 Posted: Fri Sep 01, 2017 6:45 am Are there eulogizers of science out of blind-faith? |
 |
| Are there eulogizers of science out of blind-faith?
All those people who have not performed all the experiments of Sciences themselves yet they believe in Science doing things science does not claim to be concerned with. They believe in Science out of blind-faith. Right, please? Regards ___________ One may like to read Post 82 thread "What is God?" Debating Christianity and Religion Forum Index -> Christianity and Apologetics |
|
Post 21: Fri Oct 13, 2017 10:28 am
 Re: Are there eulogizers of science out of blind-faith? |
|||||||
|
Like this post |
|||||||
Not exactly. It was long in use in Arabia before the advent of Muhammad. The Meccans, non-believers of Muhammad, believed in Allah but associated partners with Allah, on the pretext that they helped one to reach to Allah. Muhammad's father's name was Abdullah (Abd- Allah) meaning one who serves Allah or one who is in the service of Allah. Right, please? Regards |
|||||||
|
Post 22: Fri Oct 13, 2017 11:42 am
Re: Are there eulogizers of science out of blind-faith? |
|||
|
Like this post |
|||
Yes, the generic term allah, for god, is used today by non-Muslims. I was referring specifically to the emergence of Islam's God, Allah, who appeared in Islamic form - thanks to Muhammad's inspiration - in the 7th century. Many gods have been with us since men hit their wives with clubs; Allah, who brings terror to some areas of the world today, was born in the 7th century, as was his autobiography. |
|||
|
Post 23: Wed Oct 25, 2017 2:50 pm
Re: Are there eulogizers of science out of blind-faith? |
|||
|
Like this post |
|||
OK with the rules, I like them. Science deals in the physical and material realms so "evidence" here means that could be "observed" physically and materially or by such instruments that help in this connection and that sets the limits of science: The University of California, Berkeley snapshot Moral judgments, aesthetic judgments, decisions about applications of science, and conclusions about the supernatural are outside the realm of science. misconceptions Misconception: Science contradicts the existence of God. Correction: Science cannot support or contradict the existence of supernatural entities. It deals only with natural phenomena and explanations.(Read more about it)*. Science has limits: A few things that science does not do Science doesn’t make moral judgments Science doesn’t make aesthetic judgments Science doesn’t tell you how to use scientific knowledge Science doesn’t draw conclusions about supernatural explanations * https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12 So, it is meaningless to ask for "evidence", "proof" based on "observation" in the same manner in the moral and the spiritual realms. Science* has borrowed these words from languages and given specific meaning to them only for use in the science, it is meaningless to insist to talk in the same sense from other realms. Right, please? Sorry, in religion which is an equal part of the name of this forum, to substantiate the issues related to religion will be not in the same manner as done in science, due to the obvious difference of the nature of both the realms of science and religion. The science here gets incapacitated to start with. Right, please? Regards *science did not invent any languages that are spoken by the humans in large numbers. |
|||
|
Post 24: Wed Oct 25, 2017 2:59 pm
Re: Are there eulogizers of science out of blind-faith? |
|||
|
Like this post |
|||
It is certainly not meaningless to ask why we should believe somebody who comes riding on a camel saying he's just talked to God. Is it because the man is very nice? Is it because he offered some gold? It seems absurd to believe with absolutely NO evidence that the man was telling the truth. The best natural explanation is that he was hallucinating or lying. |
|||
|
Post 25: Tue Oct 31, 2017 10:13 am
|
|||
|
Like this post |
|||
To add further: So we in religions don't substantiate our claims from the so many scientific methods invented for the different disciplines of science differently, as these are all irrelevant in the truthful religion. Scientific Method/s itself are borrowed by science from philosophy and mathematics while these don't belong to science per se. Then all the results obtained from following scientific methods have to be verified for correctness with nature that itself is a creation of One-True-God and never created by science or the scientists. Right, please? Regards |
|||
|
Post 26: Tue Oct 31, 2017 12:55 pm
|
|||||
|
Like this post |
|||||
Wrong. You continue to make unsupported and unsubstantiated claims and now you claim that you don't have to substantiate your claims because support and substantiation are irrelevant. It would, rather, be more rational to to hold the view that religion is irrelevant than to embark upon your journey of circular reasoning. |
|||||
|
Post 27: Tue Oct 31, 2017 1:16 pm
|
|||||
|
Like this post |
|||||
Mathematics is a tool of science, sometimes called the Queen of Sciences itself. Philosophy makes comments on knowledge in general. The claim that some caravan trader heard an angel and recorded God's words is an absurdity. It suits people to believe it. An indication that Muhammad invented the Quran is that it is a mix of badly-remembered Old and New Testament tales, and Jewish prophets are given some credit with Muhammad - surprise, surprise - having the starring role! The birth of Christ, as recorded in the Quran, is so hilarious that, were it made into a film it would raise bigger laughs than the Life of Brian. Unfortunately it would also bring about murders, such is the strength of "faith.". |
|||||
|
Post 28: Wed Nov 01, 2017 6:35 am
Re: Are there eulogizers of science out of blind-faith? |
|||
|
Like this post |
|||
Christians have been claiming that Jesus, who died 2,000 years ago, will return again soon. With a 2,000 year history of being dead wrong, THAT is blind faith. Operating a computer, or a smartphone, or any one of a number of modern technological devices that work based on modern scientific principles, that is NOT blind faith. That is a demonstration of the practical application of science at work. It doesn't require any of us to have done every experiment personally to see that the end result represents proof of the validity of the science that makes it possible. |
|||
|
Post 29: Mon Nov 06, 2017 10:16 pm
Re: Are there eulogizers of science out of blind-faith? |
|||||||
|
Like this post |
|||||||
Jesus first time coming and then Second Coming is a religious matter, it will be settled by Word of Revelation, not by science. Second Coming has already taken place in the form of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad 1835-1908, so the matter stands resolved. It was, therefore not a blind-faith. Science and religion work under different framework and it must be like that. Right, please? Regards |
|||||||
|
Post 30: Tue Nov 07, 2017 3:00 am
Re: Are there eulogizers of science out of blind-faith? |
|||
|
Like this post (1): H.sapiens |
|||
Science works hard to prove; religion works hard to delude. So Jesus, who was to sail back to earth on a cloud with a scimitar in his hand, arrived incognito and died just before the First World War, having done next to nothing? And with a changed name! This is amusing but if one actually believes this, there is sadness too. |
|||
|
|
|
|
||||||
