Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →

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
Today at 12:20 PM

Dutch elections
by zeca
November 15, 2024, 10:11 PM

Random Islamic History Po...
by zeca
November 15, 2024, 08:46 PM

Lights on the way
by akay
November 15, 2024, 06:36 AM

اضواء على الطريق ....... ...
by akay
November 13, 2024, 05:18 PM

AMRIKAAA Land of Free .....
November 07, 2024, 09:56 AM

Do humans have needed kno...
November 04, 2024, 03:51 AM

The origins of Judaism
by zeca
November 02, 2024, 12:56 PM

New Britain
October 30, 2024, 08:34 PM

Marcion and the introduct...
by zeca
October 22, 2024, 09:05 PM

Tariq Ramadan Accused of ...
September 11, 2024, 01:37 PM

France Muslims were in d...
September 05, 2024, 03:21 PM

Theme Changer

 Topic: Why are most prominent scientists western rather than muslim?

 (Read 18656 times)
  • Previous page 1 23 4 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Re: Why are most prominent scientists western rather than muslim?
     Reply #30 - December 17, 2009, 02:44 AM

    "Islam is the solution"

    Even as a Muslim I lol'd at that.


    lol. Its funny because Muslims say that islam has the answers to everything. When I ask them basic questions about why Islam does this and that, its always their "wise" answers, such as Allah knows best or ask a sheikh. Why can't they just keep faith to themselves and realize that Islam is not going to make the world any better. Its a pipedream.

    "The more I study religions the more I am convinced that man never worshiped anything but himself."
    ~Sir Richard Francis Burton

    "I think religion is just like smoking: Both invented by people, addictive, harmful, and kills!"
    ~RIBS
  • Re: Why are most prominent scientists western rather than muslim?
     Reply #31 - December 17, 2009, 02:57 AM

    Its a pipebombdream.


    Fixed.  Tongue

    Iblis has mad debaterin' skillz. Best not step up unless you're prepared to recieve da pain.

  • Re: Why are most prominent scientists western rather than muslim?
     Reply #32 - December 17, 2009, 02:59 AM

    All human beings are pretty much similar in most ways, including intelligence, but then humans are also greatly shaped by their culture, & religion is an integral part of the culture, but there are many other components as well.

    Religion isn't just what is written in books, but also how it moulds its followers to think & behave in real life situations.

    To me, Islam does seem to have far more a negative than a positive effect in the way it moulds its followers,compared to many other faiths.

    You might find this article interesting, its written by a Muslim guy who mentions some starkly unpleasant statistics relating to the Muslim world, & although he suggests Muslims keep pace with time with the Quran, I think Quran is the problem, rather than any solution.






    I actually think that all religion is inherently designed to blind human beings, I don't think Christianity or Judaism actually cultures or teaches people to really think less blindly than is demanded in Islam. The reform of these religions, the enlightenment and secularisation have all allowed free thought to evolve and questioning to arise of all things. Reading the bible and the qur'an especially I get the impression that God is no more than a dictator who wants to control the way we think and behave which is as Hitchen says the essence of a sadmasochistic relationship.

    Well religion moulds its followers to think and behave via its book and texts mainly.

    I agree Islam has the mostly negative aspects to it but before the enlightenment Christianity was not that much better and I know u like Christianity. The key components that allowed Christianity to evolve were secularisation and reform. Before when Christanity was a political force it was just as corrupt and brutal as Islam is now. Religious fundamentalism is bad because religion is designed to indoctrinate people and delude them.


    "The ideal tyranny is that which is ignorantly self-administered by its victims. The most perfect slaves are, therefore, those which blissfully and unawaredly enslave themselves."
  • Re: Why are most prominent scientists western rather than muslim?
     Reply #33 - December 17, 2009, 03:16 AM

    ^Spot on Heyjustlooking

    The apologists for Christianity like to take credit for the enlightenment and the secular humanist values that the west attained but even the most cursory glance at history reveals other wise. Christian society was able to progress precisely because Christianity was in many ways a shittier religion than Islam. By that I mean, in comparison, Christianity has way more contradictions, loopholes and a general incoherence that makes Islam looks like a pretty tight package. Which makes sense. Islam was founded by one man and a handful of scholars - it knew it was a political religion from it's inception and is as organized as a theology can get.

