There was no classification of the descendants of the three sons of Noah. If you are referring to my use of Caucasoid, Mongoloid and Negroid, that was independent of the three persons named. How is it that you continually assume the most pedestrian interpretation of comments that are displeasing, while assuming that your own must be considered in the highest possible spirit of dispassionate scholarship?
The moment you represent a "lineage" as Caucasian, you have fallen back into the rut. Any amount of hair-splitting between
Lineage and race fails to conceal that ultimately this is a regression to the concept of races per se, which is thoroughly discredited.
Hahahaha, I don't assume "pedestrian interpretation" of comments that are displeasing. Usually people always associate "Ham" for example with black Africans. Similarly people tend to associate Japheth with the Europeans alone. Most people don't realize that based on the scripture while the 3 sons are associated with races to a degree, they primarily represent nothing more than their own lineage based on the fact that their "supposed" descendants include members of other races.
No. I meant stereotyping. The concept of racial classification was born out of stereotyping, and not the other way around. Race was never a scientifically valid premise; it was generated by prejudice and bigotry.
It is not necessary for you or for anyone else to use pejoratives about a race to be considered to be resorting to stereotyping, the unscientific mistake of using race as a method of classification itself is an act of stereotyping.
There is no validity to cranial measurements as a criterion for racial classification. This is 19th century thinking, thoroughly discredited today. Where are you getting this information?
Prove to us that races don't exist. Once again this argument will keep going in circles because anyone can find studies showing that race does exist.
Your mistake is to assume that language is different from culture. Language at that period was intimately associated with a culture, unlike today when a citizen of India and a citizen of China both speak English, without sharing a common culture. That was not common in, say, the tenth century. So considering a common culture, and considering that variations evolved, it is possible and natural to map different variations of a root language among these cultural variations. All this still has nothing to do with race. People of the same family, expanding into a group of families, further expanding into a tribe, do not constitute a race,they continue to be a tribe. Tribes expand and become extended groups sharing pastureland, hunting territories or arable land; some tribes 'civilise' themselves by building villages, towns and then cities. They are still not a race.
No, it is not ridiculous to assume that SOME speakers of Semitic languages have common origins. It is ridiculous to assume that ALL speakers of Semitic languages have common origins. Pure lines of descent exist - for horses, dogs and cattle.
I never assumed that language was different from culture at that point in time. The original speakers of Semitic languages will share common origins, obviously excluding most North Africans of course seeing as Arabic isn't their ancient tongue. You may classify the Semitic people as a bunch of tribes, but in regular lexicon most people refer to them as either "Arabs" based on the language they speak or as the Semitic race. It's as simple as that. By the way since you accept that Semitic tribes could have common origins, why can't they originate from Shem?
Since you seem to be ignorant of such things, and are picking up your information from a combination of popular encyclopedias and journalists' speculations, you should be aware that such family trees are of no scientific value. They are just records which attract faith and belief. I have a family tree of my in-laws which goes back 400 years; my own, from the evidence documented by record-keepers at Gaya and Puri, goes back 20 generations, some 600 years. Are you seriously suggesting that these constitute some scientific body of evidence?
You should be aware that one of the main purposes of these family trees is to trace descent from a mythical scriptural personage, or to divinity. Try not to thrust this in our faces as any kind of scientific proof. The Japanese imperial family traces its descent from the gods, the goddess Amaterasu, to be specific. She is herself second generation divinity; there is a total of six generations of divinity before the first 'human' manifestation, the emperor Jimmu. The first twenty-five generations are half-mythical figures; nobody is sure that they existed. The Rajput tribes, descended from the Scythians, the Parthians and the Kushanas, were accommodated within Hinduism by sleight of hand. Their family trees originate with the Sun God, the Suryavanshi 'lineage', as no doubt you would prefer, the Moon God, the Chandravanshis, and the Fire God, the Agnivanshis.
There is neither any evidence of Noah himself, except through the evidence of the Septuagint, nor is there any evidence of his three sons and their 'lineages'.
I am not ignorant, I don't care about your family tree or the family tree of some others that you mentioned. My bringing up the family tree of the last Prophet was simply to inform you that Semitic tribes do associate their origins with Shem. I never actually considered that scientific proof. Stop intentionally misinterpreting my words. The family tree of the Prophet isn't just some journalist's speculation, it has been researched on often, & of course most Semitic tribes of the past remembered their blood line via oral tradition.
It was not an attempt at mockery, it was self-defence. If someone can assume that the metaphor 'a flood of people' refers to a physical flood of waters, self-defence is definitely called for. Read your earlier comment, if you want some more LOLs.
EPIC FAIL!
Your original statement is "
and no doubt a flood of those who insist on literal interpretations". I simply assumed you referred to Noah's flood in a hurry because we were discussing his bloodline after all.
The two are founded on different principles, one on irrational faith in an invisible deity, the other on demonstratable principles of hypothesis, tests and proofs, guided by peer review. You may try reading up on the scientific method, and for the social sciences, Karl Popper explains the differences between the scientific method applied to the natural sciences and its application to the social sciences.
If you had ever thought about the subject, no religion can be 'proved' wrong. It cannot be proved irrational or illogical, because it does not pretend to rationality or logic in the first place. If you can believe in angels, and in God dictating his thoughts, you can believe anything. Proving that these beliefs are irrational then becomes impossible.
Like I said earlier, science has never rejected God, all it rejects are models of God. I know that in order for a view to accepted as scientific it must pass multiple tests & be the subject of scrutiny by many people. However, while science aims to primarily learn about all that is physical & observable, it does not mean that science denies the possibility of a super-natural being.
Some religions are incompatible with science, Islam however has never been incompatible with science. Yes, all religions contain references to things that aren't observable by the naked eye such as angels. This does not mean that a religion contradicts science. In order for it to do so, the religion must come in to direct confrontation with a scientific view.
The subject of this theme was the Indus Valley Civilisation, and the efforts of the remainder of Pakistan to prove that it has some mystic rights to the whole caboodle, through a series of attempts, mainly centred on genetic descent, which also have to be reconciled with the predilection of some Pakistanis to claim descent from distinguished foreigners. The thought has occurred that the fate of the undistinguished foreigners deserves more exploration. What happened to the riff-raff?
Rubbish, other members are responsible for turning this in to a Pakistan vs India or who claims what civilization. The topic of discussion is whether or not Pakistanis should form an identity for themselves beyond religion & use that as a source of nationalism while still retaining to be Muslims.
First, this is a public forum, not your proprietary vehicle for propagation of your own beliefs. Once you put up your beliefs and views, you will receive responses. It is not for you to decide who should leave and who should not.
When said leave I meant that you cease responding to me retard. Go back & read my earlier post. Like I said I don't give a crap about you & if you do not like speaking me with then please f-off. I do not care.
Second, you are precisely correct in your surmise that this is about theism and atheism. It is. Theism and scientific enquiry do not coexist, for the reasons frequently explained, the two are based on opposing principles.
I disagree, as do all other people that believe in Islam. Scientific enquiry has never proved my religion wrong. Please make an attempt at disproving Islam rather than repeatedly stating that religion (in this case; Islam) & science are polar opposites.
Third, your citation of Arab and Persian scientists and scholars in no way distinguishes them from primitive Christian scientists and scholars, or ancient Hindu scientists and scholars, and their existence in no way makes invalid the proposition that science and religion are irrevocably opposed. Primitive science existed, as did primitive medicine and technology. They are not comparable with the application of the scientific method, which is defined very precisely, and was never known in such terms by primitive scientists. The existence of primitive scientists merely shows that through assiduous effort, often duplicated and messily achieved, scientific, medical and technical progress could be furthered. Much of this, considering modern methods, was accidental or fortuitous.
The point was that those Arab & Persian scientists drew inspiration from Islam. It was religion that inspired the Arab Muslims to study & seek knowledge, to learn about science, & to advance as a society. What makes you think that the science of that era was primitive? The term "primitive" is quite subjective & I am certain that at some point in the future mankind's current discoveries may seem primitive too.
You may want to read up on medicine in the ancient Islamic world, it's certainly not primitive.
Medicine in the medieval Islamic world - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I am using Wikipedia as a reference because it's the easiest reference I could obtain online. Personally I refer to book while reading about the old Arab Islamic societies.
Fourth, it is not the business of science to disprove religion, whether Islam or any other. The two simply do not relate. You are making the mistake of personifying religion and personifying science; it is not that the two are fighting a duel. A religious person can be an excellent scientist, but only on condition that his religion stays outside the laboratory door. Failing this, we will have ludicrous situations like the nuclear scientist who claimed that he could generate energy from djinns.
You are the one making the mistake of personifying religion & science. It is you who believes that they are polar opposites. I believe that Islam is in perfect harmony with science. The one thing that I agree with you on is that while obtaining scientific knowledge a person must set aside his or her's beliefs. Failure to do so will result in a lack of interest or desire to study a particular segment in science resulting in the slow down of progress. I never heard of the nuclear scientist that claimed he could generate energy from "djinns" lol. Although admittedly I have heard some extremely foolish things from Muslims in the past.
What is the mystery about? I claim that ALL religion is irrational and illogical. Science and religion cannot coexist.
That does not mean that religion is false. You apparently cannot figure out the difference.
Another EPIC FAIL!
If you believe that religion is irrational or illogical then that would logically require the assumption from your side that all religion as it is, is false. If you were to accept the credibility of a belief than atheism would go down the drain.
Let me remind you that your hostility towards religions & your failure in accepting the possibility that science & a particular religion can co-exist is itself illogical & irrational.
This isn't about the Koran, it is about all scripture. And yes, I reiterate, all scripture is irrational and illogical. Quoting stray verses and making dubious connections does not alter the situation. There are far more insightful passages in other scriptures, the question of the nature of the universe and the atomic composition of matter that occurs in the Upanishads. The Upanishads remain irrational due to their dependence on religion, and so do other scriptures.
The connection between the verse I posted & human development isn't dubious. Reading the contents of that verse, it's quite clear that that is what it refers to. Since you are an atheist, you will never be able to accept that, because accepting that would mean that you would be required to reject your denial of the existence of God.
Once again, I was defending against your interpretations.
My interpretation of my own religion does not require defence, as I said earlier, my interpretation of Islam is correct. If you were to ask another Muslim, he or she will be able to confirm that none of my views are un-Islamic.
While it seems wholly pretentious to sit in judgement on Christianity, it is possible on completely different grounds to consider that religion is orthogonal to science.
The bookshelves are full with books explaining in detail why science and religion are incompatible. Read them. Your opinion is formed by your knowledge. Expand your knowledge and you may find out what is and is not illogical. It is not for me to educate you beyond this.
I do not want to educate you either. You claim that science & religion are incompatible. Most books mocking religion tend to focus on Christianity. Since you feel that Islam is incompatible to science, then you are going to have to prove it.
I will respond to your other BS post later.
Remember that my discussion with you will only continue if you prove my religion to be illogical or irrational. Simply repeating that religion is illogical or irrational does nothing to further this discussion. If you aren't willing to take the time to attempt to discredit my religion, then do not bother replying.
. And how do you define India before Pakistan came into existence? It was the whole landmass which includes the present day Pakistan.. another flawed argument.
