ark200

Emotional attachments to belief seem to be a bad thing. Not emotions in general, just emotions when they form the foundation of a belief. Like believing something because you're afraid not to, or believing all people from country X are evil because one of them killed your beloved grandfather in the war.

 

The title question seems to acknowledge that "reason" is necessary for a belief to be considered good.

if there are bad reasons to believe then there must be good ones.

bad reasons of believing anything are 4:

1. tradition

2. authority

3. general agreement: crowd opinion

4. private Revelation

but what are good reasons of believing anything? any idea?

We tested it the real world, and it failed.

There is only one universe and it's not one where astrology works.

once geocentric model was the real world. now heliocentric model becomes real world. it makes no difference. really.

i am asking it because i have found that astrology is based on geocentric model of cosmos. we test it on heliocentric model and it failed. is not it obvious? something is tested on a model on which it is not based. is not it bound to fail?

but if we took geocentric astrological data and convert them into heliocentric data, will astrology fail?

In terms of content, it is well preserves and is certainly more authentic than the Bible.

 

But all of t does not matter really. It's easily in the top 5 of the worst books ever written - due to both it's negative influence on mankind and horrible composition.

really? a book that is first written and destroyed and rewritten. we have the second version. we should say that this second version is worst. we don't know anything about the first version.

here people still believe that prophet Muhammad was the way we found him in modern Qur'an which was forged. people don't understand the possibility of a completely different character of prophet Muhammad in the original manuscript or its 4 versions.

Qur'an was forged. the original manuscripts are destroyed. drastic changes are made in the new "official" Qur'an. the implication of this is that the real Islam as we found it today was not the same in the earlier times (i mean in original manuscripts.hence they were burnt.). the character of prophet may be different in the original manuscript.

I think purity is simultaneously a nebulous, improbable, and subjective concept. When it's used to refer to religious doctrine, you add all that emotion into the discussion, and you get nothing substantive, only opinion and flames.

 

Can you explain what you mean by pure, so it's not open to so much interpretation? Does pure mean perfect? Untainted by anything (if so, explain how something gets tainted)? Or do you just mean "as originally written, word for word, without the slightest change"?

by pure i mean original, authentic and as told by the prophet himself.

this question is not a joke. there are several reason behind it. let me put it below:

prophet has 4 deciples whom he taught quran himself personally. these 4 deciples are:

1. abdullah ibn masud

2. salim, the freed slave of abu hudaifa

3.ubayy b. kaab

4.muadh bin jabal

according to

(Sahih Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 58, Number 150). [search on the referenced site to find the number "150" if you want to verify the written literature].

I heard the Prophet saying, "Learn the recitation of Qur'an from four persons: (1)Abdullah Ibn Mas'ud, (2)Salim (who was killed in the 633 CE battle), the freed slave of Abu Hudhaifa, (3)Ubayy B. Ka'ab and (4)Muadh bin Jabal."

each of this 4 men has his personal version of quran. after the prophet died in 632 CE, there was a great war organized by caliph othman. there he saw the warriors recited different quran; actually the 4 version of quraan. so he ordered zayd to write an official quraan.

The 2nd most trusted Hadith is called Sahih Bukhari. In Volume 6, Book 61, Number 510, the story about Muslim soldiers arguing about different versions of the Qur’an reads as follows: [search on the referenced site to find the number "510" if you want to verify the written literature].

"Hudhaifa was afraid of the different recitations of the Qur'an, so he asked 'Uthman, "O chief of the Believers! Save this nation before they differ about the Qur’an as Jews and the Christians did before."

In response to the request, the Caliph Uthman sent a message to Hafsah since she had the most important original manuscript sheets collected about 634 CE. We find written:

"Send us the manuscripts of the Qur'an so that we may compile the Qur'anic materials in perfect copies and return the manuscripts to you." Hafsah sent copies to Uthman.

Caliph Uthman had men who knew the Qur’an to assemble it again. We find written:

Uthman then ordered four men to rewrite the manuscripts in perfect copies. After this had been done, the Hafsah codex was returned to her. "Uthman returned the original manuscripts to Hafsah."

Having obtained this new version, Uthman ordered all other Qur’ans to be destroyed by fire. We find written:

Uthman sent to every Muslim province one copy of what they had copied, and ordered that all the other Qur'anic materials, whether written in fragmentary manuscripts or whole copies, be burnt.

after the official qurraan was written and all other quraans are burned by the order of othmaan, people express grivences in the following way:

1] Let’s begin with Mas’ud, who was asked to burn his personal version of the Qur’an.

"How can you order me to recite the reading of Zaid, when I recited from the very mouth of the Prophet some seventy Surahs?" "Am I," asks Abdullah, "to abandon what I acquired from the very lips of the Prophet?" (Masahif" by Ibn abi Dawood, 824-897 AD, pp. 12, 14).

the question is: Would Mas’ud accept the Qur’an of today as being pure since he refused to destroy his unique version?

It is important to ask, "Why did Mas’ud refuse to give in and destroy his version of the Qur’an?" Mas'ud was a close companion and personal servant of Muhammad.Mas'ud would have had confidence that he was qualified to create his unique version of the Qur'an.

2] lets consider the very original manuscript of quraan called hafsa codex which hafsa, wife of muhammad kept with her till her death. hafsa did not want to burn this original version. it was burnt after she died. question is why hafsa did not want to burn it?

there are differences between official quraan and quraan of these 4 people:

a] the Qur'an version created by Mas'ud did not have chapters 1, 113, and 114 that are in the "official" Qur'an of today. Is the Qur’an truly pure as believed by Muslims today?

b] Scholars have found that Ubayy's version differed from the "official" Qur'an with two additional chapters (entitled: Surat Al-Khal and Surat Al-Afd). Since Ubayy was taught the Qur'an by the prophet Muhammad, why doesn't the "official" Qur'an contain the two additional chapters?

all these things shows that drastic changes have occurred in official quraan. now it is important to ask : is the quraan pure?

it is the same official quraan compiled by zayd on the order of uthman we are reading today. it is important to ask : is it pure?

source: http://www.harvardhouse.com/quran_purity.htm

Models describe how something behaves. It does not necessarily represent what that something actually is.

how to construct model to know about phenomena? is model analogous to something?

is model a representation of actual phenomena? is it analogous to the actual phenomena or is it actual phenomena itself?

for example: is atom actually looking like its model i.e. ball shape? or is atom analogous to ball shape?

Fiveworld's examples raises some interesting points. Take the case of the preacher. Is the preacher really interested in whether you personally go to Hell?

 

Or is the preacher more concerned with this question - how many souls can I save? The preacher might be calculating on these lines - if my preaching is high-quality and efficacious, and causes a lot of souls to be saved from eternal Damnation, that's bound to put me in God's good books. Which will guarantee me a ticket to Heaven. So the preacher's motive might really be self-interest, not altruism.

 

On the student/teacher example, that's an issue which I'd like perhaps to go into, at some other time.

but we do things for a purpose of our own. can't we do altruism with an interest of our own i.e preacher save soul to go to heaven?

also i wanted to know if we can do wellfare for all people?

In part it maybe the lack of experience. If you don't have some grasp of the language or enough of the background than is needed, then you will find it difficult to understand some statement. For example, you may not understand the seeming simple statement "Every simply connected, closed 3-manifold is homeomorphic to the 3-sphere".

 

Assuming that you don't understand this statement, the barrier is just that you do not have the right "dictionary" nor any experience of understanding similar statements. This is absolutely independent of any IQ measurement*.

 

 

 

---------------------------------------------------

*So, quacks beware, your IQ does not impress anyone!

fixed pattern of belief system is not responsible? our conditioning done by society is not responsible?

why we don't understand something?

is altruism possible? can we do welfare of all people? if we do welfare of industrialists, the labor class will suffer. if we do welfare of rich, the poor will suffer and vice versa.

Math isn't a language by itself, but it has it's own language. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_of_mathematics

thanks a lot. it is of real help. it is exactly what i want.

is math a language? if yes, what is its grammer and vocabulary? how to read, write and appreciate it?

what evolutionery process is acting in HIV virus population? how they evole and from whom?

thank you very much

if, according to darwin, all living things on Earth, including plants, animals and microbes, come from a common ancestor, there must be a common feature in the genes of all living creatures showing the root of a common ancestor. is there any such common element in the genetic structure of all living creature?

why fossil record don't show intermediary steps of development?

The prediction that we share more DNA with a Chimpanzee and less with a spider monkey, for example.

but still there is some match of DNA between man and spider monkey. isn't it? the degree shows that. but it should be no match between man and spider monkey.

1. The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is supported by multiple lines of evidence from palaeontology, anatomy, ethology, microbiology, genetics, zoology and botany.

2. It need only be consistent with pre-existing theories, if those theories give a good explanation for observation. They don't.

3. Through the work of Sewall Wright, J.B.S.Haldane, R.A.Fisher, Ernst Mayr, G.G.Simpson, T.Dhobzhansky and others a wealth of new material was incorporated into what became known as the Modern synthesis.

 

You appear to be critical of the theory. Is this the case? If so why? (And if so, is it wise to be critical of something of which you are largely ignorant?)

i want to verify the validity of a scientific theory. i don't think that one should not verify a theory becoz some authority has made the theory. this is unscientific attitude. hence my attempt.

but one question is not yet answered. what practical prediction is made by the theory and how accurate it was? can you give me any prediction that the theory accurately made?

The more questions this chap asks, the more it starts to sound like he's working on a paper for school.

well if i did work on a school paper whats wrong with that? you are a blind believer of authority. you don't think it is necessary to verify a theory when some authority made it. this is not a scientific attitude.

 

Darwin theory and Indian God incarnation has close resemblance..First incarnation of GOD as single cell amoeba and last one was full fledged Human being .. between , animal in water, water-earth animal.. half human half animal and so on....strange...

very funny explanation

the chromosome may match but that won't make human chimp and gorilla equal. how to explain the difference?