    Christianity on the other hand has a quite a messy history due to being nearly 400 years underground with countless different sects that had differences on the most core beliefs (ie jesus' divinity). Also the message of Jesus and the old Testament are often total contradictions - however both books are required in Christianity. This general chaos allows for some pretty insanely varied interpretations. Which is precisely why the highly organized Catholic and Orthodox churches arose to begin with, they needed a powerful institution to control the theological ideas present in Christendom because at it's core Christianity's dogma is not self-evident. Islam never needed a Catholic church because it's core dogma is pretty much finalized and the shia-sunni divide was never about theology but more so about succession and politics.

    The holes and contradictions of at the core of Christianity allowed Europe to slowly wriggle out of the bondage of religion - if Islam was a bit messier perhaps their could be greater justification for, say, permanently throwing out ideas against free-speech or women without getting branded as heretical. But unfortunately Islam is quite a tight package compared to other religions.

    Iblis has mad debaterin' skillz. Best not step up unless you're prepared to recieve da pain.

  • Re: Why are most prominent scientists western rather than muslim?
     Reply #34 - December 17, 2009, 06:31 AM

    I don't want to generalise. It IS happening. They ALREADY think they're being punished, by not following the Religion strictly. That's why we hear some of the 'solutions' to improve the state of some Muslim countries, is to return and become more devout to Religion. This kind of thinking has and is already taking place.



     :'( too true
    http://www.indonesiamatters.com/7457/depravity-decadence/

    Its nothing more than a 'modern' version of sacrificing virgins to the volcano god.  You cant find real answers to problems, when you are locked in the dark with your head up your ass.
    The foundation of superstition is ignorance, the superstructure is faith and the dome is a vain hope. Superstition
    is the child of ignorance and the mother of misery.

    The foundation of superstition is ignorance, the
    superstructure is faith and the dome is a vain hope. Superstition
    is the child of ignorance and the mother of misery.
    -Robert G. Ingersoll (1898)

     "Do time ninjas have this ability?" "Yeah. Only they stay silent and aren't douchebags."  -Ibl
  • Re: Why are most prominent scientists western rather than muslim?
     Reply #35 - December 17, 2009, 06:38 AM

    ^Spot on Heyjustlooking

    The apologists for Christianity like to take credit for the enlightenment and the secular humanist values that the west attained but even the most cursory glance at history reveals other wise. Christian society was able to progress precisely because Christianity was in many ways a shittier religion than Islam. By that I mean, in comparison, Christianity has way more contradictions, loopholes and a general incoherence that makes Islam looks like a pretty tight package. Which makes sense. Islam was founded by one man and a handful of scholars - it knew it was a political religion from it's inception and is as organized as a theology can get.



    There is a essay by Mark Twain I think you will like:

    The Christian Bible is a drug store. Its contents remain the same; but the medical practice changes. For eighteen hundred years these changes were slight -- scarcely noticeable. The practice was allopathic -- allopathic in its rudest and crudest form. The dull and ignorant physician day and night, and all the days and all the nights, drenched his patient with vast and hideous doses of the most repulsive drugs to be found in the store's stock; he bled him, cupped him, purged him, puked him, salivated him, never gave his system a chance to rally, nor nature a chance to help. He kept him religion sick for eighteen centuries, and allowed him not a well day during all that time. The stock in the store was made up of about equal portions of baleful and debilitating poisons, and healing and comforting medicines; but the practice of the time confined the physician to the use of the former; by consequence, he could only damage his patient, and that is what he did.

