Religion, what's the point?

Danny1982 said:
It's only "superb" because you agree with him.. In reality there is a very clear and "fundamental" flaw. If the problem clearly lies in the Quran, then why is he citing the US ambassador from 200 years ago instead of the Quran itself?? ;)

"I also understand that extremism in any ideology isn't a distortion of that ideology. It is an informed, steadfast adherence to its fundamentals, hence the term "fundamentalism."

The fundamentals of religions (or Islam) is to kill?? That's as ignorant as saying that the fundamentals of the law is to hurt people (killing them/putting them in prison...etc.). Clearly he needs to read the Quran.
Click to expand...

Wow.. that's just.. absurdly stupid.

It's superb because it's very well argued, which is why I agree with it; if it wasn't well argued, I wouldn't. I know this may sound ludicrous to a religious person like yourself who is used to just taking things on faith, but that's how rational people make up their minds about stuff you know. We take into consideration evidence and arguments.

I see you've instantly retreated to Islamic apologetics 101: "Clearly he needs to read the Quran". I'm not bothering with that nonsense again.
 
Saliph said:
Wow.. that's just.. absurdly stupid.

It's superb because it's very well argued, which is why I agree with it; if it wasn't well argued, I wouldn't. I know this may sound ludicrous to a religious person like yourself who is used to just taking things on faith, but that's how rational people make up their minds about stuff you know. We take into consideration evidence and arguments.

I see you've instantly retreated to Islamic apologetics 101: "Clearly he needs to read the Quran". I'm not bothering with that nonsense again.
Click to expand...

:lol:

"The problem clearly lies in the Quran itself, and to show that I'm not going to quote the Quran, but I'm going to quote what the US ambassador said in 1786! And I'm going to call that an evidence!".

An honest question Saliph, and I'm expecting an honest answer. Have you ever read the Quran? (By read the Quran I mean all of it).
 
I haven't read the Quran but I read the whole Old Testament. Terribly written with a wafer-thin plot. How anyone can live their life using the Old Testament as the rules is beyond me. God is clearly the villain of the peice as well. Created man with a sense of curiosity, then punishes all of mankind for his own 'mistake'. It's a book for idiots.
 
Goooose said:
I haven't read the Quran but I read the whole Old Testament. Terribly written with a wafer-thin plot. How anyone can live their life using the Old Testament as the rules is beyond me. God is clearly the villain of the peice as well. Created man with a sense of curiosity, then punishes all of mankind for his own 'mistake'. It's a book for idiots.
Click to expand...

Well, I don't want to discuss here the logic behind the religious books (specifically the Quran).. This is another debate for another time.

We're discussing an article wrote by somebody, without any evidences, and we're trying now to find an evidence that supports his, very clear, theory.

He claims that if you read the Quran then you'll have to end up bombing innocent people. If you don't do that then you haven't read it, or you don't follow it.. But still, while implying that he read the Quran himself, he fails to mention a single quote from the Quran itself to support his theory, and instead chooses to quote some US ambassador from 200 years ago as the basis for his article to prove that the problem is in the Quran itself!

Of course his theory can also be easily refuted (by applying the exact same logic he used) through reading a simple piece of history that clearly shows that the area of the Arabian Penninsula (among other areas in the world) was full of killings and conflicts and all sorts of horrific crimes against humanity before Mohammad was even born. So if we can't blame the Iraq war for what happened in 1786, then I'm pretty sure we can't blame the Quran for what happened more than 1500 years ago as well.
 
You can't blame the Quran for people bombing each other, it's just a book. It's like blaming Andy Capp comics for cowards beating their wives up.
 
I read a bit of the Quran and I had to stop myself because I couldn't personally imagine that they were the words of 'God'. I did read things where it justified killing in the name of Allah, I can't remember the exact words or the exact sentences and I'm not going to go through reading it again but it definitely justified killing people. Maybe not to the extent of going up and bombing innocent people mind you, but if lets say I attacked a mosque I'm pretty certain that I read something that I should be killed.

Either way, I can't for the life of me imagine that God created the world and then some hundreds or thousands of years later think "hold on I haven't done this properly, let me send my son down with a message." And then some few hundred years later think he got his message wrong and then sent another messenger to change the message.

Quran for example is supposed to be one of the most peaceful religions, so why on every page did I keep reading if I don't do things etc etc I'll be going to the hellfire.

