Muslim People in Australia (2 Viewers)

[sam04u]

because at that time people couldnt conceive the idea 1,000,000,000 years... people of the 7th century had a superiority complex....
(10,000 - 50,000 is just symbolising that it IS a long period so it wouldnt be disregarded as a contradiction to science)

secondly...

Astronomy

Redshift of spectral lines in the optical spectrum of a supercluster of distant galaxies (right), as compared to that of the Sun (left).The Doppler effect for electromagnetic waves such as light, is of great use in astronomy, and results in either a so-called redshift or blueshift. It has been used to measure the speed at which stars and galaxies are approaching to, or receding from us
-wikipedia

thirdly....
Muhammad (PBUH) who "introduced" the Qur'an to the world lived in a secluded part of the world with NO access to Greek literature...

Your explanation of how he came to such conclusions at best that he is the messenger of Allah (god) or at worst an INCREDIBLE genius who knew of things which wouldnt be discovered for HUNDREDS of years... with no access to the greater scientific communities (Which were hardly established in the middle east at that time... the scientists which came after the introduction of the Qur'an moulded MUCH research... which later was used by greeks/romans/the world)

Finally! I NEVER said you shouldnt believe the bible or the other "main" religions...
eg;
Christianity,
Jeudaism,
Buddhism,
and Hinduism

Because according to the Qur'an those religions are just as integral to society and that following them and being pure of heart will lead the people who are deserving to Islam in the final hours. (and they will advance into heaven)

Besides the Qur'an encourages people to be skeptical and think... and also to question the universe and learn about it....
(Therefore what you are doing now is good... but why not ask questions instead of criticising what you don't know..)

You question the integrity of a book you know nothing of... and have faith that the universe was created without a god? I know enough about astronomy to tell you, you are wrong.
I also figured out that alot of what is known about the big-bang is true... and a lot is untrue... and i know how the conditions for the creation of the universe would occur and unfortunately it does not necessarily require a creator. However i will never release this information as it could be interpreted that there is no "creator" and i have absolute faith in allah... Hopefully it will die with me....

Enough with questioning the known, start questioning the unknown....

Edit: I know it seems there is alot of contradictions in my post... its because of the contradictions, in my thoughts... its not an accident....

 

[davin]

the expansion of the universe is not properly called a doppler shift because we consider a doppler shift to be caused by an object moving towards or away from an observer. in the case of very distant objects, though, the redshift that is perceived is not from a velocity moving away but, essentially, the universe between us and said object expanding. as it does so, it stretches any waves passing through it. the typical analogy is a loaf of raisinbread, and how as it bakes, it will expand and the distances between all raisins will go up.

second, thats totally untrue that the idea of billions was foreign. Hindu cosmology has been using numbers in the billions for quite some time. Its an excuse to say, "well, even though Muhammad was told all the complexities of the world, he wasn't told consistant numbers because that would've confused him", just as much as it is an excuse to first say "well, the qur'an has all these ideas before anyone else" and then follow it up with "well, nothing could have influenced him", which is what occim's razor would suggest is the case.

as for the origin of the universe itself, first, i don't have faith it was created without a god. i'm agnostic....don't think i know enough to say if there was a god or not, but i've also seen no proof...but that is a point i've made in the "is there a god" thread. there is nothing in astronomy that proves there was a god involved, though i would be interested in hearing what you think 'proves' that based off of science alone.

 

[SabtheLab]

the way i see it science cant prove nor disprove the existence of God hence its pointless to bring science into a theological argument. it only confuses the matter. the best anyone can do is extract an interpretation from scientific data and use it as a basis for their belief, be they religious or atheistic. hence neither side has any right to belittle the other as both conclusions are equally valid in the eyes of science.

 

[Omnidragon]

I think science may be re-expressed as a system that tries to dictate.

A lot of people bring up arguments like, if God can't be proved via science, it must be false. The extreme, opposite standpoint to this view is that there's no reason why, if something can't be proven via science, we can't accept that it's true. Or, if you take the flipside, there's no reason why science makes something true.

A lot of science is based on experiments. Hypotheses are made, and experiments are conducted to test them. For example, I might want to test what the effect of throwing my computer out the window is. We expect it to fall because science tells us that gravity has this effect on the mass of the computer. But... even if I throw the computer out 10000000 times, I can't say for sure that it won't fly off or float on the 10000000th and first time.

