sheikh hamza yusuf - thoughts on the science delusion (123channels.com).wmv

[Metsada007]

The atheist delusion.

[TheRobClarity]

@Metsada007 Science is not atheism.

[wimahlers]

And here is Hamza Yusuf professing as a beast based on his interpretation of his religion:

watch?v=iXRnWTB2FRg

Killing homosexuals or actively discriminating homosexuals would be acting like a beast. Haza Yusuf is dangerously close from acting as a beast upon his profession.

[mirnesalic]

@wimahlers I am really wondering how you draw conclusions and where you find merits for "beastly" discrimination that Hamza Yusuf is professing. There is nothing weird or beastly in that video. Thinking in scientific terms, same-sex marriage is simply unproductive and would be exterminated by shear force of "evolution" anyway. Religion tries to make you think what is the beastly behavior, and I certainly don't see any of "it" in H.Y. lectures.

[wimahlers]

1:00 Suggestion: Why don't you take the best of religion and the worst of science? You still loose!

2:00 The "science" of eugenics never was accepted science. Don't believe me? Show me which scientific institution has ever accepted eugenics. It is none.

4:00 The 20th century only had the worst wars because of technology. If you factor that out than, indeed, religion is the main and dominant breeding ground for wars.

5:00 We are animals! But it takes religion to act as a beast.

[mirnesalic]

@wimahlers in your scientific opinion, what is the difference between animal and the beast?

[wimahlers]

@mirnesalic,

.

"what  is the difference between animal and the beast?"

.

Note: It is not the(!) beast but a(!) beast.

The definition for beast in this(!) context is:

"a cruel or immoral person, especially one who behaves in a violent or sexual way"

An animali in this(!) context is:

"any living thing that can move independently and that has senses for recognizing and reacting to the environment around it. Animals are divided into two groups, vertebrates and invertebrates"

[schmatt13]

Did he just say that the belief that Jews were an inferior race wasn't a matter of belief but one of science? Well, that must mean that there was some form of empirical evidence presented? No? Hang on, he said it was a theory, that people should be sterilized. I wonder, what testable predictions did this theory make? What hypothesis was proposed? Oh, there wasn't one? Oh. Oh, I see, he's talking out of his arse. You can't just put a picture of a microscope in the frame and say look 'science'.

[desipimp299]

@schmatt13 They were proven true according to the standards of science of the time. It was an objective scientific truth with empirical evidence as far as those scientists were concerned. Dr. Watson - one of the most famous scientist alive today - claimed in recent years that black people are less intelligent than white people. Now you have 1 of 2 choices - believe that Dr. Watson is wrong & you know more science than Dr. Watson or that black people really are less intelligent. Your choice?

[schmatt13]

@desipimp299 Science is a methodological process by which to derive explanations for natural phenomena, it's really that simple. Science is not identifiable as a person or a crackpot political idea. Incidently Yusef claims that this idea about sterilizing poor people lead to eugenics and ultimately the holocaust. Is that to say that all the poor in Europe just so happened to be Jewish? Ah.... more bullshit.

[schmatt13]

The dichotomy you present demonstrates your lack of understanding of scientific practise. Watson's level of experitise comparable to mine is immaterial, what really matters is what he can prove. If there is substantial, peer reviewed evidence that indicates the inferiority of one race in respect to another, I shan't be found to be arguing with the facts.Science is merely the most accurate description of reality we have at any one time, it's not a political manifesto or an ideology.

[kingmido556]

He knows wat hes talkin bout :)

[davidFreiheit]

this guy is genius and the reason for that is islam,,peace

[nafism6969]

thats so true.

animals r just animals. they behave like what they were made to behave like.

its humans who act berserk sometimes.

[PawlOwl]

dumbest shit ever. lrn2logic

[WiseAli2]

Absolutely great analysis, brilliant sidi hamza's great may Allah give him more.

[THEISMisIRRATIONAL]

Those books had less to do with science vs religion, but more to do with reason vs faith. All of Yusuf's examples of bad science were examples of not following the scientific method, whereas, all of the examples in those books showing religion at its worst were examples of adherence to scripture.

[Oo786oO]

@THEISMisIRRATIONAL

The Scientific Method has religious origins believe it or not.

And all the example given is the lack of religion, not adherence to scripture.

[THEISMisIRRATIONAL]

@Oo786oO Evidence?

[7jem331]

@THEISMisIRRATIONAL Er no, the examples Yusuf given were examples of science at its worst. The examples given in those books were examples of religion at its worst. What you are saying is the examples given are where scientists have now realised that what they thought were facts are in fact wrong however you seem to think a wrong interpretation of religion should be simply accepted as the be all and end all opinon.

In another words you are exactly like the example Yusuf gives.

[THEISMisIRRATIONAL]

@7jem331 Science is self-corrective. The way to know whether bad science is at work is through good science. Good science is that which follows the scientific method. However, religion isn't self-corrective. The same violent and counter-factual scriptures exist in our "holy" books today. Conveniently, when those scriptures are followed, religious apologists claim faulty interpretation. What's not realized is that the argument is not about right or wrong interpretation, but plausibility.

[7jem331]

@THEISMisIRRATIONAL It would appear you are talking about a subject you clearly know nothing about. All religious scriptures have been analysed and discussed by those qualified to do so for centuries and standardised interpretations established. The fact that you are unaware of them is irrelivent thats for you to find out. What you are trying to do is attack something you know nothing of, in another words attack religion for not being scientific using the most unscientific method possible.

[7jem331]

@THEISMisIRRATIONAL In fact what you are doing is turning science into what you think religion is. In another words scicene is inherently good, religion bad. You can know good bad science through good science because good science follows a scientific method (Which of course is completely objective) Religion however is bad because it follows an interpretation I cant understand.

You sound like some papel bigot from the middle ages.

[THEISMisIRRATIONAL]

@7jem331 Science when used for human development is good, that is demonstrable. However, the goodness I address is not simply moral, but qualitative. The problem of religion is that it values faith over logical argument and evidence which has historically lead to a retardation of human development. A recent Pew Forum survey showed that non-believers know more about religion than believers. Despite religious scholarship there abound thousand of denominations with as many versions of holy book.

[7jem331]

@THEISMisIRRATIONAL Quite frankly thats utter rubbish as the likes of al-Ghazali, ibn Sina, ibn Rushd, al-Farabi, Fakhr al-Din Razi, ibn Arabi, ibn Hazm and thousands more can testify.

May I suggest you actually read up on a subject before comenting on it.

[THEISMisIRRATIONAL]

@7jem331 And may I suggest that you actually formulate an argument rather than name-drop Islamic scholars. Appeals to authority don't hold water.

[7jem331]

@THEISMisIRRATIONAL And may I suggest you actually read up an what you are critical of. There is no point discussing something with somebody who hasnt a clue what they are talking about. You are basing your argument on ignorance rather than fact.

[7jem331]

@THEISMisIRRATIONAL As your attempt to hold some kind of a higher ground "Holds no water" How on earth can you be critical of Hamza Yusuf if you have absolutely no knowledge of his standpoint?

[jenchen81]

@THEISMisIRRATIONAL you said "religion values faith over logical argument....lead to a retardation of human development". well, that depends on what religion you are talking about.

[MrGrandDragon]

@THEISMisIRRATIONAL

Yet adherence to science almost always involves taking huge risk especially since humans are prone to being arrogant with their inquisitive nature. To simple say it was 'bad science' is the same as theists saying bad examples of followers.

[mashehab]

makes sense... thx for posting