ChatterBank8 mins ago
Arrogance
86 Answers
Which is the more arrogant - religion or science?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by naomi24. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
This question actually arose from a re-reading of one of Sam Harris's books. He says 'Any intellectually honest person will admit that he does not know how the universe came into existence. Scientists readily admit their ignorance on this point. Religious believers do not.......
You had to read a book to know this ?
You had to read a book to know this ?
Luna, as Jake asks, if someone has spent years examining the evidence over a question, conducting tests and talking to others, And he thinks he's better than someone who got his opinion from what it said in the Bible... Is he arrogant? or is he just right?
Everton, Waldo said That they don't expect there is any doesn't change the fact that they're still not insisting 100% that there isn't one. That seems clear enough to me.
No, Brionon, I didn't have to read a book to know this. I just thought it would make an interesting topic for debate on AB.
Everton, Waldo said That they don't expect there is any doesn't change the fact that they're still not insisting 100% that there isn't one. That seems clear enough to me.
No, Brionon, I didn't have to read a book to know this. I just thought it would make an interesting topic for debate on AB.
Speaking personally, I've said it before, Christianity is right for me, I'm happy to accept that Hinduism or Buddhism or Islam etc. is right for others.
Or even none of the above, a bit of everything and a dither inbetween.
Absolutism (mentioned that before too) is wrong, acept that others are different and leave it at that, just so long as you're not p1ssing on my chips I'm not that ar5ed.
Or even none of the above, a bit of everything and a dither inbetween.
Absolutism (mentioned that before too) is wrong, acept that others are different and leave it at that, just so long as you're not p1ssing on my chips I'm not that ar5ed.
I am not really sure who is arrogant. Because if for example a religious book tells you that it is extremely cold in outer space. Then you are left with two choices. Either believe in that and have faith or wait until someone you believe in (scientists in this regard) prove that and then believe in it. I would still call it faith because you are still believing in someone else who may change mind again as scientists usually do. Religions tell you about certain things that scientists are still trying to prove right or wrong. So until science proves them wrong with a proven fact, they have the right to say they were right. Now you call it arrogance or whatever.
Having said that, many people here always shout about believing in science and not religion but when it does not suit their argument, they refuse from believing in science as well as very well known scientists and masters of their field. If you do not believe what I said then wait a minute and see what happens after I post this link.
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Science /scientists.html
Few will even refuse to accept them as scientists as it has happened before here.
So what would you call arrogance? I would say it depends upon individuals.
Having said that, many people here always shout about believing in science and not religion but when it does not suit their argument, they refuse from believing in science as well as very well known scientists and masters of their field. If you do not believe what I said then wait a minute and see what happens after I post this link.
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Science /scientists.html
Few will even refuse to accept them as scientists as it has happened before here.
So what would you call arrogance? I would say it depends upon individuals.
-- answer removed --
By the look of it, Waldo, not a lot!
Keyplus, we�ve been here before with your literature - many, many times - and under rational scrutiny, it always comes to nothing. Most of it is very clearly hijacked from older works - and in the case of astronomy, most notably from the Greeks. You have come up with some incredible tales, but that amounts to such things as talking new-borns and clay birds that come to life (and even that one, as far as I�m aware, has been pinched from elsewhere). Not exactly impressive, or convincing, so we won�t go down that road again.
And there's no point in talking about individuals. As Ludwig said earlier, this isn't about individuals.
Keyplus, we�ve been here before with your literature - many, many times - and under rational scrutiny, it always comes to nothing. Most of it is very clearly hijacked from older works - and in the case of astronomy, most notably from the Greeks. You have come up with some incredible tales, but that amounts to such things as talking new-borns and clay birds that come to life (and even that one, as far as I�m aware, has been pinched from elsewhere). Not exactly impressive, or convincing, so we won�t go down that road again.
And there's no point in talking about individuals. As Ludwig said earlier, this isn't about individuals.
You were right Waldo. Nothing happened soon after so I thought that people have started accepting what is true. I did not know that someone was only working towards suitable answer.
Naomi - I know that we have been this route before and according to you rationally. And I do remember that I asked then and will ask again.
Does your rational mind ever give you one thought that how come you are aware of the stuff they missed. How stupid of them that they call themselves experts of their fields and have been given recognitions by various institutes due to not selling potatoes but their knowledge in their particular field and still what a shame that they did not know that it was copied and someone on AB does. After all that is what you call intellect and AB has that in abundance. Or shall I ask what I asked Waldo once? Greek knew about Embryo bit, but according to latest research all of what they knew was not right but whatever is in Quran has been proved correct. So do you think Muhammad (pbuh) was so clever that 1400 years ago he only copied what he knew would be proved correct centuries later? I would love to know your thought about it.
Naomi - I know that we have been this route before and according to you rationally. And I do remember that I asked then and will ask again.
Does your rational mind ever give you one thought that how come you are aware of the stuff they missed. How stupid of them that they call themselves experts of their fields and have been given recognitions by various institutes due to not selling potatoes but their knowledge in their particular field and still what a shame that they did not know that it was copied and someone on AB does. After all that is what you call intellect and AB has that in abundance. Or shall I ask what I asked Waldo once? Greek knew about Embryo bit, but according to latest research all of what they knew was not right but whatever is in Quran has been proved correct. So do you think Muhammad (pbuh) was so clever that 1400 years ago he only copied what he knew would be proved correct centuries later? I would love to know your thought about it.
You keep trying to make some tortuous point about how come someone on AB can know the Koran's take on embrylogy is based on the works of Galen et al. and the scientists quoted in your beloved article don't.
Firstly, go look it up. It's not secret knowledge. It's in books. In libraries. Just look up Galen's work on embryology. Since this predates the Koran by a great long time, this cannot be controversial, can it? It's not been retrospectively editted to discredit the Koran or what have you. So, read up on that, then compare to the Koran and NOTE ALL THE SIMILARITIES. It really is that simple. All it takes is the ability to read. It's no indication of special abilities on the part of anyone here that we can compare and contrast two texts. Even if you were to argue that there is no proof that the Koran is based on Galen, the fact remains that the ancient Greeks, very much not Muslims, managed to arrive at the same version of events, yet according to you, they would not have had Allah's divine revelation. So, it's just a take on the facts that it was possible to work out by observing and nothing more.
Read the embryology stuff in the Koran and tell us whether it is correct to state that sperm is produced halfway up the back near the kidneys. That's not really difficult science, is it? I don't think there's any controversy over where semen comes from.
I take it you are away that Keith L Moore refuses to even discuss embryology and the Koran, he's so embarrased about his involvement?
I take it you are also aware that the quotes on the page that you seem to think are so very convincing are not off the cuff endorsements of the Koran as they might be presented. http://hss.fullerton.edu/comparative/islam.htm #Western%20Scholars%20Play
Firstly, go look it up. It's not secret knowledge. It's in books. In libraries. Just look up Galen's work on embryology. Since this predates the Koran by a great long time, this cannot be controversial, can it? It's not been retrospectively editted to discredit the Koran or what have you. So, read up on that, then compare to the Koran and NOTE ALL THE SIMILARITIES. It really is that simple. All it takes is the ability to read. It's no indication of special abilities on the part of anyone here that we can compare and contrast two texts. Even if you were to argue that there is no proof that the Koran is based on Galen, the fact remains that the ancient Greeks, very much not Muslims, managed to arrive at the same version of events, yet according to you, they would not have had Allah's divine revelation. So, it's just a take on the facts that it was possible to work out by observing and nothing more.
Read the embryology stuff in the Koran and tell us whether it is correct to state that sperm is produced halfway up the back near the kidneys. That's not really difficult science, is it? I don't think there's any controversy over where semen comes from.
I take it you are away that Keith L Moore refuses to even discuss embryology and the Koran, he's so embarrased about his involvement?
I take it you are also aware that the quotes on the page that you seem to think are so very convincing are not off the cuff endorsements of the Koran as they might be presented. http://hss.fullerton.edu/comparative/islam.htm #Western%20Scholars%20Play
-- answer removed --
So do you think Muhammad (pbuh) was so clever that 1400 years ago he only copied what he knew would be proved correct centuries later? I would love to know your thought about it.
I don't really need to add to what Waldo has said, but you're welcome to my thoughts about it, Keyplus. Mohammed copied much that, centuries later, proved to be incorrect.
Perhaps you should take the advice of your religion, and educate yourself. Here's an article for you - not the best, but easy reading. You might note it mentions the author of your link, Professor Moore.
http://www.bible.ca/islam/islam-myths-embryolo gy.htm
And here's another that might interest you - although I doubt it.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard _carrier/islam.html
I don't really need to add to what Waldo has said, but you're welcome to my thoughts about it, Keyplus. Mohammed copied much that, centuries later, proved to be incorrect.
Perhaps you should take the advice of your religion, and educate yourself. Here's an article for you - not the best, but easy reading. You might note it mentions the author of your link, Professor Moore.
http://www.bible.ca/islam/islam-myths-embryolo gy.htm
And here's another that might interest you - although I doubt it.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard _carrier/islam.html
-- answer removed --
Keyplus - Name the religious book that states its cold in outer space?
If you cannot the "point" is both irrelevant and invalid.
Science proved that space is cold. Point about science is that you can prove or disprove it yourself, you don't need faith you don't need to belive blindly. It may take money or intellectual effort, but any person on the planet can prove or disprove science.
If you cannot the "point" is both irrelevant and invalid.
Science proved that space is cold. Point about science is that you can prove or disprove it yourself, you don't need faith you don't need to belive blindly. It may take money or intellectual effort, but any person on the planet can prove or disprove science.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles22 mins ago
Jokes32 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles38 mins ago
Film, Media & TV46 mins ago