This might sound really stupid... but I guess my this is my point. There are people saying God is false because science can't prove his existence. And there are others who say God might well be true, however, science has yet to verify this.

Why can't we step out of this box and say, well... science might be false because it can't prove its existence via God. Why is it that we prefer to accept hypotheses testing and experiments over stories about miracles? Well I'm sure there's a whole host of reasons... but what I'm really getting at is that western culture has brought people up differently from those who are brought up in the Middle East.

Our starting point is science... their starting point is God. For us, we frustrate over trying to prove God via science. For them, the question is why isn't science proved via God?

Once we step oustide this box, maybe our thinking will become more moderate and tolerant.

 

[SabtheLab]

Then what starting point do you propose?

 

[sly fly]

But that doesn't say 'humans are 80% water' it says that every living thing is made from water, which I imagine is some sort of pagan belief but you can see where it comes from quite easily... all creatures drink water.

But I thought every living thing WAS made of water, don't they teach you that in biology? hmm......can someone who does biology or knows about this plz clarify.

 

[ur_inner_child]

But I thought every living thing WAS made of water, don't they teach you that in biology? hmm......can someone who does biology or knows about this plz clarify.

I don't think you've actually considered the context of his post, and thus misinterpreted his intent completely incorrectly.

 

[riot_girl88]

Ok then explain why it is that muslims with the same level of socio-economic disadvantage in say UK (to other groups) react in more violent ways than the other groups?

Exactly!!!

i watched it and there's truth in what she said.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

But I thought every living thing WAS made of water, don't they teach you that in biology? hmm......can someone who does biology or knows about this plz clarify.

Things are made of water but what that verse says doesn't go close to explaining the process so it makes more sense to me to say it's probably not any sort of radical scientific claim and that it was just an observation / pagan belief.

I wasn't saying that things are not made up of / comprised of water...

I really don't get you people, you're trying to make your religion into a book of scientific fact? Yet want to reject something like evolution? You want your beliefs to be validated by science (you obviously respect it), yet you don't want science to affect your beliefs.

 

[Dingo2004]

they should bann all religions.

seriously religion is soo medievil, ancient civilisation based..

we are now living in a world of science..

and the future would b far better without religion.

believe in science.. its the way to go !

 

[transcendent]

yes omnidragon lets ALL make silly little stories and implant them in history and call it truth.

 

[SashatheMan]

I say there should be a country like saudi arabia, but instead of them , only allowing muslims in, they should only allow non religious people.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Okay how about you look into the first few stages of embryology, you will see that the human fetus at 6-8 weeks resembles a leech, as it looks like one, has a tail and "sucks blood" from the inside of the mother like a leech. And the other stages are explained too, most of which wasn't discovered untill very recently. They did not know these things at that time... and im NOT interpreting it to benefit my claim... its right there if you had common sense you would believe it.

Oh ok, so the embryo is the leech like creature... see I don't get it, alot of things are leech like - why did you pick the embryo? Anyway as for the other stages, etc I believe it's been recently discovered that a greek physician knew about the developmental stages and published this before the koran... this has been accepted by most islamic scholars I believe.

NOBODY understand the idea of the big bang... all that is proven is that at one stage everything was in one place, since the universe is expanding we assume this... the only reference of the UNIVERSE/SPACE/HEAVENS being "one" is the reference to it in the Qur'an untill such ideas were discovered by doppler. So dont go and make these inane idiotic STUPID conclusions. IF you read into it you will see the significance... it is saying the universe expanded... it was RIPPED like an explosion....

I don't see how a rip is like an explosion, I also don't see why you'd think it's talking about the big bang - i'd like to see some context to it.

Its funny... you atheists... its right there! in your face! but because you dont want to believe in religion you deny it.

Don't be stupid, I want to believe. I want to believe when I die there will be something more, I want to believe my family that have passed away are somewhere happy - But at the same time I want to know the truth, don't get it wrong. It is you that will reject evidence because you want your belief to be true, I don't really want my belief to be true but at the same time I want to be as close to the truth as I can be.

