disease then makes many forms of revision sinful. A set of beliefs without ability to revise everything from the ground up will forever be limited.
  - al_mandi 4y ago
    Just because the sets are of different size does not mean one is incorrect. You're also straw manning by talking about pre ancestors and bad smells.
    - michaelmrose 4y ago
      You can't win arguments by playing logical fallacies like they are uno cards. I was pointing out that the same ancestors who dreamt up the axioms you aren't allowed by religious law to fully revise or toss out had understandings limited by the information available in that antique period. Only hundreds of years ago medical professionals believed in the miasma theory of disease and before that both of our ancestors believed that sickness had paranormal causes. The problem with your set of axioms isn't MERELY the size. It's that you are asked to buy them in a box sealed millennia ago by people who if they were transported to our time frame would be regarded as lunatics because they believe crazy shit. Worse you are offered imaginary immortality and the threat of imaginary perdition in order to obtain actual service in exchange for wholly fictional benefits.
- michaelmrose 4y ago
  It took him 8 minutes to actually set himself up to actually start talking and the first thing that came out of Dr Ali's mouth is a lie. He said of 4 prominent authors promoting atheism that he described as the four horsemen of atheism that their primary argument is that god isn't good ergo god isn't real. This...just isn't true. It's a gross reduction. I'm 8 minutes in and your speaker's only substantial point is a lie. Now we go on to a false rant about Islam being inherently peaceful when it didn't arise in a peaceful time nor promote what we would today think of as peace, atheists being bigots, random comparison of atheism to antisemitism. Some hate for the Beatles. Comparison of Beatles fandom to satanism. I have to admit that this is entertaining. Having someone smart enough to read books and speak well while being absolutely committed to falsehood is like watching someone dress up their dog as a human being. The forms are there but not the substance. People have been declaring society was going to hell in a hand basket for at least the last several thousand years and were we really going to hell we should have long since arrived in perdition. It is common to mistake change in social norms as decay instead of progression because one who is anchored in a particular set of mores and forms is unable to see the value in change. They perceive only the losses and never the gains. Your speaker declares that a fiction is the root of all morality and I find myself unimpressed with his insight because people hold all sorts of beliefs including none at all and this seems positively uncorrelated with their observed degree of morality and decency. He has it in fact entirely backwards and the necessary fictions we create to explain our world our rooted in our essential nature as sympathetic and empathetic creatures. We look at our fellow man and see the need to care about them as we do ourselves and thus we elevate that concern to a natural law and produce something better than ourselves to defend it. If we were inherently so lawless the need for law and justice as each society understands it wouldn't flow so effortlessly from our pens or spring so readily to our minds. The reasoning is simple we developed a mind too complex for direct meta analysis of all its internal workings and a need to work beside others of our own species as complex as ourselves and the tools to understand and predict their behavior works well turned inward. We perceive the difference between a desired state and a present state even if its not actually physically painful as suffering and produce a society where at least an in group minimizes suffering because its adaptive surely but also because we live not in the world but in our own heads in a model of the world constantly rewritten full of individuals we imagine with the same tools we use to imagine ourselves. If we destroy them or diminish them we must necessarily live in an internal world wrought in part of the blight we have brought about which we must perceive again with the same internal tools we use to experience ourselves. All evil and harm is self mutilation. For a being capable of sympathy and meta-cognition morality would seem to come naturally even if the end results differ wildly in thoughts, results, and methods. Assigning it ex post facto to the god you created to enforce it is the tail wagging the dog. It's illogical because empathy came millions of years before your particular species of god. 13 minutes in and his argument seems to be that it would be really bad if God weren't real ergo God then some people who promoted atheism were bad dudes ergo we must reject atheism. This mirrors the exact argument he first falsely put in the mouths of his opponents and then helpfully debunked. Now we are suggesting that atheism suggests that survival of the fittest be applied as a moral principal rather than a description of the evolution of life on Earth. This is a tired trope. If rabbits are different degrees of brown and the browner guys blend in better and the coyotes each more of the other fellows then more browner rabbits will on average breed over time leading to browner rabbits. Trying to apply this moralistically towards human beings is both a misunderstanding of humanity, ethics, and science. We don't need Jesus or Allah to tell us this is a bad idea. At 16 we segway into shitty parts of American history with a sideline into why Muslims are better because they don't kill women and children. Notably given the religious make up of American leaders these actions were largely perpetrated by people who also believe in God. This is neither here nor there but keeping score on that point seems pretty important to him. At this point it looks like its important to him to establish a hierarchy of morality Islam > Christianity > Godless. Since I don't have all day I'm going to skip from minute 18 to 45. Ok now we are proving the existence of gods we have the same tired arguments about a watch implying a watch maker and various aspects of our solar system being particularly amenable to life. One would expect such a discussion to happen on worlds,solar systems, and universes that themselves are amenable to our kind of life while silence is likely to reign in environments were life is impossible or unlikely. If he had read more of the books he degrades by the "four horsemen" of atheism he might already have good answers to these arguments. Likely he has but he hopes you will click a youtube video and sit back and passively absorb re-enforcement of your existing beliefs than actually reading a book yourself. I watched at least half the lecture you posted and I found it deceptive, manipulative, and ill founded. It did a reasonable job of lobbing critiques at America's geopolitical actions which one might say are fairly easy targets but a poor job of addressing any big questions. May I suggest you read something written by one of the "four horsemen" of atheism?

