ChatterBank1 min ago
The Pursuit Of Happiness
59 Answers
Radio 4 programme, "Something Understood," at 06:00 Sunday, raised an interesting question.
If evolution is true, then why are we programmed to pursue happiness, but end up pursuing our desires, which don't necessarily result in happiness? On the contrary, quite often, trying to satisfy our desires, with the promise of happiness, results in just the opposite, not only for ourselves, but for others also.
If we were programmed to desire the happiness of others, above our own, then we would have a better world.
Re-programming the human heart is one of the main tenets of Christianity, to subdue our own desires and put others first.
Other religions claim this as well, and people of no religion can share in this view obviously.
But, why is this re-programming necessary? Why aren't we made like this from our evolutionary history, presuming it to be true?
If evolution is true, then why are we programmed to pursue happiness, but end up pursuing our desires, which don't necessarily result in happiness? On the contrary, quite often, trying to satisfy our desires, with the promise of happiness, results in just the opposite, not only for ourselves, but for others also.
If we were programmed to desire the happiness of others, above our own, then we would have a better world.
Re-programming the human heart is one of the main tenets of Christianity, to subdue our own desires and put others first.
Other religions claim this as well, and people of no religion can share in this view obviously.
But, why is this re-programming necessary? Why aren't we made like this from our evolutionary history, presuming it to be true?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Theland. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
123, I've never said I felt 'God' around me in any church. I have said I've felt an air of spirituality, or words to that effect, in churches, but to me, spirituality has nothing whatsoever to do with your God. I don't believe in him. You say the truth is borne from your perception of events, but what I'm saying is whilst perception may lead to faith, by your own admission, matters of philosophy, and of religion come to that, cannot be proven conclusively, and therefore cannot logically be considered 'truth'.
Nice appeal to authority, Keyplus!
And who is this world wide expert Dr Campbell of which you speak? The only Dr William Campbell of whom I can find a trace at Case Western Reserve University (or indeed anywhere on the www) appears to be a medical doctor, which doesn't seem to be a tremendously good qualification for talking on subjects like cosmology. He's also a Christian, and may even have highly suspect views on science himself, especially if he's a young earther or IDer.
That aside, it seems to me that to declare Dr Naik the winner of the debate is to ignore Dr Campbell's demolition of Dr Naik's views, and the numerous omissions in Dr Naik's defence of the Koran, such as when he ridicules the Bible for its claim that the moon has its own light, but omits to mention that the Koran makes precisely the same claim.
http://www.faithfreedom.org/debates/NaikCampbe llintro.htm
has quite a demolition of Dr Naik's position. Not nearly so clear as you would have us believe.
(It's always entertaining to watch one lot of religionistas get on their high horse about the obvious errors in another bunch's book without being able to apply the same logic to their own text)
As for your claim that the Koran is not copied from the OT, it's rather laughable considering it dates from many hundreds of years afterwards. Given that many of the stories do not have suffiencient detail provided to make sense unless the authors expected their readers to have a familiarity with the OT stories, it seems a little pointless trying to argue that black is white.
Not that that generally stops those of a religious bent when it comes to defending ttheir books.
And who is this world wide expert Dr Campbell of which you speak? The only Dr William Campbell of whom I can find a trace at Case Western Reserve University (or indeed anywhere on the www) appears to be a medical doctor, which doesn't seem to be a tremendously good qualification for talking on subjects like cosmology. He's also a Christian, and may even have highly suspect views on science himself, especially if he's a young earther or IDer.
That aside, it seems to me that to declare Dr Naik the winner of the debate is to ignore Dr Campbell's demolition of Dr Naik's views, and the numerous omissions in Dr Naik's defence of the Koran, such as when he ridicules the Bible for its claim that the moon has its own light, but omits to mention that the Koran makes precisely the same claim.
http://www.faithfreedom.org/debates/NaikCampbe llintro.htm
has quite a demolition of Dr Naik's position. Not nearly so clear as you would have us believe.
(It's always entertaining to watch one lot of religionistas get on their high horse about the obvious errors in another bunch's book without being able to apply the same logic to their own text)
As for your claim that the Koran is not copied from the OT, it's rather laughable considering it dates from many hundreds of years afterwards. Given that many of the stories do not have suffiencient detail provided to make sense unless the authors expected their readers to have a familiarity with the OT stories, it seems a little pointless trying to argue that black is white.
Not that that generally stops those of a religious bent when it comes to defending ttheir books.
Waldo, I feel sorry for you, you know why, you have given someones thread, who does not want to speak FACE to FACE. and calls it magic. I think in your right mind you ask any one and they would say that truth which is revealed face to face. Yes you are right this Dr William Campbell is a medical doctor, and I am sure he knows science even more than you, unless your rela name is Robert Boyle, Graham Bell, or Newton. The thread you have pasted there are so many out there, Thats all people can do when they have no courage to come a debate FACE to FACE, they call media for help. And I do admit with open heart that Western media is a lot more stronger than Eastern Media, Because Any one who wants to show the true side of the coin, is either bought or threatend to be bombed.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Jazeera_bombin g_memo
Waldo - As far as Moon light claim is concerned, I have already given you answer (just move one page back). It is not the Quran which claims that moon has its own light, Its the translators. Ask any Arab who have knowledge of Arabic literature that what is the difference between Shams, and Qamar. If not then send an email to Dr William Campbell, I know he is very fluent in Arabic. Even in that regard he is better than both of us.
This is an Internet site, consequently people communicate via posts. The medium is irrelevant to the veracity of the information. Anything I post on here doesn't stand or fall on who I am, but on whether it is credible in and of itself, so please, less of the ad homs; they're irrelevant. I care not one jot whether you feel sorry for me, attracted to me, indifferent or anywhere in between. It doesn't affect the arguments.
It is reasonable to ask whether someone presented as an expert is credible. I can find nothing about Dr Campbell except relating to this debate, and, from what I gather from the debate, some minor references to his tenure at the university mentioned. I can see that Dr Campbell is a Christian. Is he a young earther? Is he a supporter of ID? If the answer to either of those questions is yes, then his credibility as a scientist is zero.
However, irrespective of that, your contention that Dr Campbell is defeated on all counts seems to be nothing but wishful thinking and some sort of halo effect around the apparently infalliable Dr Naik appears to have blinded you to his many failings in the debate.
I certainly didn't imply Dr Naik didn't know the difference between the Sun and the Moon, merely that the Koran makes a statement about the moon's light that is incorrect. Nur is used repeatedly throughout the Koran and not to mean reflected light, but light itself.
Perhaps you could be good enough to explain what the following mean if nur means 'reflected light':
4:174, 5:15, 5:44, 5:46, 6:1, 6:91, 6:122, 7:157, 9:32, 13:16
It is reasonable to ask whether someone presented as an expert is credible. I can find nothing about Dr Campbell except relating to this debate, and, from what I gather from the debate, some minor references to his tenure at the university mentioned. I can see that Dr Campbell is a Christian. Is he a young earther? Is he a supporter of ID? If the answer to either of those questions is yes, then his credibility as a scientist is zero.
However, irrespective of that, your contention that Dr Campbell is defeated on all counts seems to be nothing but wishful thinking and some sort of halo effect around the apparently infalliable Dr Naik appears to have blinded you to his many failings in the debate.
I certainly didn't imply Dr Naik didn't know the difference between the Sun and the Moon, merely that the Koran makes a statement about the moon's light that is incorrect. Nur is used repeatedly throughout the Koran and not to mean reflected light, but light itself.
Perhaps you could be good enough to explain what the following mean if nur means 'reflected light':
4:174, 5:15, 5:44, 5:46, 6:1, 6:91, 6:122, 7:157, 9:32, 13:16
Noor- means reflected light as far as moon is concerned, What you are asking here, all these verses of Glorious Quran talk about a different kind of noor, which is the light of truth Zaboor, Torah, Bible and Quran brought, In all these verses Quran is refering to the light of faith which makes the darkness of ignorance fade away. If someone prays to God that "show me the light of truth" or he says "show me the right way" that does not mean he is asking for light from a bulb or asking about M25. He is using a word which reflects its meanings from its context. As far as Dr William Campbell and Dr Zakir are concerned, I never expected you to agree with me. As history is full of the people who keep on asking the same questions over and over again only to give an expression that these have never been answered. And I am sure they will continue that.
"all these verses of Glorious Quran talk about a different kind of noor"
Oh, of course they do - my mistake!
I, of course, mean 'mistake' in the sense of 'I am right and you're just trying to cover up an obvious scientific nonsense'. I know that every other time the word 'mistake' is used, it conveys the idea of an error, but it's all about context, you see; basically I'm allowed to change the meaning according to what I need to argue.
Oh, of course they do - my mistake!
I, of course, mean 'mistake' in the sense of 'I am right and you're just trying to cover up an obvious scientific nonsense'. I know that every other time the word 'mistake' is used, it conveys the idea of an error, but it's all about context, you see; basically I'm allowed to change the meaning according to what I need to argue.
Same words can have different meanings depending where and how it was used. I think that makes more sense. I am not Arab but they do say that in Arabic there are about 9 different words for Sword. In English we call Uncle or Auntie regardless of Brother of your father or of mother, and Sister of your father or mother. My language is Urdu and there are different words for all the relation. Now someone who does not know Urdu he might say to his UNCLE "keyplus sometimes call it MAAMON and some times CHACHA". Science uses word "Sun Rise" and "Sun Set" Does Sun really Rise or Set. If you want Quran to use the language, phrases and words we use today, then a good number of people of that time of Arabia would'nt have a clue about what Muhammad (pbuh) was talking about. In the end As I said that if you are looking for Scientific Errors in Quran then all you have to do is type "Science & Quran" in google. That will give you view of the people who are more knowledgeable and they are not keyplus & Waldoos.
Here are few links to get you going. If you are looking for truth, otherwise cary one.
http://www.islam101.com/science/GaryMiller.htm l
http://www.islamcan.com/cgi-bin/increaseiman/h tmlfiles/static/105944940987611.shtml
Here are few links to get you going. If you are looking for truth, otherwise cary one.
http://www.islam101.com/science/GaryMiller.htm l
http://www.islamcan.com/cgi-bin/increaseiman/h tmlfiles/static/105944940987611.shtml
Of course words can have different meanings according to context, but what you're attempting to do is argue black is white. The only reason that you're suggesting that Noor/Nur in the context of the moon means reflected light is because we know very well that the moon is a reflector of light.
The trouble is 33:46:
�And as one who invites to Allah's (grace) by His leave, and as a lamp spreading light.�
The word used for lamp is... siraj, the same word you say is exclusively used to describe the sun, and refers to a light generating object. The word used for light is... Oh dear! It's 'munir', the word you say means reflected light, yet here clearly refers to a light generating source, much as I've contended is the case with the other moon comparison.
The trouble is 33:46:
�And as one who invites to Allah's (grace) by His leave, and as a lamp spreading light.�
The word used for lamp is... siraj, the same word you say is exclusively used to describe the sun, and refers to a light generating object. The word used for light is... Oh dear! It's 'munir', the word you say means reflected light, yet here clearly refers to a light generating source, much as I've contended is the case with the other moon comparison.
Well, I'm sorry, but I have read those two articles and they're just full of begging the question, appeals to authority, appeals to ignorance and special pleading galore. They state lots of things are true, but their justifications for thinking so are weak, weak, weak. Just writing something down doesn't make it true!
The mere fact that you wish these facts to be true, doesn't make them true either, and in the specific case of the moon there is, at the least, very good grounds for disputing the contention that scientifically correct description occurs.
The mere fact that you wish these facts to be true, doesn't make them true either, and in the specific case of the moon there is, at the least, very good grounds for disputing the contention that scientifically correct description occurs.
Waldo - They say Ask the intellectuals. Again if you think you know better than these people then write a book and I would be the first one to read it, but has to be with your real name otherwise people would rather believe Dr Keitk L Moore than a "Waldoo"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_L._Moore
In Case if you can not find or You could not see things written in front of your eyes then. "Quran even said to Muhammed (pbuh) that he is not guardian over people, if they do not believe, his duty was only to convey the message". I will even put some of the work of Dr Moore here as well in case you do not find it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_L._Moore
In Case if you can not find or You could not see things written in front of your eyes then. "Quran even said to Muhammed (pbuh) that he is not guardian over people, if they do not believe, his duty was only to convey the message". I will even put some of the work of Dr Moore here as well in case you do not find it.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/17637/The-Amazing-Qu ran-By-Gary-Miller
Scroll down and you would find reply to what you said earlier that opening up a body give you idea about Embryology. especially about the work of Dr Keith L Moore. And may be other stuff. I will leave you to this. I even know what you are going to say after this. But then again these guys are Phd;s and so on. I don't know what you are. Bye bye.
Scroll down and you would find reply to what you said earlier that opening up a body give you idea about Embryology. especially about the work of Dr Keith L Moore. And may be other stuff. I will leave you to this. I even know what you are going to say after this. But then again these guys are Phd;s and so on. I don't know what you are. Bye bye.
What I am going to say after this is this:
Whacka whacka, phooie p'tang.
Bet you didn't know.
Arguments are not true or false because the person who made them has letters after their name. That is what is meant by the logical fallacy 'Appeal to authority'.
Arguments are true or false because they are logically coherant and supported by the facts.
People with letters after their name may make good arguments, but there's no reason to say an argument is good because of who makes it.
Similarly, my argument on here do not stand or fall on the basis of whether I have letters after my name.
Whacka whacka, phooie p'tang.
Bet you didn't know.
Arguments are not true or false because the person who made them has letters after their name. That is what is meant by the logical fallacy 'Appeal to authority'.
Arguments are true or false because they are logically coherant and supported by the facts.
People with letters after their name may make good arguments, but there's no reason to say an argument is good because of who makes it.
Similarly, my argument on here do not stand or fall on the basis of whether I have letters after my name.
