Essay talk:Islamic Creationism & Empirical Knowledge

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

To whom does this essay belong?--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 12:33, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Delete[edit]

Looks like a copy of this anyway. While I'm normally a supporter of all sorts of weird essays an unattributed, rambling exact copy of a page from another wiki is not what we want or need.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 12:41, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Respected Bob: Yes this is my article on muslimwiki. My intention is to remove the baseless thoughts between science and religion (My science definition confirms my statement). As I think Religion is a personal matter while Science is common subject of all mankind. So I request you to give it place at forum of rationals. Thanks Nannadeem (talk) 12:51, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Respected Nannadeem. Rationalwiki is not a place to dump stuff culled from other webistes. You are welcome to involve yourself in constructive criticism or any of our articles or points of view if you disagree with them. You are welcome to contribute to articles which contribute to the furtherance of our mission.
If you wish to make an argued case for something which seems to be not generally accepted by our community then you are welcome to create an original essay.
But I don't think that an entire article copied wholesale from another source is gong to be very welcome.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 13:02, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, as you all wish, I am to comply with. Respected Mission: I do not like to criticise, I am desirous of producing the contents already existed in a synthesis with their positive aspects avoiding negativeness. Because I know that nothing is new and cannot be new the things which we remark as new, in fact are things already existed, we all are just composer or de-composer. Nannadeem (talk) 13:14, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeesss. I see. Nevertheless, it's not just my decision. We need some more comments.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 13:48, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
The essay space is for people to create in, not copy to, afaik. The only time when it is copied to is to keep something that is disappearing somewhere else (like out of main space). I say delete this unless it would currently be the only copy of this text in the world. Nullahnung (talk) 14:25, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
It also occurs to me that there are apparently 2,664 articles on Muslim Wiki. I guess that we don't want to start a precedent of holding copies of them here.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 14:40, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

It is not a copy, this is my article I will modify it after receiving comments on its contents. I am ready to shorten it. I think anyone who works for elimination of Controversy between science and religion should be welcome. Because Science is not a religion. Religion does not object to scientific method, it is personal approach to place them in fighting. I shall again reiterate that: Science itself is benign and does not have language, region or religion. We have different languages, regions, religions, etc. but all have similar scientific entropies. So any positive step from religion side should be given more weightage. My general religion is humanity and personal religion is Islam. All religions are made for huminity and no mankind is made for religion.

If I find here real rationality, and rejection of material on logic then I will feel more comfortable to place my O.R. which are not acceptable at en-WP.Nannadeem (talk) 15:08, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

We have an article on Non-Overlapping Magisteria, in case you're interested. Nullahnung (talk) 15:31, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi Nannadeem. As you referenced your "original research which is not acceptable at English Wikipedia" I had a look at your page there. It would appear that you also tried to get this page published there. Is that correct? --Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 20:57, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes respected Bob, your finding is correct. I do not like to talk without logic; nevertheless, I prefer to follow optimism, as much as possible. Further I do not consider myself as wise to submit a theory. However I am attempting to synthesize old gold of our sociology irrespective of believes. I would refer historical proof that with reference to empirical knowledge, Islamic Creationism recognizes the Aristotle as First Master and to Abu Nasar Farabi ( Al-Farabi known in the West as Alpharabius, was a renowned scientist and philosopher of the Islamic Golden Age. He was also a cosmologist, logician, and musician ) as second. I think this is a rational proof that empirical knowledge does not account for religion, region or language. This is true picture of Islamic Creationism.

Revelation is a guide not a scientific treatise. Revelation relates to events of start i.e. non recurrence events and a code of guidance for sociology, whereas Scientific methods deal with events which have recurrence, thus there is no conflict between guidance and treatise. My effort is under the umbrella of the Mission of RW.

In view of above, I request for survival of article “Islamic Creationism & Empirical Knowledge” on our RW. This is my own original work. I recognize two theories (atleast) and follow one. Thanks.Nannadeem (talk) 10:07, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I've deleted the essay as it is non-original content that simply duplicates what may be found elsewhere. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 23:23, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Sigh[edit]

I'm succumbing to temptation to comment, having been looking at RW a bit because of Drama introduced elsewhere by an RW user.

Nannadeem displayed a remarkable lack of clue in his editing of Wikipedia. His essay was deleted there, as all essays would be if placed in mainspace. He attempted to take this to the Arbitration Committee. That's like getting into an argument with a police officer about an alleged traffic violation and then filing a Supreme Court case over it.

Now, consider that the user is attempting to write about a sophisticated subject, epistemology and religion. He's not able to understand a relatively simple human phenomenon, Wikipedia, that would take a few weeks of reading at most to grasp, at least as a first start. Now, how likely is it that he will come up with something worth reading on epistemology and religion?

Let's say that his essay did not disappoint my expectations. However, if he is interested in learning, as distinct from sharing his immature pearls with the world, he's welcome to post the essay in his user space at en.wikiversity. From there, it might be possible to do something with real educational resources. Or not. The page to edit would be [1]. He should provide a link to the original source (i.e., his first place of publication), for licensing purposes. --Abd (talk) 18:25, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

OK. If it would be welcome there it could/should be posted there. Perhaps your point would be better made on the user talk page?--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 19:37, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
  • The user is suffering from more lack of clue, unwarranted assumptions. Who said anything about Wikipedia? Not I. I did post to the user talk page, referring him here. Yes, Bob, this would be welcome on Wikiversity, with some restrictions.
  • I'm banned on Wikipedia. Long story. I gave a specific link to use; and I specifically wrote "en.wikiversity." The person can go to http://en.wikiversity.org. If logged in to Wikipedia, an account should be created automatically. The user may then create the page, pretty much whatever he wants, in his user space. If he creates stuff in mainspace, and knows as little about what he is doing as we have seen before, it will probably be seen and good chance it will be moved to user space. (In mainspace, should he insist, it would be quite vulnerable to deletion.) --Abd (talk) 20:55, 7 March 2014 (UTC)