I have no issues with Muslims or anyone that wants to follow Islam, but basically I agree with the thread title.

Edit: Lets be honest now, if someone started claiming they're a messenger of God they would be put in an asylum. 1600-2000 years ago people weren't the smartest in the world, IMO people were brainwashed into believing religion and the fear of hell is stronger for most than the realisation of opening your eyes. (I could be wrong and on the way to the hellfire myself for not believing in the Quran)

But it just doesn't make sense. The bible says the earth is around 6,000 years old which we know not to be true considering we had dinosaurs etc and the earth is millions of years old, or is it billions, either way a lot older than 6,000 years.

So if the Bible isn't true, then why would God have waited 400 years to send down the Quran. Logic dictates to me that religion is just man made.
 
Danny1982 said:
Well, I don't want to discuss here the logic behind the religious books (specifically the Quran).. This is another debate for another time.

We're discussing an article wrote by somebody, without any evidences, and we're trying now to find an evidence that supports his, very clear, theory.

He claims that if you read the Quran then you'll have to end up bombing innocent people. If you don't do that then you haven't read it, or you don't follow it.. But still, while implying that he read the Quran himself, he fails to mention a single quote from the Quran itself to support his theory, and instead chooses to quote some US ambassador from 200 years ago as the basis for his article to prove that the problem is in the Quran itself!

Of course his theory can also be easily refuted (by applying the exact same logic he used) through reading a simple piece of history that clearly shows that the area of the Arabian Penninsula (among other areas in the world) was full of killings and conflicts and all sorts of horrific crimes against humanity before Mohammad was even born. So if we can't blame the Iraq war for what happened in 1786, then I'm pretty sure we can't blame the Quran for what happened more than 1500 years ago as well.
Click to expand...

The point of using the ambassador as an example was that his hatred for infidels could ONLY come from the Quran as there were no other logical reasons for his attitude.
 
I'm fairly certain many mistakes and fallacies can be found in the Qu'ran just as can be in the Bible. I recall prophet Muhammed married/had sex with a 9-year old girl, the youngest of his many wives/women. That's some perverse shit. As if an all-knowing God (Allah in this scenario) would approve of such heinous act.

Rename the books the Quack and the Babble.
 
It amazes me how much of the civilised world is controlled by these books. Not just religious, the whole political issue of wars surround these fairytales.

You could not make it up and expect a civilised being to accept it but for the fact it is true.

The whole point of Israel being a jewish state is born out of the things but no one even mentions that.

If the books are 'religious bollocks' then the notion that God chose them to live in that particular part of the earth is bollocks too.

thats before we even get to Jihad or God doesn't like condoms malarky.

We state with such authority that these books are fallacy but still the three jackanories control nearly every facet of everybody's lives as we sit idly.
 
MrMarcello said:
I'm fairly certain many mistakes and fallacies can be found in the Qu'ran just as can be in the Bible. I recall prophet Muhammed married/had sex with a 9-year old girl, the youngest of his many wives/women. That's some perverse shit. As if an all-knowing God (Allah in this scenario) would approve of such heinous act.

Rename the books the Quack and the Babble.
Click to expand...

Shhh, we're not supposed to talk about that.

A bit like how, during school nativity plays, the kids playing Joseph and Mary don't play the parts of an 80-90 year old man and a 14 year old girl.
 
The funny thing about the Christian and Muslim reaction to Joseph and Muhammed's relationships with young girls is that they will claim that we must judge them by the standards of the day. A perfectly reasonable point, but wait...isn't that moral relativism!?

"Today, a particularly insidious obstacle to the task of education is the massive presence in our society and culture of that relativism which, recognizing nothing as definitive, leaves as the ultimate criterion only the self with its desires"

- Benedict XVI

So what's it be? Was Muhammed and Joseph's relationship with Aisha and Mary wrong, or was it not? I think the religious answer is to simply ignore it.
 
MrMarcello said:
I'm fairly certain many mistakes and fallacies can be found in the Qu'ran just as can be in the Bible. I recall prophet Muhammed married/had sex with a 9-year old girl, the youngest of his many wives/women. That's some perverse shit. As if an all-knowing God (Allah in this scenario) would approve of such heinous act.

Rename the books the Quack and the Babble.
Click to expand...

Here is an article that tackles this point.. Add to that not even all sects of Muslims believe that.. Opinions among Muslims range from 9-19 years old (I say opinions because nobody is really sure).

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2012/sep/17/muhammad-aisha-truth

And just for clarity, any marriage to a girl that is sexually not fully mature is void in Islam..
 
Danny1982 said:
Here is an article that tackles this point.. Add to that not even all sects of Muslims believe that.. Opinions among Muslims range from 9-19 years old (I say opinions because nobody is really sure).

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2012/sep/17/muhammad-aisha-truth

And just for clarity, any marriage to a girl that is sexually not fully mature is void in Islam..
Click to expand...

The writer is hardly in the best position to write objectively about the subject, is she?

She is by law of her religion prohibited from speaking ill of the man in question. You might as well ask a Catholic priest whether or not Mary slept around.
 
rednev said:
The writer is hardly in the best position to write objectively about the subject, is she?

She is by law of her religion prohibited from speaking ill of the man in question. You might as well ask a Catholic priest whether or not Mary slept around.
Click to expand...

Did you read the article, or just judged the writer?
 
Danny1982 said:
Did you read the article, or just judged the writer?
Click to expand...

Yes I read the article.

God I hate religion and its lack of intellectual integrity. Only where religion is concerned would it be acceptable journalism to write an article on someone whose teachings you have dedicated your life to without stating this somewhere in the article.
 
rednev said:
Yes I read the article.

God I hate religion and its lack of intellectual integrity. Only where religion is concerned would it be acceptable journalism to write an article on someone whose teachings you have dedicated your life to without stating this somewhere in the article.
Click to expand...

What do you think about the points made in the article? Does it answer your question about the age issue?
 
Danny1982 said:
What do you think about the points made in the article? What do you think about the points made in the article? Does it answer your question about the age issue?
Click to expand...

A couple of good points where made, but on the whole I think that it is dishonest apologetic garbage.

The article's title promises 'the truth' and starts by describing the claim that Muhammed was a paedophile as Islamophobic slander, but the writer goes on to acknowledge that it could in fact be possible that Aisha was a very young girl at the point of marriage. She then goes on to defend the morality of an older men marrying a girl of such a young age through ways such as suggesting that a 9-year old Aisha may have entered into puberty at an early age, and by explaining that regardless of her age, they had 'loving and egalitarian relationship'. She offers nothing by way of 'truth', and her defence seems to be based around describing the critics of the relationship as being Islamophobic and manipulative. I'm not exactly sure what the article's point is.
 
Rednev's got a cracking point about moral relativism.

I also liked the part in the article where it mentions King John's marriage to a young girl, seemingly to... well, I don't know why that was mentioned.
 
Silva said:
The whole idea of marrying a little girl, regardless of when you shag her, is twisted and immoral by any reasonable test of morality.
Click to expand...

The bit that annoys me most is that religion, that holds tightly the idea of moral absolutism, makes a relativist exception for it. God created absolute moral codes where homosexuality or pre-marital sex is concerned, yet didn't have the time to make an absolute judgement on the morality of having sex with a 9 year old? What kind of fecking moral code is this? It's not even logically consistent.
 
Ubik said:
Rednev's got a cracking point about moral relativism.

I also liked the part in the article where it mentions King John's marriage to a young girl, seemingly to... well, I don't know why that was mentioned.
Click to expand...

It's actually a weak point, because if having a rule about something, doesn't mean that you have to have a rule about everything. Like drugs are totally illegal, while tobacco are not. Double standards? No. They are different things, and you can't treat them all the same way, and on the same level.

And you really don't know why it was mentioned that King John was married to a 12 years old girl? :wenger:
 
Danny1982 said:
It's actually a weak point, because if having a rule about something, doesn't mean that you have to have a rule about everything. Like drugs are totally illegal, while tobacco are not. Double standards? No. They are different things, and you can't treat them all the same way, and on the same level.

And you really don't know why it was mentioned that King John was married to a 12 years old girl? :wenger:
Click to expand...

So if you believe that moral absolutism and relativism are able to work together in the framework of morality, are you able to explain why God, according to the Bible and the Quran, makes an absolute moral judgement on homosexuality and pre-marital sex, but leaves the morality of having sex with 9 year olds down to individual cultures based on social norms?

And don't the major Abrahamic religions teach that morality is always absolute? Things are either good or evil, right or wrong. Relativism is always to be opposed? I ask this question sincerely because I find it hard to get an answer whenever I discuss this with religious friends.
 
