Part of planning for very long road trips should be to carry a spare can of gas with you to account for incidents.
71 karma · joined July 1, 2022
It's bigotry when someone disagrees?
False dichotomy. How about only seeing "normal" naked bodies within the bounds of marriage, and banning porn?
Just because a state is "democratic" does not mean it is ethical, and just because a state is not "democratic" does not mean that it is unethical. That being said, Israel is definitely a murderous regime and they're getting away with any atrocities they want.
Furthermore, the ecosystem matters quite a bit.
We see it time and time again. Policy makers try to address the symptom but not the cause, then people cry when nothing gets fixed.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
Islam has proof and evidence (e.g. http://provingislam.com, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTsEZXx8kRg, https://www.reddit.com/r/islam/comments/hxn276/here_are_some..., and much more). Don't present a false dichotomy between science and faith where there isn't any for us in Islam.
We have proof. We know about the state of the world back then. We have history, archeology, the knowledge of that era, and much much more. Even English author and historian Tom Holland had to admit that the Quran had too much nuanced knowledge about Jewish and Christian texts that, instead of submitting, he had to come up with a completely illogical and provably wrong story that Makkah was not in present day Saudi Arabia, but on the outskirts of Jerusalem.
Even the non Muslims admit and are in awe of what happened.
https://www.reddit.com/r/islam/comments/hxn276/here_are_some...
> That does not prove that what is written in Qran is correct
He proved that what's written in the Quran correct, discoveries made just a couple of hundred years ago.
Of course it's evidence. We have prophecies made thousands of years ago and they're coming true in our very lifetimes. E.g. http://www.provingislam.com
God is outside the realm of logic. Think about it, if you create a game or simulation, are you bound by its laws? You can make a simulation where 1 + 1 = 5
You agreed, not everyone. Just because you want something doesn't make it real. The evidence is overwhelming. e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTsEZXx8kRg
The Islamic Isanad system addresses this issue.
> And why is there still no final resolution which one is the true one?
The differences are mostly political. There is a resolution, it's just that people stick to their desires in the face of evidence.
> It does not leave room for future knowledge to improve our understanding of the past and adjust accordingly.
Islam does leave things open to adjust as we further our knowledge. The foundations do not change. This does not have anything to do with whether it is true.
> And why does god need you to worship him?
Because He said so: https://quran.com/21/23
> Is it bad for god if you don't worship him? If I don't pray, am I somehow hurting him?
Of course not. He doesn't need us.
> Do you know the future?
God told us the future (it's in the Quran).
I'm quite curious, we Muslims believe that Jesus Prayer of God be upon him will return. If you are alive at that time, is that sufficient evidence for you to accept?
> All religions are man made.
Yet you present no evidence. I presented proof (e.g. provingislam.com) about very detailed prophecies made thousands of years ago and came true. Just because you want something doesn't make it so.
No it's not. Even non Muslims admitted that we Muslims have the right to be proud of it. There's nothing else anywhere like it, secular or non secular texts.
> Historians are usually honest
Our Muslim historians even more so.
> And if some historical text talks about miracles, something which cannot be explained with rational thought and to the best of our current knowledge
Or that God bent the laws of our reality to make a point. Not everything is explainable by logic, especially when we see such events take place thousands of years later in our lifetimes today.
> So if he can do it then I can with equal right assume there were many tries, no?
No, because his claim is that there is a creator, whereas you're just making a claim that has no basis in your secular materialistic world view.
> Now if I give you my own opinion then I would say there is zero reason to make such assumptions
We exist, so there had to be a starting point. We have evidence that people came and claimed to be sent from God, and we proved their claims based on many things (their character, miracles, etc). The Quran to this day stands as a living miracle, and its challenge is up for anyone to take (many centuries after everyone tried and failed).
These things remind me of how new atheists are flimsy with their arguments https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rn7n-gff-0c
Who made the tries?
You mean like how they "helped" countries like Iraq and Afghanistan transition to democracy? Leaving behind millions dead and diplaced?
It's astounding how some people in the West think they reached enlightenment.
Such as?
Look up the Islamic Isnad system.
Furthermore, if that's how you're going to view the world, then you can't accept any news about history. Obviously that is not wise or rational.
> I did so using basic logic and understanding of statistics. Can you tell me where exactly I was wrong?
By assuming there were many "tries" before the current universe came into existence. Who was behind those tries? When was the first try? Those are all metaphysical claims.
The Quran challenges anyone to bring something like it. The challenge is open. Seeminly easy right? It's gone unchallenged all these millenia.
> Horoscopes also "predict" the future
No they don't. The prophecies of Muhammad Prayers of God be upon him are extremely nuanced, from things like the emergence of a green Arabia, to the desolate bedouins competing to build tall towers, to naming individuals and their exact spot where they will die on the battle field, to the intricate and nuanced knowledge he had about other traditions while living in Makkah (https://youtu.be/nTsEZXx8kRg). More at provingislam.com
> You are confusing secular people with materialistic people
Materialism as in explaining reality with only a purely materalistic tangible point of view, not monetary materialism.
> The book made him famous, but offended a Muslim priest who ordered the doctor to be beaten over the head with his own manuscript,
Who was that "Muslim priest"? (we don't have priests in Islam by the way). According to wikipedia (to be taken with a grain of salt):
> He spent the last years of his life in his native Rey suffering from glaucoma. His eye affliction started with cataracts and ended in total blindness.[19] The cause of his blindness is uncertain. One account mentioned by Ibn Juljul attributed the cause to a blow to his head by his patron, Mansur ibn Ishaq, for failing to provide proof for his alchemy theories;[20] while Abulfaraj and Casiri claimed that the cause was a diet of beans only
If this indeed happened, he would have had the right to seek retribution from a judge. You failed to show that this is a systemic problem as Europe was in the darsk ages.
> Even police does not dare to confront when there is open illegal behavior unless it is really serious.
What you're describing is not different from what happens in poor ghettos in America. Nothing to do with religion. I'm willing to bet that neighborhood is poor and uneducated.
> This is in Asia btw and the US is not meddling here.
The West has been meddling for a long long time, if not directly, then indirectly.
> That some atheist makes some claims
That's not any atheist. Those are the people claiming "enlightenement" and spearheading the atheist movement like Dawkins and his ilk. The difference is that with atheists, there is no moral compass or ultimate reference or authority to confirm or debate their thoughts. Whereas with a religion, we can go back to their scriptures.
> Not sure where the "chemical scum" comes from?
Stephen Hawking
That's not a direct result of OOP. Languages can have extension functions or type classes or delegation to address this. And it's not like the problem magically goes away for procedural code.