    Not until far within our century was any considerable change in the practice introduced; and then mainly, or in effect only, in Great Britain and the United States. In the other countries to-day, the patient either still takes the ancient treatment or does not call the physician at all. In the English-speaking countries the changes observable in our century were forced by that very thing just referred to -- the revolt of the patient against the system; they were not projected by the physician. The patient fell to doctoring himself, and the physician's practice began to fall off. He modified his method to get back his trade. He did it gradually, reluctantly; and never yielded more at a time than the pressure compelled. At first he relinquished the daily dose of hell and damnation, and administered it every other day only; next he allowed another day to pass; then another and presently another; when he had restricted it at last to Sundays, and imagined that now there would surely be a truce, the homeopath arrived on the field and made him abandon hell and damnation altogether, and administered Christ's love, and comfort, and charity and compassion in its stead. These had been in the drug store all the time, gold labeled and conspicuous among the long shelfloads of repulsive purges and vomits and poisons, and so the practice was to blame that they had remained unused, not the pharmacy. To the ecclesiastical physician of fifty years ago, his predecessor for eighteen centuries was a quack; to the ecclesiastical physician of to-day, his predecessor of fifty years ago was a quack. To the every-man-his-own-ecclesiastical-doctor of -- when? -- what will the ecclesiastical physician of to-day be? Unless evolution, which has been a truth ever since the globes, suns, and planets of the solar system were but wandering films of meteor dust, shall reach a limit and become a lie, there is but one fate in store for him.

    ---continue reading:
    http://www.atheistnexus.org/profiles/blogs/mark-twain-bible-teaching-and

    The foundation of superstition is ignorance, the
    superstructure is faith and the dome is a vain hope. Superstition
    is the child of ignorance and the mother of misery.
    -Robert G. Ingersoll (1898)

     "Do time ninjas have this ability?" "Yeah. Only they stay silent and aren't douchebags."  -Ibl
  • Re: Why are most prominent scientists western rather than muslim?
     Reply #36 - December 17, 2009, 06:46 AM

    The sad part is I really believe this will get much worst, before it gets better.
    The trend does not show a bright future on the horizon. More and more children are being indoctrinated in madrassas than ever. Arab oil money has has done unthinkable damage in South/SouthEast Asia (where the majority of the worlds muslims live), spreading a retrograde madness and ignorance. Science...out, Literature...out, history..out, islam...in. Who needs nonsense like biology when you can use that time to memorize an old book of nonsense written over a thousand years ago in a language you dont even speak. 

    I shutter to think of some future generations, of which large swaths have barely any education beyond quran memorizing.

    The foundation of superstition is ignorance, the
    superstructure is faith and the dome is a vain hope. Superstition
    is the child of ignorance and the mother of misery.
    -Robert G. Ingersoll (1898)

     "Do time ninjas have this ability?" "Yeah. Only they stay silent and aren't douchebags."  -Ibl
  • Re: Why are most prominent scientists western rather than muslim?
     Reply #37 - December 17, 2009, 07:56 AM


     :'( too true
    http://www.indonesiamatters.com/7457/depravity-decadence/

    Its nothing more than a 'modern' version of sacrificing virgins to the volcano god.  You cant find real answers to problems, when you are locked in the dark with your head up your ass.
    The foundation of superstition is ignorance, the superstructure is faith and the dome is a vain hope. Superstition
    is the child of ignorance and the mother of misery.



    You know, I'm working on a multiplayer video game where people live in a virtual planet where there is a deity who likes to punish them through natural disasters like earthquakes, volcano fires, tsunamis, floods, etc, and the people (players) have to collectively work out strategies to overcome the disasters with use of only human assets & knowledge, and eventually develop the technology to travel the space and kill the deity  signmuahaha signmuahaha. I think it will be controversial but hopefully it would drive the point home to some that people have to focus on education & science to improve their conditions rather than relying on an imaginary god.
  • Re: Why are most prominent scientists western rather than muslim?
     Reply #38 - December 17, 2009, 11:09 AM

    You know, I'm working on a multiplayer video game where people live in a virtual planet where there is a deity who likes to punish them through natural disasters like earthquakes, volcano fires, tsunamis, floods, etc, and the people (players) have to collectively work out strategies to overcome the disasters with use of only human assets & knowledge, and eventually develop the technology to travel the space and kill the deity  signmuahaha signmuahaha. I think it will be controversial but hopefully it would drive the point home to some that people have to focus on education & science to improve their conditions rather than relying on an imaginary god.

    This sounds cool  Afro
    I would be the first to spread the word about the game by sending emails to my Muslim friends titled (Beware of this kafir game) 
    And will write a footnote (Send it to as many people in your contact list, and do something for the sake of Allah)

    Reverse advertisement FTW Cheesy

    "In every time and culture there are pressures to conform to the prevailing prejudices. But there are also, in every place and epoch, those who value the truth; who record the evidence faithfully. Future generations are in their debt." -Carl Sagan

  • Re: Why are most prominent scientists western rather than muslim?
     Reply #39 - December 17, 2009, 12:03 PM

    ....


    I find it extremely amusing that Muslim apologists would like to take credit for one Taj Mahal in a land which had great buildings millennia pre Islam, crediting it on the "Islamic culture & civilization," whereas the builder tore down many, many more temples compared to monuments he built, re,

    Quote
    Despite his Hindu mother, Shah Jahan did not follow the liberal religious policy instituted by his grandfather, Emperor Akbar. In 1632 he ordered all Hindu temples recently erected or in the process of erection to be torn down. Christian churches at Agra and Lahore were also demolished. In the same year the Portuguese settlement at Hooghly near Calcutta was also attacked. The Portuguese were accused of piracy and of kidnaping Mogul subjects, infecting them with Christian doctrines, and shipping them as slaves to Europe. The settlement was reduced, and several thousand Christians were killed.



    , & even "Islamic" architecture is Byzantine Persian architecture plagiarized,but deny that Judeo Christian culture contributed anything worthwhile although that era was steeped in these religions.  Roll Eyes

    Did Judaism & Christianity contribute? I personally don't know, I don't claim to know either.

    There have been philosophers from Weber to Jurgen Habermas, many not practicing Christians or even believers, who've credited these faiths, others have felt differently & felt that these faiths were not contributing at best & obstacles at worst.

    However, as these faiths exist currently, they often have pretty beneficial effects, & I speak with my personal experience in Bangladesh, India etc.

    I think Kafirist himself admitted that Muslim parents have many hangups about whom their daughters befriend, what they wear etc, I too have noticed that.Peruvian Skies mentioned in her "most excellent adventures" that many Muslim parents she knew pulled their daughters right out of school to get them married off. But Christian girls I noticed in Bangladesh, India had extremely few such hangups compared at least to Muslim, they wear & travel wherever they want.This refects in the high % of Christian girls who graduate out of universities in India & Bangladesh.Christians in Bangladesh also have equal inheritance for women, while Bangladeshi Muslims rioted over proposals to give women equal inheritance. Also, Christian schools, universities etc, which are very much products of Christian culture & civilization, do loads of good to the world today in terms of spreading knowledge, more than any madrassas I know, they don't churn out jihadis. Even with Judaism, they managed to outlaw stonings & death penalty millennia ago, Reform & even Conservative Judaism-which form the vast majority of Jews, has an excellent track record in women rabbis, rights of gays,freethinkers & of course scientific & technological achievements.

    Ultimately its quite futile to speculate what & how Christianity did\didn't contribute to Enlightenment, because its not possible to do an experiment to see whether Enlightenment would happen without it or not.

    Today however, I don't find most Christians plagued by most of the ills which plague Islam.

    I can say the same about followers of my religion-Zoroastrianism, regardless of some millennia old texts, Zoroastrians, Zoroastrian women are some of the most enlightened I know.

    This isn't true for all Muslims or Muslim societies, but Islam in general does seem to have very poor effects.




