Jump to content
Maniac Muslim Forums

Spider

Super Moderator
  • Content count

    4,031
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    36

2 Followers

About Spider

  • Rank
    Spun-taneous
  • Birthday 11/09/1986

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    New York

Recent Profile Visitors

3,666 profile views
  1. Happy Birthday M-C and Faerie

  2. There's this Napoleon Hill video called outwitting the devil.

    & I'm not sure what to make of it. 

    It's like a conversation. 

  3. Haha you should get the best display pic award. It was deceiving as I thought it was just a Ying Yang symbol until I looked closer. :blink:

  4. I think that all bad experiences can either be good or bad for you depending on how you react to those situations. Also, it's easy to blame others or denigrate others when they treat you badly, or to think that they should apologize or something (and maybe rightly so), but yet sometimes we fail to realize that we ourselves may react in ways that make the situation even worse. Then we recount and rationalize things in a way which makes us feel as if we have the higher moral ground, with no faults of our own. In other words, many people just aren't very willing to take responsibility for their own actions, and they don't even realize this. I think there lies the more hidden but dangerous problem. And I think we all have this problem to some extent - thus, I try to remind myself also.
  5. Solar Eclipse 2017

    https://eclipse2017.nasa.gov/ Illustration is from here, which also shows the path of the total eclipse on the US map.
  6. Cosmological Argument

    This may be true, but now this would make science itself circular (in a physical sense), because we are essentially a highly organized collection of particles which are learning and thinking about it's own self. In short, we are a part of nature, and we are made up of nature (atoms, molecules, etc), and this "nature" that we are composed of is trying to understand nature itself. Therefore, science is sort of like nature having a dialogue with itself. That is, we human beings pose questions to nature through experiments and scientific reasoning in order to gain knowledge about the universe, but there's a circularity behind the whole thing given that we ourselves are a part of nature. Carl Sagan also once summed up this idea when he said, "We are a way for the cosmos to know itself." Well, so if nature can have a dialogue with itself, and if it is trying to "know itself," then this is like saying that nature already has some kind of a "mind." And if you accept that, then it shouldn't require much of a leap of thought to go from that idea to the idea of an intelligent being (God).
  7. Cosmological Argument

    It's not like belief in God (or belief in anything else, for that matter) is supposed to have a rational chain of arguments. As I said, we cannot ignore the inner aspects of being a human, especially given that the way we reason and perceive things are not independent from our emotions (gratitude, yearnings, etc.) Are we all Turing machines? No, I don't think so.
  8. Cosmological Argument

    You wouldn't have to "assume" anything if you were simply and truly grateful to God; rather, you would believe in His existence. Therefore gratitude and faith are interconnected, and there is something that connects them, but it's not circular. Maybe it's a level of moral maturity, a sense of connectedness of things, an emotional intuition about God, a sense of responsibility to give thanks, or something of that nature which unites the two. Edit: It's probably one of those chicken and egg type questions. But he didn't say that you can't contextualize the Quran in history, as you stated earlier.
  9. Cosmological Argument

    To share another insight of mine, I think that people's faith becomes weaker in part because they are not appreciative or grateful enough of the countless blessings that they've been given. And no one can "educate" you about these things. One might be very cognizant of his intellect as being one of the favors of Allah, but there are so many other things which most of the time we don't even think about. I think that when some people get very ill or they lose something valuable that they had, that is when they realize the greatness of what they had, and then they might even make dua or start calling Allah to help them recover what they lost. But we seldom appreciate things when we already have them. The fact that I am breathing right now without effort, that my fingers are typing these words, that my brain is functioning, that my heart is beating, and so on and so forth, these are all things to be grateful about. But if we start losing this feeling of appreciation and gratitude towards Allah, then, gradually, our entire faith will also leave us. And then we will just try to rationalize and logicize everything, because we've forgotten the essence of what it means to be a human.
  10. Cosmological Argument

    We were discussing what he meant by "historicizing the Quran," so you sort of sidestepped that point by mentioning that Yale historicizes the Quran (which I don't disagree with). So do you agree with this: "Again, I think what he meant is that the Quran should not be studied as if it is just a historical text, thereby ignoring the universal and timeless nature of it." If so, then I'm not sure why you wrote "nah" (twice) to my responses.
  11. Cosmological Argument

    What he said about Yale doesn't support your previous comment about what he meant by historicizing the Quran, so it's irrelevant. And yeah Western style analysis can break your faith, but only if you stop using your own intelligence, that is. I mean, it's pretty sad if we trained our intelligence to operate only within the realms of science and evidence like in the Western style.
  12. Cosmological Argument

    He wrote an entire book titled An Introduction to the Sciences of the Qu'ran, and in it there are plenty of things discussed about the usefulness of history in relation to the sciences of the Quran (tafseers, interpretations, etc.), so he can't possibly be saying that you shouldn't contextualize the Quran in light of it's history. Again, I think what he meant is that the Quran should not be studied as if it is just a historical text, thereby ignoring the universal and timeless nature of it.
  13. Cosmological Argument

    He said that you shouldn't historicize the Quran, and that has a different meaning from saying that you can't look at Islam or the Quran from a historical context. Some people historicize the Quran so much as if nothing in it is relevant anymore. That's when it becomes a problem.
×