wruza 4y ago

I’m only 10:33 into this video and already facepalming so much. The guy starts with explaining logic basics, which is cool, then goes to blaming some people “leading the atheist movement” (whom I never really listened to and agree that they devote too many of their attention to fight religion, but hey everyone chooses their own way) and then summarizes “if you don’t have any moral authority then what’s your moral anchor” backing it by some citation of classics lacking any context. Right after talking about logic and how these atheist leaders manipulate it. Then goes to repeat some worship nonsense. Don’t expect many people to watch this hour long blah blah blah. Edit: beared with it to 19:18 and stopped, sorry, this guy is full of populistic bullshit he tries to refute. Does god exist or not, we will not know ftom this. But you are literally following a fanatic.

al_mandi 4y ago

eis 4y ago

You don't need to post the video numerous times. I have commented on it on one of your other replies. > Proper religion and science do not disagree. What makes a proper religion? And can you tell me how it agrees with science? > I am a person of faith (which is backed by evidence), and my faith pushed us to seek knowledge. The Islamic Golden age is a testament to that fact. Well for me personally, curiousity pushed me to seek knowledge but each to their own. My problem is that any religion who believes in an all powerful God quickly runs into logical problems. Here is one quick example and I'd love for you to explain to me where my reasoning went wrong: 1. Assume there is an omnipotent being called God 2. If God is omnipotent then he can create two other omnipotent beings that have the following two goals: 1. destroy the other being 2. protect itself from being destroyed. 3. Clearly both of these created beings cannot both achieve their goals because they cannot both destroy the other and at the same time protect themselves. 4. If these beings cannot do what they were created for then clearly they cannot be omnipotent. 5. If God cannot create such beings then clearly he himself is not omnipotent

al_mandi 4y ago
> What makes a proper religion? And can you tell me how it agrees with science? One that is backed by proofs and evidence. Islam does not disagree with science. Your argument is not very different from can God create a rock so heavy that He cannot cary it? The answer is simple, it's a logical absurdity to even go there. God told us about his Attributes, and we are not to hold Him or His Attributes to our worldly logic.
- eis 4y ago
  > One that is backed by proofs and evidence. I have seen zero proofs for the existance of god. Not in your video or anywhere else. If such proof existed then that would be the biggest scientific breakthrough in history and it would be the absolute focus for science to understand more. > Your argument is not very different from can God create a rock so heavy that He cannot cary it? The answer is simple, it's a logical absurdity to even go there. God told us about his Attributes, and we are not to hold Him or His Attributes to our worldly logic. Yes it's the same argument. I can't follow your logic though. You just claim that we cannot comprehend the concept of god. You say that logic cannot be applied. If we cannot comprehend god and have to give up logic then why would we follow the word of certain people who claimed that god spoke to them? How can we tell apart a true prophet who really was contacted by god from a random imposter? To tell those apart would mean we already know what god would or would not say. But if god does not have to follow logic then how can we deduce what is correct or not? As you see once you leave the realm of logic the whole house of cards falls. Another thing you could deduce from your argument btw is that god created humans intentionally in a way that they cannot comprehend. Isn't that painting god in a pretty bad light?