Have not those who disbelieve known that the heavens and the earth were of one piece, then We parted them, and we made every living thing of water ? Will they not then believe ?

I'm pretty sure this whole thing is actually in the bible, and I heard off a guy that analyses the bible that this is a pagan belief that had made its way into the bible and I guess the koran too (the idea that living things come from water).

Anyway it's still extremely vague - and note that it was only discovered that this was talking about the big bang etc... after the fact, don't you find that odd? I'd really like you to answer me.

Science does say it was intelligently designed... the universe is a creation... not a matter of circumstance... science explains WHAT happened.. not how....

Now science attempts to explain how it happens too, however of course there are holes. Science does not say it was intelligently designed, i had no idea where you get that from, nor does it say that the universe is a creation in the sense you're talking about (i.e. a creation with an intelligent creator).

Because it sais the "heavens" and the earth. And in the qur'an nothing is in "heaven- which has a different name then the one it refers to it is called JANI" That heaven means space... as was used by the greeks... that you love so dearly... they say IN THE HEAVENS!
Space is relatively recent term to describe.... whats not on earth.... lol... heavens...

Yea the heavens and the earth... the sky and the the ground. I'd like to know what the term for sky is and the term for heaven, also whether heaven is ever used to describe sky.

Anyway my point is pretty much moot, I just like to bring various things up.

That is the challenge of allah for you to discover what is not known... and as of yet not scientific information has been rejected by islam... if we get into other religions... there has been milions... eg; "evolution", "heliocentric universe" etc etc...

and now these religions who supposedly have FAITH try to discredit islam? its a trick....

I believe I asked you before - do muslims accept evolution? I find that odd because most on this forum don't, and i've listened to debates about evolution between a muslim and a scientist.

If you took your head out of your ass you would see that i explained all those who are pure of heart will go to heaven regardless of religion... according to islam... so your religion has no significance to the person of islam... just your purity...

If you took your head out of your ass you would see that I think there's a problem with the whole 'pure of heart' thing. You need to define pure of heart, which you really didn't do a very good job of doing, I suspect in the end you'd end up saying to go to the koran to find what pure of heart is, which will just lead me back to being a muslim/leading a muslim lifestyle.

why would you question a religion with moral and peaceful and family values?
Because you are an atheist jack-ass who listens to the media and is easily influenced...

I question the religion because it is not promoting what I feel are moral and peaceful values (cutting off burgulars hands.... many things relating to crime and punishment) - I also question the religion because I believe it is wrong.

Now some other "interesting" things the media blows up...
the 2 Australian Gang Rapings?

Which happened 3-4 years ago? and all of the people involved got sentenced to over 35 years?

Or the incident where a group of men attacked a life guard who they overheard say "those fucking lebos" even if they werent referring to them...?

Thats about 20 people.. these people do not reflect the odd.. 2 million muslims in australia who abide with the laws... have a sense of nationalism and pay taxes...

Yes ok, these people don't represent them all perfectly, however when you have a group of people with one characteristic (i.e. poor) committing crimes at a higher rate than the average person without that characteristic, or a similar group of people without that characteristic... you have to look into the problem and see what lies there.

because at that time people couldnt conceive the idea 1,000,000,000 years... people of the 7th century had a superiority complex....
(10,000 - 50,000 is just symbolising that it IS a long period so it wouldnt be disregarded as a contradiction to science)

How come it's just symbolising there (how do we know? it seems like you're putting the cart before the horse) and how come it's targetted to the people of the time?

Muhammad (PBUH) who "introduced" the Qur'an to the world lived in a secluded part of the world with NO access to Greek literature...

You have no idea what could have been going on, trade of information etc... we just don't know, it seems like special pleading to just say 'no, it doesn't matter that the things he came up with were already known at the time! because he's in a distant land'.

You question the integrity of a book you know nothing of... and have faith that the universe was created without a god? I know enough about astronomy to tell you, you are wrong.

I don't know whether it was created without a god, I just see no evidence that it was so I'm going to say 'there isn't a god' and I think given the facts we have I am accepting the 'provisional' truth until more facts come to light.

I also figured out that alot of what is known about the big-bang is true... and a lot is untrue... and i know how the conditions for the creation of the universe would occur and unfortunately it does not necessarily require a creator. However i will never release this information as it could be interpreted that there is no "creator" and i have absolute faith in allah... Hopefully it will die with me....

You are a nut.

I know it seems there is alot of contradictions in my post... its because of the contradictions, in my thoughts... its not an accident....

Wow what a nut..

About Science

I think science may be re-expressed as a system that tries to dictate.

Science is a way of learning, so it's not about trying to dictate.

A lot of people bring up arguments like, if God can't be proved via science, it must be false. The extreme, opposite standpoint to this view is that there's no reason why, if something can't be proven via science, we can't accept that it's true. Or, if you take the flipside, there's no reason why science makes something true.

It's not that it must be false, it's just that given the facts we currently have it is provisionally false - until new facts come to light.

The extreme, opposite standpoint to this view is that there's no reason why, if something can't be proven via science, we can't accept that it's true.

Well there's no reason why you can't accept that it's true, it's just that it'd be pretty illogical to considering that most people accept what science has to say in other areas. It doesn't really make sense to just ignore the facts you currently have before you in favour of a story, but of course you can if you want.

Or, if you take the flipside, there's no reason why science makes something true.

Science doesn't 'make' something true, there are true things (an objective reality) out there and science attempts to verify them. Now given what current facts we have on this effect we call 'gravity' we can say it exists, this is provisionally true, while new facts might come to light saying that it is not.

However, it makes alot more sense to work with the provisional truths which science provides us based on known fact, than working with absolute truths that you've created for yourself based on a story.

A lot of science is based on experiments. Hypotheses are made, and experiments are conducted to test them. For example, I might want to test what the effect of throwing my computer out the window is. We expect it to fall because science tells us that gravity has this effect on the mass of the computer. But... even if I throw the computer out 10000000 times, I can't say for sure that it won't fly off or float on the 10000000th and first time.

Yep correct, but why would you postilate that computers can fly with no evidence of it? It's illogical. Refer to my above points on 'provisional truths'.

This might sound really stupid... but I guess my this is my point. There are people saying God is false because science can't prove his existence. And there are others who say God might well be true, however, science has yet to verify this.

I'm saying that God is provisionally false (based on current facts) because science can't prove his existence (a god as most people describe it, a supernatural power, i doubt science will ever prove... it would have to be a naturalistic god like some sort of natural effect on the universe). Anyway, I also say that god might well be true, however science has yet to verify it - the big point tho is that why would I believe something with no facts when the current facts are pointing me in the other direction? Why would I believe that a computer can fly when the current facts say it does not? I should accept that a computer cannot fly (as a provisional truth - truthful until proven to not be), but still be open to the possibility that it might.

Why can't we step out of this box and say, well... science might be false because it can't prove its existence via God.

Uhh what the hell?

Why is it that we prefer to accept hypotheses testing and experiments over stories about miracles?

Because they provide us with fairly solid facts which we can use to form provisional opinions. Instead of just floating around in fairy land. Science and facts have done us alot of good in the past, it has cured diseases etc... miracles and stories have not. People believe in science because it provides solid results.

but what I'm really getting at is that western culture has brought people up differently from those who are brought up in the Middle East.

Yep ok.

Our starting point is science... their starting point is God.

A bit of a huge generalisation there. Also, you have to realise is that the starting point of science is 'we don't know'.

For us, we frustrate over trying to prove God via science. For them, the question is why isn't science proved via God?

If their question is 'why isn't science proved via God' then they're all truely illogical.

Once we step oustide this box, maybe our thinking will become more moderate and tolerant.

Or maybe we'll get no where and work with some odd rhetoric like you just did.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

the way i see it science cant prove nor disprove the existence of God hence its pointless to bring science into a theological argument. it only confuses the matter. the best anyone can do is extract an interpretation from scientific data and use it as a basis for their belief, be they religious or atheistic. hence neither side has any right to belittle the other as both conclusions are equally valid in the eyes of science.

Science cannot disprove/prove God any less than it can disprove/prove that there's a supernatural pink monkey flying around the universe. Science does not deal with supernatural things because it's impossible to test.

hence neither side has any right to belittle the other as both conclusions are equally valid in the eyes of science.

