Spain's Catalonia makes 'Niqab' mandatory ;)

naeem498

Politcal Worker (100+ posts)
Even if evidence keeps changing I still prefer to believe something that is based on the best evidence available rather than believe something just on faith.

Faith has nothing to do soul. It just means means believing something without evidence. People use it as a justification to believe in things they cannot prove to exist.

Evidence based reasoning which science is based upon is superior to faith based reasoning due to its repeatedly demonstrated ability to be reliable.

When you build airplanes with science they fly, when you build rockets they reach the moon, when you make medicine it cures people. It works. Is it 100% right 100% of the time? No but its the best method we have and we know its reliable.

But if you have faith then you get 1000s of Gods and religions, none of them backed by any kind of evidence whatsoever which people are still fighting over all over the world.

Based on faith Pakistanis are Muslims and based on the same faith Indians are Hindus. Both cannot be right and obviously it is not a reliable method to reach the true conclusion.
I think I could not make my point understand. There is no doubt that science has made reliable things and I am in no way suggesting that we should not trust them.

How do you prove love. How can you quantify love. Do I love someone 3kg or 3 litres or 3km. Can you do that, No. Same is with faith you cannot prove it based on the measured techniques you use for the physical world.

So your statement medical science is based on evidence and faith is not, is actually comparing two different things based on the criteria that only works for one.
 

Vitamin_C

Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
No, I am talking about the evidence upon which modern medicine is based upon which has increased the human life expectancy from 30 to beyond 80 years and eradicating several diseases that have tortured and killed humans since thousands of years.

We have beat far deadlier viruses than Covid. This virus has picked a fight with the wrong species of mammals and medical science will make sure this virus will soon be extinct.


Are you talking about same evidence, which keep changing everyday regarding COVID 19??
 

Vitamin_C

Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
I understand the point you are trying to make.

You are trying to make an analogy that you cannot physically prove God and then trying to compare that to things like love since you cannot see or touch live.

Then conclude that look love exists but we cannot see it therefore God must exist too.

My objection to that is that the properties of the two are so different that we cannot compare the two.

God is categorized among beliefs and ideas that are subject to debate with no consensus, among other things such as souls, spirits, tooth fairies, santa claus, angels demons etc. None of which can be proven nor disproven.

Love on the other hand is universally accepted as an emotion that humans and most Mammals feel. Among other emotions such as fear, hate, anger etc.

For God there is no physical evidence you can study in the natural world that leads to God. But some people say they can feel God. But we cannot come to conclusions based on feelings alone.

For love its different. There are many things in the physical world that points to it. We can study brain chemistry and the hormones that trigger it. We can study evolution and see that there is an evolutionary purpose that emotions such as love played in survival of humans and other mammals.

There are actually many scientific studies on love.


I think I could not make my point understand. There is no doubt that science has made reliable things and I am in no way suggesting that we should not trust them.

How do you prove love. How can you quantify love. Do I love someone 3kg or 3 litres or 3km. Can you do that, No. Same is with faith you cannot prove it based on the measured techniques you use for the physical world.

So your statement medical science is based on evidence and faith is not, is actually comparing two different things based on the criteria that only works for one.
 

وٹامن_سی اور تاریک فتح کی لاجکس کے حساب سے تو ان کی عورتیں ننگی ہی پھرتی ہوں گی۔۔۔ باہر والے تو مزے کریں سو کریں یہ تو خود بھی گھر میں ہی مزے لے لیتے ہوں گے
 

KPKInsafian

Councller (250+ posts)
No, I am talking about the evidence upon which modern medicine is based upon which has increased the human life expectancy from 30 to beyond 80 years and eradicating several diseases that have tortured and killed humans since thousands of years.

We have beat far deadlier viruses than Covid. This virus has picked a fight with the wrong species of mammals and medical science will make sure this virus will soon be extinct.
You must be joking or need to read history again.
Life expectancy was much higher before the evolution of science.
All these deadly viruses you are talking about not old than 2,3 centuries.
In fact before the evolution of science these deadly viruses didn’t exist.
I won’t call it by product of development of science though.
 

Vitamin_C

Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
I did check my history.

The average global life expectancy in 1900 was 31 years. For 99% of human existence, life expectancy was between 20-30 years.

Small pox which had been tormenting humans since 10,000bc was eradicated by 1980 using vaccines.
.

Viruses have existed for millions of years. You can see retroviruses in Human, Ape, Chimpanzee genomes that trace back to millions of years.

You must be joking or need to read history again.
Life expectancy was much higher before the evolution of science.
All these deadly viruses you are talking about not old than 2,3 centuries.
In fact before the evolution of science these deadly viruses didn’t exist.
I won’t call it by product of development of science though.
 

Sonya Khan

Minister (2k+ posts)
Vitamin C ....
You made the basic mistake of pitching science against religion...... Goes on to show atheism makes one narrow minded .... Science is but one part of religion ....
 

Vitamin_C

Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
Science basically means knowledge.

Knowledge is not a part of religion. Religion is a part of knowledge.

I do not have problem with knowledge, I have a problem with how we get that knowledge.

Knowledge we get from scientific method such is scientific theories is backed by evidence and facts. Religious knowledge is not back by any evidence its backed by faith.

Faith simply means believing things because you want to believe them, not because there is any evidence pointing to them. The reason why you are a Muslim is because you were born in a Muslim family and you chose to believe it, not because we followed evidence to support that belief.

If you want to believe things on faith and in absence of evidence why don't you believe in Hinduism? Why don't you believe f-16 was shot down by Abhinandan?

On faith you can justify any belief, just like people have worshiped thousands of Gods because of faith.

If there was evidence to believe in religion it would be accepted by scientists just like evolution, big bang and germ theory.


Vitamin C ....
You made the basic mistake of pitching science against religion...... Goes on to show atheism makes one narrow minded .... Science is but one part of religion ....
 
Last edited:

Sonya Khan

Minister (2k+ posts)
Science basically means knowledge.

Knowledge is not a part of religion. Religion is a part of knowledge.

I do not have problem with knowledge, I have a problem with how we get that knowledge.
Knowledge we get from scientific method such is scientific theories is backed by evidence and facts. Religious knowledge is not back by any evidence its backed by faith.

Faith simply means believing things because you want to believe them, not because there is any evidence pointing to them. The reason why you are a Muslim is because you were born in a Muslim family and you chose to believe it, not because we followed evidence to support that belief.

If you want to believe things on faith and in absence of evidence why don't you believe in Hinduism? Why don't you believe f-16 was shot down by Abhinandan?

On faith you can justify any belief, just like people have worshiped thousands of Gods because of faith.

If there was evidence to believe in religion it would be accepted by scientists just like evolution, big bang and germ theory.
The very fact that you have to explain so much comparing religion with science shows that you know nothing ... :) And since you don’t believe in religion you will always try to negate it ..... hence the bias ..... Good day Sir ..... No further discussion on you on religion ......
 

Nice2MU

Prime Minister (20k+ posts)
Only idiots gets brain washed.

And if a woman doesn't believe in a religion, she is not asks to follow and vice versa.

Why you people are criticising one's believe?

Can't atheist peopl like you be in your limits and let other practice whatever they want to?

Who gave you the right to question other beliefs? Why you are mockering one's religious wearing as a Tent?

We don't bother if you are living naked but stop questionig others.

Promoting emancipation of women is promoting women's rights.

Its immoral to brainwash women to walk around wearing tents as a show of modesty. We can argue whether that's actually part of Islam but it is mental slavery.

Same way North Korea Kim dynasty brainwashes its people worship the Kim family as Gods as a show of loyalty and patriotism. Should we defend that as well as their faith? Just because something is part of a faith doesn't necessarily mean its a good thing.
 

naeem498

Politcal Worker (100+ posts)
I understand the point you are trying to make.

You are trying to make an analogy that you cannot physically prove God and then trying to compare that to things like love since you cannot see or touch live.

Then conclude that look love exists but we cannot see it therefore God must exist too.

My objection to that is that the properties of the two are so different that we cannot compare the two.

God is categorized among beliefs and ideas that are subject to debate with no consensus, among other things such as souls, spirits, tooth fairies, santa claus, angels demons etc. None of which can be proven nor disproven.

Love on the other hand is universally accepted as an emotion that humans and most Mammals feel. Among other emotions such as fear, hate, anger etc.

For God there is no physical evidence you can study in the natural world that leads to God. But some people say they can feel God. But we cannot come to conclusions based on feelings alone.

For love its different. There are many things in the physical world that points to it. We can study brain chemistry and the hormones that trigger it. We can study evolution and see that there is an evolutionary purpose that emotions such as love played in survival of humans and other mammals.

There are actually many scientific studies on love.
You have no tools to measure or quantify such things. You are limited to the hardware that is available to you. I asked how much do I love someone, can you tell me with the tools that you have with evidence and fact, is it 2 kg or 3 kg or 4kg or 2 litres or 3 litres or 4 litres.
As for the existence of God, the things that you conveniently call mother nature is God's work. The science tells us about entropy but the discipline and harmony in the nature you see is completely the opposite.

Evidence based theories are good for our physical bodies and they have done brilliant job at that, but has nothing to do with our spiritual bodies, it has 0 contribution to our spiritual bodies.

You can identify who is the producer of an equipment by reading the manual, and the best matching manual to the functionality of an equipment is the producer of that equipment. That is how you can become a Muslim (and therefore not hindu and not christian) by reading the Quran which is the best matching manual for humans in this world.
 

Vitamin_C

Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
I asked how much do I love someone, can you tell me with the tools that you have with evidence and fact, is it 2 kg or 3 kg or 4kg or 2 litres or 3 litres or 4 litres.
Quantifying something and claiming whether or not something exists are two different things. We know that the universe exists but we cannot accurately measure how big it is because we cannot see all of it.
 

Vitamin_C

Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
First you have to prove that there is a creator. We can see in nature stars and planets forming by natural process. They are not made by any entity or producer so how can you rule out the possibility that the universe is also a product of natural processes?

You can identify who is the producer of an equipment by reading the manual, and the best matching manual to the functionality of an equipment is the producer of that equipment. That is how you can become a Muslim (and therefore not hindu and not christian) by reading the Quran which is the best matching manual for humans in this world.
 

Vitamin_C

Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
Spiritual bodies, Ginis, Ghosts, Santa Claus, Tooth Fairies, Flying Spaghetti monsters, Unicorns.

That which can be asserted without evidence can be rejected without evidence - Christopher Hitchens.

Evidence based theories are good for our physical bodies and they have done brilliant job at that, but has nothing to do with our spiritual bodies, it has 0 contribution to our spiritual bodies.
 

Sonya Khan

Minister (2k+ posts)
Why are you guys so terrified of logic and reasoning?
I had a logical discussion with you on covid where you claimed air droplet infection is actually fluid transmission...... I knew then I was wasting my time discussing anything with you ..... Same here you are doing the classical ploy of pitching religion against science...... You even don’t know the basic of our religion which started with word ‘Iqra’ and you are assuming we are against science....... Study islam ..... You will have all your confusions removed ..... Islam is the way of life .... Here and hereafter .....
 
Sponsored Link

Featured Discussion Latest Blogs اردوخبریں