talalrulez

Members
  • Content count

    34
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

3 Unknown

1 Follower

About talalrulez

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Exams
    Nov 2017
  • Country
    Australia

Recent Profile Visitors

723 profile views
  1. actually, no its not. dawkin's is discussing how darwinism maintains balance in a communities and ecosystems. it has nothing to do with God. he also talks on how suffering and blessing are part of an endless cycle of balance. it sounds kind of similar to the theory of equivalent exchange presented to the viewers and readers of fullmetal alchemist. so in the end, yes, you and that video are deceiving many people. however, i can let you go assuming you may not be the type of person that doesn't critically analyze everything he sees or hears.
  2. lmao, i watched the video and all i saw was another video attempting at promoting the faith over atheism. although im not atheist (im actually muslim), i agree with your point. the placing forth of morals is not entirely the work of God. sure, God/the gods does/do take time in various scriptures to try and promote certain morals. but i believe that originally, moral arose, as just like any animal, we valued our life and feared from danger. therefore, things like lying and stealing, which could potentially endanger humans, and affect a society's strength, were discouraged. However, i still do believe that God did have effects on the objectivity of morals. i just believe that God didn't start them up, and that objective moral arose out of our want for safety. so in that regard, i guess i nearly completely agree with you! i've actually decided that i don't like you. see, whenever i hear a quote of anything, whether it be a religious book, or a normal person, i usually go back to said source and look at the context. and for those confused why an atheist, would say that without god bla bla bla, here is the full quote, which actually refers to his darwinian view of life. “The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute that it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are slowly being devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst, and disease. It must be so. If there ever is a time of plenty, this very fact will automatically lead to an increase in the population until the natural state of starvation and misery is restored. In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.” btw, the reason why ive considered i don't like you @ILoveJesus is because i especially hate people taking quotes out of context. i hate it even more when people dont even take the full quote, but parts of the quote. that's exactly what both you and this video have done.
  3. hi again. In your last point, you mentioned something about a video. For that, i am sorry if i wasn't able to regard your previous statement, as i legit do not know where this video is, nor do i know the point that it made. Concerning your point on the objectivity of morals, i'm not sure but i feel as if you're confusing objective morals with subjective morals. By definition, "objective" means it is universal towards everyone with no exception, and of course "subjective" means it varies from person to person. There is not one type of morality that is universal towards everyone, it really depends on that person's nature and nurture, in fact, morality may not even be the same for two people raised under the same rooftop (such as a pair of twins where one happens to be a vegan). However, religion does try to provide us with objective morals. In your statement against @ILoveJesus you gave us the example of a madman bomber who is incredibly affectionate of his wife, bla bla bla. you then stated that 100 people, no matter if they are all Christians, would give different answers to whether they should torture the innocent woman or not, and again, i cannot argue that you are right. but i'm not at all surprised. i don't believe in objective morals. i believe that objective morals don't really exist in people, but as i mentioned before, religion does try to give us objective morals. obviously, it doesn't work, however, i believe that it can somewhat fine-tune our beliefs to be almost in line with it's beliefs. you are right. situations are not always simple. for example, my TOK teacher gave us an example where the guy from "texas chainsaw massacre" one day came to our school, and attempted to kill the teachers. obviously, all the teachers are hiding, and this guy is searching for them crazily. now you know the location of one teacher. if this guy came up to you and asked you if you knew the hiding spot of a teacher, would you give it up, or say you don't know? (btw, the madman won't kill you if you don't know where the teacher is) immediately, i asked my TOK teacher whether the teacher is someone i like or dislike. Because, our attitudes towards people will always dictate our moral decisions. in this example, if it was a teacher i liked, i wouldn't have given up his hiding spot, and if it was a teacher i disliked/hated with all my guts, i would give his location in a heartbeat (lol jk). however, as mentioned before, religion sure would love to impose upon us its moral values, but its impossible, so it attempts at at least making us have moral codes that are close to the moral codes of the religion. our moral decision will remain subjective in nature, but will be close to the objective morality of whatever religion you believe in. lol i feel like i rambled on towards the end, and stopped making sense. i sincerely apologize and srsly, i wouldn't mind if you told me if my words stopped making sense or not.
  4. damn bro, you're truly savage, and i respect you for that. but i also highly respect your argument in that moral values are not objective. i also loved your example of other developed societies in dolphins and whales. however, there is a fault in your argument, in which observers of religion can exploit. the argument being that most human societies around earth have had their laws centralized around the laws of their religion. for example, the ancient egyptians believed in an afterlife. if they were good, they'd go to heaven, and if they were bad, well, they'd have their heart eaten by ammit. belief in a sort of afterlife is present in almost all historical societies, from the egyptians mentioned to christians, muslims, etc. even hindus and buddhists, who, although dont believe in an afterlife and instead believe in reincarnation, still do believe that their future reincarnation is based on the actions and deeds of the life they currently live in. to say that morals is not based on religions is not completely true. Atheists (i suspect you are one, so please hear me out) would have different objective morals, based on the dominant religion of the country they live in. for example, atheists in america would be very different from say, atheists in Turkey. the american would have MOST of his values obtained from a christian society, whilst the turkish person would have most of his obtained from a muslim society. As stated before, your example of animals is very good, however, it is easily discarded, when most religions say that animals follow god's or the gods will/wills. btw, just to provide you with context, i do believe in religion, and would love to continue this with you. oh, and greetings from sydney, my fellow australian.
  5. hi, im not here to get a topic or anything. i already have sort of a plan. for my IA, imp planning on testing the efficiency of certain sacrificial metals and all through various environments bla bla bla. but, my teacher said i have to use some technology in my thing like a data logger and whatever. so, do u have any suggestions on what technology my type of experiment would allow me to use. to whoever replies... THANK YOU SO MUCH
  6. i know what his message was. im just saying what happened in the battle so he can at least learn something new. who doesnt like learning new things.
  7. sorry, hate to spoil your parade, but don't want you leaving here mistaken. while the spartans had 300 against the persian quarter million, other greek cities were involved such as thebes and athens, which had like couple thousand each. of course its still nothing compared to the persian army, but they also didnt win. the greeks lost the battle of thermoplyae. of course everyone thinks it was just sparta, but that was because they were the initial defense to the persian army and the other greek cities came later. it was a heroic defeat to the greek side, that when the persian forces did finally go through the pass of thermoplyae and sack many cities including the great athens, they were a husk of their former strength and the brother of leonidas built a war near corinth, and thanks to the crushing defeat of the persians in the battle of salamis, they were unable to provide enough resources to Xerxes, who eventually returned home to persia..... Those Total War: Rome skills
  8. ayat is like verses, sorry. and im saying for you to provide evidence. its not that hard, you know.
  9. im just saying if youre going top state something, provide evidence from quran. for example, you said quran states that universe is geo-centric, provide evidence of ayat and other stuff.
  10. and im saying for you to provide me evidence where science contradicts quran.
  11. when i entered this debate, i provided evidence with scientific miracles of the quran. i think ive provided a lot of evidence for myself. just go look and disprove me :):):)
  12. as ive said before, im just going to ask you to provide evidence. not that i dont know my religion and yes we do believe in the adam and eve story, not evolution. yh, probably the quran might have been left by aliens, and u never know. before you insult me or my religion any more, im going to ask you again tht if u want to disclaim stuff, you need to provide evidence. i know its a bit of a hard thing for you to do, since its the book of god, but happy searching
  13. okay, this draws on my concept i tried to draw on before. if you didn't study for a test, but got a good mark, you would say that that this is a reflection of your knowledge, but if a holy book randomly list in order which senses you develop first, its just a coincidence. okay, you're right. i believe you
  14. The primordia of the internal ears appear before the beginning of the eyes, and the brain (the site of understanding) differentiates last.
  15. "and he gave you hearing and sight and feeling and understanding." 32:9 I kind of get you but where is the vagueness in the above line, which is literally in order of what we develop as a foetus. But I guess an atheist would probably say that, "oh maybe Mohammed got lucky," in which case you're just making up excuses for yourself. I'm not going to force my religion onto other people, but why did all these random religions come up around the world all sharing some form of god/s. someone here will reply to that in that people wanted to have some sort of reliance that when they die, that's not the end for them and they can continue. most religion has this as an eternal heaven, some have it as continuous incarnation. but in that case, what's the problem of believing in some higher entity. if you're going to live out your life and die eventually, why don't you join a religion or cult or anything you find to your fancy and follow that religion/cult's rules. you can meet some people and you'll probably have some common interests and you can live happily ever after.