Sorry, but when people claim that their code of morality is the absolute and final word of god that was granted in excess of two millennia ago, I expect them to judge stuff like that the same today as they would've then. They won't, of course, but they should. So not a weak point at all, in fact. You lost me on the tobacco analogy as well.

And no I don't get the comparison, we don't worship King John and I'm fully aware that they did a lot of fecked up things back in the day.
 
Silva said:
The whole idea of marrying a little girl, regardless of when you shag her, is twisted and immoral by any reasonable test of morality.
Click to expand...

Are you setting your own standards for morality as the reference we should compare any other opinion/religion to?

Marrying to a girl that is sexually not fully mature in not possible in Islam. About Aisha, Muslims have different views about her age (and all acknowledge that they're not sure about it), ranging from 9 to 19 years. The way you're clinging to the 9 year opinion clearly reflects your hate for religion rather than an honest attempt to discover the truth..

Those who believe it could have been 9 try to explain their opinion by the fact that people back then had different ages at which they become fully sexually mature. However many disagree with them, and approximate dates do show that she had to be at least 4 years older, with many of them suggesting that she may even have been as old as 19.

You have to understand too that religions have been modified by people across the years. And this is also mentioned in the Quran. Which is why there are actually many differences between different sects of Muslims themselves, and even if it turns out that the opinion of one sect is wrong on that issue, it doesn't mean that Islam is wrong. The only book that is regarded by Muslims as 100% correct is the Quran, as they believe it is the only book that carries the exact words of God, which is why there is only one version of it, even among the many different sects in Islam, which is actually a promise made in the Quran itself, that it will be the only holy book that will be protected against human modifications.
 
Amazing isn't it. One darn book and yet people can't seem to agree on its message. Maybe that's because they're looking for something that isn't there.
 
Danny1982 said:
Are you setting your own standards for morality as the reference we should compare any other opinion/religion to?

Marrying to a girl that is sexually not fully mature in not possible in Islam. About Aisha, Muslims have different views about her age (and all acknowledge that they're not sure about it), ranging from 9 to 19 years. The way you're clinging to the 9 year opinion clearly reflects your hate for religion rather than an honest attempt to discover the truth..

Those who believe it could have been 9 try to explain their opinion by the fact that people back then had different ages at which they become fully sexually mature. However many disagree with them, and approximate dates do show that she had to be at least 4 years older, with many of them suggesting that she may even have been as old as 19.

You have to understand too that religions have been modified by people across the years. And this is also mentioned in the Quran. Which is why there are actually many differences between different sects of Muslims themselves, and even if it turns out that the opinion of one sect is wrong on that issue, it doesn't mean that Islam is wrong. The only book that is regarded by Muslims as 100% correct is the Quran, as they believe it is the only book that carries the exact words of God, which is why there is only one version of it, even among the many different sects in Islam, which is actually a promise made in the Quran itself, that it will be the only holy book that will be protected against human modifications.
Click to expand...

What about the Sana'a manuscript? One of the oldest found manuscripts of the Quran that shows a number of aberrations from the standard Quran of today? You might want to point out that small grammatical and lexical changes are not significant, but it does challenge the Muslim idea that the Quran is a record of the exact words revealed by God to Muhammed. If fact, I'd say that it ruins the idea.
 
rednev said:
So if you believe that moral absolutism and relativism are able to work together in the framework of morality, are you able to explain why God, according to the Bible and the Quran, makes an absolute moral judgement on homosexuality and pre-marital sex, but leaves the morality of having sex with 9 year olds down to individual cultures based on social norms?

And don't the major Abrahamic religions teach that morality is always absolute? Things are either good or evil, right or wrong. Relativism is always to be opposed? I ask this question sincerely because I find it hard to get an answer whenever I discuss this with religious friends.
Click to expand...

Not really. In fact in the Quran this issue is stressed on in more than one place: "Don't disallow what God didn't disallow. It's as bad as allowing something God disallowed".

There are far more things that the Quran didn't say anything about. There are also many things that the Quran only labeled as "recommended", "not recommended"..

Also you have to realize that even when we're talking about the absolute wrongs, there are two different types of "wrongs" in the Quran as well. One that you should be punished for in life (which are very few things like murder, but adultery is one of them), and one that you'll only be punished for in the afterlife, which you should believe in if you're a Muslim.

About pre-marital sex/adultery. In Islam yes, adultery is not allowed, but, there are other types of temporary marriages that are allowed, which is different from a regular marriage in that the wife's rights (money-wise) end when the marriage ends, and in that the marriage's duration is agreed on at the time of marriage by both, and it can even be one hour. And by marriage I mean writing down a paper that documents the marriage, basically in order to protect the rights of the child that may be born from this relationship to know his biological father.. Of course the father will then be fully responsible for raising the child.
 
Ubik said:
Sorry, but when people claim that their code of morality is the absolute and final word of god that was granted in excess of two millennia ago, I expect them to judge stuff like that the same today as they would've then. They won't, of course, but they should. So not a weak point at all, in fact. You lost me on the tobacco analogy as well.

And no I don't get the comparison, we don't worship King John and I'm fully aware that they did a lot of fecked up things back in the day.
Click to expand...

I think the problem lies in your understanding that the Quran is meant to tell us everything that we should do and shouldn't do in life, and categorise everything into right and wrong, which is not true..

In fact there is a religious rule in Islam: "Everything is allowed, unless it was disallowed by God".
 
I see, so everything's allowed except the disallowed stuff, and god didn't disallow having sex with little kids..?

Hmm. Seems careless...

And yes, you've mentioned the sexually mature thing - there's a difference.
 
Ubik said:
I see, so everything's allowed except the disallowed stuff, and god didn't disallow having sex with little kids..?

Hmm. Seems careless...

And yes, you've mentioned the sexually mature thing - there's a difference.
Click to expand...

Careless?

The Koran is the best that the being who created the universe can come up with, his perfect word? It is so incredibly vague that some people interpret it as a text of peace whilst others interpret it as the exact opposite, in that it justifies murder of any non believers.

Religion is hilarious, no really it is. When you look at the whole setup it just makes me despair.
 
Why are you even discussing the books and the stories in it as fact?

You will be discusing Gods grammer soon. They are not real folks.

Whether a fictional character is a peodo or not is moot.
 
Danny1982 said:
Are you setting your own standards for morality as the reference we should compare any other opinion/religion to?

Marrying to a girl that is sexually not fully mature in not possible in Islam. About Aisha, Muslims have different views about her age (and all acknowledge that they're not sure about it), ranging from 9 to 19 years. The way you're clinging to the 9 year opinion clearly reflects your hate for religion rather than an honest attempt to discover the truth..

Those who believe it could have been 9 try to explain their opinion by the fact that people back then had different ages at which they become fully sexually mature. However many disagree with them, and approximate dates do show that she had to be at least 4 years older, with many of them suggesting that she may even have been as old as 19.

You have to understand too that religions have been modified by people across the years. And this is also mentioned in the Quran. Which is why there are actually many differences between different sects of Muslims themselves, and even if it turns out that the opinion of one sect is wrong on that issue, it doesn't mean that Islam is wrong. The only book that is regarded by Muslims as 100% correct is the Quran, as they believe it is the only book that carries the exact words of God, which is why there is only one version of it, even among the many different sects in Islam, which is actually a promise made in the Quran itself, that it will be the only holy book that will be protected against human modifications.
Click to expand...
It's arranged/forced marriage I was talking about, rather than age. Obviously marrying a 9 year old is worse than a 19 year old, but arranged/forced marriage is immoral nonetheless.

Edit: Going by wikipedia, Aisha was given to Mohammad when she was 6, with the marriage being consummated when she was 9. (possibly going to 19, if you lot are to be believed). Which doesn't really matter, because even if Aisha had died a virgin marrying a 6 year old is inexcusable.
 
DFreshKing said:
Why are you even discussing the books and the stories in it as fact?

You will be discusing Gods grammer soon. They are not real folks.

Whether a fictional character is a peodo or not is moot.
Click to expand...

Mohamed was certainly a real human being. Just not a prophet. He was just the same as Jesus, Joseph Smith and David Koresh, a charismatic delusional.
 
In terms of evidence for his existence Mohammed is on a different level from Jesus.

There is absolutely no question whether Mohammed was a real person. There's plenty of reliable evidence. In the case of Jesus, there are no primary sources from his lifetime. My guess is he's a composite of a couple of real people.

I'd put the order of likelihood of existence something like this:

Mohammed
Buddha
Jesus
Krishna
Moses
Thor
Liam Miller
 
You must log in or register to reply here.