Muslim store clerk pointing rifle at robber shows mercy to him by giving him $40 and a loaf of bread - General

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;44783797]nothing about your current world would really exist without it it's a lot more than you give it credit for at the very least.[/QUOTE] when did i ever not give credit to it

[QUOTE=X-tra;44780932][B]Plus, no matter how good science get, it will never be abble to answer the question of what's coming after death.[/B] Some people can't deal with that and prefer to find an answer in a religious way, which is perfectly fine. If it makes them more comfortable living that way, what's the big deal ? If a person isn't extremist in his/her ideologies, I can't see the problem there.[/QUOTE]You don't know that so I don't know why you're so sure of it.

[QUOTE=LZTYBRN;44783835]when did i ever not give credit to it[/QUOTE] by saying it's not the "only" solution. Maybe we can't solve metaphysical questions of existence yet, but there's no faith based way of creating electronics or anything else we take for granted on daily basis. I don't care what people believe until they start saying that faith is equivalent to something that's demonstrably better than faith.

" to all who hate muslims must watch " Well title and touching story aside this is like many other religious headlines, it's very touching what the man did but it doesn't answer for radicalism and extremism in most other places in the world.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;44783797]nothing about your current world would really exist without it it's a lot more than you give it credit for at the very least.[/QUOTE] The scientific method wouldn't exist without a proper philosophy that allowed for its fundamental assumptions, yes it deserves credit, but so does religion.

[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;44784337]The scientific method wouldn't exist without a proper philosophy that allowed for its fundamental assumptions, yes it deserves credit, but so does religion.[/QUOTE] I'm not sure where you're going with this exactly. Yeah, religious groups and followers had access to the most knowledge in their respective societies. The leaders and practitioners of religion(monks and etc) had the most access to knowledge and information in the time period. They were one of the only groups able to read and write, and one of the only groups able to have books or documents that discussed things. Of course science came out of that. So, because of that, we owe religion a huge credit? Sure, we owe it some credit, but religion at the time also excelled at killing and punishing heretics(often scientists) who had come with their own ideas as to how the world functioned. Religion persecuted those like Giordano Bruno and Galleilo and kept our views from changing for as long as they could. Sure, we owe them credit for housing the knowledge and preserving what they liked and agreed with rather than just destroying it all. Sure, we owe religion credit. But we also can't forget what else it did in that time period. We owe the people who said "Nope, I won't be told what to think by anyone" a shit ton more credit than religion.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;44786159] Religion persecuted those like Giordano Bruno and Galleilo and kept our views from changing for as long as they could.[/QUOTE] Galileo was not persecuted, he was censured. It was more about him openly mocking the Pope than his scientific beliefs.

[QUOTE=Fayez;44786219]Galileo was not persecuted, he was censured. It was more about him openly mocking the Pope than his scientific beliefs.[/QUOTE] his books were not allowed to be read for his entire life time. He was kept under house arrest. He was persecuted. Do you want to dispute Bruno being persecuted? He was. He was jailed. Locked in a room and starved. Did that not happen? Why did he mock the pope? Oh, that's right, because the pope had censored him [QUOTE]By 1615 Galileo's writings on heliocentrism had been submitted to the Roman Inquisition, and his efforts to interpret scripture seen as a violation of the Council of Trent.[57] Attacks on the ideas of Copernicus had reached a head, and Galileo went to Rome to defend himself and Copernican ideas. In 1616, an Inquisitorial commission unanimously declared heliocentrism to be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture." The Inquisition found that the idea of the Earth's movement "receives the same judgement in philosophy and... in regard to theological truth it is at least erroneous in faith."[58] (The original document from the Inquisitorial commission was made widely available in 2014.[59])[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;44786226]his books were not allowed to be read for his entire life time. He was kept under house arrest. He was persecuted. [/QUOTE] But not for his Scientific beliefs. As for Bruno, I don't know much about Bruno so I can't answer that.

[QUOTE=Fayez;44786235]But not for his Scientific beliefs. As for Bruno, I don't know much about Bruno so I can't answer that.[/QUOTE] Yes, he was. [editline]11th May 2014[/editline] [QUOTE]…to abstain completely from teaching or defending this doctrine and opinion or from discussing it... to abandon completely... the opinion that the sun stands still at the center of the world and the earth moves, and henceforth not to hold, teach, or defend it in any way whatever, either orally or in writing. — The Inquisition's injunction against Galileo, 1616[/QUOTE] How is this not persecution? What even is your definition of persecution then [editline]11th May 2014[/editline] His very criticism of the pope was over heliocentricsm.

Why is it that when someone does something awful based on religious pretext we blame the person but when someone does something good based on religious pretext we praise the religion?

[QUOTE=Matrix374;44778483]I don't know man there's plenty of decent people I know that have questionable stances on certain issues just because they believe in a man in the sky[/QUOTE] Post #6 and the threads already gone in a shit direction

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;44786239]Yes, he was. [editline]11th May 2014[/editline] How is this not persecution? What even is your definition of persecution then [editline]11th May 2014[/editline] His very criticism of the pope was over heliocentricsm.[/QUOTE] He couldn't prove it at the time so the Church asked him to not publish a paper on it and he promised he wouldn't, he did so anyway, and at the same time personally insulted the Pope by creating a character whose name was Simplicius, and modelling him after the pope. The Vatican formally acknowledged they were wrong and Galileo was right in 1992. Also, the Quran teaches that you should be learning from the crib to the grave, so why would Muslims suppress knowledge when the Quran tells to learn all they can?

[QUOTE=Fayez;44786557]He couldn't prove it at the time so the Church asked him to not publish a paper on it and he promised he wouldn't, he did so anyway, and at the same time personally insulted the Pope by creating a character whose name was Simplicius, and modelling him after the pope. The Vatican formally acknowledged they were wrong and Galileo was right in 1992. Also, the Quran teaches that you should be learning from the crib to the grave, so why would Muslims suppress knowledge when the Quran tells to learn all they can?[/QUOTE] First off, at the time, they DID persecute him for his heretical belief. He could prove it, that's why in 1592 the calenders were changed to fit with his heliocentric view. He obviously had proof. When the pope asked him not to print it, it wasn't due to lack of proof. It was due to it being heretical and against what the church was preaching at the time. Yes, he mocked the pope, but the pope had censured him before he had written this book, so he was rightfully annoyed with him. Bruno was executed for having these beliefs barely a century before. For the same reason. The quran may teach this, and there was a golden age of intelligence and wisdom in the muslim regions for many, many years whilst the mildly dark ages raged across Europe. But then this age of wisdom came to an end as religious extremism came to rise. Are you historically ignorant enough to not even know what you're speaking about? The major reasons for the fall of the islamic empire as far as I understand are the mongols, and the beginning of the stifling of free thought over religious texts. Religious extremism set in after the golden age of islam.

[QUOTE=glitchvid;44778863]What does it say of a man who would compromise his own moral integrity because a book, or man in the sky said so?[/QUOTE] Every time I am reminded that people like you actually exist I get a real kick out of it.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;44786159]I'm not sure where you're going with this exactly. Yeah, religious groups and followers had access to the most knowledge in their respective societies. The leaders and practitioners of religion(monks and etc) had the most access to knowledge and information in the time period. They were one of the only groups able to read and write, and one of the only groups able to have books or documents that discussed things. Of course science came out of that. So, because of that, we owe religion a huge credit? Sure, we owe it some credit, but religion at the time also excelled at killing and punishing heretics(often scientists) who had come with their own ideas as to how the world functioned. Religion persecuted those like Giordano Bruno and Galleilo and kept our views from changing for as long as they could. Sure, we owe them credit for housing the knowledge and preserving what they liked and agreed with rather than just destroying it all. Sure, we owe religion credit. But we also can't forget what else it did in that time period. We owe the people who said "Nope, I won't be told what to think by anyone" a shit ton more credit than religion.[/QUOTE] You can't have the scientific method without a philosophical base that allows for it to work. Yes religious institutions do not have a perfect record according to their own morals, but my point is that there's a reason why members of those institutions had the greatest access to knowledge, it's because their basic beliefs were vital for the creation of the scientific method. It's not like educated people who new how to read talked to each other and naturally formed the scientific method. Without religion nothing about your current world would exist.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;44787400]First off, at the time, they DID persecute him for his heretical belief. He could prove it, that's why in 1592 the calenders were changed to fit with his heliocentric view. He obviously had proof. When the pope asked him not to print it, it wasn't due to lack of proof. It was due to it being heretical and against what the church was preaching at the time. Yes, he mocked the pope, but the pope had censured him before he had written this book, so he was rightfully annoyed with him. [/QUOTE] Can you get proof of this? As far as I know he could only prove that Venus went around the Sun. And prior to Galileo Copernicus -a devout Catholic- proclaimed it first in the Vatican gardens, nothing happened to him. The problem with Galileo was how he he stopped proposing it as a scientific theory and began proclaiming it as truth, even though he couldn't answer the greatest argument against it. Also, Charles Darwin wasn't persecuted or jailed because, unlike Galileo, he could prove it, he was attacked, but not persecuted, and the Catholic Church gradually came to accept it. Wasn't it a Catholic who proposed the Big Bang Theory and the Catholic Church one of the first religious institution to accept it?

[QUOTE=BusterBluth;44780383] You have had countless murderous secular governments in history and some still survive to today. To suggest an Atheist cant be tied to some sort of party or power structure is ridiculous.[/QUOTE] Even if humanity only consists of Atheists,there will still be groups divided by different ideologies but unlike religiously-based ideologies,they don't have this "Almighty Word of God" and "tolerance" bullshit that complicates any sort of attempt for tackling any issues in the world

[QUOTE=Matrix374;44789810]Even if humanity only consists of Atheists,there will still be groups divided by different ideologies but unlike religiously-based ideologies,they don't have this "Almighty Word of God" and "tolerance" bullshit that complicates any sort of attempt for tackling any issues in the world[/QUOTE] They will have a million other things complicating issues in the world, kind of like there are now. I'm not sure what you mean by "tolerance" bullshit.

I don't hate muslims. I hate Islam.

I bet the thief just did that to go without trouble

[QUOTE=Fayez;44788769]Can you get proof of this? As far as I know he could only prove that Venus went around the Sun. And prior to Galileo Copernicus -a devout Catholic- proclaimed it first in the Vatican gardens, nothing happened to him. The problem with Galileo was how he he stopped proposing it as a scientific theory and began proclaiming it as truth, even though he couldn't answer the greatest argument against it. Also, Charles Darwin wasn't persecuted or jailed because, unlike Galileo, he could prove it, he was attacked, but not persecuted, and the Catholic Church gradually came to accept it. Wasn't it a Catholic who proposed the Big Bang Theory and the Catholic Church one of the first religious institution to accept it?[/QUOTE] If the calanders of the time were changed to a heliocentric model for accuracy, how did he not have absolute proof of this? He had already disproved the Ptolemy model of the movement of the planets by 1592, so, yes, he had proven it. Yes, George Lumieres presented the idea. It wasn't taken seriously. It wasn't supported by anything. It was an [b]entirely[/b] different theory as to what we know today. How do you explain the imprisonment, torture, forced recanting of his views, and ultimate execution of Bruno then? [editline]12th May 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;44788266]You can't have the scientific method without a philosophical base that allows for it to work. Yes religious institutions do not have a perfect record according to their own morals, but my point is that there's a reason why members of those institutions had the greatest access to knowledge, it's because their basic beliefs were vital for the creation of the scientific method. It's not like educated people who new how to read talked to each other and naturally formed the scientific method. Without religion nothing about your current world would exist.[/QUOTE] You can't have the scientific method with faith. Period. Minds that were curious in those days had to go to the church, the church had control over what was allowed to be learnt and what was allowed to be taught. Those minds that wanted to understand the world knew there was only one place they could do all that. Religion deserves some credit, but not what you're saying it does, as the church itself discredit much of the research done under it. To me this an another case of religion getting credit for good things and not for bad things. The people who do things are responsible for their own actions. Flat out. We cannot say "well the monks were the first scientists so religion created science" and not talk about how the inquisition is a violently religious actions driven by religious practitioners and not also blame the religion for that. It takes the good and the bad or it gets credit for neither. The monks who came up with the scientific method, the independent thinkers who associated themselves with the church to learn things, the nobleman who were learned scholars, they had to go to the church because of where the knowledge was. If it was anywhere else, they would go there, but in that time period, religion was so powerful it claimed the knowledge for itself, and chose as an arbiter of gods will what knowledge was to be kept, and what was to be made heretical. That's not scientific. That's not where the birth of science was. It was in independent men and women who were curious about the world. Being a free thinker in a time of religious leaders was dangerous. Certain actions to save ones own ass had to be taken.

Muslims arent all bad. Really, they arent. Their religion however.

every rose has it's fucking thorn. christ's sake, fp.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;44790487]You can't have the scientific method with faith. Period.[/QUOTE] So you you do not have faith that nature exists? Do you not assume that we are capable of understanding nature? Do you assume that there are consistent causes for effects? What reason do you have for believing these things beyond blind faith? Yet these are the philosophical pillars that make science possible. You can't have a scientific method [i]without[/i] faith. [QUOTE]Minds that were curious in those days had to go to the church, the church had control over what was allowed to be learnt and what was allowed to be taught. Those minds that wanted to understand the world knew there was only one place they could do all that. Religion deserves some credit, but not what you're saying it does, as the church itself discredit much of the research done under it.[/QUOTE] There's a difference between the mistakes of the medieval church and what Christianity is. Christianity has certain doctrines on the world which lead to further thinking on reality, such as the aforementioned axioms of science. [QUOTE]To me this an another case of religion getting credit for good things and not for bad things. The people who do things are responsible for their own actions. Flat out. We cannot say "well the monks were the first scientists so religion created science" and not talk about how the inquisition is a violently religious actions driven by religious practitioners and not also blame the religion for that. It takes the good and the bad or it gets credit for neither. The monks who came up with the scientific method, the independent thinkers who associated themselves with the church to learn things, the nobleman who were learned scholars, they had to go to the church because of where the knowledge was. If it was anywhere else, they would go there, but in that time period, religion was so powerful it claimed the knowledge for itself, and chose as an arbiter of gods will what knowledge was to be kept, and what was to be made heretical. That's not scientific. That's not where the birth of science was. It was in independent men and women who were curious about the world. Being a free thinker in a time of religious leaders was dangerous. Certain actions to save ones own ass had to be taken.[/QUOTE] The people who pioneered the scientific method did so within the philosophical basis of Christianity and its basic beliefs about reality. Are you telling me that they somehow did not need such axioms as the existence of nature to concieve of the scientific method?

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;44790487]If the calanders of the time were changed to a heliocentric model for accuracy, how did he not have absolute proof of this? He had already disproved the Ptolemy model of the movement of the planets by 1592, so, yes, he had proven it. Yes, George Lumieres presented the idea. It wasn't taken seriously. It wasn't supported by anything. It was an [B]entirely[/B] different theory as to what we know today. [/QUOTE] Can you point to a source for this? [QUOTE]How do you explain the imprisonment, torture, forced recanting of his views, and ultimate execution of Bruno then?[/QUOTE] As I said before, I don't know about Bruno so I can't really debate his fate. [QUOTE=cluelessidiot;44791410]every rose has it's fucking thorn. christ's sake, fp.[/QUOTE] Everyone has to hate something. And for some people it's the beliefs of over a billion people.

[QUOTE=Fayez;44786557]He couldn't prove it at the time so the Church asked him to not publish a paper on it and he promised he wouldn't, he did so anyway, and at the same time personally insulted the Pope by creating a character whose name was Simplicius, and modelling him after the pope. [B]The Vatican formally acknowledged they were wrong and Galileo was right in 1992.[/B] Also, the Quran teaches that you should be learning from the crib to the grave, so why would Muslims suppress knowledge when the Quran tells to learn all they can?[/QUOTE]Only it took them several centuries to do it?

[QUOTE=BusterBluth;44790143]They will have a million other things complicating issues in the world, kind of like there are now. [/quote] Yeah but at least we get to remove some of the more annoying ones [quote]I'm not sure what you mean by "tolerance" bullshit.[/QUOTE] The fact that whenever someone criticises an aspect of Islam or any other religion some people always goes "It's just a belief you have to respect/tolerate it!!!"???

[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;44792763]So you you do not have faith that nature exists? Do you not assume that we are capable of understanding nature? Do you assume that there are consistent causes for effects? What reason do you have for believing these things beyond blind faith? Yet these are the philosophical pillars that make science possible. You can't have a scientific method [i]without[/i] faith. There's a difference between the mistakes of the medieval church and what Christianity is. Christianity has certain doctrines on the world which lead to further thinking on reality, such as the aforementioned axioms of science. The people who pioneered the scientific method did so within the philosophical basis of Christianity and its basic beliefs about reality. Are you telling me that they somehow did not need such axioms as the existence of nature to concieve of the scientific method?[/QUOTE] Assumptions that reality is real isn't faith. It's basically all anyone has to go on, if it's faith, then I would make the argument that kind of faith is vastly different, incomparable even, to the faith found in religious beliefs. You can't have a scientific method without assumptions that are testable, and repeatable. If life is an illusion, it is clearly an illusion with rules and structure that are in some sense, testable and repeatable. They actually didn't. Did muslim scholars during the golden age of muslims do that? No, certainly not. Christianity is not an approach to science. It is a dogmatic understanding of the world as all religions are. It grows and changes with our scientific advances. Many of those people who had to pioneer it within that faith did so at great cost and risk to themselves, the risk of death and often times, death itself was handed to these pioneers of scientific thought. So, how can you tell me that science came from that by the side effect that's where the knowledge was when the church itself declared certain things heretical and others not? How is that where science came from? I just don't understand that incredible double standard. "It's okay that we killed scientists for their thoughts because we came up with science" [editline]12th May 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Fayez;44792828]Can you point to a source for this? As I said before, I don't know about Bruno so I can't really debate his fate. Everyone has to hate something. And for some people it's the beliefs of over a billion people.[/QUOTE] ...Uh, what? Can I point to proof that the preliminary form of a theory is not what we currently base our theories on? Okay, well I guess if you really are that scientifically and historically ignorant The main differences between the theories is that lemaitre's theory was based on redshift observations and not CMB radiation. It should also be noted, that whilst all the credit goes to Lemaitre, it is not entirely his discovery. Whilst he came up with an early version the theory, theories change massively over their life times. Lemaitre pointed in the right direction. Scientists followed. But of course, it's a "religious" discovery every time someone argues this even though 3 of the participants in the theory aren't religious.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;44795640]Assumptions that reality is real isn't faith. It's basically all anyone has to go on, if it's faith, then I would make the argument that kind of faith is vastly different, incomparable even, to the faith found in religious beliefs.[/QUOTE] Why should people have to believe them? [QUOTE]You can't have a scientific method without assumptions that are testable, and repeatable. If life is an illusion, it is clearly an illusion with rules and structure that are in some sense, testable and repeatable.[/QUOTE] How can you test whether the physical world you observe exists? How can you test that there is ultimately a consistent cause for each effect? How can you test whether we are capable of comprehending the universe? Also perhaps the universe merely appears to have rules and structure to you, how can you prove those rules exist without relying on them? [QUOTE]They actually didn't. Did muslim scholars during the golden age of muslims do that? No, certainly not.[/QUOTE] The scientific method is not a product of Muslim society. [QUOTE]Christianity is not an approach to science. It is a dogmatic understanding of the world as all religions are. It grows and changes with our scientific advances. Many of those people who had to pioneer it within that faith did so at great cost and risk to themselves, the risk of death and often times, death itself was handed to these pioneers of scientific thought. So, how can you tell me that science came from that by the side effect that's where the knowledge was when the church itself declared certain things heretical and others not? How is that where science came from? I just don't understand that incredible double standard. [/QUOTE] I never said Christianity is an approach to science, I'm not quite sure what that means in fact. Where's the double standard? I am just recognizing that without the philosophical basis for Christianity we would not have the scientific method as it is. I can tell you that science came from the underpinnings of Christianity because not only was it devised by Christians with a strong basis in Christian culture, but because its rudimentary assumptions about how the universe works are the same. [QUOTE]"It's okay that we killed scientists for their thoughts because we came up with science"[/QUOTE] I think you would have a hard time defending the claim that I have ever remotely implied this.