sino:


Oxford dictionary defines scepticism thus:

scepticism

(North American skepticism)
NOUN
mass noun

1. A sceptical attitude; doubt as to the truth of something.
‘these claims were treated with scepticism’

2. Philosophy
The theory that certain knowledge is impossible.
‘Cartesian scepticism’

In Mariam-Webster:

Definition of skepticism

1 : an attitude of doubt or a disposition to incredulity either in general or toward a particular object

2. a : the doctrine that true knowledge or knowledge in a particular area is uncertain
b : the method of suspended judgment, systematic doubt, or criticism characteristic of skeptics

3 : doubt concerning basic religious principles (such as immortality, providence, and revelation)

In your favorite website wiki we have the following:

Definition[edit]

So from the definition here, what do you gain from it?

I asked you between gullibility and skepticism which lead to enlightenment and truth? What is the opposite of skepticism?

gullible
ˈɡʌləb(ə)l/Submit
adjective
easily persuaded to believe something; credulous.

In ordinary usage, skepticism (US) or scepticism (UK) (Greek: 'σκέπτομαι' skeptomai, to search, to think about or look for; see also spelling differences) can refer to:

In philosophy, skepticism can refer to:

1. a mode of inquiry that emphasizes critical scrutiny, caution, and intellectual rigor;
2. a method of obtaining knowledge through systematic doubt and continual testing;
3. a set of claims about the limitations of human knowledge and the proper response to such limitations.

So what is wrong with this definition?

When you are in a religious section, and asking people to be sceptic, what kind of scepticism are you speaking of?! If you claim that scepticism is about acquiring knowledge, and seeking for the truth, then how does this knowledge and truth come to be?!

Religious skepticism is,

Religious skepticism is a type of skepticism relating to religion. Religious skeptics question religious authority and are not necessarily anti-religious but are those skeptical of a specific or all religious beliefs and/or practices. Some are deists, believing in a non-interventionist god(s) and rejecting mainstream religions. Socrates was one of the first religious skeptics of whom there are records; he questioned the legitimacy of the beliefs of his time in the existence of the Greek gods.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_skepticism]source

Religious skepticism is doubting and questioning religious dogmas, God e.g Quran. Hadiths, Allah.
Skepticism is a branch of acquiring knowledge.

Knowledge is obtain through research, experiments, empirical evidence etc(all under skepticism), your truth comes with fact which goes with evidence.

What is the truth?! If you claim it is about scientific scepticism, then that only deals with observable phenomena, and once the phenomena cannot be observed, then it becomes philosophical,and here I brought forth what authoritative conclusion of a philosophical sceptic (David Hume).

Where did i said it is about scientific skepticism?, the problem with you is that you love the strategy of red herring and straw man, non sequitur, skepticism is not even the topic of this thread.

My response to your question was "i want people to be skeptical, question, reason".

David Hume has his problem, everyone have their problems, the link you provided previously in your post even said

"As he says, it is “almost impossible for the mind of man to rest, like those of beasts, in that narrow circle of objects, which are the subject of daily conversation and action.” Furthermore, without philosophy ignorance and superstition rule and philosophy is preferable to superstition “of every kind or denomination.”

Study shows everyone has mental disorder, religion is part of the worse mental disorder to me, like i said talking to yourself calling it prayer or facing a direction and chanting same thing like gravity is mighty, gravity is mighty... Is insanity. Children are indoctrinated with phobia of hell and opium of a fairyland paradise, and they are also indoctrinated with superior self-righteousness like seeing other people as hell bound, this is one of the greater silly things religious parents make thier children believe.

Here is what Wikipedia said about religion mental disorder,

Religious, spiritual, or transpersonal experiences and beliefs meet many criteria of delusional or psychotic disorders. A belief or experience can sometimes be shown to produce distress or disability—the ordinary standard for judging mental disorders. There is a link between religion and schizophrenia, a complex mental disorder characterized by a difficulty in recognizing reality, regulating emotional responses, and thinking in a clear and logical manner. Those with schizophrenia commonly report some type of religious delusion, and religion itself may be a trigger for schizophrenia.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_disorder

Science has its limits, and once science reaches its limit, speculations are made in the name of theories, and that my friend isn't science, but pseudoscience! For your information, science use scepticism to be objective, and to falsify theories (which are largely philosophical). Science has a standard of what it considers to be right or wrong, based on empirical evidences, it continues to test based on this standard of observation and experimentation (the scientific method). But you have no standard, you yourself claim that what is right is relative!

Science itself doesn't actually have limit, if it has limit we wont be enlighten about many things today, science evolve in study, science doesn't have limit in study, anything that is scientifically observed and experiment on is consider part of natural phenomena.

And you still dont get it, ordinary "theory" is different from "theories in science", scientific theory is not pseudo-scientific, pseudo-science is when a claim of scientific theory is not inline with scientific method.

A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested, in accordance with the scientific method, using a predefined protocol of observation and experiment. Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and embody scientific knowledge.

The definition of a scientific theory (often contracted to "theory" for the sake of brevity) as used in the disciplines of science is significantly different from the common vernacular usage of the word "theory"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

When you cant prove what is right with FACT, that makes it RELATIVE and SUBJECTIVE! kindly understand what relativity means.

When you try to prove Allah with science and you said it is right, that is relative, it is your opinion not universally accepted. science does not have anything to do with proven a God, once that God is proven with scientific method then it becomes part of our natural phenomena.

So oga, i have standard, my standard is prove your claims with evidence!

This is balderdash! Yeah the Europeans just picked up science from thin air right?! I can't help but laugh at this your history of Muslim scientists, they lack innovation?! Being an atheist does not mean you should always find ways to discredit religious people na, you are being a fanatical atheist. Just to keep things in proper perspective:

So the medieval muslim scientists picked up science from thin air?

I didnt discredit the meieval muslim sciectists, infact i applaud them for thier works but here are what some historian in science said,

Historians of science differ in their views of the significance of the scientific accomplishments in the medieval Islamic world. The traditionalist view, exemplified by Bertrand Russell, holds that Islamic science, while admirable in many technical ways, lacked the intellectual energy required for innovation and was chiefly important for preserving ancient knowledge, and handing it on to medieval Europe..

Toby E. Huff takes the view that, although science in the Islamic world did produce innovations, it did not lead to a scientific revolution, which in his view required an ethos that existed in Europe in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, but not elsewhere in the world.

James E. McClellan III and Harold Dorn, reviewing the place of Islamic science in world history, comment that the positive achievement of Islamic science was simply to flourish, for centuries, in a wide range of institutions from observatories to libraries, madrasas to hospitals and courts, both at the height of the Islamic golden age and for some centuries afterwards. It plainly did not lead to a scientific revolution like that in Early Modern Europe
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_in_the_medieval_Islamic_world

These are all still a debate but most historian agree that the work of the medieval muslim scientists did not lead to scientific revolution like the medieval europe.

The ancient greeks started the scientific revolution that influenced the medieval muslim scientists works, i was expecting you to give them credit.

"An intellectual revitalization of Europe started with the birth of medieval universities in the 12th century. The contact with the Islamic world in Spain and Sicily, and during the Reconquista and the Crusades, allowed Europeans access to scientific Greek and Arabic texts, including the works of Aristotle, Ptolemy, Jābir ibn Hayyān, al-Khwarizmi, Alhazen, Avicenna, and Averroes. European scholars had access to the translation programs of Raymond of Toledo, who sponsored the 12th century Toledo School of Translators from Arabic to Latin. Later translators like Michael Scotus would learn Arabic in order to study these texts directly. The European universities aided materially in the translation and propagation of these texts and started a new infrastructure which was needed for scientific communities. In fact, European university put many works about the natural world and the study of nature at the center of its curriculum, with the result that the "medieval university laid far greater emphasis on science than does its modern counterpart and descendent." (wiki)

Erm link sir?

The medieval muslim scientists did great works by preserving the ancient Greek works, but the muslim scientific revolution(Muslim golden age) stopped around that period and kaboom many muslims after that went back to the dark age mentality.

Wikipedia said,

scientific revolution is a concept used by historians to describe the emergence of modern science during the early modern period, when developments in mathematics, physics, astronomy, biology (including human anatomy) and chemistry transformed the views of society about nature. The scientific revolution took place in Europe towards the end of the Renaissance period and continued through the late 18th century, influencing the intellectual social movement known as the Enlightenment
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_revolution

The bedrock of modern science is religion, and Muslims played a major role in this, and some of these Muslim scientist's contributions are still much relevant till today!

The medieval muslims contributed to mordern science yes, but they didnt lead to scientific revolution, if not why are the muslim world not scientifically advanced?

If your right is different from my own right after these reasoning and questioning, then why would you be angry and intolerant of these subjective conclusions which are contrary to yours?! Each individual has their personal reason for their decisions, since you do not have a standard of what is right or wrong, then you have no right to condemn! Even if they believe in fairy tales! So again, you cannot give what you do not have!

Provide evidence to what you claim, that is when we can know you are right.

Islam is a public matter, it is open for criticism, i have every right to criticize it. If you believe in fairy monster up there keep that to yourself, the moment you express it in public, people will criticize your belief.

This is not someone's problem, but a problem inherent in scepticism, especially when it is philosophical. You hide under science, but science has limitations, the other day I was asking you about the big bang and if observable when science said they have little or no knowledge about what happened immediately after the big bang, this makes any conclusion about the events of the big bang mere speculations, philosophical, which if subjected to the rigor of scepticism, would eventually lead to "psychosis". Let me help you further get the perspective:

What happen after big bang can be explain by scientists, what happen before the big bang is not certainly know yet, maybe in the future we can know what happen before the big bang, like the possibility of time travel, inventing advanced telescope, inventing advanced space drone etc.

Can you mention how many scientists, philosophers with psychosis?

"The skeptics began as philosophers who were determined to live by the dictates of philosophical theory, no matter what those dictates were. Their happiness depended entirely on possessing the correct theory of nature and of good life. But they soon discovered that for every theory of reality supported by philosophical reasons, they could find a contrary theory equally well supported, and so they were forced to suspend judgment. This led to depression." (Philosophical Melancholy and Delirium: Hume’s Pathology of Philosophy by Donald W. Livingston)

Dude, lets agree skepticism lead to depression, so people cants come out of it?

Humes said,

For those who do not suffer from depression, it is easy to think that I am just being lazy. Hell, it is easy for me to think that I am just being lazy. It is also easy for those who do not suffer from depression to think of depression as sadness. But sadness I can do something about. Sadness I know how to change. Sadness is motivating.
http://skepticfreethought.com/libere/2014/08/25/depression-and-david-hume/

I'm not even a skeptic, I'm an atheist dude.

This actually reminds me of your favourite line, "science is yet to know" yeah, perpetual uncertainty!

Science is not all about giving answers, it is about discovering and observing things with explanation(theories), from there we get answer to what science claim.

when some thing is uncertain i simply say I DONT KNOW till its proven but you find it hard to accept the uncertain things about your religious manuscripts.

I do not have a problem with scientific scepticism, but we are talking about religion here, the existence of God, the reality of beliefs, this is philosophical. As noted already, science has its limits, even when it comes to observable phenomena.

So why are you trying to use science to prove your God? Cants you use your holy book is not enough to prove Allah?

Are you certain that this God who those who worship and pray to every day and their prayers answered (remember, subjective right) does not exist?! If I tell you that I have experienced this (answered prayers) and still do, am I wrong?! If yes, why?!

Provide evidence to your claims.

Santa clause answer my wishes, am i wrong?, if yes, why?

Yes I know, you doubt, you question, but you are still uncertain of the answers too, so you keep doubting...And it continues...

I am agnostic to some things, the question is do you have answers to all things? does you holy book give answers to all?

Of course I would, but what would be my basis of this scepticism?! Why should I continue to be sceptical if you claim knowledge which I do not have?! Why should I believe you?!

Will you deny evidence shown to you? Can you believe things without evidence?

You do believe whatever the scientist tell you, you didn't observe any red shift or saw how the expansion of the galaxies are moving, but you trust these scientist as credible people, but unfortunately, there have been reports of doctored scientific research, and sentimental reporting not to even mention the fact that what was being observed might have been incorrectly interpreted, yet you still believe! Why?!

I trust scientists that explain how the natural world works, how to cure some diseases, i dont trust someone who wrote a fairy book in a desert cave and said it is the truth.

On the other hand, I have the Qur'an, the Prophet (SAW) was not a fairy tale, his existence is confirmed, his story was reported and recorded, he was known to be truthful and honest, a man of integrity, he didn't claim to be God, he struggled to spread a message of this one God, to worship and be righteous. He wasn't enriching himself or his family, he didn't even have a heir to inherit him after his demise. He was able to transform a barbaric group of people into a vibrant and civilized people. The message of Islam is not in conflict with man's nature, we seek answers to fundamental question with regards to life and purpose, we are at convinced and contended with what we have found, and we believe!

Who said Muhammed is a fairytale? Muhammed existed, what we call fairytale is when someone claim he rode on a flying unicorn to the sky or splitted the moon, and there is not historical evidence to prove that

Good for you, but that does not discredit the scientific findings! You may as well start your research from here, go look for terrorist and test, then come back to give us your findings!

It shows one can be kind without religion.

Science and scientist build on previous knowledge, and I am authoritatively telling you that Muslim scientists were the foundation of modern science!

So the Muslim scientists didn't build from previous knowledge? Did their foundation of mordern science lead to scientific revolution?

At this juncture, the remainder of your responses only consolidates my assertions, which is authoritatively supported by philosophical skeptics I had quoted earlier, there is no iota of intellectual reasoning behind them, you are filled with hate and pessimism, you are intolerant and a whiner! You do not want to take responsibility for your inadequacies and so scared of the consequences. You only see doom and gloom in the world and this shows in your line of questioning, you do not have answers, you do not have hope, you are just venting your frustration online, there is no fastest way to depression and psychosis than this. You can't help yourself, talk more of helping others, you said your motive is the world, and you think this line of questioning is what the world needs?! Well good Luck on your quest! Come back here when you have achieved your aim! I will be the first to congratulate you!

This crap here is full of psychological projection.

Psychological projection is a theory in psychology in which humans defend themselves against their own unconscious impulses or qualities (both positive and negative) by denying their existence in themselves while attributing them to others. For example, a person who is habitually intolerant may constantly accuse other people of being intolerant. It incorporates blame shifting

tbaba1234:
The Muslims and the Scientific Method

Muslim scholars, between the 10th and 14th centuries, were the prime movers behind the development of the scientific method.

They were the first to use experiment and observation as the basis of science, and many historians regard science as starting during this period.


Amongst the array of great scholars, al-Haytham is regarded as the architect of the scientific method. His scientific method involved the following stages:

1.Observation of the natural world

2.Stating a definite problem

3.Formulating a robust hypothesis

4.Test the hypothesis through experimentation

5.Assess and analyze the results

6.Interpret the data and draw conclusions

7.Publish the findings

These steps are very similar to the modern scientific method and they became the basis of Western science during the Renaissance.

Al-Haytham even insisted upon repeatability and the replication of results, and other scholars added ideas such as peer review and made great leaps in understanding the natural world.

Even thou you didnt even attempt to respond to the OP but follow up sino's red herring and non sequitur.

Here is someone refute to your claims,



Islam isn’t so much famous for innovation as it is for adaptation of technologies and inventions garnered from conquered states. This is not to say they had NO innovation but, rather, that much of what’s touted is more a matter of adaptation than innovation. The following is from a previous answer.

Arabia was ideally located for trade between Africa, Asia and Europe, and had been, long before Muhammad came along. Traders picked up knowledge from far-flung countries across three continents. Muhammad conquered the Arabian Peninsula and his companions quickly spread out the Muslim Empire from there. Conquest accelerated the exchange of knowledge and culture. Ancient manuscripts from Greece, Egypt, India and elsewhere were accumulated and translated at huge libraries in Cairo, Damascus and Baghdad. Knowledge, inventions and innovations were absorbed from Persia, India and China. Muslim mathematicians, for instance, built upon what they learned from Greek, Persian, Indian and Chinese mathematicians. Such knowledge and technology may not have been new to the ancient civilizations of their origin but they certainly were to the Muslims . . . and it spurred their curiosity and quest for knowledge.

Muslims preserved or expanded knowledge of philosophy, algebra, geometry, trigonometry, optics, biology, physics, astronomy, and much more.

According to the Islamic Golden Age wiki:

For Islamic scholars, Indian and Greek physicians and medical researchers Sushruta, Galen, Mankah, Atreya, Hippocrates, Charaka, and Agnivesawere pre-eminent authorities.

In order to make the Indian and Greek tradition more accessible, understandable, and teachable, Islamic scholars ordered and made more systematic the vast Indian and Greco-Roman medical knowledge by writing encyclopedias and summaries. Sometimes, past scholars were criticized, like Rhazes who criticized and refuted Galen's revered theories, most notably, the Theory of Humors and was thus accused of ignorance.

It was through 12th-century Arabic translations that medieval Europe rediscovered Hellenic medicine, including the works of Galen and Hippocrates, and discovered ancient Indian medicine, including the works of Sushruta and Charaka.

Works such as Avicenna's The Canon of Medicine, were translated into Latin and disseminated throughout Europe. During the 15th and 16th centuries alone, The Canon of Medicine was published more than thirty-five times.

While medieval Muslims did indeed advance science and technology, some often-repeated claims are fudged a bit or simply not true. Here are some examples.

According to the Visual perception wiki:

Alhazen (965–c. 1040) carried out many investigations and experiments on visual perception, extended the work of Ptolemy on binocular vision, and commented on the anatomical works of Galen.

Alhazen extended prior works related to vision. The wiki also points out that 'intro-mission theory' which Alhazen is often credited for, was actually propagated by Aristotle, Galen and their followers centuries earlier. Alhazen refined the theory. He didn't conceive it.

Ibn Hayyan, often referred to as the founder of modern chemistry is credited for the invention of the still (for distillation). But an actual still, dated to the first-century Han Dynasty, has been unearthed in China.

