I didnt know that Qur´an was meant for some period,and not the other

So its fit for the past time and not suitable for the present,nor the future

Hmmm,sorry to disappoint you,but believers,not just muslims,but all,DO believe that their holly books and rules are valid for all times.

But Canli, you proved yourself that Quran is not giving you clear answers in today´s world with the saving money!!!

Check the accident rate that made by drunk people and maybe you can find an answer ?!

But then, it could have been like ´dont drink and drive´..why was it banned totaly?

Science will give answer is lying is sin or not ?

Lying is a moral concept and moral concepts are determined by the societies not by religious books.

Do you think humans were lying all the time when there were not books around?

Science will give answer if stealing is good or not ?

I would support Robin Hood type stealing personally   Again, good or bad is a moral concept and it is nothing to do with religions

Who said that religion conflict with science

I am (and many many many people are) saying that religions (and all dogmas) conflict with science..

Again,i guess you need to add ´i think,or in my opinion´  because WE ´believers´ actually have time to read Quran .

I think I have read  Quran more than an average believer.

 Do you want a religion with daily tasks as well ?

Well God put on the rules for us,and gave us minds,brains that we can use them to apply those rules

You know Qur´an is not a unique in its own in that matter,all religions set rules,and its human´s job to apply them.

And as for alcohol,did you want God to set the allowed amount as well?

Maybe 100 ml/day ?!

What is harming human is harmful,the little amount or the large one

Thats good,then we finally agree on something

That religion is not Science and also Science is not religion

Then why did you say one ´Science´  can take place of the other,knowing that they are not same and not deal with same issues from same points of view?!

And i respect your opinion,but that doesnt mean that i agree with you

İ see that you have added ´ i think´ !

Actually I dont think I am confusing those terms at all!
Religion is the earliest form of science, people speculating about what and how things were created etc..
And saying that  science and religion are completely distinct and separate entities is a bit of a nonsense.
Sience and religions always overlapped throughout history.
ie
Religions stated that the earth rides on the back of four elephants or standing on a giant turtle, science has come and proved that they were wrong.
Religions stated that diseases were caused by a rejection of God, science has come and  shown this to be incorrect.
Religions said that the earth is less than 10,000 years old, science has come and  proved that this religious view is NOT correct.

Religions said that we are from adam and eve, science has come and proved that this  can  NOT be right.
Anyway..There can be many examples..
Science make efforts for better and finds better ways to explain and predict what goes on around us. Religions try to do the same.
Religions are JUST "attempts" at giving answers to the unknown, because people are afraid of the unknown (ie  laws beyond nature). and science is about exploration, finding and THEN publishing the ´proven facts´ .
And about "the  laws beyond nature"
You can not prove scientifically what they are, you can not see them, you can not touch them.
And amazingly people still believe that there is something!!

Science, tries to explain nature with physics and bio-chemical laws rather than divine powers, but the religion discusses these laws if these system of laws put in order by a divine power. That does not mean religion and science overlapping, the events you mentioned is a way people are using religion for their own good through the centuries with lack of information about universe that still causes problem today. Of course people used their beliefs in old ages to explain life, nature or universe because thats a way to question why they live in this world but in reality religion and science do not overlap. Sorry thehandsom i think you are again proven wrong.

And yeah amazingly there are billions of people in the world believing in various religions . All are brainless what a pity .

People who believe in religions are not brainless, because religion satisfies some normal psychological needs in people. What is brainless, I think, is when people in the name of religion do horrible things to each other, when they put religious rules above the respect for life and dignity of another person.

Science and religion always overlap..

Religions have never limited itself to making claims about morality and how we should live our lives (the simple example will be that the alcohol issue Canli mentioned)- historically, all religions have come up with explanations of the world and our place in this world, how we should live and they still continue to do so. But When religions do that, it ends up making claims that are incompatible with science.

