Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →
↑ ↓
CEMB → Forum → Welcome to the forum → The Lounge → A letter to Ali Sina

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

Qur'anic studies today
by zeca
Yesterday at 07:11 PM
What's happened to the fo...
by zeca
Yesterday at 06:39 PM
New Britain
Yesterday at 05:41 PM
Do humans have needed kno...
Yesterday at 05:47 AM
Iran launches drones
April 13, 2024, 09:56 PM
عيد مبارك للجميع! ^_^
by akay
April 12, 2024, 04:01 PM
Eid-Al-Fitr
by akay
April 12, 2024, 12:06 PM
Lights on the way
by akay
February 01, 2024, 12:10 PM
Mock Them and Move on., ...
January 30, 2024, 10:44 AM
Pro Israel or Pro Palesti...
January 29, 2024, 01:53 PM
Pakistan: The Nation.....
January 28, 2024, 02:12 PM
Gaza assault
January 27, 2024, 01:08 PM

Theme Changer

 Topic: A letter to Ali Sina

 (Read 15856 times)
  • Previous page 1 ... 3 4 56 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • A letter to Ali Sina
     Reply #120 - September 02, 2015, 10:20 PM
    What are you on about?
    `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.'
  • A letter to Ali Sina
     Reply #121 - September 02, 2015, 10:27 PM
    ^ Reductio ad absurdum perhaps?
  • A letter to Ali Sina
     Reply #122 - September 02, 2015, 10:37 PM
    Quote from: Quod Sum Eris on September 02, 2015, 10:20 PM
    What are you on about?


    It's like explaining things to a child. Like I said before I don't really have the time.
    My nasheed. Sing it with me!
  • A letter to Ali Sina
     Reply #123 - September 02, 2015, 10:42 PM
    Obviously it's my fault you sprouted nonsense about molecules then. Jesus Christ. Roll Eyes

    So you do think it's strange a social species will form bonds with each other then?
    `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.'
  • A letter to Ali Sina
     Reply #124 - September 02, 2015, 11:05 PM
    You're thinking at too a high level.

    "strange" is meaningless when it comes to this reality. Anything is possible. Whenever we encounter something strange it is only strange for a while before we simply accept it and just study it. After a while it becomes "normal". Take quantum entanglement. It's still bizarre but it's accepted as kind of normal now.

    Or the migration of the monarch butterfly. Bizarre but it's normal now.

    Our human behaviour aswell as other animal behaviour is bizarre but it's normal to us because this is what we have been designed to understand. In order to have a proper natural explanation for it you would have to go to the molecular level. Everything about us should be explainable from that level because that's what our foundation is.

    Everything above that, as in cells, organs and other structures, is kind of at a different level. Cells have their own behaviour. What the organs do is different to how cells behave. Each has their own "world". Then when it comes to the brain you have another level of behaviour which we refer to as emotions and memory and other things.

    Sorry, I know you're not used understanding something like the above. You're just used to looking at the surface level which then simply boils down to what we have so far observed and understand.



    My nasheed. Sing it with me!
  • A letter to Ali Sina
     Reply #125 - September 02, 2015, 11:50 PM
    I'm used to coherent posts, not one about it being strange we form bonds, me pointing out we're social creatures which you reply to going on about evolution being false, then something about molecules which has nothing to do with anything and completely ignored the initial point. But whatever, I'm becoming used to it.
    `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.'
  • A letter to Ali Sina
     Reply #126 - September 03, 2015, 09:17 AM

    Well what can I say? You're going to make pointless arguments and statements which at the end of the day are meaningless to the universe. Whatever thoughts and opinions you have about social behaviour is going to be based on what has been observed at the high level - as in living organisms interacting with their environment. You blindly believe that social behaviour is natural simply because you observe it. In the same way that you believe living organism are natural because you can observe them. But when it's shown to you that the molecules that we are made up of don't naturally come together to form living organism you'll ignore that and put it down to limited knowledge. The same with the existence of stars and planets. You'll make various observations about Galaxies and star systems and you blindly believe that what you are observing is all natural and can be explained by matter having gravity and energy. Yet when you are shown that dust does not naturally form larger masses you simply move on.

    So no matter what thoughts and conclusions you have regarding social behaviour it is going to be meaningless when it comes to explaining it as a natural phenomena.




    My nasheed. Sing it with me!
  • A letter to Ali Sina
     Reply #127 - September 03, 2015, 11:38 AM
    So do you think humans would have been able to survive in the manner that we have if we were not social creatures?
  • A letter to Ali Sina
     Reply #128 - September 03, 2015, 11:40 AM
    What manner?
    My nasheed. Sing it with me!
  • A letter to Ali Sina
     Reply #129 - September 03, 2015, 11:43 AM
    Do you think that being social creatures has aided our survival?
  • A letter to Ali Sina
     Reply #130 - September 03, 2015, 11:48 AM
    You're asking silly questions.

    The question you need to ask is whether being social or solitary is what determines survival. The answer is it does not. Animals can survive either as solitary ones or social ones. Does that make sense to you?
    My nasheed. Sing it with me!
  • A letter to Ali Sina
     Reply #131 - September 03, 2015, 12:05 PM
    That’s why I added the “In the manner that we have” part in my initial response, though you couldn’t seem to grasp that. Of course life can manifest itself in all sorts of forms. That is the beauty of it. Life can find ways to adapt itself in the deserts of North Africa, in the tundra of Russia, and even in the crevasses of deep ocean canyons. It is able to do that because it adapts. Those manifestations of life that cannot adapt will die off, ceasing to exist, leaving “only the strong” to survive.

    Humanoids not naturally disposed to working together would have found themselves extinct long ago. As a species, we are not particularly fast, so we would not have been able to outrun predators easily. We are not particularly strong, so we would not easily be able to overpower our competitors. Our bodies are not particularly tough and resilient, so the elements could very easily kill us off. Our advantage is the intelligence we have evolved to possess and our ability to work together. It might have been possible for us to have adapted in a different manner, as other mammals have in order to survive in their own environments, but we would not exist, again, in the same manner that we do today.

    I don’t know about you, Ted. I’m really trying to grasp how your brain works. Like, do you believe in dogs? And do you believe that they evolved from wolf ancestors? And what traits do you think your average Labrador or Golden Retriever might have had to evolve in order to allow it to live peacefully among humans? Do you think Lassie would have survived as a pet if she and her ancestors were constantly still behaving like wolves?

    Do you believe in Arabian horses? Do you believe they just might possibly share a common ancestor with the African zebra? And again, what traits do you think a loyal war horse might have had to evolve in order to live amongst its human hosts? Or do you think that Arabian horses were just magically created in their domesticated form? I’m honestly only asking questions to get some insight into how bizarre your take on the world must be in order to maintain your world view.
  • A letter to Ali Sina
     Reply #132 - September 03, 2015, 12:25 PM
    Which is why I responded with "What manner?" and you avoided until your latest post. It's a typical atheist understanding that you have wrote. I was expecting it.
    My nasheed. Sing it with me!
  • A letter to Ali Sina
     Reply #133 - September 03, 2015, 12:30 PM
    Quote from: happymurtad on September 03, 2015, 12:05 PM
    That’s why I added the “In the manner that we have” part in my initial response, though you couldn’t seem to grasp that. Of course life can manifest itself in all sorts of forms. That is the beauty of it. Life can find ways to adapt itself in the deserts of North Africa, in the tundra of Russia, and even in the crevasses of deep ocean canyons. It is able to do that because it adapts. Those manifestations of life that cannot adapt will die off, ceasing to exist, leaving “only the strong” to survive.

    Humanoids not naturally disposed to working together would have found themselves extinct long ago. As a species, we are not particularly fast, so we would not have been able to outrun predators easily. We are not particularly strong, so we would not easily be able to overpower our competitors. Our bodies are not particularly tough and resilient, so the elements could very easily kill us off. Our advantage is the intelligence we have evolved to possess and our ability to work together. It might have been possible for us to have adapted in a different manner, as other mammals have in order to survive in their own environments, but we would not exist, again, in the same manner that we do today.

    I don’t know about you, Ted. I’m really trying to grasp how your brain works. Like, do you believe in dogs? And do you believe that they evolved from wolf ancestors? And what traits do you think your average Labrador or Golden Retriever might have had to evolve in order to allow it to live peacefully among humans? Do you think Lassie would have survived as a pet if she and her ancestors were constantly still behaving like wolves?

    Do you believe in Arabian horses? Do you believe they just might possibly share a common ancestor with the African zebra? And again, what traits do you think a loyal war horse might have had to evolve in order to live amongst its human hosts? Or do you think that Arabian horses were just magically created in their domesticated form? I’m honestly only asking questions to get some insight into how bizarre your take on the world must be in order to maintain your world view.



    Sorry but what you've wrote is just silly. You're thinking at too high a level. Your mind has been brainwashed into thinking that everything can be explained down to the origin of life where it started of as tiny cell.

    That's all you're gonna think. You want it to be explainable. Well, sorry but some things are not explainable. Keep waiting for the scientists to do so. All they are going to do is find more mysteries to explain.

    If you're made up your mind to not believe then so be it. But deep down if you do think there could be God and you want there to be God then learn science from the beginning. Not from media.
    My nasheed. Sing it with me!
  • A letter to Ali Sina
     Reply #134 - September 03, 2015, 12:32 PM
     Cheesy Ah, Ted. You're something else, man. I really don't know why I bother. And I'm not an atheist.

    The "manner" was referring to us being social. If we survived to not be social beings, we would not have survived in the same "manner." I dunno. I think I communicate in English pretty well. I have to assume you understand what we are saying but are deliberately being evasive.

     So are you going to answer the question or just waffle about as usual?
  • A letter to Ali Sina
     Reply #135 - September 03, 2015, 12:42 PM
    Quote
    That's all you're gonna think. You want it to be explainable. Well, sorry but some things are not explainable.


    But you can explain it. With your particular version of your particular god. Gotcha.  Afro
  • A letter to Ali Sina
     Reply #136 - September 03, 2015, 01:00 PM
    Makes sense to me and that's all that matters. If it doesn't for you then either I'm really bad at explaining or you're just not capable of understanding. Or bit of both. Either way I'm happy with it.
    Quote from: happymurtad on September 03, 2015, 12:32 PM
    Cheesy Ah, Ted. You're something else, man. I really don't know why I bother. And I'm not an atheist.

    The "manner" was referring to us being social. If we survived to not be social beings, we would not have survived in the same "manner." I dunno. I think I communicate in English pretty well. I have to assume you understand what we are saying but are deliberately being evasive.

     So are you going to answer the question or just waffle about as usual?



    I would say you need to be more clear.
    My nasheed. Sing it with me!
  • A letter to Ali Sina
     Reply #137 - September 03, 2015, 01:39 PM
    So again, you have nothing to offer. No counter explanations. No evidence. No reasoning as to why anyone should abandon a well described explanatory model with predictability power that also fits in with the known evidence for your heap of, nothing.

    OK. Fair enough.

    I would say I’m done with you, but I know that’s not true. I’m sure you’ll say something else silly and I’ll be lured into trying to reason with you. And honestly, at this point, I’m beyond even trying to convince you one way or another. I really do just want to get a glimpse into how your reasoning works. And that is my mistake. There is no reasoning at play. It’s just, “here’s what I want to believe and I’m going to discount and ignore anything that confronts or contradicts it. I’m not going to offer any alternative explanations or examples, because I don’t have any. I’m just going to keep up with the arguments from (my own) ignorance and keep insisting that my particular version of my particular deity fills the gaps, without explaining how or why anyone should believe it does.”

    And I guess we’ll just keep playing.

    popcorn
  • A letter to Ali Sina
     Reply #138 - September 03, 2015, 01:53 PM
    Lol.

