• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

I am sceptical of the Skeptics. Is it wrong?

Kirran

Premium Member
One may like to read Post #39 . Please
Regards

This explanation makes it clear that actually we shouldn't take the Qur'an literally. That seems healthy to me, there's no reason it should all be literal, divine revelation is likely more sophisticated than that.
 

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
This explanation makes it clear that actually we shouldn't take the Qur'an literally. That seems healthy to me, there's no reason it should all be literal, divine revelation is likely more sophisticated than that.
Agreed.
Thanks and regards
 

Parsimony

Well-Known Member
@use_your_brain

Surely you recognize the point of this discussion that LuisDante and cambridge79 are having with you? The point is that a statement becomes valid when there is evidence to support it. This is the opposite of what you implied in post #302: that a statement is valid until it is disproven.
 

use_your_brain

Active Member
Actually it does since it says two seas while the stratification you linked is within many seas but not a barrier between seas. Estuaries are not seas. Rivers are not seas. As a statement which is presented as fact it is in error. Try again.
the writer said the two kind of water do not mix. another scientific link also states there is a BARRIER between them.
 
Last edited:

use_your_brain

Active Member
This explanation makes it clear that actually we shouldn't take the Qur'an literally. That seems healthy to me, there's no reason it should all be literal, divine revelation is likely more sophisticated than that.
we should take the quran literally.
 

use_your_brain

Active Member
@use_your_brain

Surely you recognize the point of this discussion that LuisDante and cambridge79 are having with you? The point is that a statement becomes valid when there is evidence to support it. This is the opposite of what you implied in post #302: that a statement is valid until it is disproven.
and I examine that alleged evidence.
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
Personally, I find the idea that people should even attempt to follow scripture literally more than a bit strange.

Particularly when it involves the supposed message of the creator of existence itself.

The implication would be that he created people capable of discernment and reason but would rather have them not using those precious capabilities.

I would expect better from a human engineer, let alone from the supreme being.
 

Aquitaine

Well-Known Member
Personally, I find the idea that people should even attempt to follow scripture literally more than a bit strange.

Particularly when it involves the supposed message of the creator of existence itself.

The implication would be that he created people capable of discernment and reason but would rather have them not using those precious capabilities.

I would expect better from a human engineer, let alone from the supreme being.
Also, the whole punishment for disbelief in the afterlife thing is rather juvenile.
 

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
is it wrong? dependes on what arguments your claim stands.
sometime you can do good things for the wrong reasons and do wrong things for the bad reasons.
being skeptical is always a good thing if you can argument your position. If your arguments are proven to be weak and yet you keep being skeptical, than it becomes something wrong.
Every child that is born and starts thinking and knowing, whatever his mother, father, other relatives and or their friends/society tell him, he learns from them. It is a sign that unless there is a reasonable ground he should accept those things. If he does not, he can learn not even an iota.
Regards
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
Every child that is born and starts thinking and knowing, whatever his mother, father, other relatives and or their friends/society tell him, he learns from them. It is a sign that unless there is a reasonable ground he should accept those things. If he does not, he can learn not even an iota.
Regards
Not sure what you mean here.

At first glance, it seems to be a claim that traditional knowledge has merits that should not be neglected. I fail to be more specific than that.
 

Parsimony

Well-Known Member
It is a sign that unless there is a reasonable ground he should accept those things.
And "reasonable ground" for doubt would be a lack of supporting evidence.
If he does not, he can learn not even an iota.
He can learn plenty as long as evidence is given to him to support what he is taught. That is the key word here: evidence. Skepticism is an evidence-based philosophy. An anomalous or extraordinary claim is refrained from acceptance until sufficient evidence is provided to support it. That is, in fact, what you have already said before: that an anomalous claim should be doubted until evidence is provided for it. What counts as an "anomalous" or "extraordinary" claim again all comes down to the evidence: what does the evidence suggest is "normal" or "natural"? It is normal for the Sun to rise in the east and set in the west. It is normal for water to be a liquid at standard temperature and pressure. The evidence that these are normal phenomena comes from thousands of years of verifiable observations. If someone claimed that the Sun was going to rise in the west tomorrow or that they found a form of water that was solid at standard conditions, they would be making an anomalous claim that would have to be supported by new evidence. What's wrong with a philosophy like that?
 

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
And "reasonable ground" for doubt would be a lack of supporting evidence.
He can learn plenty as long as evidence is given to him to support what he is taught. That is the key word here: evidence. Skepticism is an evidence-based philosophy. An anomalous or extraordinary claim is refrained from acceptance until sufficient evidence is provided to support it. That is, in fact, what you have already said before: that an anomalous claim should be doubted until evidence is provided for it. What counts as an "anomalous" or "extraordinary" claim again all comes down to the evidence: what does the evidence suggest is "normal" or "natural"? It is normal for the Sun to rise in the east and set in the west. It is normal for water to be a liquid at standard temperature and pressure. The evidence that these are normal phenomena comes from thousands of years of verifiable observations. If someone claimed that the Sun was going to rise in the west tomorrow or that they found a form of water that was solid at standard conditions, they would be making an anomalous claim that would have to be supported by new evidence. What's wrong with a philosophy like that?
The first things a child learns is mother, father etc. What evidences are given for that to the child? None. Right?
This is how the learning starts.
Regards
 
Top