Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts


Tunisia tensions boil ove...
Today at 06:35 PM

Qur'anic studies today
Today at 05:14 PM

Council of Exotic Muslims...
Today at 09:48 AM

Islamophobia is Wrong Wor...
Today at 06:40 AM

Apostasy Alternative
Yesterday at 03:55 PM

NayaPakistan...New Pakist...
Yesterday at 07:04 AM

What music are you listen...
by zeca
July 24, 2021, 08:55 PM

ماذا يحدث هذه الايام؟؟؟.
by akay
July 24, 2021, 04:12 PM

Eid Al-Adha
by akay
July 23, 2021, 07:56 PM

Random Islamic History Po...
July 23, 2021, 06:20 PM

Pakistan: The Nation.....
July 22, 2021, 09:52 PM

Afghanistan
July 22, 2021, 07:42 PM

Theme Changer

 Topic: Dawkins upsets Muslims again (Scientific achievement)

 (Read 31735 times)
  • Previous page 1 ... 5 6 78 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Dawkins upsets Muslims again (Scientific achievement)
     Reply #180 - August 20, 2013, 10:37 PM

    For some reason I'm actually watching the Dawkins/White thing. She said "Show me the evidence, show me the transitional", which Dawkins responds to by telling her all the evidence that has been found and exactly the best museums to go to see them, and she repeats it like she hasn't heard him. It's fucking painful. Like trying to teach algebra to a goldfish.

    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • Dawkins upsets Muslims again (Scientific achievement)
     Reply #181 - August 20, 2013, 10:57 PM

    devil  what is wrong with you.?  Though that response from  LArc   was written as response to your post  but mr. LArc  is digging at Colonel_Q.d..   lol..


    I should learn that not everything revolves round me. When I say 'really really happy' I was alluding to LArc's intention.

    I am my own worst enemy and best friend, itsa bit of a squeeze in a three-quarter bed, tho. Unhinged!? If I was a dog I would be having kittens, that is unhinged. Footloose n fancy free, forced to fit, fated to fly. One or 2 words, 3 and 3/thirds, looking comely but lonely, till I made them homely.D
  • Dawkins upsets Muslims again (Scientific achievement)
     Reply #182 - August 20, 2013, 11:00 PM

    I don't know enough Dawkins, Hitchens, Sagan, Harris et al. It is easy to find faults with this willing to put their heads above the parapet. Doesn't mean that that discredits them wholly.

    In their own sorta way they are cult heroes.

    I am my own worst enemy and best friend, itsa bit of a squeeze in a three-quarter bed, tho. Unhinged!? If I was a dog I would be having kittens, that is unhinged. Footloose n fancy free, forced to fit, fated to fly. One or 2 words, 3 and 3/thirds, looking comely but lonely, till I made them homely.D
  • Dawkins upsets Muslims again (Scientific achievement)
     Reply #183 - August 20, 2013, 11:05 PM

    Maybe it's because I'm so exhausted, but I'm not sure what your getting at except for the cult hero thing.

    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • Dawkins upsets Muslims again (Scientific achievement)
     Reply #184 - August 20, 2013, 11:16 PM

    Quod - you are right - I read it back and I can understand why it does not read through well, I should really invest in post editing.

    Basically, you like someone or you don't. If you do you are willing to fight the extra mile for, if you don't - you seek every little opportunity to knock them down a few pegs. Great men (and women) have faults, everyone does, shouldn't discredit the great and good things they do. Not saying that everyone thinks that these individuals are indeed great. I didn't support the Iraq War but that doesn't mean I can't think that Hitchen's (the little I have seen of him, or the others)isn't an intellectual colossus when it comes to dissecting/scrutinising something like religion.

    I am my own worst enemy and best friend, itsa bit of a squeeze in a three-quarter bed, tho. Unhinged!? If I was a dog I would be having kittens, that is unhinged. Footloose n fancy free, forced to fit, fated to fly. One or 2 words, 3 and 3/thirds, looking comely but lonely, till I made them homely.D
  • Dawkins upsets Muslims again (Scientific achievement)
     Reply #185 - August 21, 2013, 12:17 AM


    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • Dawkins upsets Muslims again (Scientific achievement)
     Reply #186 - August 21, 2013, 09:03 AM

    and give me your opinion LArc.....


    Hmmm, it's a nicely written, pretty good summary. But when Islam, science and culture is discussed, I often miss the mention of the Giant Elephant In The Room.........the Persian culture. It is automatically assumed somehow, that the Persians simply gave up their 3,000 (at that time!) years of cultural history and happily followed the students of Mo', because all of this stuff was new to them and no culture, science & knowledge existed in this region before Islam introduced itself "peacefully". And that all of said knowledge and science simply disappeared, which is nonsensical.

    So the Persians are as often mentioned as Waraka  Afro
  • Dawkins upsets Muslims again (Scientific achievement)
     Reply #187 - August 21, 2013, 09:33 AM

    Why did  Dawkins choose Islam and Muslims for not winning Noble prizes? Does he not know winning noble prize is very little do with religion?  Why not buddhists? hindus? or ratio of Jewish population over  Christian  population  W.r.t to   the number  that is ratio of Jewish Noble prize winners  over  Christian  Noble prize winners?


    I think he did for the very same reason Christians mention the (supposedly) automatic social benefits of turning/being Christian on for example, the crime rates. Christians often claim their delusion is "without any doubt" a positive influence on people.......yet they can't explain Death Row statistics in jails. Non-believers are supposedly without any "moral compass", therefore automatically anti-social, outright sociopathic..........and then you look at statistics and the opposite is the case, etc...

    By the same analogy, Islam and it's supposedly "pro-science" and "we "invented" the Western Civilization"-delusion would necessarily lead to statistically significant results, when we looked at the number of Islamic, outstanding scientists (I call it "Islamic", in the sense of "living in areas, where Islam is the main POLITICAL and CULTURAL engine, as opposed to looking at 1st/2nd generation immigrants to the West, who happen to be of Muslim background). It does, but to the exact opposite.

    Now whenever something leads to a clearly NEGATIVE connotation, pro-Islam-spokesmen claim a correlation, not a causation. When religion "poisons" said statistic, all of a sudden it's claimed: "hey, I mean, my SkyDaddy isn't involved here and you are IRRATIONAL" (when just seconds ago, it was stated by the same person, that his SkyDaddy makes him more moral, intelligent, knowledgeable and happy than others).

    Now as far as Christianity vs. Jewish Noble Prize winners goes; the "coincidence" is, that only non-fundamentalist Jews are winners and when looked at even closer, said group is clearly LESS religious (and for the most part non-religious or even atheistic) than the average Jew..........can the same causation be claimed for "culturally Christian", but non-fundamentalist Christians? Yes!

    Dawkins simply exposes the lie of the "virtue of faith".
  • Dawkins upsets Muslims again (Scientific achievement)
     Reply #188 - August 21, 2013, 11:51 AM

    Hmmm, it's a nicely written, pretty good summary.

    Glad to see your responses Mr. LArc .,  what is nicely written and where is the summary?

    Quote
    But when Islam, science and culture is discussed, I often miss the mention of the Giant Elephant In The Room.........the Persian culture. It is automatically assumed somehow, that the Persians simply gave up their 3,000 (at that time!) years of cultural history and happily followed the students of Mo', because all of this stuff was new to them and no culture, science & knowledge existed in this region before Islam introduced itself "peacefully". And that all of said knowledge and science simply disappeared, which is nonsensical.

    So the Persians are as often mentioned as Waraka  Afro

    I will agree with you that there was  indeed Science and technology before Islam in many cultures. Not only Persians  but Greeks,  Romans , Indians, Chinese all had some sort of science and some advances were made in Science and technology.  But you have to realize that Bedouin tribe of Arabia with  Islam  in their hands had something else in them  to wipe out  religious and cultural background of Ancient Persia.  Same thing goes to Indians or Indonesians in recent times. Some time back I explored this subject of Countries and Culture Before and After ISLAM: Iran/Persia. So if you look at the facts of expansion of Islam with in 100 years Prophet's death it proves that Muslims of that time had something else in them which other cultures/religions did not have.   I mean Muslim folks of past with their meager resources could run through many of these nations across Arabian peninsula  and more from East Africa to East Asia. More over most of these nations/cultures  were better in Science/technology and had better Armies.  Still they could not with stand onslaught of Islam.  So Persians were no exception to that rule.  The point is  Science/technology and scientists can not withstand the onslaught of religions and religious fervor.    Science can fight with RELIGIOUS STUPIDITY but can it fight & win over  religions of the past? 

     

    Do not let silence become your legacy.. Question everything   
    I renounced my faith to become a kafir, 
    the beloved betrayed me and turned in to  a Muslim
     
  • Dawkins upsets Muslims again (Scientific achievement)
     Reply #189 - August 21, 2013, 12:06 PM

    I think he did for the very same reason Christians mention the (supposedly) automatic social benefits of turning/being Christian on for example, the crime rates.

    you may think that way but his words don't come across that way.  Moreover  they appear to be Picking on Muslims and Islam.   I am not sure the comparison of  Crime rates of some nation/culture is relevant here.,    because you can have lots of crime around a city/nation  but if Protected,  funded, given freedom to explore,  Science will flourish and on the way get some Noble prizes in a city/in country with lots of crime.   Winning a Noble prize is a very specific Issue and that too it is very recent thing.
    Quote
    Christians often claim their delusion is "without any doubt" a positive influence on people.......yet they can't explain Death Row statistics in jails. Non-believers are supposedly without any "moral compass", therefore automatically anti-social, outright sociopathic..........and then you look at statistics and the opposite is the case, etc...

    By the same analogy, Islam and it's supposedly "pro-science" and "we "invented" the Western Civilization"-delusion would necessarily lead to statistically significant results, when we looked at the number of Islamic, outstanding scientists (I call it "Islamic", in the sense of "living in areas, where Islam is the main POLITICAL and CULTURAL engine, as opposed to looking at 1st/2nd generation immigrants to the West, who happen to be of Muslim background). It does, but to the exact opposite.

    Now whenever something leads to a clearly NEGATIVE connotation, pro-Islam-spokesmen claim a correlation, not a causation. When religion "poisons" said statistic, all of a sudden it's claimed: "hey, I mean, my SkyDaddy isn't involved here and you are IRRATIONAL" (when just seconds ago, it was stated by the same person, that his SkyDaddy makes him more moral, intelligent, knowledgeable and happy than others).

    Again that is not relevant to Dawkin's statement  on lack Nobles in Islamic nations.
    Quote
    Now as far as Christianity vs. Jewish Noble Prize winners goes; the "coincidence" is, that only non-fundamentalist Jews are winners and when looked at even closer, said group is clearly LESS religious (and for the most part non-religious or even atheistic) than the average Jew..........can the same causation be claimed for "culturally Christian", but non-fundamentalist Christians? Yes!

    That is a good point ., Now suppose if we all work, including Dawkins to make Muslims as "cultural  Muslims" instead of fundamentalist Muslims., would it not solve the problem?  Don't you think that Cultural Muslims will also contribute to science and technology, win noble prizes   and work for betterment of humanity?

    Quote
    Dawkins simply exposes the lie of the "virtue of faith".

    Well we have to think bit more here. All that you say is good and well., but question is,   Did  Dawkins really  expose  the lie of the "virtue of faith" or did he pick on Muslims and Islam?  It would nice if he himself clarifies  bit on that.  

    Any way please continue to read CEMB....

    Do not let silence become your legacy.. Question everything   
    I renounced my faith to become a kafir, 
    the beloved betrayed me and turned in to  a Muslim
     
  • Dawkins upsets Muslims again (Scientific achievement)
     Reply #190 - August 21, 2013, 02:22 PM

    I don't know enough Dawkins, Hitchens, Sagan, Harris et al. It is easy to find faults with this willing to put their heads above the parapet. Doesn't mean that that discredits them wholly.

    In their own sorta way they are cult heroes.


    Nonsense .. if you prove them wrong they will change in a second and they will agree with you., Cults and cults heroes don't change and will not allow you to question them.  But you don't know enough about these guys,   then you can not say that they are cult heroes

    Do not let silence become your legacy.. Question everything   
    I renounced my faith to become a kafir, 
    the beloved betrayed me and turned in to  a Muslim
     
  • Dawkins upsets Muslims again (Scientific achievement)
     Reply #191 - August 21, 2013, 09:57 PM

    Nonsense ..


    That's fighting talk Yeez.  Wink

    So you managed to understand my first post. Neither there or in my second did I say they were self-proclaimed or cult leaders. They can change their minds but until they do their supporters will fight hard for them. Ergo I called them cult heroes, no one proclaims themselves a hero.

    I am my own worst enemy and best friend, itsa bit of a squeeze in a three-quarter bed, tho. Unhinged!? If I was a dog I would be having kittens, that is unhinged. Footloose n fancy free, forced to fit, fated to fly. One or 2 words, 3 and 3/thirds, looking comely but lonely, till I made them homely.D
  • Dawkins upsets Muslims again (Scientific achievement)
     Reply #192 - August 21, 2013, 10:08 PM

    So you managed to understand my first post. Neither there or in my second did I say they were self-proclaimed or cult leaders. They can change their minds but until they do their supporters will fight hard for them. Ergo I called them cult heroes, no one proclaims themselves a hero.


    That is too complicated and too technical for me to understand devilsadvokat

    Quote
    That's fighting talk Yeez.  Wink  

    and technically speaking.. nonsense is nonsense   " that is not fighting " devil   ...   no fighting.. no fighting"   lol...

    Do not let silence become your legacy.. Question everything   
    I renounced my faith to become a kafir, 
    the beloved betrayed me and turned in to  a Muslim
     
  • Dawkins upsets Muslims again (Scientific achievement)
     Reply #193 - August 21, 2013, 10:18 PM

    I keep hearing the notion the fact we have algebra is all down to muslims. Never seen it backed up.

    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • Dawkins upsets Muslims again (Scientific achievement)
     Reply #194 - August 21, 2013, 10:19 PM

    I keep hearing the notion the fact we have algebra is all down to muslims. Never seen it backed up.


    Neither have I. And don't care. Muslims do have naming rights if no other evidence turns up.

    I am my own worst enemy and best friend, itsa bit of a squeeze in a three-quarter bed, tho. Unhinged!? If I was a dog I would be having kittens, that is unhinged. Footloose n fancy free, forced to fit, fated to fly. One or 2 words, 3 and 3/thirds, looking comely but lonely, till I made them homely.D
  • Dawkins upsets Muslims again (Scientific achievement)
     Reply #195 - August 21, 2013, 10:24 PM

    Science and Muslims: Myths & clichés

    Quote
    Caliph al-Hadi put to death in Baghdad 5,000 philosophers in order to destroy sciences in Muslim countries. Be it the brutal treatment of liberal scholars or an ideological war against rationality waged by people like Ghazali, Islam and the Quran were always at the service of fanatic mullahs. No matter how hard people like Dr Mehmood, Hossein Nasar or Ziauddin Sardar try to prove it, Islamic science never existed

    The Muslim world for more than the past thousand years is infested with the menace of anti-rationalism. Muslim society in general is trapped in a state of denial. It is averse to any kind of rational quest and ridden with the burden of traditions and has lost its will and ability to do science. In the words of noted Pakistani scientist and activist, Dr. Hoodbhoy, it is “inescapably trapped in a state of frozen medievalism”[1].

    How did we reach this point? This is a question which haunts many thinking human beings, both Muslims and non-Muslims. Worst of all: there have been very few significant efforts at recovery and to make this part of humanity more rational and receptive to new ideas fit for living in this age of space exploration, nano-scale technologies and gene therapy. While it is true that the West went through a similar period of anti-rationalism, those dark ages are long over.

    It is a favourite pastime for many of our Pakistani fellows to take pride in achievements of the past and claim ascendency over all the other ‘nations’ on the basis of some inventions of the seventh and eighth centuries. An inquiry into history is required if we are to determine whether this pride is justified. Moreover, there are several related questions in need of rational analysis. To what extent did Muslims contribute to the development of modern science? Was the religion of Islam a driving force behind their intellectual quests or on the contrary was it a repressive force.

    Islam originated among the Arab Bedouins, a superstitious, traditional tribal society for whom the height of intellectual activity was lengthy poems and storytelling. They had very little to do with science, philosophy and higher learning. Scroll through the list of Muslim scientists, and you find very few names hailing from Hejaz, the birthplace of Islam. The universities that attracted thousands from around the world were not built in Mecca or Medina. Rather it was to Baghdad and later southern Spain, where scholars flocked. It would be an outright injustice to the ancient civilizations that prospered in conquered areas centuries before Arab Muslims took over, to attribute all the cultural and scientific achievements in these regions to Muslims alone. Iranian civilization dates back to 4000 BC. Mesopotamia, widely considered as the cradle of civilization, was comprised of modern day Iraq and parts of Syria and Turkey. The economic prosperity and stability brought by the Arab conquests only provided suitable conditions in which these ancient civilizations revived themselves and reached new heights.

    The brief period of intellectual development that Muslims enjoyed was influenced by these ancient civilizations, not by the new religion of Arab Bedouins. Islam as a religion had little to do with this. First, the civilizations that existed were Arab, Iranian, Indian etc or a mixture of these. There was nothing which can be termed, “Islamic civilization”. Secondly, of all the contributions Muslims made to science and philosophy, the Arab Bedouins of Hijaz hold a negligible share, even in theology. People hailing from areas like Persia and Mesopotamia, home to centuries old civilizations with a long history of scholarship and learning, were always at the forefront. One cannot simply throw aside the influence their history had on these men.

    Scientific discoveries never happen out of the blue. They are built upon works accomplished in the past. Muslim science was inspired by the works of the Greeks, Indians and Iranians etc. Although Muslims did achieve some important developments in various fields of knowledge, they were a continuation of the works of scholars of ancient times. Muslims take pride in the fact that certain books written by Muslim thinkers were included in curricula across Europe for many centuries. However we forget to mention that in their time, Muslim scientists and scholars learned from books written by Greeks and philosophers of other nations. Khalid bin Yazid, the grandson of Mua’wiya, Muhammad’s famous companion and 5th Caliph in Muslim history, is considered to be among the first Muslim alchemists. Tradition has it that he left his home in Damascus at the age of twenty and set out for Alexandria. Here he met his teacher Morienus, a Christian hermit of Jerusalem and learned the art of alchemy from him. Morienus was a protégé of Stephanus of Alexandria, a prominent Greek in the field of alchemy known for his famous work “On the Great and Sacred Art of Making Gold” [2].

    Another important fact, mostly overlooked by modern day Muslims, is that non-Muslims residing in areas of Muslim influence also contributed in a huge way to these advancements. Some of the most famous translators of Greek to Arabic belonged to Christians of a Nestorian sect and Sabians [3]. Baramika, who introduced Indian medicine and mathematics to Bait-ul Hikmah, was an Indian Buddhist. A well known “Muslim” scientist “Al-Khwarzimi” is reported to be Zoroastrian by the famous historian Al Tabri.

    A recent phenomenon is the claim that science originates from the Quran. This implies the argument that the Quran foretold all scientific discoveries and inventions, and that we should take inspiration from Quranic teachings for future scientific endeavors. An example of the first is   the French surgeon Maurice Bucaille, who tried to prove that Quran foretold embryology 1400 years ago. An example of the second is Dr. Bashiruddin Mehmood, a Pakistani scientist from country’s prestigious Atomic Energy Commission (PAEC), who argued that as Djins are made of fire as told in the Quran, we should capture them and produce electricity from them. The fact is that no matter how hard people like Dr Mehmood, Hossein Nasar or Ziauddin Sardar try to prove it, Islamic science never existed.

    It is interesting to note that hardly any of the so-called Muslim scientists of medieval years ever tried to prove the authenticity of Islam and Quran on the basis of their findings. Or to put it another way, no one among these scientists ever ventured to substantiate the current dogmas and beliefs with their findings. The exact opposite was almost always true. If their findings did not agree with the current set of beliefs, they proposed a new set of beliefs, new theories and interpretations. They believed more in the scientific method of inquiry than subjugating rational discourse to narrow interpretations of religious texts.

    The treatment meted out to these scientists is another point of concern. Muslims of today take pride in these medieval men without knowing how they were treated in their times. They were persecuted, jailed and tortured. They were silenced and rejected, their books were burnt and they were charged with blasphemy, heresy and apostasy. Some were killed. Ideologues like Ghazali, Taj-ad-Din-as-Subki and Ibn-as-Salah were there to provide a quasi-rational justification of this treatment. Hardly any proud Muslim knows the extent of this oppression. The list of ill-treated persons of letters is in no way short. Jamal-ud din Afghani wrote in one of his letters to the French scholar Renan: “AI-Sayuti tells that the Caliph al-Hadi put to death in Baghdad 5,000 philosophers in order to destroy sciences in Muslim countries down to their roots. Admitting that this historian exaggerated the number of victims, it remains nonetheless established that this persecution took place, and it is a bloody stain for the history of a religion as it is for the history of a people” [4].

    The famous physician Al Razi was blinded by the torture he received. Andalusian polymath Ibn-e Rushd was tied to a post outside the central mosque and people were asked to spit on his face [5]. Al- Kindi received 50 lashes before a cheering crowd and Ibn-e-Sina had to spend a major portion of his life in hiding or on the run in order to avoid persecution. A nation with a history of persecuting their freethinkers cannot take pride in these men unless they openly disown and denounce their persecutors. On the contrary, ideological descendents of those persecuting mullahs still dominate the Muslim intellectual arena while heirs to the philosophies of these rationalists are still being hounded and cornered.

    Let us now look at the question we asked earlier. How did we reach this point? A SESRIC (The Statistical, Economic and Social Research and Training Centre for Islamic Countries) report indicates that in OIC countries, there are only 649 researchers per million people compared to the world average of 2,532. Of the total money spent on R&D around the world, the share of OIC countries is less than 2%, in spite of the fact that many of OIC countries are oil rich. Only two Muslim scientists have been awarded the Nobel Prize to date and the share of all the OIC countries in high technology exports is a little above 4%, less than the share of the Republic of Korea alone (above 6%) [6].

    But before asking this question, let’s ponder a related question. Was Muslim society ever science friendly? Rapid and widespread conquests by Muslim armies brought economic prosperity, which engendered a leisure class free from the burden of mundane tasks. It was this class which had the time and resources to pursue higher learning. Receptiveness to rationality was restricted to these classes and did not penetrate the masses more influenced by fundamentalist theologians than these freethinkers. Throughout history these orthodox theologians despised the liberal scholars. Pages of history books are still stained with pro-freewill Qadarites. It depended on who ruled at a particular time. A liberal and open-minded ruler would honor these thinkers at his courts but as soon as a more conservative ruler took over, these faced oppression. The most convenient weapon in the hands of their persecutors was the religion of Islam itself. With this weapon at their disposal it was never difficult for hardliners to impress upon a favorable ruler and gather the masses behind them. When mullahs declared Ibn-e-Rushd a heretic, and later asked people to spit on his face, people willingly followed the judgment of the hardliners. No one from among the masses was there to support this great philosopher of all times. No matter how much scientific and philosophical advancements medieval Muslims achieved, society in general never really assimilated or internalized rational discourse. Muslim society in general remained under the clout of more literal traditionalist interpretations of Quran and any efforts at reinterpreting Quran on a rational basis were brutally suppressed.

    Contrary to Muslims’ claims, Islam was never a driving force behind scientific discoveries. Proponents of ‘Islamic Science’ who happily make reference to a couple of Quranic ayah about learning and exploring the universe as a driving force behind scientific discoveries, look the other way or shout “out of context” when a similar parallel is drawn between Quranic injunctions about killing the infidels and the current wave of terrorism.

    Except for a couple of inventions like sundial clocks, their origin and motives behind the inventions is still debated. Islam seldom played any role in any of scientific discoveries. Neither did it play any such role in the 7th or 8th centuries nor will it in the 21st or the centuries to come. Quite opposite to claims of proponents of ‘Islamic Science’, Islam was always used as a tool of oppression. Be it the brutal treatment of liberal scholars or an ideological war against rationality waged by people like Ghazali. Islam and the Quran were always at the service of fanatic mullahs. The nineteenth century Muslim thinker and pragmatist Syed Jamaluddin Afghani, who himself was a fierce opponent of Darwin’s theory of evolution, at least admitted to this shameful truth. He once wrote: “In truth, the Muslim religion has tried to stifle science and stop its progress. It has thus succeeded in halting the philosophical or intellectual movement and in turning minds from the search for scientific truth” [7].

    References:

    [1]. P.A. Hoodbhoy. Islam and Science: Religious Orthodoxy & the Battle for Rationality (1991) p. 1

    2. J. Eberly. Al-Kimia: The Mystical Islamic Essence of the Sacred Art of Alchemy (2005) pp. 10-12

    3. A. J. Sabra. 'Greek Science In Islam', History Qf Science'. XXV. (1987), p. 223

    4. Syed Jamaluddin Afghani in 'Reponse de Jamal ad-Din aI-Afghani it Renan', quoted in Nikkie R. Keddie, An Islamic Response to Imperialism, (Berkeley, University of California Press, 1983), p. 187.

    5. M. Z. Virk, Ibn-e-Rushd

    http://www.apnaorg.com/books/urdu/ibn-e-rushd/book.php?fldr=book

    6. Research and Scientific Development in OIC Countries, SESRIC, 2010

    http://www.sesric.org/files/article/394.pdf

    7. Answer of Jamal al-Din to Renan, Journal des Débats, 18 May 1883, quoted in Nikkie R. Keddie, Imperialism, Science and Religion: Two Essays by Jamal al-Din al-Afghani, 1883 and 1884.


    http://www.viewpointonline.net/science-a-muslims-myths-a-cliches.html

    "we can smell traitors and country haters"


    God is Love.
    Love is Blind. Stevie Wonder is blind. Therefore, Stevie Wonder is God.

  • Dawkins upsets Muslims again (Scientific achievement)
     Reply #196 - August 21, 2013, 10:27 PM

    That is too complicated and too technical for me to understand devilsadvokat
    and technically speaking.. nonsense is nonsense  


    It's usually other people asking for clarification of your posts. I think you were irritated with the perception that I might be linking these men with other men of long ago who formed religions which were cults in all but name. That was not my purpose. Because even taking your word for it as in 'they would change' does nothing to negate my original premise. 'In their own way they are sorta cult heroes'.

    The 'heroic' nature is a perception of their supporters, not they themselves.

    Anyways, they have been parodied as the four men of the apocalypse, surely they are cult heroes.

    I am my own worst enemy and best friend, itsa bit of a squeeze in a three-quarter bed, tho. Unhinged!? If I was a dog I would be having kittens, that is unhinged. Footloose n fancy free, forced to fit, fated to fly. One or 2 words, 3 and 3/thirds, looking comely but lonely, till I made them homely.D
  • Dawkins upsets Muslims again (Scientific achievement)
     Reply #197 - August 21, 2013, 10:30 PM

    If you get naming rights without evidence then I want it noted I wrote the Shakespearian plays.

    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • Dawkins upsets Muslims again (Scientific achievement)
     Reply #198 - August 21, 2013, 10:39 PM

    Lol. The evidence is in the language written. It was named by an Arabic speaking people.

    I am my own worst enemy and best friend, itsa bit of a squeeze in a three-quarter bed, tho. Unhinged!? If I was a dog I would be having kittens, that is unhinged. Footloose n fancy free, forced to fit, fated to fly. One or 2 words, 3 and 3/thirds, looking comely but lonely, till I made them homely.D
  • Dawkins upsets Muslims again (Scientific achievement)
     Reply #199 - August 21, 2013, 10:43 PM

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VMby3Ni6zd0

    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • Dawkins upsets Muslims again (Scientific achievement)
     Reply #200 - August 21, 2013, 11:04 PM

    And? If there was Patents/Trademark/Copyright/Registration Office around near ancient-times operating out of say Baghdad ( Hmm where would you put one of those during 1000 AD or whenever is more relevant), some Arabs would have imo first rights to claims. They may well looked at work from other centres and done nothing further (taking your/Youtube words for this being the case)and still have naming rights.

    God you are awful, there is this tiny speck of scientific goodness for arabs/islam and you want to take that away as well.  Cheesy


    I am my own worst enemy and best friend, itsa bit of a squeeze in a three-quarter bed, tho. Unhinged!? If I was a dog I would be having kittens, that is unhinged. Footloose n fancy free, forced to fit, fated to fly. One or 2 words, 3 and 3/thirds, looking comely but lonely, till I made them homely.D
  • Dawkins upsets Muslims again (Scientific achievement)
     Reply #201 - August 21, 2013, 11:34 PM

    In 1000 AD Baghdad the caliph had plenty of problems fighting of Hanbali zealots... True story... They would invade people's homes in search for wine and attack women they didn't see as properly dressed.

    The caliph had adopted Hanbali Sunni Islam but he had to expel the guys in the end as far as I recall.

    Danish Never-Moose adopted by the kind people on the CEMB-forum
    Ex-Muslim chat (Unaffliated with CEMB). Safari users: Use "#ex-muslims" as the channel name. CEMB chat thread.
  • Dawkins upsets Muslims again (Scientific achievement)
     Reply #202 - August 21, 2013, 11:47 PM

    NIkolaj

    So not in Baghdad then.

    I am my own worst enemy and best friend, itsa bit of a squeeze in a three-quarter bed, tho. Unhinged!? If I was a dog I would be having kittens, that is unhinged. Footloose n fancy free, forced to fit, fated to fly. One or 2 words, 3 and 3/thirds, looking comely but lonely, till I made them homely.D
  • Dawkins upsets Muslims again (Scientific achievement)
     Reply #203 - August 22, 2013, 08:37 AM

    Quote
    It’s August, and you are a journalist stuck in the office without an idea in your head. What to write? What to do? Your empty mind brings you nothing but torment, until a thought strikes you, ‘I know, I’ll do Richard Dawkins.’

    Dawkins is the sluggish pundit’s dream. It does not matter which paper you work for. Editors of all political persuasions and none will take an attack on Darwin’s representative on earth. With the predictability of the speaking clock, Owen Jones, the Peter Hitchens of the left, thinks the same as Craig Brown, Private Eye’s high Tory satirist. Tom Chivers, the Telegraph’s science blogger, says the same as Andrew Brown, the Guardian’s religious affairs correspondent. The BBC refuses to run contrary views. It assures the nation that ‘militant’ atheism is as fanatical as militant religion — despite the fact that no admirer of The God Delusion has ever planted a bomb, or called for the murder of homosexuals, Jews and apostates.

    Sharp operators could sell the same piece a dozen times without changing a word. Read the papers, and you will suspect that is exactly what sharp operators have done.

    Cultural conservatives have always hated Dawkins for challenging traditional Christian beliefs. The liberal-left is fine with knocking Christianity, but it hates Dawkins for being intellectually consistent and tweeting — yes, that’s right, tweeting — against Islam too. Many of the charges against his inappropriate tweets are extraordinary. Jones denounces Dawkins for tweeting ‘Who the hell do these Muslims think they are? At UCL of all places, tried to segregate the sexes in debate’. If Jones can’t see what is wrong with segregation, then not even an equality course for beginners can save him.

    But let me try to be fair. Dawkins has also tweeted against all Muslims — not just sexist god-botherers at University College London. I accept that generalising about Muslims can incite racism. It is all very well atheists saying that religion is not the same as race, because you are free to decide what god if any you believe in, but cannot choose your ethnicity. But try telling that to the persecuted Christians, Shia and Sunni of the Middle East. Their religious persecution is no different from racial persecution. I would go further and concede that Dawkins’s critics had other arguments that weren’t wholly asinine, were it not for a telling detail. They never stick their necks out and defend real liberal Muslims and ex-Muslims who are being persecuted in Britain right now.

    They stay silent because they are frightened of breaking with the crowd, of the faint threat of Islamist retaliation, and of absurd accusations of racism. Journalists want the easy life. They want targets who cannot hurt them. Dawkins has never hurt a fly, so he’s all right. Looked at in a certain light, however, the enemies of Nahla Mahmoud might not be.

    I have picked on her, not because her case is unusual, but because it is so typical. She is a Sudanese refugee who became a leading figure in the British Council of ex-Muslims. Earlier this year Channel 4 gave her one minute and 39 seconds precisely to talk about the evils of Britain’s Sharia courts in Britain. In these institutions, a woman’s testimony is worth half that of a man’s, a man can divorce his wife by simple repudiation, and women who remarry lose custody of their children. One minute and 39 seconds may not sound long enough to list their vices. But it is one minute and 39 seconds longer than the BBC has ever given her.


    Nahla described how she grew up under Sharia. She was ‘always dealt with as a second-class citizen, always bought up to believe that I am an incomplete human being [who] needed a man as a guard.’

    She was shocked to find the same system here in her land of refuge. ‘Muslims have been living in Britain for hundreds of years and never needed sharia courts,’ she concluded. ‘Everyone should have equal rights and live under one secular law.’

    She and her family have suffered for her simple moral clarity. Salah Al Bander, a leading figure in the Cambridge Liberal Democrats, went for her. (I was going to write, ‘who, surprisingly, is a leading figure in the Cambridge Liberal Democrats’ — but given the Liberal Democrats’ awful attitudes towards women and Jews, nothing they do surprises me anymore.)

    Al Bander posted an article in Arabic on the Sudanese Online website (one of the most widely read sites in Sudan and throughout the Sudanese diaspora). He called her a ‘Kafira’ (unbeliever) who was sowing discord. These are words with consequences — particularly when Al Bander added, ‘I will not forgive anyone who wants to start a battle against Islam and the beliefs of the people…’ After mosques and Sudanese newspapers took up the campaign against her, religious thugs attacked her brother and terrified her mother. Nahla told me she is now ‘very careful when I go out’.

    I understand that the Cambridge Liberal Democrats have had an inquiry and decided that Al Bander’s words were misinterpreted. My point is that women like Nahla are being terrified and abused every day in Britain. I have seen Richard Dawkins speak up for them as a matter of honour and a matter of course many times, but have never heard a peep of protest from his opponents.

    One day there will be a reckoning. One day, thousands who have suffered genital mutilation, religious threats and forced marriages will turn to the intellectual and political establishments of our day and ask why they did not protect them. The pathetic and discreditable reply can only be: ‘We were too busy fighting Richard Dawkins to offer you any support at all.’


    http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9000431/forget-about-richard-dawkins-fight-the-real-fanatics/

    "we can smell traitors and country haters"


    God is Love.
    Love is Blind. Stevie Wonder is blind. Therefore, Stevie Wonder is God.

  • Dawkins upsets Muslims again (Scientific achievement)
     Reply #204 - August 22, 2013, 08:45 AM

    "One day there will be a reckoning. One day, thousands who have suffered genital mutilation, religious threats and forced marriages will turn to the intellectual and political establishments of our day and ask why they did not protect them. "

    I cannot describe how much I want this to be true. Hopefully sooner rather than later.

    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • Dawkins upsets Muslims again (Scientific achievement)
     Reply #205 - August 22, 2013, 10:02 AM

    Unlikely. Poetic imaginations and politics rarely coincide.
  • Dawkins upsets Muslims again (Scientific achievement)
     Reply #206 - August 22, 2013, 10:20 AM

    We are taking steps towards it.  FGM religious threats and forced marriage are illegal and the gov has taken a positive stance. Yes it still happens but I'm encouraged by this.

    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • Dawkins upsets Muslims again (Scientific achievement)
     Reply #207 - August 24, 2013, 01:45 PM

    So Where did  LArc  go??  Well Colonel..... Colonel Q_D....

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FMuql-uDEg

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGHMv73_j04

    that is a good one to watch .. Colonel Q_D watch it.. I just  want to make you to hate atheists more than what you hate now....

    Do not let silence become your legacy.. Question everything   
    I renounced my faith to become a kafir, 
    the beloved betrayed me and turned in to  a Muslim
     
  • Dawkins upsets Muslims again (Scientific achievement)
     Reply #208 - September 02, 2013, 08:43 PM

    I think Dawkins twitter message was part of a larger general dialogue that we are all aware of these days. In isolation the comment (140 characters) may seem more bigoted than it actually is. He also mentioned the good stuff too.

    Dawkins, it seems to me, was responding to the tsunami of claims from muslims that the quran is choc-full of science. We have all heard them, embryology, speed of light, chemical communication in ants, and even  in some cases, evolution (see Dr Usama Hasan).  I think he was just trying to cut these claims down to size.

    I think the lack of Nobel prizes from the muslim world has other factors, ie poverty, education, too busy in cival or  regional conflicts etc.  But religion has GOT to be a major factor too.

    Dawkins probably would not even have tweeted this if it wasn't for the bald-faced claims that religious apologists make about their holy book being 'scientific'.

    Unfortunately many muslims and non-muslims seemed to take this as Dawkins implying that all muslims are thick or stupid, which is definitely NOT the case. And I think Dawkins would agree.

    I am better than your god......and so are you.

    "Is the man who buys a magic rock, really more gullible than the man who buys an invisible magic rock?.......,...... At least the first guy has a rock!"
  • Dawkins upsets Muslims again (Scientific achievement)
     Reply #209 - September 02, 2013, 09:07 PM

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRBHxJBUv_A

    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • Previous page 1 ... 5 6 78 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »