₦airaland Forum

Science can't agree with Christianity, because it presumes that all phenomena are natural and not supernatural. Coupled with that is its stringent method unlike Faith and some axiomatic belief in the bible.

So on facts, they have different interpretations/truths.

tbaba12345: There have always been multiple communities in Muslim lands... In baghdad, there used to be debates between muslim scholars and the daariya (the equivalent atheists of the time). So these guys have always existed in our societies... It is not as if it is a new scenario...

Free speech will be limited to what is socially acceptable just like it is everywhere... Absolute free speech is an aberration. All across europe, there are laws against hate speech... The other day, a british man was convicted because he wished for the 'death of british soldiers in afghanistan' on facebook... That is in Britain.... We can't not be hypocrites and pretend that there are not already restrictions to speech across the western world... Just type hate speech laws on google and see how many countries already have those laws in their books..

For muslims, the Quran is the absolute truth... However, It is not a scientific textbook... There are a few scientific statement here and there but it is largely a book of guidance... It places very little restrictions on what should be researched... Because we are convinced of the absolute truth of the Quran, any scientific research sponsored by the state is carried out with that as an already established premise...

This is why i said that research in historical animals by muslims would not be to prove a macro-evolution theory but to study the history of the earth... All scientific research are based on already established premises... For muslims, clear statements made by the Quran are absolute and are established premises .... We might look a little deeper into ambiguous statements...

Stem cell research is promising but the problem people have with it are ethical... If it is done to improve human health then great.. However, the use of aborted fetuses, i do not think is necessarily ethical... Its only success thus far is for the bone marrow...

The pros and the cons will have to be looked at by the experts (scientists and religious scholars) to see if the benefits outweigh the issues.. The same goes for each area of research...

If it can be done ethically and is shown to have benefits then i don't see why not...

1. There were debates quite alright, but was it a success to govern atheists and pagans especially with islamic principles and presumptions.

2. Free speech is absolute except for where it abrogates other basic rights. One can't use his liberty to enslave himself. Free speech can be justifiably reined to secure life. And in relation to privacy, privacy is strictly defined to reduce the loss on free speech. However its counter productive and destructive to limit free speech by social and political correctness. By using religious rules to check free speech.

3. Science defies authority, its methods and perception will eternally conflict with religious dogmas. For example in your view, you believe religious authority (islamic to be specify) should mould and censor Science based on its own assumptions. Galileo's experience with the Church foreshadows an eventual confrontation.

4. Scientific ethics, same as 3.

^^
No its not. You don't mean sCience, you mean knowledge. Science hadn't developed at that time.

@truthlight

I also think morality and religion are human inventions

Did the Samaritan go to hell despite his good?!

The Christian's sole belief in God is found in the Bible which he claims is from that God. The bible is written by men, presumed to be influenced by him. In other words, the Bible and the Cristian's fundamental belief can be separated and in fact the arbitrary belief in God is superior to the Bible.

To Ola especially, does TAB mean bat?? That's information.

Sagamite: What conjectural crap is this?

This does not answer my question.

Try again!

Maybe you didn't pay attention. Murder, Cannibalism will become moral permissible. A society can't exist from such stress

@Sagamite

Society itself will fall apart, because Nature doesn't accommodate it. Also inputing Nature's cruelty into morality will defeat it.

@Sagamite

Morality built around Nature can't work. And "normal" hasn't been defined.

^^
For sensitive and emotional beings like humans.

@sagamite

I meant are the three conditions to be considered together or just an individual condition suffices?

onetrack: If god had meant for humans to fly, he would have given them wings. Man should not fly. Very simple. Technology has encouraged a lot of unnatural behavior and god is watching. If Nigerian officials had any true belief in God at all they would close the airports and arrest the passengers and pilots of all planes that do land in Nigeria. Telephones are also unnatural. I've never seen one in nature.

LMAO!! But true.

@F00028

Commonly shared across the animal kingdom.

Sagamite: Monks are not being forced to be celibate. They have a choice don't they? Or which country do you know of that forces people to be Monks?

Defined by nature, acceptability and rationality. The last two are subjective.

What is your point? Nature should not dictate moral principles?

Conjunctive or any one of the conditions suffices??

Sagamite: I have explained it.

Nature coupled with normal is not subject to morality judgements.

No one can tell any other person not to have sex, they can only tell under what terms and conditions they can have it.

Any society that attempts to tell its population not to have sex at all would have its leaders slaughtered.

Monks for example, but let's forget that and not be distracted.

Behaviours that are Natural and "normal" are morally permissible in a society, right? But "normal" is morally defined. And its defined with the standard of Nature, right?

@vexadcool

An elite gay club?? How are they responsible for the convictions of over a billion people? How do they influence traditions and breaking new ways of thinking? Who are they?

@Sagamite

Any free thinking creature with a mind, will have a belief. Either a thought on techniques of hunting or new mating position etc. I still think a standardized pattern of non vital, non survivalist behaviour coupled with sets of beliefs is religion.

I like your comparism btw Western and Islamic societies, and the relativity of morality btw them. It is more like a majority vote. However, you haven't explained Nature's role in how they decide morality and why differently.

Taking a dump, eating are necessary vis a vis natural. But religions/moral codes do fight against necessary/natural behaviour, eg sex.

An absolutist view (either liberal or conservative) isn't well informing.

truthislight: homosexuality is a habit that is develop due to enviromen, pressure, mental problem, or fad.

Most catholic priest tre gays not so naturally but their environment(celibacy) induce them to do that and it can be change,

that is why they where being sent for therapy.

People change owing to external factors.

Gay person like drug addicts can change with therapy and withrawal, and re-orientation.

It is a mind set thing(addiction) for the unnatural owing to the influences they were exposed to.

A traditional minded society which seeks for conformity, will find homosexuality, feminine independence, free thinking abnormal and justify its condemnation of it.

Look @ the globe, societies that disagree with homosexuality are conservative African, Middle East, Bible belt regions.

Sagamite: Maybe.

Religion, as we understand it, comprises of belief and human actions (rituals). Hence religion is based on human decision making process, which animals do not have.

Yes, no physical behaviour from animals that resemble our rituals etc.

That is why you have to look at it from a concept of belief only.

There is no way we can prove animals do not believe in a God. Even such belief (by animals) would be limited based on their limited ability to ratiocinate like humans.

Its dangerous to tie religion down only to beliefs. Beliefs are contents of the mind and to categorize all mental contents as religion will be ridiculous. Perception and fundamental beliefs are at least philosophies. Rituals only don't make religions, but complement it.

Animals don't demonstrate physical what we believe to be religion, therefore religion isn't universal and natural.

Yep! It is the originator referential basis. I have told you before:

https://www.nairaland.com/934071/obama-announces-support-same-sex-marriage/7#10797294

You are saying Nature forms morality, therefore unnatural but normal behaviour is as immoral as unnatural and abnormal behaviour.

Both as a ritual and a set of foundational beliefs.

Do you consider Nature to dictate moral principles to man?

Religion is not natural, cos we are the only species that practice it.

Is morality defined by Nature?

Religion is not natural, yet its a human right.

okeyxyz: You'd get my respects if you'd simply said these things don't mean anything to you. Why would religious folks hold any regards to sin, karma and the after-life if it holds no meaning to them?? Or does your own outlook on life automatically abrogate theirs? based on what principle? Note that you are taking the precisely the same attitudes you accuse christians/moslems of.

I'm saying is that life without karma and sins isn't worthless and you'd be espousing a view that its the inclusion of karma and sins that make life valuable otherwise it would be an empty shell.

okezy: What contract? for love?? Is that what you say to your girl? I love contract you? Does constitution mandate you to marry before you can live with a woman or have children?

Love isn't legally recognized as the foundation of a marriage, rather its the agreement between the couple. The constitution doesn't touch on marriages.

@okezy

Could you keep out stereotypes, because sins, karma and afterlife don't make life any meaningful. The value of life should be inherent.

Marriage is a contractual arrangement. Like all other legal contracts, society recognises it.

Easy!

Just lie! Many atheists are pastors and sunday school teachers. I'm not married, but living as a cultural christian wouldn't be so hard

Bad processes. What doesn't Islamic virus mean?! It should be thrown out. Besides Nigeria is a sovereign state and its sovereignty is unquestionable, except in humanitarian disasters. The courts can't question its own foundation, cos its hinged on Nigeria's sovereignty.

By taking the case to a Nigerian court is proof that they accede to nigeria's authority.

@truth

You can't vouch for the actual writers of the Bible, without your own revelation. You have no idea of who they are neither do you know their motives.

Darwin's Natural Selection is just another scientific theory, it has to do with Science. Its not a religion. Don't give a dog a bad name to hang it.

Good points.

Azazel too should be considered

The only proof for the divine origin of the Bible is an individual revelation from God to you.

Sleep

Or chat with whoever is interested

Stalwert: Most atheist are at home with the practice! Yeah Atheism as a religion is quite deceptive if you are an atheist that is, homo will always find atheism the right disbelief for their debauchery!

First of all, whether its debauchery or not depends on the society they are in. Society sets the rules, and some don't frown at it.

Second, yes, some homosexuals become atheists maybe because their religion (esp. Christianity) fails to exhibit and propagate Love. And subsequently the religion shatters b4 them. While some accept liberal denomonations of Christianity.

And some still stick to conservative christianity and battle with themselves.

^^
Didn't say it was invalid, rather inadequate

Some atheists are against homosexuality, while some support it. Neither is there a central creed in atheism to accept homosexuality or be one.

And taking atheism as a religion is deceptive