In the eyes of science any supernatural being is beyond science, so any explanation which does not use a supernatural being is better.

Anyway, If something cannot be proven then it provisionally does not exist. This is not to say that it does exist, the british in the 1600's couldn't prove that there's a black swan in existance... but there was, however they were provisionally correct in believing that there wasn't.

I might be ultimately wrong about the existance of god, however provisionally at the current time, I am correct.

 

[katie_tully]

um, no he is saying the chances of a kid growing up with support / care of his parents to do drugs,smoke (ruin themselves) is lower, than a kid who has one parent, or one parent that is very busy (overseas) etc.

I think this true, statistics definetly show it, psychologists would agree. From persona l experience i find this to be true. Like i know a friend, whose dad is overseas, and so he with lives with this mom here. His mom is very busy working to support her family. This guy i saw him grow up long time really close friend of mine, when he was young he was typical kid, as he grew older , he was more stressed, naturally u kno w a lot of hard work, with no male role model and ur mom working and ebeing stressed , and so he turned slowly into smoking and became addicted - against his will. but he couldnt control it, his mom wasnt around to help him - too busy working. so u can see that having parental support is a valuable asset to ur life, just like having friends. and so when one theses assets are removed ur are disadvantages.

I used to be alone, my dad was working an d my mum was overseas, so basically there was noone at home till about 8pm. so i roamed around the streets and evetually got into the trouble (shoplifting), u know i didnt want to do it, but it happened nothing was there to stop me. BUt my mum came back after a few months and she wasnt working and boy did that make a difference. i was feelin better, happiers, had to something to do and i knew somone was there to help me out.

so essentially ur claims, that u dont need to have a mom at home to live a life that is trouble fear maybe true, but the chances of havin a better life are greater when ur mom is at home taking care of u.

I'm over your incessant rambling.
I wish to see these statistics regarding a link between substance abuse and absence of one parent.
Also, your anecdotal evidence means nothing. So like, you know a friend? Eh?

Are you American? Because I'm pretty sure it's 'mum'.

 

[katie_tully]

in that case, costello's claim is exaggerated and unnecessary. every community has a dissenting element who, im sure we all agree, shouldnt live here if they're not happy, be they muslim or not. I cant see the justification behind costello pointing specifically at muslims apart from propagating a sense of fear and hatred toward muslim in australia.

I can see why he is targetting Muslims and nobody else. Because currently nobody else is causing the problems that Muslims are. If I remember correctly, it was Muslims that were caught in raids last year with equipment to make bombs, and Muslims are the ones vocally not assimilating into Australian culture.

When other people who apparently hate Australia start voicing themselves, and start inciting hatred then I believe the same will happen to them.

 

[SabtheLab]

it was Muslims that were caught in raids last year with equipment to make bombs, and Muslims are the ones vocally not assimilating into Australian culture.

.

katie, please refer back to my earlier post regarding adoption of Australian SOCIAL values. i was attacked for suggesting that costello meant social values rather than political ones etc. my point was being australian doesn't require an individual to "assimilate" into australian culture. you dont need the odd beer after work to be aussie, something inherent in aussie "social"culture. yet your implying that muslims are targeted because they dont follow this social norm. we are not required to or else it'd be "white australia" all over again.

 

[SabtheLab]

Things are made of water but what that verse says doesn't go close to explaining the process .........I really don't get you people, you're trying to make your religion into a book of scientific fact? .

damned if we do, damned if we dont.

according to evolutionary theory, all things came from the "primordial soup"- from early water hence the verse can have a deeper meaning than just "comprising of water but that goes intothe evolution vs creationism debate.

 

[katie_tully]

And you're missing the point entirely. Costello was not refering to 'social values'. We are not refering to 'social values'. There are many, many people who don't adhere to the apparent "social" values. I don't adhere to the social values. I don't go for a beer after work, or many other things.
They're irrelevant and are not the cause for certian Muslims inciting hatred towards the Australian way of life.

Please get real and stop turning this into such a trivial matter.

 

[Generator]

you dont need the odd beer after work to be aussie, something inherent in aussie "social"culture.

That's only true if you consider the stereotypical ocker to be the baseline 'social culture'.

Pick a more meaningful example next time. Please.