    Let's try maths. Why don't you help bogart regarding the speed of the rocket?

    http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=29151.msg835453#msg835453
    My nasheed. Sing it with me!
  • A letter to Ali Sina
     Reply #139 - September 03, 2015, 02:17 PM
    If we may, before we change subjects, I’d love to get your take on whether sociability has aided human survival. And why you think that has no relation to our evolution. I mean, I get that you don’t believe in human evolution and all, I just wonder how the two are not connected in your mind. If something helps us to survive (ie, those who do not have it will die.) how is that not natural? And how, if at all, are the examples I provided of wolves and dogs, or domesticated animals and their wild relatives, connected in your mind? 
  • A letter to Ali Sina
     Reply #140 - September 03, 2015, 02:58 PM
    The term natural is very loose. When you are using it you are using it a very high level. At the level of living beings and all the variety of it. You simply call it natural because it is verified by the existence of the living organisms. Evolution does not care about social behaviour or efficiency or speed or strength or various other attributes. It just depends on the ability to breed. That's it nothing else. "Aided" is meaningless. It's too ambiguous so you can't test it. You need words like "necessary" and be able to test them. Otherwise you're just going to use logic and reasoning to argue a point which both parties can never definitively prove. The animal world is amazing. At first people logically expected that only the "fittest" would survive then when they see that there are animals who aren't the "fittest" survive they change it to something else and say that is the process of science - you keep on changing your position when you get better data.

    The short of it is that you can't prove or disprove whether sociability has aided human survival. It's a question for those who are not aware of the bigger picture.
    My nasheed. Sing it with me!
  • A letter to Ali Sina
     Reply #141 - September 03, 2015, 02:59 PM
    If you're not an atheist what are you?
    My nasheed. Sing it with me!
  • A letter to Ali Sina
     Reply #142 - September 03, 2015, 03:06 PM
    Quote
    Evolution does not care about social behaviour or efficiency or speed or strength or various other attributes. It just depends on the ability to breed. That's it nothing else.


    You are right and wrong. Mutations happen through breeding, yes.  Natural selection (the pressures that environmental factors place on manifestations of life) is what determines what mutations will prove useful for survival. I think you understand this. And I think you understand how it relates to traits like speed, strength, color, or the ability to work together in a social manner. Or do you?
  • A letter to Ali Sina
     Reply #143 - September 03, 2015, 03:12 PM
    Quote from: CallMeTed on September 03, 2015, 02:59 PM
    If you're not an atheist what are you?


    Probably best described here:

    Quote
    Quote from: happymurtad on August 31, 2015, 10:14 PM
    It's interesting that you answered yes to both of those questions. I've contemplated both questions quite a bit. In all sincerity and without dabbling in semantics, I am an atheist as it relates to the gods of most religions, particularly as it relates to a literal understanding of them. I don't believe in Zeus or Baal or Kali - not in a literal since. Nor do I believe in a literal Allah as described in the Quran. I chuck all of those deities down on the laa ilaha side of things.

    What I am agnostic about, again without dabbling into semantics, is any sort of greater "something" that would by necessity be beyond our realm of comprehension. I simply have no way of claiming to know one way or another. In fact, I'd accept the argument that all the deities listed above could have been mere attempts at understanding it, relative to the knowledge and culture of the respective people who conjured those gods up to begin with. This also goes for Muhammad's Allah. He may have tried to encapsulate the sense of transcendent awe needed to describe this "something," but as a limited human using limited human language, he necessarily failed. (Though he may have been close with certain descriptions and attributes.)

    Put in an Islamic framework, و لا يحيطون بشيءمن علمه إلابما شاء.

    I do think that if there is something greater, then we'd have to accept it would be far beyond our realm of comprehension. It would be greater than anything we could fathom or test. If we wanted to call it Allah, then quite literally, Allahu Akbar. It's the only way I'd be able to entertain the illa lah part of the formula.

    And of course, to me, it could all just be useless nonsense with no basis whatsoever. Grin


  • A letter to Ali Sina
     Reply #144 - September 03, 2015, 03:30 PM
    Quote from: happymurtad on September 03, 2015, 03:06 PM
    You are right and wrong. Mutations happen through breeding, yes.  Natural selection (the pressures that environmental factors place on manifestations of life) is what determines what mutations will prove useful for survival. I think you understand this. And I think you understand how it relates to traits like speed, strength, color, or the ability to work together in a social manner. Or do you?


    Let's just leave it at that.  Wink
    My nasheed. Sing it with me!
  • A letter to Ali Sina
     Reply #145 - September 03, 2015, 03:36 PM
    Quote from: happymurtad on September 03, 2015, 03:12 PM
    Probably best described here:



    This is one of the reasons why lying and making up false gods is a huge sin. It creates people like your self. If people didn't lie we'd only have one god or no god.

    My nasheed. Sing it with me!
  • A letter to Ali Sina
     Reply #146 - September 03, 2015, 04:07 PM
    ^explain. I don't see the connection.
  • A letter to Ali Sina
     Reply #147 - September 03, 2015, 04:39 PM
    In the beginning from the time of Adam and Eves children everyone only knew of one God. It was pretty obvious and there weren't many people. As the population increased people started to slowly forget the message. Their focus being turned to the life of this world and the enjoyment and of gaining respect and honour. They probably honoured some people very highly maybe due to that person being very righteous. Overtime people start having celebrations and making it a regular event. Slowly they forget why they are doing these celebrations. Newer generations may even call the honoured people demi-gods or people very close to God and then start offering prays to pass on to the real God, etc.

    Some other nations maybe weren't getting rains so they prayed and nothing happened. Then someone decides to make a Rain god and some days later it rains. They say that god is true and keep on worshipping him. Some maybe decide to make a Fire/Warrior god to maybe help them in battle,etc.

    If you look at most of the gods of other religions there are elaborate stories on who they are and what they did. People who worship those gods forget about what the nature of a proper God should be. All knowing, All powerful, omnipresent, no need of his creation. They make gods which they are pleased with in terms of looks and abilities and to make an interesting story.

    In india a recent god has been created - google Sai Baba https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sai_Baba_of_Shirdi

    This guy never claimed to be a god in my opinion but people have made him into one. Check the history out. It's an example of humans liking something and then turning it into their god. They are now inventing all sort of stories. There are even TV shows. It's fascinating seeing it happen in almost real time.

    Now the children of those who worship are going to believe in what their parents believe because the love and trust them. The concepts of the religion seem great so something that looks great should be right. So the children are being mislead. Other people who look at the religion may like it and become followers.

    When more new gods/religions are created people like yourself and atheists are confused and will use this as evidence that there is no god and that people just made them up, which is true up to a point. Or they will point out the contradictions in the various religions which have been man made.

    I hope you get the idea. I'm not a great writer. I keep on planning to write a book but I don't think I could get my points across clearly.

    My nasheed. Sing it with me!
  • A letter to Ali Sina
     Reply #148 - September 03, 2015, 04:51 PM
    Quote
    In the beginning from the time of Adam and Eves children everyone only knew of one God.


    OK. So if you want me to take your writing seriously, you can’t start off with things like this. You do realize that the Adam and Eve myth is just one of countless creation/human origination stories, don’t you? Why do you hold Hebrew mythology in such high esteem?

    Quote
    They probably honoured some people very highly maybe due to that person being very righteous. Overtime people start having celebrations and making it a regular event. Slowly they forget why they are doing these celebrations. Newer generations may even call the honoured people demi-gods or people very close to God and then start offering prays to pass on to the real God, etc.


    Yes, I am fully aware of the Islamic accounts of the people of Noah and how they were alledgedly seduced into the worship of wadd, suwa’, yaghuth, ya’ooq, and nasr. Again, this is a uniquely Arab take on a Hebrew myth. It has no evidence or bearing on anything that any evidence might support in reality.

    You are giving me great glimpses into just how ignorant you are in the subject of religion. I suppose that is not your fault. One does not know what one does not know. I won’t comment on the rest of what you wrote, since it is largely regurgitated and irrelevant. I’m going to pull a yeezevee and leave you with a youtube video. Let me know when you’ve watched the whole thing. Perhaps we can talk about it. 

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WhQ8bSvcHQ
  • A letter to Ali Sina
     Reply #149 - September 03, 2015, 05:06 PM
    Ok just stick to the question about the hovering rocket. I don't want discuss things which are based on words which no one can verify.
    My nasheed. Sing it with me!
  • Previous page 1 ... 3 4 56 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »