Banner Advertiser

Sunday, June 14, 2015

Re: [mukto-mona] Re: {PFC-Friends} Mark Zuckerberg wants everyone to read 'The Muqaddimah' : which contradicts the Quran completely



I am a member of the Biblical Archaeological Library. In one of the recently published articles it showed how Sun God was central in their concept of monotheism. Defining a star as a mass of gas that releases more heat than it absorbs, the solar system has two more stars, viz., Jupiter and Saturn. Now compare with Greek and Indian mythology, you find a trinity of Gods. The inhabitants on earth might have witnessed them competing for supremacy in the heaven.

Sent from my iPad

On Jun 15, 2015, at 4:32 AM, Jiten Roy jnrsr53@yahoo.com [mukto-mona] <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

 

We don't know which other parts of the universe, except earth, the need for God is felt. We know for sure, God is much needed on earth, and existence of earth and its content depends on Mother Nature, which won't exist without sun; sun is the sole caretaker of the Mother Nature. So, sun is the prime candidate for God. Many parts of the world sun is already worshipped as God.
Ancient Egyptians used to worship Ra, the Sun God, Greeks worship Helios, Native Americans worship Sun, Persians (Mithraism) worship Sun. The legend of Mithra may well have given birth to the Christian resurrection story. Many South East Asian religions, treat Sun as God.
Sun is almighty and omnipresent on all of us, and it fits the description of God, we know. I don't think anybody, including scientists, would have any trouble accepting Sun as the God. What do you think?
Jiten Roy

 

  
On Thursday, June 11, 2015 10:16 PM, "Kamal Das kamalctgu@gmail.com [mukto-mona]" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com> wrote:


 
Religion is based on the idea of a geocentric universe. It is also inherently patriarchal. Mother Nature needs a father God to be functional. No atheist denies the existence of the universe. Since Akhenaten the idea of God was based on Sun. With its appearance on the horizon, all luminaries lost their glory in heaven. It was also related with fertility of the soil. Thus priesthood grew among people having rudimentary knowledge of science. A branch of them became mortuaries creating the concept of afterlife. Rulers found it useful. Deprived mass could be kept calm with the carrot of reward in heaven.

Great scientific discoveries often were serendipitous. Many inventors didn't even believe in what they invented. Max Planck, for example, survived about four decades after his invention of Quantum Mechanics. Not for a day, he believed in it. Brian Josephson ended up in research on ghosts. Newton succumbed to Arian heresy. Obviously, even great scientists were not quite open minded.

Assassins grow not out of innocent people. They grow out of ignorance, desire for rewards here and afterlife. Blake defined innocents as those having knowledge and ignorants as those lacking it.

Arab conquerors encouraged science and philosophy for a few centuries. But after the Baghdad massacre the tendency became opposite. Anyone in doubt may read Bernard Lewis and P. K. Hitti and other authors of Islamic history.

Sent from my iPad



On Jun 12, 2015, at 5:56 AM, Jiten Roy jnrsr53@yahoo.com [mukto-mona] <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

 
You are right – the ultimate determinant of truth will be the science. Religion, on the other hand, is a hypothesis that can never be verified, but, there is no dearth of people to have complete faith in it.
Human beings are normally critical of everything due to natural survival instincts, but – brainwashing can change all that. Correct brainwashing can destroy peoples' mental faculty for criticism, no matter how harmful the effect of it is. Thus, assassins are manufactured out of the most innocent people in the society.
Jiten Roy
 

From: "Shah Deeldar shahdeeldar@yahoo.com [mukto-mona]" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 11:08 AM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Re: {PFC-Friends} Mark Zuckerberg wants everyone to read 'The Muqaddimah' : which contradicts the Quran completely

 
Agree! How would an objective mind have two contradictory positions simultaneously? Science can't be polluted with the idea like... God has all the answers. It does not and it never had!   
 




On Tuesday, June 9, 2015 10:24 PM, "Kamal Das kamalctgu@gmail.com [mukto-mona]" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com> wrote:


 
Belief in science keeps the door open to criticism and review while belief in religion closes it. Nobody can be a believer in both.

Sent from my iPad

On Jun 10, 2015, at 5:43 AM, Jiten Roy jnrsr53@yahoo.com [mukto-mona] <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

 

This shows you really did not understand my post. If I say – Man is stronger than woman, you will perhaps show me some women wrestlers to prove that not all men are stronger than women.

You said: "One can simultaneously be strong believers in both science and religion."

You cannot selectively believe in science. That's a total nonsense. When someone disbelief science because it contradicts religious belief, he/she is only pretending to believe in science.

Jiten Roy


 

From: "Subimal Chakrabarty




__._,_.___

Posted by: Kamal Das <kamalctgu@gmail.com>


****************************************************
Mukto Mona plans for a Grand Darwin Day Celebration: 
Call For Articles:

http://mukto-mona.com/wordpress/?p=68

http://mukto-mona.com/banga_blog/?p=585

****************************************************

VISIT MUKTO-MONA WEB-SITE : http://www.mukto-mona.com/

****************************************************

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
               -Beatrice Hall [pseudonym: S.G. Tallentyre], 190





__,_._,___

[mukto-mona] Nobel Prize-winning scientist says he was forced to resign



This is an example of political correctness run amok. The intent of the statement below, by Dr. Hunt, was to induce some humor in the speech; every speaker tries to do that to introduce lightness in the talk.
Who will truly believe in the literal meaning of this statement? Even his women colleagues and students did not understand the seriousness, given to the statement.
Political correctness is killing humor from mankind. People have become ultra-sensitive about everything.
On last Friday, I was listening to the radio on my way back home from office. The topic was multi-culturalism. The caller was saying that he attended a sensitivity training program in his job, and the trainer was giving some examples of insensitive statements. One of the statements was that – a white cannot ask a black – what's the score in the last night's Basketball game? This is now a racially charged statement.
I noticed – most males (Black or White) only talk about games in their leisure time; how else they will communicate and mingle.
Jiten Roy
______________________________________ 

Nobel Prize-winning scientist says he was forced to resign

Associated Press
By GREGORY KATZ 6 hours ago
FILE - A Monday Oct. 8, 2001 photo from files of Dr. Tim Hunt, winner of the Nobel Prize for Medicine, in a laboratory in London. The Nobel Prize-winning British scientist has apologized Wednesday, June 10, 2015, for saying the &quot;trouble with girls&quot; working in science labs is that it leads to romantic entanglements and harms science. Tim Hunt made the comments at the World Conference of Science Journalists in South Korea, according to audience members. (AP Photo/Alastair Grant, File)
.
View photo
FILE - A Monday Oct. 8, 2001 photo from files of Dr. Tim Hunt, winner of the Nobel Prize for Medicine, in a laboratory in London. The Nobel Prize-winning British scientist has apologized Wednesday, June 10, 2015, for saying the "trouble with girls" working in science labs is that it leads to romantic entanglements and harms science. Tim Hunt made the comments at the World Conference of Science Journalists in South Korea, according to audience members. (AP Photo/Alastair Grant, File)
LONDON (AP) — A week ago, Tim Hunt was a well-known Nobel Prize winner who was promoting science education throughout Europe and the world.
Today he's widely perceived as a sexist who has been stripped of most of his positions because of inappropriate comments about women in science.
Gone is his position with the European Research Council science committee, his role at the Royal Society, and his honorary post at University College London. He said Sunday he was fired from the latter, while the university has said only that his resignation was accepted.
Hunt's fall followed a speech Tuesday at the World Conference of Science Journalists in South Korea in which he said that girls cause trouble in labs because "you fall in love with them, they fall in love with you, and when you criticize them, they cry."
The comments caused an instant Twitter storm that quickly led to Hunt, 72, leaving his posts even as he apologized. He has said he had been trying to make a joke, but nevertheless stood by his comment that love affairs in the lab are disruptive to science.
He was vilified by many, including The Guardian's Anne Perkins, who wrote that his comments were "the educated man's version" of blaming rape victims because they were wearing short skirts before they were attacked.
Hunt, 72, laments that his cherished career is finished — and some prominent women scientists who thought his remarks were deeply offensive said Sunday the punishment may be too harsh.
Athene Donald, a leading physicist who is master of Churchill College at Cambridge University, said Hunt always enthusiastically supported her work when she served for five years as Gender Equality Champion at the university.
"I've spent a lot of time with him and I've never seen any sign of sexism," she told The Associated Press. "He has traveled the world since he got the Nobel Prize, talking to young audiences, male and female, giving so generously, and now he has been ruined."
Hunt won the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 2001 and later was made a knight.
Donald said his comments were "indefensible" but there have been no cases of women coming forward to say they were poorly treated by Hunt, or discriminated against in any way.
Ottoline Leyser, a former student of Hunt's who now directs the Sainsbury Laboratory at the University of Cambridge, said she was upset that Hunt's offensive comments could have a negative impact on young women considering a career in science but that his record is otherwise unblemished.
"All my interactions with him were very positive," she told the AP. "He was a very enthusiastic and inspirational teacher. I've no indications from my experience or from colleagues that he's in the slightest way sexist."
She said the speed with which news of his comments spread via social media has reinforced for many scientists the dangers of speaking to the press or to the public.
"We're all of us terrified," she said. "In this media age, when sound bites spread so quickly, an off-the-cuff remark after a lunch in some conference can suddenly result in the fatal destruction of your career."
  • University College London
  • Tim Hunt
  • Nobel Prize
  • European Research Council
View Comments (4707)


__._,_.___

Posted by: Jiten Roy <jnrsr53@yahoo.com>


****************************************************
Mukto Mona plans for a Grand Darwin Day Celebration: 
Call For Articles:

http://mukto-mona.com/wordpress/?p=68

http://mukto-mona.com/banga_blog/?p=585

****************************************************

VISIT MUKTO-MONA WEB-SITE : http://www.mukto-mona.com/

****************************************************

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
               -Beatrice Hall [pseudonym: S.G. Tallentyre], 190





__,_._,___

Re: [mukto-mona] Re: {PFC-Friends} Mark Zuckerberg wants everyone to read 'The Muqaddimah' : which contradicts the Quran completely



We don't know which other parts of the universe, except earth, the need for God is felt. We know for sure, God is much needed on earth, and existence of earth and its content depends on Mother Nature, which won't exist without sun; sun is the sole caretaker of the Mother Nature. So, sun is the prime candidate for God. Many parts of the world sun is already worshipped as God.
Ancient Egyptians used to worship Ra, the Sun God, Greeks worship Helios, Native Americans worship Sun, Persians (Mithraism) worship Sun. The legend of Mithra may well have given birth to the Christian resurrection story. Many South East Asian religions, treat Sun as God.
Sun is almighty and omnipresent on all of us, and it fits the description of God, we know. I don't think anybody, including scientists, would have any trouble accepting Sun as the God. What do you think?
Jiten Roy

 

  
On Thursday, June 11, 2015 10:16 PM, "Kamal Das kamalctgu@gmail.com [mukto-mona]" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com> wrote:


 
Religion is based on the idea of a geocentric universe. It is also inherently patriarchal. Mother Nature needs a father God to be functional. No atheist denies the existence of the universe. Since Akhenaten the idea of God was based on Sun. With its appearance on the horizon, all luminaries lost their glory in heaven. It was also related with fertility of the soil. Thus priesthood grew among people having rudimentary knowledge of science. A branch of them became mortuaries creating the concept of afterlife. Rulers found it useful. Deprived mass could be kept calm with the carrot of reward in heaven.

Great scientific discoveries often were serendipitous. Many inventors didn't even believe in what they invented. Max Planck, for example, survived about four decades after his invention of Quantum Mechanics. Not for a day, he believed in it. Brian Josephson ended up in research on ghosts. Newton succumbed to Arian heresy. Obviously, even great scientists were not quite open minded.

Assassins grow not out of innocent people. They grow out of ignorance, desire for rewards here and afterlife. Blake defined innocents as those having knowledge and ignorants as those lacking it.

Arab conquerors encouraged science and philosophy for a few centuries. But after the Baghdad massacre the tendency became opposite. Anyone in doubt may read Bernard Lewis and P. K. Hitti and other authors of Islamic history.

Sent from my iPad



On Jun 12, 2015, at 5:56 AM, Jiten Roy jnrsr53@yahoo.com [mukto-mona] <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

 
You are right – the ultimate determinant of truth will be the science. Religion, on the other hand, is a hypothesis that can never be verified, but, there is no dearth of people to have complete faith in it.
Human beings are normally critical of everything due to natural survival instincts, but – brainwashing can change all that. Correct brainwashing can destroy peoples' mental faculty for criticism, no matter how harmful the effect of it is. Thus, assassins are manufactured out of the most innocent people in the society.
Jiten Roy
 

From: "Shah Deeldar shahdeeldar@yahoo.com [mukto-mona]" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 11:08 AM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Re: {PFC-Friends} Mark Zuckerberg wants everyone to read 'The Muqaddimah' : which contradicts the Quran completely

 
Agree! How would an objective mind have two contradictory positions simultaneously? Science can't be polluted with the idea like... God has all the answers. It does not and it never had!   
 




On Tuesday, June 9, 2015 10:24 PM, "Kamal Das kamalctgu@gmail.com [mukto-mona]" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com> wrote:


 
Belief in science keeps the door open to criticism and review while belief in religion closes it. Nobody can be a believer in both.

Sent from my iPad

On Jun 10, 2015, at 5:43 AM, Jiten Roy jnrsr53@yahoo.com [mukto-mona] <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

 

This shows you really did not understand my post. If I say – Man is stronger than woman, you will perhaps show me some women wrestlers to prove that not all men are stronger than women.

You said: "One can simultaneously be strong believers in both science and religion."

You cannot selectively believe in science. That's a total nonsense. When someone disbelief science because it contradicts religious belief, he/she is only pretending to believe in science.

Jiten Roy


 

From: "Subimal Chakrabarty




__._,_.___

Posted by: Jiten Roy <jnrsr53@yahoo.com>


****************************************************
Mukto Mona plans for a Grand Darwin Day Celebration: 
Call For Articles:

http://mukto-mona.com/wordpress/?p=68

http://mukto-mona.com/banga_blog/?p=585

****************************************************

VISIT MUKTO-MONA WEB-SITE : http://www.mukto-mona.com/

****************************************************

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
               -Beatrice Hall [pseudonym: S.G. Tallentyre], 190





__,_._,___

[mukto-mona] Openness of mind



What happened to Tim Hunt sounds silly to me. He made an innocent joke and many people overreacted. I am not sure under what circumstances he resigned. It is a loss for the scientific community and progress of science. 

What Watson has said or is propagating seems to be racially motivated as he has attacked a well established scientific theory. But more researched should be carried on. Many human rights groups and politicians will try to fish in the troubled water. But the true scientists must have patience and perseverance in their scientific endeavors. 

Max Planck originated the birth of quantum mechanics and Einstein pushed it forward with his photoelectric effect theory. But both these scientists held deterministic universe view. God does not play dice with the universe---Einstein said. But the theory of quantum mechanics is probabilistic in nature. Stephen Hawking has written a reader friendly but excellent article on this topic. 


Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 13, 2015, at 10:42 PM, Kamal Das kamalctgu@gmail.com [mukto-mona] <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

 

Sir Tim Hunt is the latest example.

Sent from my iPad

On Jun 13, 2015, at 8:38 PM, Shah Deeldar shahdeeldar@yahoo.com [mukto-mona] <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

 

Interesting point about 'open mindedness' of scientists! I think scientist are basically politically incorrect people and they speak their minds rather than pleasing people with kindness and comfort. One good example would be JD Watson of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. He expressed some poor wordings about black intelligence and suddenly became a pariah in scientific community. Is he wrong? Is he a close-minded person? We have to be very careful about what open-mindedness really means. It may not have any connection with the logic and reasoning?
 




On Thursday, June 11, 2015 10:16 PM, "Kamal Das kamalctgu@gmail.com [mukto-mona]" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com> wrote:


 
Religion is based on the idea of a geocentric universe. It is also inherently patriarchal. Mother Nature needs a father God to be functional. No atheist denies the existence of the universe. Since Akhenaten the idea of God was based on Sun. With its appearance on the horizon, all luminaries lost their glory in heaven. It was also related with fertility of the soil. Thus priesthood grew among people having rudimentary knowledge of science. A branch of them became mortuaries creating the concept of afterlife. Rulers found it useful. Deprived mass could be kept calm with the carrot of reward in heaven.

Great scientific discoveries often were serendipitous. Many inventors didn't even believe in what they invented. Max Planck, for example, survived about four decades after his invention of Quantum Mechanics. Not for a day, he believed in it. Brian Josephson ended up in research on ghosts. Newton succumbed to Arian heresy. Obviously, even great scientists were not quite open minded.

Assassins grow not out of innocent people. They grow out of ignorance, desire for rewards here and afterlife. Blake defined innocents as those having knowledge and ignorants as those lacking it.

Arab conquerors encouraged science and philosophy for a few centuries. But after the Baghdad massacre the tendency became opposite. Anyone in doubt may read Bernard Lewis and P. K. Hitti and other authors of Islamic history.

Sent from my iPad

On Jun 12, 2015, at 5:56 AM, Jiten Roy jnrsr53@yahoo.com [mukto-mona] <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

 
You are right – the ultimate determinant of truth will be the science. Religion, on the other hand, is a hypothesis that can never be verified, but, there is no dearth of people to have complete faith in it.
Human beings are normally critical of everything due to natural survival instincts, but – brainwashing can change all that. Correct brainwashing can destroy peoples' mental faculty for criticism, no matter how harmful the effect of it is. Thus, assassins are manufactured out of the most innocent people in the society.
Jiten Roy
 

From: "Shah Deeldar shahdeeldar@yahoo.com [mukto-mona]" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 11:08 AM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Re: {PFC-Friends} Mark Zuckerberg wants everyone to read 'The Muqaddimah' : which contradicts the Quran completely

 
Agree! How would an objective mind have two contradictory positions simultaneously? Science can't be polluted with the idea like... God has all the answers. It does not and it never had!   
 




On Tuesday, June 9, 2015 10:24 PM, "Kamal Das kamalctgu@gmail.com [mukto-mona]" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com> wrote:


 
Belief in science keeps the door open to criticism and review while belief in religion closes it. Nobody can be a believer in both.

Sent from my iPad

On Jun 10, 2015, at 5:43 AM, Jiten Roy jnrsr53@yahoo.com [mukto-mona] <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

 

This shows you really did not understand my post. If I say – Man is stronger than woman, you will perhaps show me some women wrestlers to prove that not all men are stronger than women.

You said: "One can simultaneously be strong believers in both science and religion."

You cannot selectively believe in science. That's a total nonsense. When someone disbelief science because it contradicts religious belief, he/she is only pretending to believe in science.

Jiten Roy


 

From: "Subimal Chakrabarty



__._,_.___

Posted by: Subimal Chakrabarty <subimal@yahoo.com>


****************************************************
Mukto Mona plans for a Grand Darwin Day Celebration: 
Call For Articles:

http://mukto-mona.com/wordpress/?p=68

http://mukto-mona.com/banga_blog/?p=585

****************************************************

VISIT MUKTO-MONA WEB-SITE : http://www.mukto-mona.com/

****************************************************

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
               -Beatrice Hall [pseudonym: S.G. Tallentyre], 190





__,_._,___

Re: [mukto-mona] Re: {PFC-Friends} Mark Zuckerberg wants everyone to read 'The Muqaddimah' : which contradicts the Quran completely



Directly from the mouth of the horse:
"-Dr Watson told The Sunday Times that he was "inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" because "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really". He said there was a natural desire that all human beings should be equal but "people who have to deal with black employees find this not true"-."
 




On Saturday, June 13, 2015 10:38 AM, "Shah Deeldar shahdeeldar@yahoo.com [mukto-mona]" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com> wrote:


 
Interesting point about 'open mindedness' of scientists! I think scientist are basically politically incorrect people and they speak their minds rather than pleasing people with kindness and comfort. One good example would be JD Watson of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. He expressed some poor wordings about black intelligence and suddenly became a pariah in scientific community. Is he wrong? Is he a close-minded person? We have to be very careful about what open-mindedness really means. It may not have any connection with the logic and reasoning?
 




On Thursday, June 11, 2015 10:16 PM, "Kamal Das kamalctgu@gmail.com [mukto-mona]" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com> wrote:


 
Religion is based on the idea of a geocentric universe. It is also inherently patriarchal. Mother Nature needs a father God to be functional. No atheist denies the existence of the universe. Since Akhenaten the idea of God was based on Sun. With its appearance on the horizon, all luminaries lost their glory in heaven. It was also related with fertility of the soil. Thus priesthood grew among people having rudimentary knowledge of science. A branch of them became mortuaries creating the concept of afterlife. Rulers found it useful. Deprived mass could be kept calm with the carrot of reward in heaven.

Great scientific discoveries often were serendipitous. Many inventors didn't even believe in what they invented. Max Planck, for example, survived about four decades after his invention of Quantum Mechanics. Not for a day, he believed in it. Brian Josephson ended up in research on ghosts. Newton succumbed to Arian heresy. Obviously, even great scientists were not quite open minded.

Assassins grow not out of innocent people. They grow out of ignorance, desire for rewards here and afterlife. Blake defined innocents as those having knowledge and ignorants as those lacking it.

Arab conquerors encouraged science and philosophy for a few centuries. But after the Baghdad massacre the tendency became opposite. Anyone in doubt may read Bernard Lewis and P. K. Hitti and other authors of Islamic history.

Sent from my iPad

On Jun 12, 2015, at 5:56 AM, Jiten Roy jnrsr53@yahoo.com [mukto-mona] <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

 
You are right – the ultimate determinant of truth will be the science. Religion, on the other hand, is a hypothesis that can never be verified, but, there is no dearth of people to have complete faith in it.
Human beings are normally critical of everything due to natural survival instincts, but – brainwashing can change all that. Correct brainwashing can destroy peoples' mental faculty for criticism, no matter how harmful the effect of it is. Thus, assassins are manufactured out of the most innocent people in the society.
Jiten Roy
 

From: "Shah Deeldar shahdeeldar@yahoo.com [mukto-mona]" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 11:08 AM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Re: {PFC-Friends} Mark Zuckerberg wants everyone to read 'The Muqaddimah' : which contradicts the Quran completely

 
Agree! How would an objective mind have two contradictory positions simultaneously? Science can't be polluted with the idea like... God has all the answers. It does not and it never had!   
 




On Tuesday, June 9, 2015 10:24 PM, "Kamal Das kamalctgu@gmail.com [mukto-mona]" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com> wrote:


 
Belief in science keeps the door open to criticism and review while belief in religion closes it. Nobody can be a believer in both.

Sent from my iPad

On Jun 10, 2015, at 5:43 AM, Jiten Roy jnrsr53@yahoo.com [mukto-mona] <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

 

This shows you really did not understand my post. If I say – Man is stronger than woman, you will perhaps show me some women wrestlers to prove that not all men are stronger than women.

You said: "One can simultaneously be strong believers in both science and religion."

You cannot selectively believe in science. That's a total nonsense. When someone disbelief science because it contradicts religious belief, he/she is only pretending to believe in science.

Jiten Roy


 

From: "Subimal Chakrabarty subimal@yahoo.com [mukto-mona]" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2015 9:48 AM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Re: {PFC-Friends} Mark Zuckerberg wants everyone to read 'The Muqaddimah' : which contradicts the Quran completely

 
I did not understand why you used the strong words 'completely denounced', although, I am sure, you yourself do not believe. Muslims and Muslim majority countries have not completely denounced science. The theory of evolution and other topics in science are taught in Muslim majority countries. 

One can simultaneously be strong believers in both science and religion. This is true for all religious communities. As you know many people in America do not believe in the theory of evolution. They do it despite having great respect for science. Reason and faith, looks like, are nurtured by two distinct mental faculties. Obviously there are overlaps and sometimes there can be dangerous clashes. The latter can happen if 'church' is not separated from 'state'. 

Sent from my iPhone



On Jun 8, 2015, at 7:20 PM, Jiten Roy jnrsr53@yahoo.com [mukto-mona] <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

 

Which part of my post is so complicated that you could not understand? 

Historically, religion has always been in the way of advancement of knowledge. Think about earlier European society, dominated by Christian clergies, where scientists had been mercilessly tortured, imprisoned, and killed because of espousing knowledge contradicting the established religious beliefs. On that backdrop, look at the European society today. What do you see? How did European society liberated itself from the clergy domination? How did that society go to where it is today? Don't you think – Muslim society could have been there today, had they been able to overcome clergy domination and make use of the knowledge of the 14th century Muslim visionaries?

You should know, a few scientists here and there are not the norm; they are just exceptions. Even many of those scientists are ultra-religious themselves, and can not set their mind free from the religious bondage. Consequently, some of them are trying to color scientific knowledge with religious flavors. That's the irony of the Muslim world, in my view. 

Jiten Roy


 

From: "Subimal Chakrabarty subimal@yahoo.com [mukto-mona]" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, June 7, 2015 10:56 PM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Re: {PFC-Friends} Mark Zuckerberg wants everyone to read 'The Muqaddimah' : which contradicts the Quran completely

 
1. Mr. Deeldar's comment is not clear to me and as such I refrain from saying any thing on it.

2. I don't understand why Dr. Jiten Roy thinks that the Muslim world 'completely' 'denounced' the knowledge of the 14th century. Muslims don't learn science! There are no scientists among them! 

Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 7, 2015, at 9:33 AM, Shah Deeldar shahdeeldar@yahoo.com [mukto-mona] <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

 
It is ironic that only infidels have the eyes for great hidden Muslim treasures? Would this wake up people to the reality of new world? Or, the man will be condemned as an obsolete apostate? 
 




On Saturday, June 6, 2015 11:17 PM, "Jiten Roy jnrsr53@yahoo.com [mukto-mona]" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com> wrote:


 
[Attachment(s) from Jiten Roy included below]


Muslim world completely denounced those knowledge of the 14 century, and failed to utilize the knowledge to advance. They have done the same under British rule, while Hindus embraced it whole heartedly.

Why is that? It's because - Muslims have ultra-fascination for their religion. No society can advance with such fascination for religion; the goal of the religion is to block mental maturity, not advancement. Islam, even though, ask followers to go to china to acquire knowledge, but when someone does that, he/she gains knowledge that contradict the religious text. So, those knowledge get rejected right away by the greater Muslim community, and he/she becomes apostate.

That's the reason why 14th century knowledge gained remained untapped by the Mulsim community, but embraced by the non-Muslim communities, especially by the European communities and moved forward.

Jiten Roy

 


From: "SyedAslam Syed.Aslam3@gmail.com [mukto-mona]" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, June 6, 2015 6:06 PM
Subject: [mukto-mona] Re: {PFC-Friends} Mark Zuckerberg wants everyone to read 'The Muqaddimah' : which contradicts the Quran completely

 
During the 14th century, Ibn Khaldun wrote in his book 'Al Muqaddimah' (The Introduction):

Quote
   This world with all the created things in it has a certain order and solid construction. It shows nexuses between causes and things caused, combinations of some parts of creation with others, and transformations of some existent things into others, in a pattern that is both remarkable and endless. [...]

    One should then take a look at the world of creation. It started out from the minerals and progressed, in an ingenious, gradual manner, to plants and animals. The last stage of minerals is connected with the first stage of plants, such as herbs and seedless plants. The last stage of plants, such as palms and vines, is connected with the first stage of animals, such as snails and shellfish which have only the power of touch. The word 'connection' with regard to these created things means that the last stage of each group is fully prepared to become the fist stage of the newest group.

    The animal world then widens, its species become numerous, and, in a gradual process of creation, it finally leads to man, who is able to think and reflect. The higher stage of man is reached from the world of monkeys, in which both sagacity and preception are found, but which has not reached the stage of actual reflection and thinking. At this point we come to the first stage of man. This is as far as our (physical) observation extends. [pp 74-75]

http://abdusalaam.blogspot.com/2006/02/ibn-khaldun-on-human-evolution.html

Ibn Khaldun on human evolution - Council of Ex-MuslimsInline image 1

www.councilofexmuslims.com › ... › Religions and Gods
Sep 18, 2011 - 7 posts - ‎5 authors
Ibn Khaldun on human evolution. ...
 I renounced my faith to become a kafir, the beloved betrayed me and turned in to a Muslim ...


Yup, which completely contradicts the Quran

Ibn Khaldun [1332-1406]: 'Arabs are by their savage nature ...Inline image 2

https://themuslimissue.wordpress.com/.../ibn-khaldun-1332-1406-arabs-a...
May 19, 2014 - Ibn KhaldÅ«n (1332–1406) was a famous arab historiographer and historian born in present-day ... Ibn Khaldun writes, .... Kafir & Proud T-Shirts.
https://themuslimissue.wordpress.com/2014/05/19/ibn-khaldun-1332-1406-arabs-are-by-their-savage-nature-people-of-pillage-and-corruption/

Creation of world in Six daysInline image 3

www.parsquran.com/eng/subject/6days.htm
It is mentioned in Quran that this universe was created in six days or six periods. This is mentioned in 7 different verses and also explained in details in three ...
http://www.parsquran.com/eng/subject/6days.htm 

The Qur'an, Creation and Evolution - The Detailed Qur'anInline image 4

www.detailedquran.com/.../Quran%20creation%20evolution%20science....
www.detailedquran.com ... He creates you in the wombs of your mothers-- a creation after a creation-- in triple darkness; that is Allah your .... The Verses Used by 'Muslim' Evolutionists to Try and Justify the Muslim Acceptance of Evolution…
http://www.jesussonofjohn.com/Quran/QrnAyats_On_Creation.html


On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 9:48 AM, Isha Khan <bdmailer@gmail.com> wrote:

Mark Zuckerberg wants everyone to read the 14th-century Islamic book 'The Muqaddimah'

the muqaddimah

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg's 2015 New Year's resolution was to read an important book every two weeks and discuss it with the Facebook community.
Zuckerberg's book club, A Year of Books, has focused on big ideas that influence society and business. His selections so far have been mostly contemporary, but for his 11th pick he's chosen "The Muqaddimah," written in 1377 by the Islamic historian Ibn Khaldun.
"The Muqaddimah," which translates to "The Introduction," is an early attempt to strip away biases of historical records and find universal elements in the progression of humanity.
Khaldun's revolutionary scientific approach to history has established him as one of the foundational thinkers of modern sociology and historiography.
The influential 20th-century British historian Arnold J. Toynbee described "The Muqaddimah" as "a philosophy of history, which is undoubtedly the greatest work of its kind that has ever yet been created by any mind in any time or place," according to the Encyclopedia Britannica.
Zuckerberg explains his latest book-club pick on his personal Facebook page:
It's a history of the world written by an intellectual who lived in the 1300s. It focuses on how society and culture flow, including the creation of cities, politics, commerce and science.
While much of what was believed then is now disproven after 700 more years of progress, it's still very interesting to see what was understood at this time and the overall worldview when it's all considered together.
Most of Zuckerberg's book club selections have explored issues through a sociological lens, so it makes sense he is now reading a book that helped create the field.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PFC-Friends" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to pfc-friends+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.



















__._,_.___

Posted by: Shah Deeldar <shahdeeldar@yahoo.com>


****************************************************
Mukto Mona plans for a Grand Darwin Day Celebration: 
Call For Articles:

http://mukto-mona.com/wordpress/?p=68

http://mukto-mona.com/banga_blog/?p=585

****************************************************

VISIT MUKTO-MONA WEB-SITE : http://www.mukto-mona.com/

****************************************************

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
               -Beatrice Hall [pseudonym: S.G. Tallentyre], 190





__,_._,___