SharkSpider Posted February 14, 2009 Report Share Posted February 14, 2009 Yeah, and let's also start believing that we're all imperfect depictions of some higher reality where everything is beautiful and which only the philosophers can figure out and enlighten the rest of us ignorant fools about.Oh wait, we already do.Well... that's kind of a straw man against plato, right there =PThe allegory of the cave was supposed to be a metaphor for the fact that we're limited to human perception unless we use reason to infer "truths" about what actually exists. Considering the fact that so many people go through life without really considering existential philosophy, Plato was right to say that not many would make the journey themselves (I know that if I hadn't been taught about philosophy I'd be as ignorant as I was in grade 9), but he was maybe just a bit off in his corollary, though the idea of an altruistic, philosophical dictator is somewhat attractive. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Shiver Posted February 15, 2009 Report Share Posted February 15, 2009 (edited) Well... that's kind of a straw man against plato, right there =PHaha, guilty as charged. But that basic outline can be applied to many if not most religions as well. So, in effect, the same mentality takes on different shapes and forms. Maybe we humans are stuck with it, but I'd like to think we aren't. And a lot of post-Renaissance philosophy has attempted to do away with it for good (Marxism, pragmatism, existentialism, post-structuralism, etc.), by returning credit to the empiricism which had long been rejected thanks, in large part, to the Greeks. Edited February 15, 2009 by Mr. Shiver Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
purple Posted February 15, 2009 Report Share Posted February 15, 2009 Alright Joel. Go ahead. Others tried before. Linguists(sp?) arab and english...Scientists, arabs and westerns, tried looking for linguistic mistakes and scientific ones, so far not a single mistake. If it was written by human, you would definatly find mistakes. I dare you and everyone else, kindly ofcourse, to find a single mistake. I assure you..you will not find a single one, whether scientific or linguistic.A quick google search with the keywords, "why the Quran is wrong" (chosen because I would be more likely to get pages detailing exactly what's wrong with the Quran brings up 4,420,000 hits. Admittedly, probably only 70% of that is actually relevant, but that's still a huge amount. Another site that you could go to for contradictions is the "Skeptic's Annotated Bible" which goes through the Bible, Quran, and Mormon Bible line by line and highlights absurdities, contradictions, racism, etc. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mahuta ♥ Posted February 15, 2009 Report Share Posted February 15, 2009 A quick google search with the keywords, "why the Quran is wrong" (chosen because I would be more likely to get pages detailing exactly what's wrong with the Quran brings up 4,420,000 hits. Admittedly, probably only 70% of that is actually relevant, but that's still a huge amount. Another site that you could go to for contradictions is the "Skeptic's Annotated Bible" which goes through the Bible, Quran, and Mormon Bible line by line and highlights absurdities, contradictions, racism, etc.Have you checked if those so called mistakes are disproven or no? I would say most of them are 'mistakes' because they were misundersood.I would say it will be more relevant if they came from people who know the Explanation very well, in which case they would find any.I will take a look at that website though.I dont know, this is for everyone, I really think before you guys make judges on whether or not the quran has mistakes or its man-written, read it, alot of translated versions in many langauges. It wouldnt do harm.In times of Moh'd (PBUH), the level of arabic, the original one was very high, a lot og poets,as known. In Mecca, none of them was able to come up with one verse as balanced as the ones in the quran, balanced in terms of everything.Thats why im saying, go ahead, and read some of it, if you find a mistake AFTER understanding the verse, then I will admit I'm wrong. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashika Posted February 15, 2009 Report Share Posted February 15, 2009 Thats why im saying, go ahead, and read some of it, if you find a mistake AFTER understanding the verse, then I will admit I'm wrong.I HAVE read it, but just because you can't prove it wrong doesn't mean it was right in the first place.My issue is that I don't understand arabic.I don't think I could fully appreciate any other translation of it.After all, it's more or less impossible to get a direct translation of anything and get every single bit out properly.This is a bit of an out there example... but take sociopaths... you can't prove that they've killed someone but it doesn't mean they haven't. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
moneyfaery Posted February 15, 2009 Report Share Posted February 15, 2009 I would say most of them are 'mistakes' because they were misundersood.Are you sure? How do you know YOU are not the one who has misunderstood?I would say it will be more relevant if they came from people who know the Explanation very well, in which case they would find any.That's relying on expert opinion or whatever it's called. Since they are more "knowledgeable" than you, they're more likely to be correct in their interpretations, but they're not infallible and they COULD be wrong. In fact, I'd say anyone who thinks there's only one interpretation to a given verse is wrong. If we've learned anything at all, it's that the human mind can rationalize anything - we built masks, personalities, enshroud ourselves with veils etc etc. and we convince ourselves that we are right. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mahuta ♥ Posted February 15, 2009 Report Share Posted February 15, 2009 Yeah true there about translation...Thats why its kind of hard for me to explain what im saying i guess. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
moneyfaery Posted February 15, 2009 Report Share Posted February 15, 2009 (edited) Maha - I think your personal interpretation is valid but I just don't think anyone should say I KNOW THERE IS A GOD or I KNOW THERE ISN'T A GOD GTFO. That's just being an ignorant jerk. Ha, language is as much a barrier to knowledge as it is a medium. Edited February 15, 2009 by Irene Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mahuta ♥ Posted February 15, 2009 Report Share Posted February 15, 2009 Yeah I know Irene.So ok, fine, I'm not going to say, as long as no one goes like :"theres no evidence he exists, therefore he doesnt". Thats what got me going on here.Besides, I have my beliefs..and others have theirs that I respect. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashika Posted February 15, 2009 Report Share Posted February 15, 2009 "theres no evidence he exists, therefore he doesnt".That's a weak argument ANYWAYS.I mean, we can't "see" love but yet we all still feel it.I think the reason why this debate got blown out of proportion is because you weren't willing to admit that there is a chance that what you believe could be wrong Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mahuta ♥ Posted February 15, 2009 Report Share Posted February 15, 2009 lol yup, i realized so, and the whole debate ended up in trying to get me to admit that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
purple Posted February 15, 2009 Report Share Posted February 15, 2009 (edited) That's a weak argument ANYWAYS.I mean, we can't "see" love but yet we all still feel it.How is it a weak argument? There's evidence love exists: as a chemical reaction bubbling somewhere in your brain. You can see it in brain scans, etc. Some people say, "how do you know wind exists if you can't see it?" I say, "I can see the destruction it causes, when it forms a tornado or a hurricane."Evidence is tantamount. I mean, you don't believe in pink unicorns, do you?You could say to that, "true, there's no evidence of unicorns, but there might end up being a unicorn there somewhere." Yet, still, you don't actually believe there are unicorns, do you? Or fairies or goblins or that Harry Potter is a real person. Why? Because it's obvious that these are human fabrications! To most (what many would call, militant) atheists, these are the points that are what we are trying to get across when we say, "there's no evidence for God/god/gods/goddess/goddesses". Edited February 15, 2009 by purple Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
moneyfaery Posted February 15, 2009 Report Share Posted February 15, 2009 How is it a weak argument? There's evidence love exists: as a chemical reaction bubbling somewhere in your brain. You can see it in brain scans, etc. Some people say, "how do you know wind exists if you can't see it?" I say, "I can see the destruction it causes, when it forms a tornado or a hurricane."Uh huh... going by your logic, God also exists as "humans were made in God's image and I see God everywhere". Flimsy argument. Evidence is only as good as how you interpret it.To most (what many would call, militant) atheists, these are the points that are what we are trying to get across when we say, "there's no evidence for God/god/gods/goddess/goddesses".So anything that hasn't been discovered yet doesn't exist? I guess deep sea creatures don't exist then... apart from the few that we've found anatomic records of.Btw, how is 'God' anymore a human fabrication than 'Love'? When I'm "in love" something happens inside my brain producing a chemical rxn that releases hormones or whatever. Well, if I think of God and I get all bubbly and happy and my brain also releases chemicals, is this evidence that God exists? (The answer is no) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Shiver Posted February 15, 2009 Report Share Posted February 15, 2009 (edited) Argument from ignorance. Known in Latin as ad ignorantiam. If there's no evidence to prove one side of an argument, it does not follow that the other side is right. The reason why atheists argue that there is no evidence for God's existence is because, in a debate between theists and non-theists over the existence of God, the burden of proof rests on theists to make their case for God's existence. Now in theory if the debate shifted to being between atheists and non-atheists, the burden of proof would rest on the atheists to make their case for God's non-existence--but that scenario doesn't typically happen because it's much harder to argue that something isn't there that to argue that it is. And that's where your pink unicorn analogy comes in. Edited February 15, 2009 by Mr. Shiver Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mahuta ♥ Posted February 15, 2009 Report Share Posted February 15, 2009 (edited) How is it a weak argument? There's evidence love exists: as a chemical reaction bubbling somewhere in your brain. You can see it in brain scans, etc. Some people say, "how do you know wind exists if you can't see it?" I say, "I can see the destruction it causes, when it forms a tornado or a hurricane."Evidence is tantamount. I mean, you don't believe in pink unicorns, do you?You could say to that, "true, there's no evidence of unicorns, but there might end up being a unicorn there somewhere." Yet, still, you don't actually believe there are unicorns, do you? Or fairies or goblins or that Harry Potter is a real person. Why? Because it's obvious that these are human fabrications! To most (what many would call, militant) atheists, these are the points that are what we are trying to get across when we say, "there's no evidence for God/god/gods/goddess/goddesses".Ok, fine, give me evidence that you have a mind. Can you see it? can you hear it? can you smell it? can you sense it? No you cant, does that mean it doesnt exist? You see the effect of wind..or mind or anything. I personally see the effect of god on us.Uh huh... going by your logic, God also exists as "humans were made in God's image and I see God everywhere". Flimsy argument. Evidence is only as good as how you interpret it.Gooood one Edited February 15, 2009 by *~*MaHuTa*~* Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
purple Posted February 15, 2009 Report Share Posted February 15, 2009 (edited) Uh huh... going by your logic, God also exists as "humans were made in God's image and I see God everywhere". Flimsy argument. Evidence is only as good as how you interpret it.I'm not sure I completely understand you here... could you please rephrase?So anything that hasn't been discovered yet doesn't exist? I guess deep sea creatures don't exist then... apart from the few that we've found anatomic records of.I'm not sure where you would want to go with this. But I'm assuming your argument is, just because we haven't found some of the deep sea creatures yet doesn't mean they don't exist. That's true. However, I'm not going to postulate that there is another deep sea creature down there without evidence that one exists. The probability of there being more deep sea creatures than we have discovered is high, simply due to probability and history. Admittedly, this is induction, not deduction and isn't 100% positive, but there you go.EDITED as per SharkSpider's pointing out of my mistake of mixing induction and deduction.Btw, how is 'God' anymore a human fabrication than 'Love'? When I'm "in love" something happens inside my brain producing a chemical rxn that releases hormones or whatever. Well, if I think of God and I get all bubbly and happy and my brain also releases chemicals, is this evidence that God exists? (The answer is no)Well, I don't think love exists outside of a chemical reaction... so. I think your definition of love is something that exists outside of the brain's chemical reactions. Therefore, since your brain also creates chemical reactions when you think about God, God also exists outside of your brain's chemical reactions? @.@ I'm sorry, if I completely misinterpreted your argument. But I don't think love is a separate entity from human fabrication; it's simply an emotion we feel, similar to being happy or depressedOk, fine, give me evidence that you have a mind. Can you see it? can you hear it? can you smell it? can you sense it? No you cant, does that mean it doesnt exist? You see the effect of wind..or mind or anything. I personally see the effect of god on us.I don't believe in mind-brain separation. The mind is the brain and vice versa. Therefore, yes, I can see my mind. I'm not sure if the brain makes a sound if it works. @.@ But if I cracked open my skull I could probably smell it/sense it. I'd rather not, though, thank you =]There are several books written by neurosurgeons (my personal favorite is Another Day in the Frontal Lobe which are absolutely brilliant at giving anecdotes how in their experience, the brain affects the mind and behavior. There is also this essay, called "The Ghost in the Machine" (yay I, Robot reference!) here. It gives detailed explanations and arguments that the mind and the brain are one and the same. Edited February 18, 2009 by Ruan Chun Xian Please don't use that tiny font, it really hurts the eye. - Hien Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SharkSpider Posted February 15, 2009 Report Share Posted February 15, 2009 Admittedly, this is deduction, not induction and isn't 100% positive, but there you go.Deduction is 100% accurate provided the premises are accurate. Induction is never absolute truth. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
purple Posted February 15, 2009 Report Share Posted February 15, 2009 Deduction is 100% accurate provided the premises are accurate. Induction is never absolute truth.Whoops. I think I got them mixed up. Thanks Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mahuta ♥ Posted February 15, 2009 Report Share Posted February 15, 2009 (edited) I don't believe in mind-brain separation. The mind is the brain and vice versaI disagree, the brain is a biological organ in animals. Mind is something you cant touch. We use our minds to think, the reactions we need to do that are carried out in the brain.They're different. Edited February 15, 2009 by *~*MaHuTa*~* Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
purple Posted February 15, 2009 Report Share Posted February 15, 2009 I disagree, the brain is a biological organ in animals. Mind is something you cant touch. We use our minds to think, the reactions we need to do that are carried out in the brain.They're different.Sorry, I don't quite understand why you think they're different.Are you saying that if we didn't have a brain, we could still think? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts