three reasons

1. over eating and drinking

2. less exercise and activity

3. emotional stresses

Australian researchers verified that people suffering from obesity are exposed to changes in the structure of the Heart muscle which affect its proper functioning, even if they did not have any heart disease. These changes might lead to later fall in the heart.

These are main factors that cause obesity and consequently cause dangerous disease like heart diseases, diabetes, blood pressure and cancer. But what about the Islamic teachings which was revealed 1400 years ago?

Allah, the Almighty, had specified a golden rule in diet as He said: " and eat and drink but waste not by extravagance, certainly He (All?h) likes not Al-Musrif?n (those who waste by extravagance)" (31:Al A'raf.). The most dangerous thing is extravagance and as long as the person is moderate he will be at the safe side, this is what stated by the western scientists!

Even, the prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, had given us a remarkable rule in diet which explains Allah's saying (but waste not by extravagance), he peace be upon him says: (the son of Adam had filled a bowl not worse than a belly! Enough for the son of Adam are small mouthfuls to stand him up, but if he was beaten by himself then a third for the food, a third for drink and a third for breath) (the right sequence 2265). The prophet alienated his companions from overeating and said (the son of Adam had not filled a bowl worse than a belly) in order to have in front of their sight while eating that this food might be harmful to them if they fill their bellies with it!

If you need Muhammad to be validated by Western scientists then you must not have much faith in him. Also the teaching of "moderation is good" is far older than Muhammad.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
If you need Muhammad to be validated by Western scientists then you must not have much faith in him.

Well I for one can totally agree with that Islamic doctrine 100%.

I eat hard, workout hard, work hard, and study hard. I bring forth a hell of a lot energy to the day. And when the day is finished, you'll never see someone so calm and relaxed. I work my stresses away, burn through them, and when it's over I indulge myself, but not too much. Most of the time I'm just happy to be fit, healthy, safe, and physically at rest at the moment, with my mind free to ponder.

How SC sees muslims:

How muslims really are:

Originally posted by Astner
Assuming that he or she believes in Muhammad fully, why wouldn't he or she use new evidence to convince others when it has been discovered?

A lot of traditional religious doctrine that I'm familiar with makes faith mandatory, you cannot believe on the basis of evidence.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
A lot of traditional religious doctrine that I'm familiar with makes faith mandatory, you cannot believe on the basis of evidence.

Originally posted by Astner
No, but you can help others find their faith with evidence.

Originally posted by Astner
How SC sees muslims:

How muslims really are:

Originally posted by Omega Vision
When it comes to religious claims, "evidence" is at best a loose term. Anything can be spun into "evidence" for the existence of God. It's all about sentiment.

If you find a note in a forest saying "Astner was here" you could use that note in court as a piece of evidence for that I've been in said forest. But it isn't proof.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Strawman alert.

I actually have no idea what the point of that was. Maybe its some kind of sarcasm? I'm not exactly lil'B when it comes to Islam.

Originally posted by Astner
Juridically speaking evidence isn't the same as proof.

Originally posted by Mindship
What about scientifically speaking?

There are several philosophies of science and statistics. Most of them do not involve certainty. The now traditional Neyman-Pearson/Fischer significance testing paradigm gets a lot of heat for effectively treating evidence as proof.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
There are several philosophies of science and statistics. Most of them do not involve certainty. The now traditional Neyman-Pearson/Fischer significance testing paradigm gets a lot of heat for effectively treating evidence as proof.

Originally posted by Mindship
Then what's the difference? I tend to use the words interchangeably; I'd like to be accurate. The impression I'm getting is that evidence "suggests," while proof is "in your face."

I don't know that there is a strict difference but proof tends to imply certainty. Once you have proven something it can never be dislodged, it is an absolute truth. Mathematicians and logicians publish proofs. Theoretician may sometimes also publish proofs but they don't necessarily reflect reality.

Evidence is another term for data. Scientists collect evidence then analyze it either inferentially (Bayes) or deductively (Frequentist) and draw conclusions. Technically these conclusions are always provisional but that phrasing is weak from a rhetorical standpoint and science popularizers have to dodge it all the time. There are many ways of talking about strength of evidence but even things held to the most stringent standards (declaring a particle to exist require higher evidence than anything else I know) can always be dethroned by adding new evidence to the pile.

Originally posted by Mindship
What about scientifically speaking?

Without bringing up too complex examples, dropping a marble at a flat plate, and then dropping it to have it fall against the earth could be used as evidence for that the earth is flat.

Concussively, evidence in scientific terms doesn't really mean much.

Originally posted by Astner
Without bringing up too complex examples, dropping a marble at a flat plate, and then dropping it to have it fall against the earth could be used as evidence for that the earth is flat.

How would that work?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
How would that work?

praise the Lord shit

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I don't know that there is a strict difference but proof tends to imply certainty. Once you have proven something it can never be dislodged, it is an absolute truth. Mathematicians and logicians publish proofs. Theoretician may sometimes also publish proofs but they don't necessarily reflect reality.

Originally posted by Astner
There's no proofs in the natural sciences, only evidence. And a piece of evidence is any interpretation of an observation that supports a model.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I don't know that there is a strict difference but proof tends to imply certainty. Once you have proven something it can never be dislodged, it is an absolute truth. Mathematicians and logicians publish proofs. Theoretician may sometimes also publish proofs but they don't necessarily reflect reality.

Evidence is another term for data. Scientists collect evidence then analyze it either inferentially (Bayes) or deductively (Frequentist) and draw conclusions. Technically these conclusions are always provisional but that phrasing is weak from a rhetorical standpoint and science popularizers have to dodge it all the time. There are many ways of talking about strength of evidence but even things held to the most stringent standards (declaring a particle to exist require higher evidence than anything else I know) can always be dethroned by adding new evidence to the pile.

I agree, much of existence is based in a form of faith to some degree. I also believe that we must be open to the possibility that we are wrong to a point. However, I do believe that if reality does not necessitate that a belief is wrong, the possibility that it is right exists. I believe that the choice to follow one belief or another must be based in the results. Regardless of your belief system, I think this Biblical maxim is a good one to use in deciding which beliefs to cling to and which to let go of:

Matt. 7:20

20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

Cling to those things that make life better for the whole and the individual and improve or maintain the general propagation of the species. Now, where the discussion leads is to which beliefs best satisfy this, which is, generally, the discussion of which religion.