I think it would benefit them greatly to know metaphors, symbolism, irony, sarcasm.....
Do any other atheists/agnostics regularly see this problem?Do you think many true believers need to brush up on their literature and reading comprehension?
The only problem I see is the self righteous, vapid, condescending vitriol from your genre who vehemently screeches to be left alone and free from harrassment in how you live your lives yet steadfastly continue your attacks and malignment of people of Faith.
Sorry for the big words, hypocrite--buy a dictionary and brush up on your own reading comprehension.Do you think many true believers need to brush up on their literature and reading comprehension?
Oh yes, I agree. They should also invest in a good dictionary, then look up terms such as ';myth'; and ';scientific theory';.
Not if they want to remain ';true believers.';
It is glaringly apparent. When they watch, ';The Atheist Delusion'; video on YouTube, they think it proves atheists are wrong! Even though it clearly calls itself a ';a P1SSPOOR PRODUCTION'; (you have to read the beginning credits) Yikes!
I don't think we should limit lack of grammar, literature and reading comprehension to ';true believers';, it is just as likely to attack all religions since it has nothing to do with religion. Those of you who profess to a belief in the innate good of humans (Humanists, etc.) should know that tolerance for others has no barriers. It is not your place to criticize the beliefs of others any more than it is their place to criticize yours. Do not be a hippocrite! You derive satisfaction in your philosophy, allow others their right to derive satisfaction from theirs (i.e. - belief in God and the Bible) even if you do not. This is suppose to be a forum to discuss religious questions, NOT make catty remarks about people with different religious beliefs than our own.
Friday, February 5, 2010
I was told that Fumi means literature in Japanese. Is this true? And is it okay to give this name to a pet?
The most common meaning of fumi is letter, but yes, the character used to write it also means literature. Fumi is the correct spelling, but you might also see it written ';Humi'; as the Japanese ';f'; is more like an h. Of course you can name your pet Fumi, or Fumiko (for a female) if you like.
Can you connect the poem, ';True Love';, by R.P.W. to a piece of literature?
A book, poem, story, something?Can you connect the poem, ';True Love';, by R.P.W. to a piece of literature?
';Araby'; by James Joyce has many of the same elements and beautiful descriptive language. It follows the desire and heart break present in ';True Love.'; You should read the story and see if you agree.
';Araby'; by James Joyce has many of the same elements and beautiful descriptive language. It follows the desire and heart break present in ';True Love.'; You should read the story and see if you agree.
True or False? Literature?
1. The novel as we know it developed before drama.
2. The plot and characters should operate within the atmosphere established in a novel.
3. Plot and conflict operate within the setting.
4. In Eliot's novel Silas Marner, the incident that brought Eppie to Silas was a new job.
5. William Congreve was an accomplished Elizabethan dramatist.
6. William Shakespeare was an accomplished Elizabethan dramatist.
7. Some early novels were partially a reaction against what the authors considered the immoral content of burlesque and pantomime.
8. Heroic dramas were sometimes written in rhymed couplets.True or False? Literature?
1. False
2. True
3. False
4. Idk
5. False
6. True
7. True
8. TrueTrue or False? Literature?
1. false...drama is prehistoric.
2. true, thats the basic element of a good novel.
3. true that is convention.
4. Haven't read
5. can' say...google him
6.True
7. maybe
8. True
1. False
2. True
3. True
4. False...actually I don't really know.
5. False
6. True
7. True
8. True
no, yes, yes, dunno, dunno, yes, dunno, yes.
2. The plot and characters should operate within the atmosphere established in a novel.
3. Plot and conflict operate within the setting.
4. In Eliot's novel Silas Marner, the incident that brought Eppie to Silas was a new job.
5. William Congreve was an accomplished Elizabethan dramatist.
6. William Shakespeare was an accomplished Elizabethan dramatist.
7. Some early novels were partially a reaction against what the authors considered the immoral content of burlesque and pantomime.
8. Heroic dramas were sometimes written in rhymed couplets.True or False? Literature?
1. False
2. True
3. False
4. Idk
5. False
6. True
7. True
8. TrueTrue or False? Literature?
1. false...drama is prehistoric.
2. true, thats the basic element of a good novel.
3. true that is convention.
4. Haven't read
5. can' say...google him
6.True
7. maybe
8. True
1. False
2. True
3. True
4. False...actually I don't really know.
5. False
6. True
7. True
8. True
no, yes, yes, dunno, dunno, yes, dunno, yes.
Mormons: If Mormonism is true, reading ';anti-Mormon'; literature won't make it any less true, do you agree?
If Mormonism is true - it should be able to stand up to anti-Mormon arguments, correct? You should be able to read them %26amp; if it is true, you won't be swayed by it, right? Or do you shy away from anti-Mormon literature?
If so, why?Mormons: If Mormonism is true, reading ';anti-Mormon'; literature won't make it any less true, do you agree?
I find anti-Mormon literature offensive and no religion should be ';bashed.'; However, I am just as offended when any church or organization gently (or not so gently) tries to regulate how its members learn about the organization. The LDS church teaches its members that they should only learn about the church from approved church sources.
There are/were other organizations that tell/told their people not to learn from any other source: the Nazi's and Communist Russia and China.
Every time I have shared historical data with an LDS person that they did not like they said ';That's not official church doctrine/history.'; Since when did something have to be official to be accurate? I'm not sharing anti-LDS information, just things, from reliable, non-partisan sources, that they don't want to hear.
The only point is that teaching people that only one source can really be trusted produces a people that don't think for themselves and automatically discount credible sources of information and truth. It doesn't matter what organization, religion, or government is doing this; it's still wrong.Mormons: If Mormonism is true, reading ';anti-Mormon'; literature won't make it any less true, do you agree?
Anti mormon literature twist, speak out of contextmake fun of our church, claim something that isn't LDS doctrine as LDS doctrine. It may have been said...but it doesn't necessarily make it doctrine. I can any Protestant leader said this and that and should I claim that is Protestant doctrine?
Lds Doctrine is in our standard works..(Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine %26amp; Covenants and Pearl of Great Price.)
And any new doctrinal or ethical matter comes from the First Presidency, sustained by the general Assembly at General Conference.
No I'm not swayed by anti mormon arguements.
It's a challenge to correct the mis notions on what we believe.
They won't persuade us nor we will persuade them.
But I will correct them for any new investigator or a new member in the church.
Well I am LDS and I get annoyed sometimes by anti mormon stuff because some of it is just trash.
I heard one thing that said an angel appeared to joseph smith with a sword and was going to kill him unless he got multiple wives.
THis is just insane, and cant be proven, its just some made up story.
All we can really do is say no, thats not what we believe happened, this is what happened.... etc
All we can say is yes we believe that or no we dont, we cant really ';prove'; anything to you and give you paper facts on a book or a picture like you want.
Something can be less than true and still be persuasive. I have read enough anti-mormon stuff to know that most of it is incorrect and much of it is willfully deceptive.
Good question.
The problem with the anti-Mormon literature is that often it will be 80% true and 20% lies.....but it doesn't indicate which.
Imagine trying to learn from a professor who taught that way. You'd be scratching your head and confused fairly regularly. You'd question, not just the 20%, but everything. It makes no sense to learn that way.
Further, you wouldn't go to a tutor who hated that subject and thought that it would be better if you failed miserably.
Now that I'm older, sometimes I'll read it to see what angle they're trying to spin things now, however, I'm glad that I avoided it for a long time. Even now, I don't seek it out, but I'll read it and look for their errors.
If someone is sure of what they believe, it won't do any harm.
It is interesting, however, that nearly all of it is put out by ';Christian'; groups who believe in the Bible, including the part that says:
Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness.
Repent and return to the Lord.
I don't shy away from Anti-LDS literature, but I don't seek it out either.
The church and the doctrine do stand up to any and all critics. I've never read any critique that didn't have an answer. However, not all Mormons have done the studying or understand the doctine well enough to hold up against these arguments.
I don't make a habit of reading anti-Mormon literature. I tend to get upset and argumentative while reading it. I'd rather read things that build my faith than try to tear it down.
Some of the stuff is wild, and some of it is out there. For the record, it wa snever the anti material that helped me to leave the church. I had already left when I stumbled upon it, I did however compare what my ex-mormon brother said happen in the temple and what the anti-mormon sites said and they were correct in their information.
You should read everything and then Judge for yourself..... You are a independent and responsible person..... it is your decision which will take you to hell or heaven.....
On the day of judgement you cannot complain that i read this book or that book....
As God has revealed his last book the Quran for human guidance...... It is up to you to accept it or not...
Peace be on you...
If there was some prohibition against Mormons reading anti-Mormon material then all the Mormons answering questions on Yahoo!Answers would be pretty naughty.
I, like all the other Mormons here, read quite a bit of it. We find it misinformed, illogical, distorted, and often malicious. Of course our beliefs stand up to any and all arguments. But while we sometimes can clarify our own thoughts and feelings about the church when reading what others have said and thought, and this makes us stronger, a constant diet of negative thoughts, criticism, scorn, ridicule, misrepresentations, and lies is not exactly uplifting.
Sometimes anti-Mormon literature is destructive. Fawn Brodie will tell you what evil thoughts Joseph Smith had in his mind when he reviewed the Nauvoo Legion. How does Fawn Brodie know what Joseph Smith was thinking? She doesn't, but hearing this kind of evil gossip and speculation about someone I love does not help me to develop Christlike love and charity. Some things cannot be answered at this time because we don't know all the facts.
Let me turn this question around. If Mormonism is not true, why not allow it to self-destruct on its own? Why not look for the good, true, beautiful, and wonderful in the LDS teachings, and celebrate that? Why wallow in the garbage of anti-Mormon lies and distortions?
Im catholic, but I know that it pissed me off when people bash my faith and I dont like being angry- its bad. I assume its the same for mormons
It doesnt matter what religion you are. If you trully believe in your religion, no one will show you anything that will ever sway you. No matter which religion, religion requires faith, and belief. If you truelly have that faith and belief in your religion, why would you ever be swayed by anything?
This question could be expanded to ';Adherents of religion X, if religion X is true, reading ';anti-religion X'; literature won't make it any less true, do you agree?
I also wager you'll get much the same answers no matter which group you address.
I have a friend who is LDS!
And he reads the anti literature all the time, to keep on top of what the detractors say!
He tells me that he cannot believe the lies, or the distortion of the information given!
He says why not just put the information out, and let people DECIDE for THEMSELVES!
We discuss religion all the time, so I am familiar with the doctrine!
But, lo and behold (pardon the pun), the crap I read on here put out by the anti, and the exes, is unbelievable, as in,, not true!
The delighted viciousness if the attack on here is NOT to be believed!
So Christians, keep up your dirty work, you won't change a thing!
You're right, reading anti-mormon literature doesn't make it any less true. I have read anti- mormon literature but I find that it is a waste of time. What's the point of reading criticism when you know something is true?
Anti-Mormon literature is typically not accurate. I read it out of curiosity, recognizing that most of it is BS. I then read the pro-Mormon arguments that refute the false claims.
allaboutmormons . com
No reading anti-Mormon literature would not make the Church any less true. On the other hand, we believe in doing things that would be considered uplifting and edifying.
Watching movies of people getting murdered, raped, tortured would not make the Church any less true either. But doing so would harm your spirit, hurt you countenance and would not improve your life. It would not be spiritually edifying to watch such movies.
On a very elemental level, playing in the dirt and mud would not hurt you, but you sure don't stay clean that way.
Likewise, it would not be edifying to to listen to anti Mormon literature and so forth. A barrage of hurtful material is never good for the soul, for uplifting your spirits.
I think it has more to do with respect for others beliefs. I tend to listen more to someone who tells me about the positive of THEIR beliefs, rather than what they believe is WRONG with someone else's. It seems like those who seek to tear something down, rather than build, are missing the point.
I just find them rather tedious. I find that they will harp on the same item repeatedly. Because saying something about Satan being Jesus' brother is 'shocking'. Mormons think they are gods is 'offbeat'. They will ignore the simple answers direct from their own Bible. These sites make little difference to established members but they are the tares that Jesus said would choke the seed.
Well it survived cults an Ben alive since 1830
I find myself looking at anti-Mormon things or listening to what anti-Mormon people have to say sometimes. I think it's interesting to see other perspectives. Listening doesn't ruin my faith, because a lot of times the things these websites or people have to say are not true or are twisted forms of the doctrine of the LDS church (and I would know, seeing as I have been Mormon my entire life and have done a lot of research on Joseph Smith). It seems to me as if these people are just insistent on proving Mormons ';wrong'; and will say what they need to to make Mormons look bad-- I'm sure many religions (not just Mormons) can relate to this because all religions have people who are against them.
Cause just like the jw's, they are a cult.
I've never seen any archeological evidence to back mormon beliefs. If all that supposed stuff with indians and the battle of hill komrah really happened...why isn't the evidence on display?
We still find plenty of archeological evidence in the Bible and it back the claims of the Bible, therefore biblical Christianity is the only true way to God.
Besides, we don't have to wear majic mormon underwear.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=KsXzHLiHTOUadult myspace
If so, why?Mormons: If Mormonism is true, reading ';anti-Mormon'; literature won't make it any less true, do you agree?
I find anti-Mormon literature offensive and no religion should be ';bashed.'; However, I am just as offended when any church or organization gently (or not so gently) tries to regulate how its members learn about the organization. The LDS church teaches its members that they should only learn about the church from approved church sources.
There are/were other organizations that tell/told their people not to learn from any other source: the Nazi's and Communist Russia and China.
Every time I have shared historical data with an LDS person that they did not like they said ';That's not official church doctrine/history.'; Since when did something have to be official to be accurate? I'm not sharing anti-LDS information, just things, from reliable, non-partisan sources, that they don't want to hear.
The only point is that teaching people that only one source can really be trusted produces a people that don't think for themselves and automatically discount credible sources of information and truth. It doesn't matter what organization, religion, or government is doing this; it's still wrong.Mormons: If Mormonism is true, reading ';anti-Mormon'; literature won't make it any less true, do you agree?
Anti mormon literature twist, speak out of contextmake fun of our church, claim something that isn't LDS doctrine as LDS doctrine. It may have been said...but it doesn't necessarily make it doctrine. I can any Protestant leader said this and that and should I claim that is Protestant doctrine?
Lds Doctrine is in our standard works..(Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine %26amp; Covenants and Pearl of Great Price.)
And any new doctrinal or ethical matter comes from the First Presidency, sustained by the general Assembly at General Conference.
No I'm not swayed by anti mormon arguements.
It's a challenge to correct the mis notions on what we believe.
They won't persuade us nor we will persuade them.
But I will correct them for any new investigator or a new member in the church.
Well I am LDS and I get annoyed sometimes by anti mormon stuff because some of it is just trash.
I heard one thing that said an angel appeared to joseph smith with a sword and was going to kill him unless he got multiple wives.
THis is just insane, and cant be proven, its just some made up story.
All we can really do is say no, thats not what we believe happened, this is what happened.... etc
All we can say is yes we believe that or no we dont, we cant really ';prove'; anything to you and give you paper facts on a book or a picture like you want.
Something can be less than true and still be persuasive. I have read enough anti-mormon stuff to know that most of it is incorrect and much of it is willfully deceptive.
Good question.
The problem with the anti-Mormon literature is that often it will be 80% true and 20% lies.....but it doesn't indicate which.
Imagine trying to learn from a professor who taught that way. You'd be scratching your head and confused fairly regularly. You'd question, not just the 20%, but everything. It makes no sense to learn that way.
Further, you wouldn't go to a tutor who hated that subject and thought that it would be better if you failed miserably.
Now that I'm older, sometimes I'll read it to see what angle they're trying to spin things now, however, I'm glad that I avoided it for a long time. Even now, I don't seek it out, but I'll read it and look for their errors.
If someone is sure of what they believe, it won't do any harm.
It is interesting, however, that nearly all of it is put out by ';Christian'; groups who believe in the Bible, including the part that says:
Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness.
Repent and return to the Lord.
I don't shy away from Anti-LDS literature, but I don't seek it out either.
The church and the doctrine do stand up to any and all critics. I've never read any critique that didn't have an answer. However, not all Mormons have done the studying or understand the doctine well enough to hold up against these arguments.
I don't make a habit of reading anti-Mormon literature. I tend to get upset and argumentative while reading it. I'd rather read things that build my faith than try to tear it down.
Some of the stuff is wild, and some of it is out there. For the record, it wa snever the anti material that helped me to leave the church. I had already left when I stumbled upon it, I did however compare what my ex-mormon brother said happen in the temple and what the anti-mormon sites said and they were correct in their information.
You should read everything and then Judge for yourself..... You are a independent and responsible person..... it is your decision which will take you to hell or heaven.....
On the day of judgement you cannot complain that i read this book or that book....
As God has revealed his last book the Quran for human guidance...... It is up to you to accept it or not...
Peace be on you...
If there was some prohibition against Mormons reading anti-Mormon material then all the Mormons answering questions on Yahoo!Answers would be pretty naughty.
I, like all the other Mormons here, read quite a bit of it. We find it misinformed, illogical, distorted, and often malicious. Of course our beliefs stand up to any and all arguments. But while we sometimes can clarify our own thoughts and feelings about the church when reading what others have said and thought, and this makes us stronger, a constant diet of negative thoughts, criticism, scorn, ridicule, misrepresentations, and lies is not exactly uplifting.
Sometimes anti-Mormon literature is destructive. Fawn Brodie will tell you what evil thoughts Joseph Smith had in his mind when he reviewed the Nauvoo Legion. How does Fawn Brodie know what Joseph Smith was thinking? She doesn't, but hearing this kind of evil gossip and speculation about someone I love does not help me to develop Christlike love and charity. Some things cannot be answered at this time because we don't know all the facts.
Let me turn this question around. If Mormonism is not true, why not allow it to self-destruct on its own? Why not look for the good, true, beautiful, and wonderful in the LDS teachings, and celebrate that? Why wallow in the garbage of anti-Mormon lies and distortions?
Im catholic, but I know that it pissed me off when people bash my faith and I dont like being angry- its bad. I assume its the same for mormons
It doesnt matter what religion you are. If you trully believe in your religion, no one will show you anything that will ever sway you. No matter which religion, religion requires faith, and belief. If you truelly have that faith and belief in your religion, why would you ever be swayed by anything?
This question could be expanded to ';Adherents of religion X, if religion X is true, reading ';anti-religion X'; literature won't make it any less true, do you agree?
I also wager you'll get much the same answers no matter which group you address.
I have a friend who is LDS!
And he reads the anti literature all the time, to keep on top of what the detractors say!
He tells me that he cannot believe the lies, or the distortion of the information given!
He says why not just put the information out, and let people DECIDE for THEMSELVES!
We discuss religion all the time, so I am familiar with the doctrine!
But, lo and behold (pardon the pun), the crap I read on here put out by the anti, and the exes, is unbelievable, as in,, not true!
The delighted viciousness if the attack on here is NOT to be believed!
So Christians, keep up your dirty work, you won't change a thing!
You're right, reading anti-mormon literature doesn't make it any less true. I have read anti- mormon literature but I find that it is a waste of time. What's the point of reading criticism when you know something is true?
Anti-Mormon literature is typically not accurate. I read it out of curiosity, recognizing that most of it is BS. I then read the pro-Mormon arguments that refute the false claims.
allaboutmormons . com
No reading anti-Mormon literature would not make the Church any less true. On the other hand, we believe in doing things that would be considered uplifting and edifying.
Watching movies of people getting murdered, raped, tortured would not make the Church any less true either. But doing so would harm your spirit, hurt you countenance and would not improve your life. It would not be spiritually edifying to watch such movies.
On a very elemental level, playing in the dirt and mud would not hurt you, but you sure don't stay clean that way.
Likewise, it would not be edifying to to listen to anti Mormon literature and so forth. A barrage of hurtful material is never good for the soul, for uplifting your spirits.
I think it has more to do with respect for others beliefs. I tend to listen more to someone who tells me about the positive of THEIR beliefs, rather than what they believe is WRONG with someone else's. It seems like those who seek to tear something down, rather than build, are missing the point.
I just find them rather tedious. I find that they will harp on the same item repeatedly. Because saying something about Satan being Jesus' brother is 'shocking'. Mormons think they are gods is 'offbeat'. They will ignore the simple answers direct from their own Bible. These sites make little difference to established members but they are the tares that Jesus said would choke the seed.
Well it survived cults an Ben alive since 1830
I find myself looking at anti-Mormon things or listening to what anti-Mormon people have to say sometimes. I think it's interesting to see other perspectives. Listening doesn't ruin my faith, because a lot of times the things these websites or people have to say are not true or are twisted forms of the doctrine of the LDS church (and I would know, seeing as I have been Mormon my entire life and have done a lot of research on Joseph Smith). It seems to me as if these people are just insistent on proving Mormons ';wrong'; and will say what they need to to make Mormons look bad-- I'm sure many religions (not just Mormons) can relate to this because all religions have people who are against them.
Cause just like the jw's, they are a cult.
I've never seen any archeological evidence to back mormon beliefs. If all that supposed stuff with indians and the battle of hill komrah really happened...why isn't the evidence on display?
We still find plenty of archeological evidence in the Bible and it back the claims of the Bible, therefore biblical Christianity is the only true way to God.
Besides, we don't have to wear majic mormon underwear.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=KsXzHLiHTOU
Atheists : Evolution is true but Muslim literature?
Evolution is also controlled by God . As I saw in Muslim literatture one of Gods name is Al BARI which means THE EVOLVER..
So isnt reasonable to conclude that God is the origniator of evolution?
I dont want answers bashing Islam religion or insulting the religions.
Short and good answers would be better
Also: If God didnt started evolution , then how did it began by itself?Atheists : Evolution is true but Muslim literature?
Oh oh!!!
Now you looking for trouble.Atheists : Evolution is true but Muslim literature?
Yes it is unreasonable. If god supposedly started it, where did god come from?
It is often seen that Darwinism and Religion clash; what is clashing is ignorance and not the diciplines.
Darwinism is in regards to the body.
Religions are in regards to the Spirit.
The two are separate and become one upon incarnation.
For one to claim the others role is to mix oil and water. This mixing is the Ego-self placing itself in charge as it usualy does.
Al Bari is no doubt a direct term in regards to how Muslims may view God, a constant evolution of spirit, always growing, always learning.
So because someone has given him the title ';the evolver'; that MUST mean he causes evolution...
Oh dear
It's....sheer stupidity to observe science, call a deity a name attributing said observations to the deity, and then say ';look, the deity has that name, he must be the cause of the scientific observations';.
For instance, I could start calling Leviathan ';the gravity maker';, or Eleventy ';the sun riser';. By the same logic as your argument I can now say ';Of course Leviathan is responsible for gravity, why else would he be called 'the gravity maker'? And of course Eleventy makes the sun rise every morning, otherwise he wouldn't have the name 'the sun riser'.';
I feel stupid after reading that.
Brownian motion.
Argument from necessity is a fool's game.
How?
Now that would be asking. Perhaps you should ask first how we would know one way or another?
The limited evidence we have strongly suggests that a lot of simple organic molecules, a lot of energy and a lot of time can quite easily result in self-replicating proteins... and from there, evolution takes over.
No, there is nothing reasonable about your claim. It's like asking if Batman is the father of all bats because someone put the word ';bat'; in his name when they imagined that fictitious person.
Also, your additional comment ';God is Eternal ! so something which is eternal doesnt need a start!'; is circular logic.
Read up on Occam's Razor. The Universe doesn't require any supernatural explanations for any aspect of its existence. Your assumption of an ';originator of evolution'; unnecessarily adds complexity and therefore is not the most parsimonious hypothesis.
am i getting this straight? you are using circular logic to state your opinion: ';Also: If God didnt started evolution , then how did it began by itself?';
take a course on writing and then ask us the question
Please read the books written by Harun Yahya on evolution and all will become clear.
evolution occours by natural means, why bring a ';god'; in, if you're going to concede natural means of existing?
perhaps, but there is not any evidence of it.
thus, whatever god or gods (if any) created evolution, he/she/it/they did not want us to know for sure it was them.
if one or more gods did not create evolution, how did life begin? We don't know yet. Science does not claim to have all the answers; there is no evidence that I am aware of offering a foundation for even an educated guess. It is okay to admit that we do not have all the answers, but lack of answers does not automatically make one religion or another's correct by default.
Wow....that's....tidy.
Perhaps a little...too..tidy?
If one can believe that God is everlasting and has always existed, then why can't Atheists say the same thing about the universe?
funny %26amp; all these years I have been saying the same thing from the ';Christian standpoint of this argument.';
I put god %26amp; creation together %26amp; got a fuller picture of what could be!
the whole time the Qua ran beat me to it %26amp; till now I never knew it did so!
Cool!
I dont believe in evolution however i believe that the big bang theory happened and god made it happen.
p.s this is only my opinion. Its is not neccessaryily every muslims belief.
If you knew what the theory of evolution was you would understand that there is no outside influence.
Abiogenesis is closer to chemistry than biology, but there are many scientific theories about the beginning of life, none of them require God's help.
Of course, it's possible that there is a supernatural being responsible, but it's just an unnecessary layer of complexity.
Well the vast majority of muslims are creationists so... what the hell are you talking about?
What do you mean if god didn't start evolution? It sounds like you don't understand what evolution actually IS. It has nothing to say about the origins of life.
http://www.talkorigins.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/
http://www.livescience.com/evolution/
Maybe you want to go read about abiogenesis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob鈥?/a>
last i checked muslims believed adam was made from a handful of dirt that some invisible man sneezed on
and if they accepted evolution please explain harun yahya
So isnt reasonable to conclude that God is the origniator of evolution?
I dont want answers bashing Islam religion or insulting the religions.
Short and good answers would be better
Also: If God didnt started evolution , then how did it began by itself?Atheists : Evolution is true but Muslim literature?
Oh oh!!!
Now you looking for trouble.Atheists : Evolution is true but Muslim literature?
Yes it is unreasonable. If god supposedly started it, where did god come from?
It is often seen that Darwinism and Religion clash; what is clashing is ignorance and not the diciplines.
Darwinism is in regards to the body.
Religions are in regards to the Spirit.
The two are separate and become one upon incarnation.
For one to claim the others role is to mix oil and water. This mixing is the Ego-self placing itself in charge as it usualy does.
Al Bari is no doubt a direct term in regards to how Muslims may view God, a constant evolution of spirit, always growing, always learning.
So because someone has given him the title ';the evolver'; that MUST mean he causes evolution...
Oh dear
It's....sheer stupidity to observe science, call a deity a name attributing said observations to the deity, and then say ';look, the deity has that name, he must be the cause of the scientific observations';.
For instance, I could start calling Leviathan ';the gravity maker';, or Eleventy ';the sun riser';. By the same logic as your argument I can now say ';Of course Leviathan is responsible for gravity, why else would he be called 'the gravity maker'? And of course Eleventy makes the sun rise every morning, otherwise he wouldn't have the name 'the sun riser'.';
I feel stupid after reading that.
Brownian motion.
Argument from necessity is a fool's game.
How?
Now that would be asking. Perhaps you should ask first how we would know one way or another?
The limited evidence we have strongly suggests that a lot of simple organic molecules, a lot of energy and a lot of time can quite easily result in self-replicating proteins... and from there, evolution takes over.
No, there is nothing reasonable about your claim. It's like asking if Batman is the father of all bats because someone put the word ';bat'; in his name when they imagined that fictitious person.
Also, your additional comment ';God is Eternal ! so something which is eternal doesnt need a start!'; is circular logic.
Read up on Occam's Razor. The Universe doesn't require any supernatural explanations for any aspect of its existence. Your assumption of an ';originator of evolution'; unnecessarily adds complexity and therefore is not the most parsimonious hypothesis.
am i getting this straight? you are using circular logic to state your opinion: ';Also: If God didnt started evolution , then how did it began by itself?';
take a course on writing and then ask us the question
Please read the books written by Harun Yahya on evolution and all will become clear.
evolution occours by natural means, why bring a ';god'; in, if you're going to concede natural means of existing?
perhaps, but there is not any evidence of it.
thus, whatever god or gods (if any) created evolution, he/she/it/they did not want us to know for sure it was them.
if one or more gods did not create evolution, how did life begin? We don't know yet. Science does not claim to have all the answers; there is no evidence that I am aware of offering a foundation for even an educated guess. It is okay to admit that we do not have all the answers, but lack of answers does not automatically make one religion or another's correct by default.
Wow....that's....tidy.
Perhaps a little...too..tidy?
If one can believe that God is everlasting and has always existed, then why can't Atheists say the same thing about the universe?
funny %26amp; all these years I have been saying the same thing from the ';Christian standpoint of this argument.';
I put god %26amp; creation together %26amp; got a fuller picture of what could be!
the whole time the Qua ran beat me to it %26amp; till now I never knew it did so!
Cool!
I dont believe in evolution however i believe that the big bang theory happened and god made it happen.
p.s this is only my opinion. Its is not neccessaryily every muslims belief.
If you knew what the theory of evolution was you would understand that there is no outside influence.
Abiogenesis is closer to chemistry than biology, but there are many scientific theories about the beginning of life, none of them require God's help.
Of course, it's possible that there is a supernatural being responsible, but it's just an unnecessary layer of complexity.
Well the vast majority of muslims are creationists so... what the hell are you talking about?
What do you mean if god didn't start evolution? It sounds like you don't understand what evolution actually IS. It has nothing to say about the origins of life.
http://www.talkorigins.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/
http://www.livescience.com/evolution/
Maybe you want to go read about abiogenesis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob鈥?/a>
last i checked muslims believed adam was made from a handful of dirt that some invisible man sneezed on
and if they accepted evolution please explain harun yahya
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)