An oft-mentioned medieval Muslim inventor is Al-Jazari: who many Muslims credit for the inventions of the crank-shaft and the combination lock (among other things). The source of these claims is his book, published in 1206, detailing over 50 'Ingenious Mechanical Devices'. I don't know if he actually claimed to invent these devices (as opposed to replicating or refining them), but the crank-shaft and the combination lock were both invented earlier. We have an 834 A.D. European illustration of the crank-shaft turning a grinding wheel and we have Han Dynasty combination locks in museums.

One of the most cited Muslim innovators is 'The Father of Surgery', Avicenna. According to the Surgery wiki:

Surgical treatments date back to the prehistoric era. The oldest for which there is evidence is trepanation, in which a hole is drilled or scraped into the skull, thus exposing the dura mater in order to treat health problems related to intra cranial pressure and other diseases . . . Surgical texts from ancient Egypt date back about 3500 years ago. Surgical operations were performed by priests, specialized in medical treatments similar to today. And the use of sutures to close wounds. Infections were treated with honey.

And this:

Susruta was an ancient Indian surgeon commonly credited as the author of the treatise Sushruta Samhita. He is dubbed as the "founding father of surgery" and his period is usually placed between the period of 1200 BC - 600 BC.

And this:

The Greek Galen was one of the greatest surgeons of the ancient world and performed many audacious operations—including brain and eye surgery—that were not tried again for almost two millennia.

The end of Islam's Golden Age was precipitated by a weakening of the Empire that prompted a return to fundamentalism:

There is little agreement on the precise causes of the decline, but in addition to invasion by the Mongols and crusaders, and the destruction of libraries and madrasas, there is evidence that political mismanagement and the stifling of ijtihad (independent reasoning) in the 12th century in favor of institutionalised taqleed (imitation) thinking played a part. The caliph al-Mutawakkil enforced a more literal interpretation of the Qur'an and Hadith. Science and rationalism were dismissed in favor of revelation, and Greek philosophy was condemned as anti-Islamic.

Could it be that there's a link between Islamic fundamentalism and cultural decline? Maybe that decline is the (compensatory) impetus for the zeal, among many Muslims, to credit whatever they can to Islam, the Quran, or Muslims. Many, for instance, insist the Quran foretold future technologies and scientific discoveries. While I don't mind giving credit where it's due. Sometimes it's not due, and many people are misled (such as by some of the answers to the OP question).

Source

Sino,

When I was religious, arguing and debating with the non-muslim, I was not fustrated, I was not filled with hate, I don't see doom in the world, I've hope then right? But when I became an atheist all of these suddenly became the opposite! Your hypocrisy, ad hominem and psychological projection is alarming!

If truly Muslims have hope, doesn't see doom in the world, and not filled with hate then I wonder why they pray daily to an entity above for hope, I wonder why the entity threaten people, if actually you're not filled or your likes are not filled with hate I wonder why Muslims are the most intolerance folks in the world. Religion claim they preach love but they are not, when people are elighten that religion is not the answer to everything, LOVE will flourish, when people started using thier empathy instead of using some ancient book dictating thier way of lives geniune kindness will flourish not hypocrisy. When Karl Marx said religion is an opium, he was indeed right, religious people have problem with what's reality and what's not, they have problem with logic, religious disorder is thier problem (delusion, psychosis, schizophrenia).

I've hope, I've morals it's base on empathy, I'm not fustrated, I'm not filled with hatred, I see both beauty and doom in the world, that makes me a materialist, I believe I've to enjoy the life I've right now not preparing for death everyday, the universe is for us to enjoy, the universe is for us to reason with, I'm a Humanist I believe in the value of humans, I'm a Naturalist I believe in value of nature, I'm not religious, I can live positively without any Religion!

One Ahmadiyya in a thread said "Love for all, Hatred for Non". Here is the reaction of a Fundamentalist Muslim brother.

Fundamentalist:


The above quote is enough to label you a disbeliever.

What you are insinuating is that you love idol worshippers (mushriks)

You love Christians

You love atheists

Jews

Hindus etc

Where is your AL WALA WAL BARA ?

All the above mentioned set of individuals wage unrelentless war against Islam, Muslims and the Prophets, yet you love them . and yet still you claim you believe in the Qur'an even a non Muslim will call you a hypocrite

https://www.nairaland.com/4154241/ahmadiyya-qadianiyya/5#62242672

When I said religion is a problem, look at this man stuck to some past conflicts, using it to judge his hatred for non-muslims, that's depression and delusion!
If he's telling Muslim not to love non-muslims, then what exactly is he insinuating?

Here's my reaction

tintingz

What is wrong loving the people above? Are you a sadist?

When I said Islam is one of the problem in this world, you folks will think I'm lying, now look at this terrorist thinking muslim, he's hating fellow humans because of his religion dogmas.

Everyone nation, religion, beliefs has face conquest, terrorism at a point in time, so stop using the silly victim-card game here, Muslims are not the only people being victms of attacks. Today, Muslims are still the problem of this world, so what are you saying?

If Ahmadiyya preach love for all, that's exactly what the world need right now not hating because a fairy book said so or some attack that happened in the past, there are good and bad eggs.

Step up and move on.

https://www.nairaland.com/4154241/ahmadiyya-qadianiyya/5#64475548

And this same man was asking criterion for being good and bad , I guess the criterion is having grudges.

If the MODs hide this post, now this makes it justifiable they are bias.

tintingz:
Sino,

When I was religious, arguing and debating with the non-muslim, I was not fustrated, I was not filled with hate, I don't see doom in the world, I've hope then right? But when I became an atheist all of these suddenly became the opposite! Your hypocrisy, ad hominem and psychological projection is alarming!

If truly Muslims have hope, doesn't see doom in the world, and not filled with hate then I wonder why they pray daily to an entity above for hope, I wonder why the entity threaten people, if actually you're not filled or your likes are not filled with hate I wonder why Muslims are the most intolerance folks in the world. Religion claim they preach love but they are not, when people are elighten that religion is not answer to everything, LOVE will flourish, when people started using thier empathy instead of using some ancient book dictating thier way of lives geniune kindness will flourish not hypocrisy. When Karl Marx said religion is an opium, he was indeed right, religious people have problem with what's reality and what's not, they have problem with logic, religious disorder is thier problem (delusion, psychosis, schizophrenia).

I've hope, I've morals it's base on empathy, I'm not fustrated, I'm not filled with hatred, I see both beauty and doom in the world, that makes me a realist, I believe I've to enjoy the life I've right now not preparing for death everyday, the universe is for us to enjoy, the universe is for us to reason with, I'm a Humanist I believe in the value of humans, I'm a Naturalist I believe in value of nature, I'm not religious, I can live positively without any Religion!

One Ahmadiyya in a thread said "Love for all, Hatred for Non". Here is the reaction of a Fundamentalist Muslim brother.


https://www.nairaland.com/4154241/ahmadiyya-qadianiyya/5#62242672

When I said religion is a problem, look at this man stuck to some past conflicts, using it to judge his hatred for non-muslims, that's depression and delusion!
If he's telling Muslim not to love non-muslims, then what exactly is he insinuating?

Here's my reaction


https://www.nairaland.com/4154241/ahmadiyya-qadianiyya/5#64475548

And this same man was asking criterion for being good and bad , I guess the criterion is having grudges.

If the MODs hide this post, now this makes it justifiable they are bias.

When you said you are divergent, trying to convince you I like changing the original colour of a stone

Interesting, I've read that some of these schorlars in the Islamic golden age(medieval period) later became skeptics, rationalists and atheists.

tintingz:
I thought Allah said he created everything perfectly?

"The work of Allah who has perfected everything (He created). (Qur’an 27:88)

"He is the One Who has made perfectly everything He has created: He began the creation of human beings with clay, And made his progeny from a quintessence of the nature of a fluid despised: But He fashioned him in due proportion, and breathed into him something of His spirit…” (Quran 32:7-9)

Since you said humans are not perfect, then the Quran words are false, Allah did not created everything perfectly!

> So the question is, why did Allah created humans imperfectly and as well wants to punish his creation for his imperfect work?

The flaw in this reasoning of yours starts first and foremost with the fact that you assume you understand the Quran in its entirety just by reading a few English translations without studying the Arabic texts.

Even the verses you quoted above have slightly different translations depending on which one you use. For instance, here are the verses above in Yusuf Ali translations:

وَتَرَى الْجِبَالَ تَحْسَبُهَا جَامِدَةً وَهِيَ تَمُرُّ مَرَّ السَّحَابِ ۚ صُنْعَ اللَّهِ الَّذِي أَتْقَنَ كُلَّ شَيْءٍ ۚ إِنَّهُ خَبِيرٌ بِمَا تَفْعَلُونَYusuf Ali)
Thou seest the mountains and thinkest them firmly fixed: but they shall pass away as the clouds pass away: (such is) the artistry of Allah, who disposes of all things in perfect order: for he is well acquainted with all that ye do.-Sura An-Naml, Ayah 88

As we see here, the verse wasn't talking about the creations themselves, but the order in which they were distributed across the cosmos.

الَّذِي أَحْسَنَ كُلَّ شَيْءٍ خَلَقَهُ ۖ وَبَدَأَ خَلْقَ الْإِنْسَانِ مِنْ طِينٍ(Yusuf Ali)
He Who has made everything which He has created most good: He began the creation of man with (nothing more than) clay,-Sura As-Sajdah, Ayah 7

Now, this verse does not even use the word 'perfect' when describing the creation of Man, but uses the phrase 'most good' as in as good as it can get, because none other than Allah is capable of attaining perfection.

Moreover, the word 'Perfect' has different meanings depending on which context it is used. Yet, you cling onto only one interpretation of it.

Here's how the word is described in Merriam Webster:

per·fect\ˈpər-fikt\
adjective
having no mistakes or flaws
completely correct or accurate
having all the qualities you want in that kind of person, situation, etc.

I put emphasis on the third description because it's the most logical interpretation of the word used in most instances in the Quran when not referring to Allah directly.

Feel free to argue with this, but don't expect me to entertain you with any more responses. If you want to debate more on this, go and meet some Islamic scholars and those who've studied tafsir greatly abeg.

Adamh:


The flaw in this reasoning of yours starts first and foremost with the fact that you assume you understand the Quran in its entirety just by reading a few English translations without studying the Arabic texts.

I can read Arabic so what's your point?

Even the verses you quoted above have slightly different translations depending on which one you use. For instance, here are the verses above in Yusuf Ali translations:

As we see here, the verse wasn't talking about the creations themselves, but the order in which they were distributed across the cosmos.

Everything is not perfectly in order e.g Natural disasters, humans

If you read along you will see where I said "we're agreeing Allah didn't created 'everything' perfectly"
Let's go to Allah's perfection, here's what I posted

> Why does a perfect All-knowing Allah created his creations imperfectly (e.g humans, Satan), while he knows all what will happen in the future before creation, like Satan rebelling, humans err and the consequences for this is a terrible punishment like hell fire, why didn't he correct all these from the beginning of creation(e.g not creating Satan), why did he had to give a divine law for his perfect mistakes or game? Does this depict a perfect and all-knowing God?

Now, this verse does not even use the word 'perfect' when describing the creation of Man, but uses the phrase 'most good' as in as good as it can get, because none other than Allah is capable of attaining perfection.

Moreover, the word 'Perfect' has different meanings depending on which context it is used. Yet, you cling onto only one interpretation of it.

Perfection means most good, complete in every quality, when something is perfect, it doesn't need modifications, need to err!

Here's how the word is described in Merriam Webster:

[i]

I put emphasis on the third description because it's the most logical interpretation of the word used in most instances in the Quran when not referring to Allah directly.

Feel free to argue with this, but don't expect me to entertain you with any more responses. If you want to debate more on this, go and meet some Islamic scholars and those who've studied tafsir greatly abeg.

When you're all-knowledged and created something perfectly, give it all quality needed in a situation like the definition you provided, the moment it needed modifications, correctness, err from what you call perfect then it's not perfect or most good anymore, in fact it's not perfect in the first place. When humans talk about perfect we are talking about our limited perfection in a situation because we're limited, it doesn't means it's actually all perfect.

So a God who knows the future(all-knowing) should know all quality his creation needed not to err or need corrections but we see him given divine laws and the ridiculous part of it is the same God will throw what he created as planned into hell for his mistake or overlook he made.

This thread is about a "perfect and all-knowing" God.

The fool says "I can read Arabic so what's your point?" Ask him if he can read Arabic written with diacritics and understand what he has read without translation that has possibility of being faulty... Talkless of him reading Arabic without diacritics(which is how it is usually written)

AbdelKabir:
The fool says "I can read Arabic so what's your point?" Ask him if he can read Arabic written with diacritics and understand what he has read without translation that has possibility of being faulty... Talkless of him reading Arabic without diacritics(which is how it is usually written)

Red herring.

This thread is not about who can and can't read arabic, so don't try to divert the thread topic.

tintingz:
Red herring.

This thread is not about who can and can't read arabic, so don't try to divert the thread topic.

Yea, I'm trying to get him aware that you are trying to deceive him!

AbdelKabir:


Yea, I'm trying to get him aware that you are trying to deceive him!

Fallacy.

I was a muslim, I've been to arabic school (madrassa), I might not be very knowledge in Arabic translations but I'm not ignorant of the language so there's not point diverting the thread topic into that.

tintingz:
Fallacy.

I was a muslim, I've been to arabic school (madrassa), I might not be very knowledge in Arabic translations but I'm not ignorant of the language so there's not point diverting the thread topic into that.

You writing madrasa as madrassa shows you are very ignorant of the language, and (perhaps) the only thing you can do is read (without fluency nor understanding)...

AbdelKabir:


You writing madrasa as madrassa shows you are very ignorant of the language, and (perhaps) the only thing you can do is read (without fluency nor understanding)...

SMH, transliterate doesn't require perfectness, nothing is perfect in language transliterations , even the available Quran transliteration. Transliteration is accordance to a tribe, nation dialect, accent, does this means one is ignorant of the language?

The west write muslim as moslem is that incorrect? Some people spell igbo as ibo is that incorrect or doesn't pass anything?

For your info, "Madrassa" is used.

The word is variously transliterated madrasah, medresa, madrassa, madraza, medrese, etc. In the West
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madrasa

Madrassa
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/madrassa

This is English-translation oga.

If you have problem with the additional 's' then you indeed have a problem.

Again no red herring!

> Why does a perfect All-knowing Allah created his creations imperfectly (e.g humans, Satan), while he knows all what will happen in the future before creation, like Satan rebelling, humans err and the consequences for this is a terrible punishment like hell fire, why didn't he correct all these from the beginning of creation(e.g not creating Satan), why did he had to give a divine law for his perfect mistakes or game? Does this depict a perfect and all-knowing God?

Allah did not create everything to he perfect because that was never his intention to begin with. Surely, Allah knew all that would happen and when, but he is also the one who planned them all to be as such.

We were never created to live perfect lives in this world

[I]What is the life of this world but play and amusement? But best is the home in the hereafter, for those who are righteous. Will ye not then understand?-Sura Al-An'am, Ayah 32[/I]

Nor were we created to be, like I said earlier, perfect to begin with. We were created for one reason only, as stated in this verse;

[I]I have only created Jinns and men, that they may serve Me.-Sura Adh-Dhariyat, Ayah 56[/I]

When you're all-knowledged and created something perfectly, give it all quality needed in a situation like the definition you provided, the moment it needed modifications, correctness, err from what you call perfect then it's not perfect or most good anymore, in fact it's not perfect in the first place. When humans talk about perfect we are talking about our limited perfection in a situation because we're limited, it doesn't means it's actually all perfect.

Now you're just twisting the definition to meet your own rhetoric.

Allah did indeed create us with all the qualities that we need to survive when we're born. We were given knowledge, and created to be capable of surviving all kinds of situations. Even a person with a lost limb can adapt to survive in this world.

So a God who knows the future(all-knowing) should know all quality his creation needed not to err or need corrections but we see him given divine laws and the ridiculous part of it is the same God will throw what he created as planned into hell for his mistake or overlook he made.

Again, you're still under the mindset that we were created to be perfect in the first place, which we never were.

Allah created us with free will to choose what we want to do, whether we wish to meet salvation or doom. Such is how we were created to be.

We were not built to be like Angels who lack the freewill to choose to disobey, unlike us.

Adamh:


Allah did not create everything to he perfect because that was never his intention to begin with. Surely, Allah knew all that would happen and when, but he is also the one who planned them all to be as such.

We were never created to live perfect lives in this world

[I]What is the life of this world but play and amusement? But best is the home in the hereafter, for those who are righteous. Will ye not then understand?-Sura Al-An'am, Ayah 32[/I]

Nor were we created to be, like I said earlier, perfect to begin with. We were created for one reason only, as stated in this verse;

[I]I have only created Jinns and men, that they may serve Me.-Sura Adh-Dhariyat, Ayah 56[/I]

Good You agree Allah didn't created his creations perfectly(this contradict the Quran passage) but you didn't answer the question.

Since Allah didn't created humans perfectly, he planned and knows the beginning and end, why did he send divine laws and again threaten to throw his creation in hell when he knows his creations are not perfect? Why did he created Satan or allow sin?

And as for the last verse, will Allah throw a good, kind atheist or non-believers to hell just because he/she didn't serve him?

Now you're just twisting the definition to meet your own rhetoric.

Perfect means ALL qualities needed, completeness, can't err.

Allah did indeed create us with all the qualities that we need to survive when we're born. We were given knowledge, and created to be capable of surviving all kinds of situations. Even a person with a lost limb can adapt to survive in this world.

Survival is not perfection nor all qualities like you said, survival is chance, luck!

Humans don't have all qualities to survive, we're just trying the best we can do, there are things that can't be stopped nor escape, there are things like the extreme environments we can't adapt to or can you survive under high quantity salt water without oxygen or five days with oxygen? We're limited so there is nothing like "ALL quality in us to survive in all situations" maybe all qualities to our limitation if that what you meant.

If Allah indeed created humans with all qualities, I don't think humans need planes to travel because plane itself is not a perfect tool for human to travel, people have died from plane crash.

Again, you're still under the mindset that we were created to be perfect in the first place, which we never were.

Allah created us with free will to choose what we want to do, whether we wish to meet salvation or doom. Such is how we were created to be.

We were not built to be like Angels who lack the freewill to choose to disobey, unlike us.

Allah knows humans beginning and end, he planned everything, abeg how did humans have freewill?