Religions are the product of their times and ways of thinking which  have no relevance for the modern world.
And science is not and can not be neutral to religions. Science always comes into conflict with religious beliefs.
´science and religion do not overlap´ is  the idea for preventing critisism towards religions.
In the end science is concerned with what exists and whatever form this existance is. If anybody claims ´something exists´ then, by definition, that ´something´ falls into scope of science.

Anyway about all those billions and what they believe, I never said that they were brainless..
But number of people believing in something else does not make "what they believe" is right
The masses believed "the world was flat" or "earthquakes were caused when those creatures move" at some stage in history.
But they were wrong.

I am not a Muslim, but can you then explain why the things I hear about rules/laws from the Qu´ran are so different when said by a wahabist imam or a (regular) sunni/shi´i imam? The only ones I hear talking about ´don´t shake hands with a woman´, ´a burka is compulsory´, ´gays should be pushed of a building with their heads down´ etc. are wahabists. We have quite a few here in the Netherlands and there were many problems with them and their followers, while with others there were not, or at least not that big problems.

I think imams from the several (I´ve heard there are 7 schools all have several and sometimes very different ideas about what and how to tell/teach.

Of course science and religion overlap as they both try to explain the origin of things. Science does it by objective methods, religion posts a theory and requires that people believe it not asking for proves. Religion is an authocratic science where all proves can be limited to "because our Holy Book says so" - from the beginning of ages those who had scientific knowledge formed religious power and protected their knowledge from the public. Take the Egyptian priests at the times of pharaos - their scientific knowledge was impressive and often they´d use it as proof of divine presence.

Later on religion was used as a collection of rules of hygiene, social convenance and science - nobody would dare to question powerful religion mongers as they´d always refer them to THE BOOK. That´s still the case in religious countries, people agree to being made fools of hoping somebody will make it up to them after death.

The radical Vahabbites of Saudi Arabia are the closest business associates of the business and political circles worldwide. Your small community may have problems with them but they are indeed completely free to continue with all of their medieval laws allowing public executions of sinners by sword.

There is no reason for criticizing or being against them. They are already sharing what they have with the West. They let the US use their soil for military activities and finance operations held against those who try to control their own national resources themselves.

Actually I rather like Turkey´s attitude to religion - it reminds me of the UK.  We have a kind of religion but only pick out the nice bits ... then gradually as you get older (and think about dying) you suddenly panic and feel its time to get some good points with God/Allah and become devout.

Please don´t change (and don´t stop getting "ill" during Ramadan) - it is one of the things I love about you raki drinking, tobacco smoking Turkish muslims!

Ben diyorum bayram haftası, siz anlıyorsunuz mantar tahtası . Firstly, religion do not try to explain the origins of anythings, it only accepts. Im talking about definitions, you are talking about history, superstitions and people who tried to explain mysteries using superstitions.

Besides there is a sharp difference between science and religion. It is clear that source, goal and method of scientific knowledge is different than religious knowledge. Scientific knowledge uses human intelligence as a source, its goal is to define and discover universe and its method is experiments whereas religious knowledge´s source is God, its goal is to make people live due human-being creation and its method is divine inspirations and prophets. So in religions the most important factor is faith. But also many philosophers think that faith is to be supported by wisdom and intellect. So people use science to observe universe not religion. Religion uses meta-physical knowledge in relations of God and people, which is not scientific. One is scientific knowledge, other not. Thats what i mean to say you confuse terms. Science and religion do overlap??,  this is about what you understand from the word "overlap", i think is not, since the methods and sources are different, thats why i said "science do not try to prove or disprove God" because science bounded with the laws of universe.

Surely people do not believe that is something known, because thats already known. So the knowledge related  to faith, has to be something that cannot be disproven, otherwise this is called superstition and then cognition supersedes into faith. People who do not perceive this and still believe superstitions are the ones you continously mention in your posts.

Finally religions do take subject as morality, meta-physics, object lessons and advices not the science. So we should look at religions in this perspective not like biology or physics. Thats my point...