    World renowned historian Will Durant"...the Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precious good, whose delicate complex order and freedom can at any moment be overthrown..."
  • Re: Why are most prominent scientists western rather than muslim?
     Reply #40 - December 17, 2009, 12:19 PM

    ^Spot on Heyjustlooking

    The apologists for Christianity like to take credit for the enlightenment and the secular humanist values that the west attained but even the most cursory glance at history reveals other wise. Christian society was able to progress precisely because Christianity was in many ways a shittier religion than Islam. By that I mean, in comparison, Christianity has way more contradictions, loopholes and a general incoherence that makes Islam looks like a pretty tight package. Which makes sense. Islam was founded by one man and a handful of scholars - it knew it was a political religion from it's inception and is as organized as a theology can get.

    Christianity on the other hand has a quite a messy history due to being nearly 400 years underground with countless different sects that had differences on the most core beliefs (ie jesus' divinity). Also the message of Jesus and the old Testament are often total contradictions - however both books are required in Christianity. This general chaos allows for some pretty insanely varied interpretations. Which is precisely why the highly organized Catholic and Orthodox churches arose to begin with, they needed a powerful institution to control the theological ideas present in Christendom because at it's core Christianity's dogma is not self-evident. Islam never needed a Catholic church because it's core dogma is pretty much finalized and the shia-sunni divide was never about theology but more so about succession and politics.

    The holes and contradictions of at the core of Christianity allowed Europe to slowly wriggle out of the bondage of religion - if Islam was a bit messier perhaps their could be greater justification for, say, permanently throwing out ideas against free-speech or women without getting branded as heretical. But unfortunately Islam is quite a tight package compared to other religions.



    +1

    When I was a muslim, I really couldn't take any other religion seriously. Due to the reformations and so on. Christianity became a bit of a comedy and then when it started to ordain gay and women clergy (nothing against that) it just seemed as though the church and christianity itself was compromising itself to secular values. Then there was the addition of scrapping hell and making God into some sort of new age hippie.

    For me islam was a religion that seriously meant business. It wasn't one to compromise on it's own doctrines and articles of faith. This is why reformation might be a hard thing in islam because they tend to stay coherent when it comes to the core. Then there is the historicity of the Quran, or rather what the Quran says. Unlike the Bible, the Quran is a circular book and not linear. It is also not meant to be read as a history book, but rather the parables and stories in there are for teaching purpose and for the believer to draw lessons and reflect.
  • Re: Why are most prominent scientists western rather than muslim?
     Reply #41 - December 17, 2009, 12:58 PM

    Exactly Omar. Which is why I had more interest and fun studying Islam, than Christianity or Judaism, as it's original and molded. I neither could take any Religion that underwent reformations, changes and such seriously.

    I respect the idea that bida'a is forbidden. As it keeps the Religion organized, as adherents can't add their own opinions and practices to it. You either accept it as a package, or leave it. You can't worship according to your own beliefs and desires. Which keeps Muslims on the same page and unites them worldwide, in terms of pillars of Islam, articles of faith etc

    For those who understand, no explanation is necessary. For those who refuse to understand, no explanation is possible.
  • Re: Why are most prominent scientists western rather than muslim?
     Reply #42 - December 17, 2009, 12:59 PM

    ^Spot on Heyjustlooking

    The apologists for Christianity like to take credit for the enlightenment and the secular humanist values that the west attained but even the most cursory glance at history reveals other wise. Christian society was able to progress precisely because Christianity was in many ways a shittier religion than Islam. By that I mean, in comparison, Christianity has way more contradictions, loopholes and a general incoherence that makes Islam looks like a pretty tight package. Which makes sense. Islam was founded by one man and a handful of scholars - it knew it was a political religion from it's inception and is as organized as a theology can get.

    Christianity on the other hand has a quite a messy history due to being nearly 400 years underground with countless different sects that had differences on the most core beliefs (ie jesus' divinity). Also the message of Jesus and the old Testament are often total contradictions - however both books are required in Christianity. This general chaos allows for some pretty insanely varied interpretations. Which is precisely why the highly organized Catholic and Orthodox churches arose to begin with, they needed a powerful institution to control the theological ideas present in Christendom because at it's core Christianity's dogma is not self-evident. Islam never needed a Catholic church because it's core dogma is pretty much finalized and the shia-sunni divide was never about theology but more so about succession and politics.

