Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:55, 18 October 2006

Please be civil and assume good faith when dealing with other editors and their contributions. I'm talking specifically of your comments on Talk:The Quran and science. You can argue against Islam all you want, even if the talk page is not for that, but don't insult other users. And be aware that the 3RR does not apply when a user restores content that was removed without good reason and without discussion. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 02:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not the one removing. Arrow740 02:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

you may wish to stop misusing talk pages in the future

i have cited some wikipedia rules to you numerous times (i.e. WP:NOT, WP:TPG), that you are asking for them now suggests you have been ignoring them previously. i don't care much for copy-pasted plagiarised arguments as were seen from you as anon. wrt to your "arguments" and other assorted polemic, to claim "all" have ever been appropriate to articles is ridiculous, as they would never merit inclusion on the virtue of violating both WP:V and WP:OR. in fact much of it (and there are many more diffs) is you promulgating your personal conclusions as a self-proclaimed expert. quite simply, you don't seem to understand talk page guidelines, and you do not realise how a wiki talk page differs from a forum. you committed the same disruptive offence in the section we were previously discussing in, but then pretend to not know what is being alluded to when you are caught out, even though you were warned as anon not to troll (several times). if you continue to troll in the same manner in the future, you will be reported. ITAQALLAH 21:48, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

thank you for your understanding. of course, while e-mail or another medium would be more preferable for "debate", one can have dialogue with others on user talk pages, but if it is done in a contentious manner it simply denotes battle-ground mentality, although a number of other edits i did not cite may have been from article talk pages. to imply that the article is being deliberately misused by an editor or group of editors is not civil and is a bad faith assumption. the issue is about constant misuse where series of comments are made which do not serve to enable constructive and useful discourse about the improvements of an article. it is important to consider that while one continues to participate on wikipedia. ITAQALLAH 04:48, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Two things

Can you prove atheism? Also the article The Quran and science may be of interest to you, either in helping with it or weighing in on my nomination to delete it. If you care to respond, please use my talk page.Arrow740 01:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Atheism is the lack of belief in theism. Atheism is proven every time someone does not believe in a Deity. The Quran and science does not interest me, but Science does. religion trys to subjectify the natural world so people don't feel alone and ignorant, however, the more we learn, the more that gap closes up (please see God of the gaps). Somerset219 03:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I meant, can you prove that atheism as (roughly) defined in Theism is true. I.e. can you prove that there is no deity. Thanks for the link to God of the gaps though, that's an interesting article. Arrow740 03:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

It is not up to me to prove that there is no deity. If it were, there would be no need for missionaries. It is standard logic that the one whom makes the claim has to prove it, "extraordinary claims take extraordinary evidence!" As it goes however, it is possible to present natural laws, that happen to explain away "arguments of proof" about Deities (god of the gaps), but there is no way for me to not prove something, like there is no way for you to not prove the exsistance of Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny. If you can prove that santa clause does not exsist, then I can prove your deity does not. Then you'll see how rhetorical things can get. Somerset219 03:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Continued on your talkpage. Arrow740 08:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I know it is not up to you to prove that there is no deity; I was merely interested to know if you had a proof. As regards "arguments of proof" of the existence of God, I think that Thomas Aquinas' five ways cannot be explained away using "natural laws." That's not saying that they are all valid, though I personally believe that at the very least, even if there is an infinite regress of causes, there has to be something which causes the chain. By the way, the existence of natural laws cannot be proven. Any natural laws that we have deduced are nothing more than the result of scientists saying, "this appears to be how things work." I'm not saying that they're not right, I believe in science as much as the next reasonable person. I'm just saying that science is based on assumptions. Outside of the realm of science, it is not always reasonable to demand proof. There are some things which, even if false, cannot be falsified. So if you believe in the law of excluded middle, this means that there could be things that, even if true, can't be proven. For example, I didn't demand proof that there is no god, only asked for it (haha). My best friend fed a ganesha idol milk during that day that ganeshas all around the world were drinking milk, and I have no explanation for that. Because of that and other things which I have been convinced are miracles, I believe in the supernatural. I hesitate to call this proof of god's existence, though I hope to find some eventually. Arrow740 06:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

interesting, however science is there to make calculable observations that are repeatable. Its there to help us interact, deal with, and control our environment, it isn't there to give you the meaning of life. What I was talking about was more on giving answers with out proofs. Science is there to "funnel and propel" our knowledge so we can build on those lessons learned (computers).

God of the gaps is a good example of the mentality of religion, which is why I consistantly bring it up. Religion tends to try to explain things that aren't everyday occurances, or what you call supernatural. In other words, I am not saying that science has all the answers, I'm saying that making up a subjective conclusion with out understanding all the variables probably isn't the wisest desicion. A scientist studies the natural world, which is our life. I would rather have a computer technician (scientist) tell me how a computer works (natural world), than a used car salesman (Priest). Just because one doesn't understand the concepts of the natural world, doesn't make any answer for it right. If anything, God is an idea of those things we don't understand, but in no way can you better understand those things by believing it. People want the easy answer, there is none, and believing someones answer with out understanding why is not only stupid but can be dangerous (religious terrorism). Somerset219 23:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

thank you for standing up for me against Aminz's silly assertion. I made my vote according to my understanding of wikipedia policy and was rudely accused of misuse of wikipedia by Aminz. All I can say is "he who smelled it, dealt it." For me it was not a matter of being pro or anti Islamic, but a matter of whether the article merited the space it took up. I spend a lot of my time on the AfD discussions as I adhere to wikipedian deletionism- the belief in strict adherance to wikipedia standards in the articles. If it isn't contributing to the greatness of wikipedia, then it is wasting space. The article in question seems to be proselytizing. Green hornet 03:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The Quran and science

Thanks for notifying me of the deletion debate. After looking it over I agree that the page has serious problems. But I did go ahead and vote speedy keep, because your second nomination was made only a few hours after the last nomination closed. If the page doesn't improve in a few weeks, consider a re-nomination or a mediation. --Alecmconroy 21:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I made a mistake when I accused you of voting twice in that debate. I incorrectly thought you posted CltFn's "speedy delete" vote because I didn't see his name/date thing. Sorry about that. - Lex 19:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

see the relevant talk page. also see The Islamic Medical Association of North America. ITAQALLAH 15:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

--I am sorry but i made Absolutley NO changes. I wrote my opinions on the talk page though. Which you probably read. I have not added anything to this article okay. Where did yuo get that from?MOI 22:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

want to see full quotes

i would like to see the full quotes, within the context of the paragraphs for these attributions such as for the Needhlam and (i think) Musallam quotes. you have been implying that you have access to the actual materials themselves. so, substantiate what you have quoted and vindicate yourself from suspicions that you have been using certain unreliable web pages. it may not be from our good old Brother Andrew, but it is equally as worse. ITAQALLAH 18:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

It is important to keep a cool head, especially when responding to comments against you or your edits. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; please keep calm and remember that action can be taken against other parties if necessary. Attacking another user back can only satisfy trolls or anger contributors and leads to general bad feeling. Please try to remain civil with your comments. Thanks! furthermore "equally as worse" is expressing that AI is equally as worse (as BA) in comparison to reliable sources, which you should have been able to derive upon reading my comments in context. that is partly why it is very difficult to trust that you will represent sources accurately. ITAQALLAH 19:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

you don't seem to know what vandalism is. the information is simply not relevant to embryology in the qur'an, it is merely an attempt to skew the section through a barrage of non-sequitur arguments. arabic science and its success or failure has nothing to do with statements in the qur'an- that is a difference you must realise. as for your claims about my english (although you may want to take another look at your comprehension skills), it seems that it is now i who is laughing whilst i type. ITAQALLAH 20:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

"equally as worse" would be incorrect if i was referring to the exclusive relationship between Brother Andrew and AI (answering islam, where the direct quotes of what you have included in the article can be found). i was not. the Moore part is redundant and weasel wordy, as when discussing Moore's interpretation it says "may refer", by implication not negating other possibilites. ITAQALLAH 20:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

i would consider asking a native speaker, if i wasn't one myself. i think i know the context in which my comment was made, and it has already been explained. ITAQALLAH 21:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

What happened?

Kya howa dost? What had made you angry? Did I made any mistake? I never intended to offend you. Let discuss Islam. I tell you that why I love it so much and you tell me that why you hate it so much. Okay dost? :) You could also email me at faisal.aslam@gmail.com -- ابراهيم 19:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

We are wikipedia so listen: Muhammad revelations are REAL

Over on Muhammad Itaqallah makes wikipedia say revelations are real without ANY source. He playing games like that with ONE standard here ANOTHER over here. ALL for one POV though. that never change.Opiner 21:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)