Dbaiba

Baseless ? Are you blind ? Did you at least take a look at the quotes and sources of my allegations here above ? Did you even try to discuss them, let alone try to refute them , if you could at least ? NO , absolutely not Don't bother responding , because your non-sense is so predictable i don't even have to take a look at it to know it as such . This is my last post here , so Bye This clearly proves my point You confirm it once again , the more reason that i should quit I did not keep my promise by saying i quit This time i will, more than ever You don't have to miss me haha I can miss you ,guys , like i can miss a terrible headache

You have absolutely not even considered to take a close look at the sources of my allegations i mentioned here above , so , why should i bother providing you with any additional informations on the matter whatsoever anyway ? You will just dismiss them as usual and as expected from you : very predictable , without even investigating them properly as you should do . One of my sources was a western historian of science and an Orientalist , ironically enough , you did not even discuss what he had to say on the matter through the quotes of his book i placed here above . No one here did by the way . You just like to listen to your own music, that's all You, guys , are just conducting a monologue , not a dialogue . So, i quit I have better things to do than this What a waste of my time , unfortunately enough . Ciao

Does it ever occur to you that you may be overestimating your capacity of judgement ? Guess not

I see that my posts were removed ,ok. No big deal I just wasted that valuable time for nothing , i see , i could spend doing better things than this . .......... When i say the supernatural , that includes God mainly .. Dawkins God delusion was all about that , about "proving scientifically " that God is a delusion , while science , per definition , cannot neither prove nor disprove the existence of God altogether, in the first place to begin with Dawkins was not only unscientific in just that , but he was also paradoxical ,self-refuting and self-defeating . So , he deserves no refutation at all , because there is nothing to refute in his unscientific book of his i just mentioned You know what ? We seem to come from different planets , you and i , so : I am not gonna waste my valuable time ,talking to people who cannot consider other paradigms than theirs So, I quit Bye

How can you keep on making such illogic irrational , unscientific statements even when even science itself cannot , per definition, and will never be able to provide you with 'empirical evidence " regarding the supernatural at least : that's precisely where religion comes in . Don't expect science to give you what it has absolutely not , in the first place to begin with Science not onlt does absolutely not and will absolutely not deliver that " evidence " you are so desperately looking for , but science cannot , per definition, do that ,once again , otherwise it's no science That's the role of religion, not science's, once again , hallloooooooo And there is a different place , role , function and nature of both religion and science Both religion and science can go hand in hand , the true religion at least , because they are the both sides of the same "coin " : they need each other , they complete each other ......if one wanna approach the whole pic as a synthesis from both at least I rely on both science and religion , you rely only on science or on what some extremist scientists tell you what science is at least So , i see with those both eyes , you see only with one Reminds me of this song haha : " Where did you get those blue or pretty eyes from ? " I am willing to lend you the most important eye you miss , so

I tell the guy the supernatural escapes even science itself and he tells me that it has no impact Worse : he , once again, says , its alleged impact cannot be investigated Of course , it escapes all man investigation, for the time being at least , but it's out there nevertheless impacting our lives in ways we do not know exactty , considering the nature of the impact only religion can give us some hints about ... I really gotta go, folks Thank you very much for your interesting insights i will take a closer look at wenever i can See ya another day

Demanding proof of the supernatural again Silly paradox that dies hard , i see Even science itself cannot , per definition, deliver such a thing : proof or lack of proof of the supernatural The supernatural cannot be subjected to our logic , reason, science , folks, once again That's why we just believe in it and we have reasons for doing just that , once again Look, folks, i am tired , i gotta wake up early Thanks , appreciate indeed I realise i am not water proof in what i say , not even remotely close ,no wonder considering the subject of our "inquiry " which escapes any reason, logic , science of ours I do not pretend to know the supernatural, i just believe in it and for good reasons unlike all your kindda Dawkins out there who pretend to know "everything" their own science is absolutely incapable of confirming , per definition , not even remotely close Bye and take care

I can say that your delusion in that regard is no better than mine , assuming i am delusional at least Try to prove your delusion about people like me as a true one , assuming that your delusion is a real true thing then

You wanna subject something (The real supernatural in this case ) to logic and reason, while even science itself should be , per definition, silent about it ? : very logical of yours indeed That's why we just believe in the supernatural and we have reasons enough for that , ironically enough : the revelation, the existence of some prophets at least I expect you know to attack the latter save your breath , buddy , because all similar attempts had already failed pathetically

How do you know its has no impact on you, on your life and therefore no impact on humanity ,on the world, on the universe ? How do you know that? , since even science cannot even prove or disprove its existence : the existence of the supernatural, i mean How did you get to know that , i wanna know And how can you acknowledge the existence of something you cannot define as such ? Is not being able to define it a reason enough to dismiss it as worthless or with no impact ? When i say i believe in the supernatural , i mean what i say , i believe , that;s different from knowing and only knowing can define the known So, don't expect the supernatural to be clearly defined , not in this life at least There is a lots of inconsistency and contradiction in those few words of yours This is a psychological thing , i guess When people are confronted with their irrationality regarding the denial of something , they say afterwards, i do not rule its existence out , but then they switch to another denial they cannot prove either I expect another degree of denial from you as a result

I do invite you all , including your Dawkins , and i challenge you to come to the south of Morocco to see some real encounters with the supernatural haha You are all more than welcome to visit the country I have had a scientific education as well, don't worry I am not some superstitious charlaten haha There are indeed plenty of superstitions out there science had debunked as such , but that's another thing totally different from what i was talking about The supernatural does exist , folks And it's pretty both logical and rational to be both a believer and a scientist : the one does not exclude the other , in my world at least. That's 1 of the reasons why earlier muslims did invent the scientific method itself thanks to the epistemolohy of the Qur'an , to mention just that fact Take care How do you know then that the supernatural does exist ? And why do you put it in the same basket with fantasies and illusions ....? There is a difference between them , even though it's difficult to differentiate between them indeed , but the latter is no reason to dismiss the real supernatural as such as a waste of time , as you put it . Your logic is still full of holes, buddy , despite your indignation and denial P.S.: Once again : science, per definition, can neither prove nor disprove the existence of the supernatural So, there can be no talk about scientific evidence or lack of scientific evidence concerning neither the existence nor the alleged non-existence of the supernatural To keep talking about scientific evidence or no scientific evidence in regard to the supernatural is not only illogical , irrational and unscientific , but i's also paradoxical

The supernatural makes part of reality or of the ultimate reality Science cannot , per definition, approach that part of reality : the supernatural So, i have been ontopic all along You just do not wanna see that , because you are conditioned to see just the natural part of reality

So , just run away and admit your ignorance and your impotence : The real threat to the truth is not ignorance , but the pretention of knowledge I wonder whether you have been reading me well or not : If there is no evidence of the existence of A , then is A probably non-existant indeed But there are some exceptions to that rule as i mentioned here above Besides : I said : even science itself cannot , per definition , neither prove nor disprove the existence of the supernatural . That's not the nature of science to do so, nor is it its function or role So, science has nothing to say about it So, there can be no mention of scientific evidence or scientific lack of evidence concerning neither the existence or the alleged non-existence of the supernatural= a non- issue To keep on talking about evidence or no evidence in this regard at least is a paradox, a contradiction , an unscientific , illogic and an irrational assumption: contradictio in terminis I am not gonna repeat myself over and over again, sorry Thanks by the way anyway

You do not read well what i say : I said ; A: The abscence of evidence is not always the evidence of abscence ; And i gave some examples : see above then B: science cannot prove the existence of the human consciousness as such was 1 of my examples , but you talk about the function of the human consciousness science can indeed explain , to some extent at least : those are 2 different things . C: How do you know what you say about the supernatural anyway : you deny its existence and then, you say , even it exists it's worthless : that's another discussion I am talking about the existence of the supernatural now, not about its purpose or worth My point was : the existence of the supernatural can not be excluded just because science cannot , per definition, approach it Understand ? You simply choose to dismiss the existence of the supernatural , because otherwise that would not suit you , that's all : that has nothing to do with science , it has more to do with your pre- set choice not to believe in the supernatural, that;s all . You just gotta admit that then Why not ? Because you simply can't There 's a whole realm out there beyond that of science : that does not mean it does not exist . And science can never be able neither to prove nor disprove its existence To say that science can is simply unscientific , simply because science , per definition, cannot In short : You just hide behind science instead of admitting your refusal to believe in the supernatural .for no reason . To try to back up this choice of yours by science (Science cannot once again, per definition , deliver that back up you're so desperately looking for ) is a real paradox you are not even aware of : simply pathetic " We have all been raised to think a certain way , to behave a certain way ...to perceive reality in a certain way ...missing the whole spectrum of other potential levels of reality " There are many levels of reality as there are many levels of human consciousness way beyond the limited and tiny realm of science .

Correct , but that's not what i meant : I said : you presume that the supernatural does not exist as such , simply because science cannot prove its existence , but you forget that science cannot , per definition , prove its existence anyway , even if the supernatural does exist . Science , per definition, in fact can neither prove nor disprove the existence of the supernatural So, science has nothing to say about it Your paradox is as follows : you expect from science to be able to prove or diprove the existence of something it cannot , per definition, do anyway : the supernatural in this case then . Worse : you expect science to prove the existence of the supernatural, if it exists at least , forgetting that science can never do such a thing either Use your minds ,guys, please

What if the supernatural does exist ? Then what If the supernatural does exist , for example, science cannot prove its existence anyway, as science cannot prove the non-existence of the supernatural Either way : that does not mean that the supernatural does not exist as such, simply because science cannot approach it , if it exists . Your logic is full of holes, guys . See above .

It' s unscientific to say that the supernatural does not exist as such ,simply because science cannot approach the supernatural , or because if the supernatural exists , it lats outside of the realm of science . Worse : science can thus ,per definition, never be able either to prove or disprove the existence of the supernatural , but you , guys , think that if there is a supernatural, science will prove its existence , if not , then the supernatural does not exist anyway : pretty lawsy illogical thinking , not even remotely scientific.

The abscence of evidence is the evidence of abscence , is what you seem to say here ; The abscence of evidence is not always the evidence of abscence , i must add Proof ? Well, science cannot prove neither the existence of our consciousness as such nor the existence of our subjective inner lives as such , to mention just those : Does that mean they do not exist as such , according to you ? I am aware of that : science cannot function otherwise : that's the nature of science to deal with just natural phenomena : that does not mean that naturalism 's approach is the only valid one ,because there are other valid sources of knowledge as well . It's logical , rational and scientific indeed to exclude the supernatural from science , but that does not mean that the supernatural does not exist as such as a result , that everything outside of the realm of science simply does not exist as such In short : Science does not have the monopoly of the truth , science is not the only source of knowledge . There are some aspects of reality science can never approach as such , simply because they exist outside of the realm of science ( science cannot capture the ultimate reality as a whole anyway , science can only approach and isolate the fragments of the natural material reality ) as science cannot approach some levels of the human consciousness , for example . You, folks , make it sound as if science can approach reality as a whole , as if science can approach the essence of things = very unscientific way of thinking . You should just say , well, science excludes the supernatural because the latter , if it exists , lays outside of the realm of science . So, science has nothing to say about it . Instead you seem to say that as the supernatural , if it exists , is outside of the realm of science , so the supernatural does not exist as such = false and unscientific approach of yours .

John Cuthber, on 18 Jun 2013 - 19:00, said: I can't discuss it like a grown up unless you act like one so, as I said before: re. "First of all, Dawkins crosses the boundaries of science on many occasions by implicating science in metaphysical matters where science does absolutely not belong and does have nothing to say about : metaphysical matters are way out of the "jurisdiction " of science" Please cite an example. If I ask a question, and you don't answer then it's not going to be a grown up discussion, but that won't be my fault. The outcome will be simple. We will simply assume that you are lying and were not able to answer. So, do you wan't to have your point of view discarded or do you want to answer? The choice is yours. Let's try to be methodic about this then , by gradually building the area of our present debate ,and we will see where it might lead us : Just tell me this : is science qualified to say anything about metaphysics, about morality and ethics ,about God , about the existence or the non-existence of God ,about the. revelation....? A big no should be your answer , right ? despite those seemingly " scientific " arguments Dawkins and co try to put on the table in that regard . Well, Dawkins and co think otherwise , they think that God, for example, is just an idea , an empiric idea that can be either false or true , as Dawkins says in his God delusion ,for example ., and then , he dismisses God just because there is no "scientific " evidence for that . That's a false assumption or a false hypothesis because science is simply not qualified to approach the question of God, for example . The very material wordly nature of science does not permit such unscientific acrobatic non-sense Dawkins tries to make science do . Why do you, guys , do not condemn this materialistic atheistic hijacking of science this unscientific way that misuses science in this sense , by implicating science outside of its "jurisdiction " ?

Are you feeling ok ? I said that the epistemology of the Qur'an i will dsiplay for you later on as promised ,had led to the invention of the scientific method by muslims : see my sources . I did not say that the Qur'an talked or mentioned the scientific method per se , so, don't be silly , please . Don't twist things , please . Who said religion is the answer ? What does that mean anyway ? The answer to what exactly ? Don't be silly You are the one who's beeing simplistic , i see

I am not messing about , as you put it I am showing you the holes in your reasoning I will post those verses in question as i said i would : plenty of them scattered all around the whole Qur'an : i gotta make a selection , it takes time and i have also other things to do, Do you have any idea about the volume of the Qur'an ? so So, just stop your offensive remarks and wait .... Do you need some more of this , folks ? I will be glad to oblige

Well, well Where is that hypocrit moderator who accuses me of using offensive statements and insults ????? He's gotta take a look at this latest post at least : vulgar below the waist non-sense . I do not understand why people resort to such toilet use of words in a discussion Because they cannot handle the facts , tha's why . pfff....Not worth replying to Re-read what i said then carefully without being carried away by emotions . or not , who cares . Follow Dawkins ' crusades against religion,he conducts in the name of science , carefully , and you would know what i am talking about , if you haven't noticed yet already as you should have done in the first place to begin with . I've been following that jerk for decades now , so I am not gonna respond any further to uninformed opinions about that fascist It would be a waste of my time Dawkins should just stick to his purely scientific work he's very good at , instead of misusing science in order to promote and impose his atheist paradigm agenda to the people as " scientifc facts "...... Way below the required level discussion, unfortunately enough . So, ciao What's wrong with you, people ? Can't you discuss matters as grown ups do ? Odd

I said i will ,so. You can also, in that regard , read the masterpiece of the greatest poet of the last century , Dr Sir philosopher Muhammad Iqbal i presented as one of the sources of my allegations . This sourec , for example, does not just tell you what it said , it proves it to you and you can verify it yourself by checking those mentioned verses in the book . Your above mentioned reasoning does not hold water anyway : How do you know that Ceasar or Nero existed? because historians tell you so , you haven't been there yourself to chek that out

First of all, Dawkins crosses the boundaries of science on many occasions by implicating science in metaphysical matters where science does absolutely not belong and does have nothing to say about : metaphysical matters are way out of the "jurisdiction " of science . .. The latter can say absolutely nothing about the former . But , Dawkins does ignore that fact , on purpose, in order to impose his atheist agenda in the name of science , and does make it sound as if science that deals in fact only with material processes , that science does have not only a say but that science has also the final say , on metaphysical matters also : a real paradox . Dawkins is on a kindda atheistic crusade against religion : that's an exclusive ideological agenda of his he tries to impose to people in the name of science : i can only despise him for that , for mis-using science like that to promote his own exclusive atheist view of the world , while science has absolutely nothing to do with all that . I think that he should just stick to his purely scientific work he's good at . He just gives science a very bad name ,when he crosses the boundaries of science and when he misuses it , not only to promote, but also to impose his atheist world view to others as some sort of "scientific facts ", science has not much to do with . Worse : i think he's mainly a fascist in that regard , excuse my French , because he excludes all non-materialistic , non-atheistic views of the world or paradigms , and that in the name of science that has nothing to with that . In his "Selfish Gene " book, for example , he presents the Darwinian theory of evolution .as the only valid explanation of our existence on earth : all other attempts which try to explain what man is, what makes us human or where do we come from as humans , must not only be regarded or discarded as fairy tales , especially those of religion, but must be definitely and absolutely dismissed . Dawkins and co that present both science and evolution as THE major arguments against religion , whiie, in fact , both of them were discovered by religious people ,thanks to religion, thanks to islam in this case .: The invention of the scientific method by muslims originated from the epistemology of the Qur'an and the discovery of evolution by muslims, more than 6 centuries before Darwin was even born , came right out of the evolutionary spirit of the Qur'an . P.S.: Dawkins and co must realise that science has not the monopoly of the truth , that science is not the only valid source of knowledge, that science is not the only source of knowledge tout-court .....and more importantly , they should stop mis-using science for ideological atheistic materialistic purposes, science has nothing to do with . Final note : Secularism and atheism , not religion, have been ruling this world in all areas for many centuries now : a quick informed look at this recent past would show you , beyond a shadow of a doubt , how secularism and atheism were such big disasters for humanity , in terms of the 2 big wars , in terms of fascism, nazism, communism ...................in terms of western imperialism and racism worldwide , in terms of that despicable racist paternalistic Eurocentrism ...in terms of black slavery in the US and elsewhere ... Secular regimes in the 20th century alone had provoked the deaths of hundreds of millions of humans , the extremist massacres in the name of religion , can only dream of . The secuar or atheistic massacres , genocides , not to mention the holocaust or slavery , of the 20th century alone far exceed those committed in the name of God during all the existence of religions all put together and worldwide . In Short : Guys like Dawkins and co are certainly no better than those despicable religious extremists ignorant idiots . Guys like Dawkins are in fact worse than them , simply because they have been managing their pretty wel orchestraded " scientific " crusades and " scientific " inquisitions against religions in general , in the name of science , science has nothing to do with , while religious extremism is mainly the result or product of ignorance , of lack of education , of psychological and socio-economic factors ... So, what makes Dawkins and co worse is that they do what they do against religion in the name of science , science has nothing to do with , in the name of knowledge ,while those religious extremists do what they do in the name of ignorance in fact . Which means that " the real threat to or real danger that threatens true knowledge is not ignorance , but informed ignorance , the pretention of knowledge "

Once again , i know those verses very well, the Qur'an is full of : i will try to quote some of them for you whenever i can . So, i do not just rely on what others say . I make my own investigations and research , mind you You can't just make such assumptions about people you know nothing about , people like me : i feel litle bit offended by that . Anyway : The invention of the scientific method by muslims thanks to the epistemology of the Qur;an is something totally different from discovering the laws of physics or gravity , different from discovering cells, DNA , viruses ....or inventing the wheel ....... You seem to confuse the scientific method as the tool to approach reality with reality itself or what we perceive of reality at least .. Islam tries , by the way ,also to capture reality or the ultimate reality as a whole , while science does that piecemeal by isolating its fragments ...but that;s another discussion . P.S.: I could not sleep , so , i wrote this post for you then I can't sleep because of different reasons you might think of haha Thanks for your interesting insights , i mean it really .......... Ciao Sorry if i ,unintentionally, have offended anyone . I was just teasing some people here , and i was tired and stressful. But that's no excuse indeed I was just having a laugh, i guess, some inappropriate humour noir Now , i can't sleep So, i am gona hang out here for a moment to re-read what our friends here have been saying . Thank you all for your interesting replies . My apologies again I will do my best to be more focussed on the matters at hand Best wishes Ciao