    The holes and contradictions of at the core of Christianity allowed Europe to slowly wriggle out of the bondage of religion - if Islam was a bit messier perhaps their could be greater justification for, say, permanently throwing out ideas against free-speech or women without getting branded as heretical. But unfortunately Islam is quite a tight package compared to other religions.


    Absolutely.  Afro

    For those who understand, no explanation is necessary. For those who refuse to understand, no explanation is possible.
  • Re: Why are most prominent scientists western rather than muslim?
     Reply #43 - December 17, 2009, 01:03 PM


    I respect the idea that bida'a is forbidden. As it keeps the Religion organized, as adherents can't add their own opinions and practices to it. You either accept it as a package, or leave it...


    Except that you can't leave it. There are a lot of idiots who would like to see us dead  Roll Eyes. And neither are all muslims united, there are more than 70 sects. The only thing this kind of refusal to change does is keep people living in the 6th century
  • Re: Why are most prominent scientists western rather than muslim?
     Reply #44 - December 17, 2009, 01:15 PM

    ^Spot on Heyjustlooking

    The apologists for Christianity like to take credit for the enlightenment and the secular humanist values that the west attained but even the most cursory glance at history reveals other wise. Christian society was able to progress precisely because Christianity was in many ways a shittier religion than Islam. By that I mean, in comparison, Christianity has way more contradictions, loopholes and a general incoherence that makes Islam looks like a pretty tight package. Which makes sense. Islam was founded by one man and a handful of scholars - it knew it was a political religion from it's inception and is as organized as a theology can get.

    Christianity on the other hand has a quite a messy history due to being nearly 400 years underground with countless different sects that had differences on the most core beliefs (ie jesus' divinity). Also the message of Jesus and the old Testament are often total contradictions - however both books are required in Christianity. This general chaos allows for some pretty insanely varied interpretations. Which is precisely why the highly organized Catholic and Orthodox churches arose to begin with, they needed a powerful institution to control the theological ideas present in Christendom because at it's core Christianity's dogma is not self-evident. Islam never needed a Catholic church because it's core dogma is pretty much finalized and the shia-sunni divide was never about theology but more so about succession and politics.

    The holes and contradictions of at the core of Christianity allowed Europe to slowly wriggle out of the bondage of religion - if Islam was a bit messier perhaps their could be greater justification for, say, permanently throwing out ideas against free-speech or women without getting branded as heretical. But unfortunately Islam is quite a tight package compared to other religions.



    Exactly. Islam is the real deal in that it actually makes claims that it is a God given revelation hence it encompasses every aspect a Muslim's daily life. Christianity on the other hand pretty much has a variety of doctrines floating around.
    I find it extremely amusing that Muslim apologists would like to take credit for one Taj Mahal in a land which had great buildings millennia pre Islam, crediting it on the "Islamic culture & civilization," whereas the builder tore down many, many more temples compared to monuments he built, re,


    , & even "Islamic" architecture is Byzantine Persian architecture plagiarized,but deny that Judeo Christian culture contributed anything worthwhile although that era was steeped in these religions.  Roll Eyes

    Did Judaism & Christianity contribute? I personally don't know, I don't claim to know either.

    There have been philosophers from Weber to Jurgen Habermas, many not practicing Christians or even believers, who've credited these faiths, others have felt differently & felt that these faiths were not contributing at best & obstacles at worst.

    However, as these faiths exist currently, they often have pretty beneficial effects, & I speak with my personal experience in Bangladesh, India etc.

    I think Kafirist himself admitted that Muslim parents have many hangups about whom their daughters befriend, what they wear etc, I too have noticed that.Peruvian Skies mentioned in her "most excellent adventures" that many Muslim parents she knew pulled their daughters right out of school to get them married off. But Christian girls I noticed in Bangladesh, India had extremely few such hangups compared at least to Muslim, they wear & travel wherever they want.This refects in the high % of Christian girls who graduate out of universities in India & Bangladesh.Christians in Bangladesh also have equal inheritance for women, while Bangladeshi Muslims rioted over proposals to give women equal inheritance. Also, Christian schools, universities etc, which are very much products of Christian culture & civilization, do loads of good to the world today in terms of spreading knowledge, more than any madrassas I know, they don't churn out jihadis. Even with Judaism, they managed to outlaw stonings & death penalty millennia ago, Reform & even Conservative Judaism-which form the vast majority of Jews, has an excellent track record in women rabbis, rights of gays,freethinkers & of course scientific & technological achievements.

    Ultimately its quite futile to speculate what & how Christianity did\didn't contribute to Enlightenment, because its not possible to do an experiment to see whether Enlightenment would happen without it or not.

    Today however, I don't find most Christians plagued by most of the ills which plague Islam.

    I can say the same about followers of my religion-Zoroastrianism, regardless of some millennia old texts, Zoroastrians, Zoroastrian women are some of the most enlightened I know.

    This isn't true for all Muslims or Muslim societies, but Islam in general does seem to have very poor effects.






    You really seem to just be reaffirming my point here. Religion borrows its morality within its texts from humans not the other way round. THe enlightenment marks a point in the history of the western world and people began to think more rather than be dictated by the Catholic Church and so on. Where prominent thinkers began to emerge. Religion does not contribute to freethinking it tries to suppress it which is something u blatantly do not believe. Logic, thinking and morality is innate to humans so even though religion is our first attempt at the truth it is also our worst and it has long outstayed its welcome via brianwashing and has become more of a blockade to progress than an aid really.

    "The ideal tyranny is that which is ignorantly self-administered by its victims. The most perfect slaves are, therefore, those which blissfully and unawaredly enslave themselves."
  • Re: Why are most prominent scientists western rather than muslim?
     Reply #45 - December 17, 2009, 01:19 PM

    Except that you can't leave it. There are a lot of idiots who would like to see us dead  Roll Eyes. And neither are all muslims united, there are more than 70 sects. The only thing this kind of refusal to change does is keep people living in the 6th century

    I was careful when I talked about Muslim unity. I said "in terms of pillars of Islam, articles of faith". Majority of Muslims are united upon that, which is the base and major aspect of Islam. I am aware there is different sects. But the majority believe in the same pillars of Islam and articles of faith.

    As for the matter of apostacy, it's not as black and white as it appears. Scholars don't share an agreement that if you simply leave Islam you should be killed immediately. It depends on the individuals case. Did they apostate because reasons other than their own wills? Out of ignorance? Forced too? etc What kind of apostate are they? Are they a danger to the Muslims or not? etc And then the differentiation between murtal milli/murtad fitri.

    For those who understand, no explanation is necessary. For those who refuse to understand, no explanation is possible.
  • Re: Why are most prominent scientists western rather than muslim?
     Reply #46 - December 17, 2009, 01:24 PM

    Quote
    As for the matter of apostacy, it's not as black and white as it appears. Scholars don't share an agreement that if you simply leave Islam you should be killed immediately. It depends on the individuals case. Did they apostate because reasons other than their own wills? Out of ignorance? Forced too? etc What kind of apostate are they? Are they a danger to the Muslims or not?etc And then the differentiation between murtal milli/murtad fitri.


    Yea, so if you leave by your own free will then they kill you, which is exactly my point, you can't leave easily. Stop justifying it dude. I've personally heard my uncles talk about murtads and how they should be killed. There are clear hadith which say the apostate should be killed. Throughout the time in any muslim nation, even if the police didn't kill you, you always face the threat of being killed by a fanatic. I'm someone who is living with this threat right now, which is why I haven't told anyone yet. So don't think for a second that you can lie to me. :@
  • Re: Why are most prominent scientists western rather than muslim?
     Reply #47 - December 17, 2009, 01:31 PM

    I'm not justifying it. And why would I lie to you? I'm just pointing out it's not a simple issue. Yes, no doubt it's a serious problem the individual who apostates faces, and one can't easily leave the Religion.

    Your uncles aren't jurists. So whether they agree that an apostate should be killed once they leave, doesn't matter.

    For those who understand, no explanation is necessary. For those who refuse to understand, no explanation is possible.
  • Re: Why are most prominent scientists western rather than muslim?
     Reply #48 - December 17, 2009, 02:00 PM

    It matters because if they find out I'm an apostate, i'll be killed in the name of the religion of peace  Roll Eyes. You're still a muslim, right?
  • Re: Why are most prominent scientists western rather than muslim?
     Reply #49 - December 17, 2009, 02:43 PM

    Neither Muslim or Ex-Muslim. I don't have any Religion. I should have posted an intro to make it clear, but will do. Probably you assuming I'm Muslim, thus automatically believing I'm defending Islam view's on apostates.

    For those who understand, no explanation is necessary. For those who refuse to understand, no explanation is possible.
  • Re: Why are most prominent scientists western rather than muslim?
     Reply #50 - December 17, 2009, 02:55 PM

    Yes I did think that, I think I saw you posting in a thread saying you were a muslim
  • Re: Why are most prominent scientists western rather than muslim?
     Reply #51 - December 17, 2009, 02:57 PM

    Impossible. You must be confusing me with another member. My previous signature (which I only replaced yesterday) was always clear about my religious beliefs.

    For those who understand, no explanation is necessary. For those who refuse to understand, no explanation is possible.
  • Re: Why are most prominent scientists western rather than muslim?
     Reply #52 - December 17, 2009, 03:01 PM

    Are you agnostic then?
  • Re: Why are most prominent scientists western rather than muslim?
     Reply #53 - December 17, 2009, 03:06 PM

    Possibly by definition. But I don't label myself as such. This quote from Fareed Ad'Deen Al'Attar quite describes me;

    "I doubt. I doubt my doubt. Doubt itself is uncertain! I love, but who is it for whom I sigh? Not muslim, yet not heathen, who am I?"

    For those who understand, no explanation is necessary. For those who refuse to understand, no explanation is possible.
  • Re: Why are most prominent scientists western rather than muslim?
     Reply #54 - December 17, 2009, 03:22 PM

    So you're a sceptic?
    I was a sceptic but I find myself leaning towards atheism now. I guess in a sense I am a sceptic, still.

    "The ideal tyranny is that which is ignorantly self-administered by its victims. The most perfect slaves are, therefore, those which blissfully and unawaredly enslave themselves."
  • Re: Why are most prominent scientists western rather than muslim?
     Reply #55 - December 17, 2009, 03:26 PM

    Yeah, I'm quite like you. I really haven't got any settled beliefs. I prefer to remain so. Where there is doubt, there is freedom.

    For those who understand, no explanation is necessary. For those who refuse to understand, no explanation is possible.
  • Re: Why are most prominent scientists western rather than muslim?
     Reply #56 - December 17, 2009, 03:36 PM

    I like your way of thinking Ibn Saba.

    Me, on the other hand. I like a good cause. I like the new atheism because it is the ultimate act of iconoclasm. A philosophical iconoclasm if you will. I would gladly be a brownshirt fanatic for Dawkins. He's so handsome..  Kiss

    Iblis has mad debaterin' skillz. Best not step up unless you're prepared to recieve da pain.

  • Re: Why are most prominent scientists western rather than muslim?
     Reply #57 - December 17, 2009, 03:39 PM

    U have a man-crush on Dawkins, eh?

    "The ideal tyranny is that which is ignorantly self-administered by its victims. The most perfect slaves are, therefore, those which blissfully and unawaredly enslave themselves."
  • Re: Why are most prominent scientists western rather than muslim?
     Reply #58 - December 17, 2009, 03:42 PM

    Yes. In an extremely gay way.

    Iblis has mad debaterin' skillz. Best not step up unless you're prepared to recieve da pain.

  • Re: Why are most prominent scientists western rather than muslim?
     Reply #59 - December 17, 2009, 05:22 PM

    lol @kafirist
  • Previous page 1 23 4 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »