Disagreed. An Ideology isn't dictated by those who claim to follow it, but those who wrote it.
Religion, what's the point?
- Thread starter TheRedFlag
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik and Imran are here to talk about a frustrating 2 points dropped at Crystal Palace. They then discuss the regeneration of Old Trafford. Finally, Nik is joined by special guest Michael Statham from the Football Oranje podcast - who gives us a more in depth look at our EL opposition FC Twente, and then runs through the (many) Dutch connections currently at United.
Disagreed. An Ideology isn't dictated by those who claim to follow it, but those who wrote it.
That's your opinion.
Well, even you would have to agree that it was people that dreamt up all the religions except for one. It just happens to be the one you are following.
I'm not discussing who dictates it, I'm discussing how we can assess it, especially when the one who wrote it isn't around.
That's not true. Islam for example believes in all prophets, and believes that they were all sent by the same God. Which is why there is a lot in common among those religions, and the minor differences are (according to Islam) are due to the modifications made by the people themselves.
How about when it claims concrete things that can be proven to be wrong ? For example the creation of humans ? A book which comes from such a supreme and intelligent creator surely should be exempt of any mistake right ?
Kaab bin Ashraf not only wrote poems of hatred but also instigated people and encouraged attacks to kill Muslims. He also started writing undesirable poems about Muslim women. Only at that point, his behaviour became intolerable and the Prophet asked if anyone would help him get rid of this man. The prescribed punishment for the person was under his jurisdiction and rule of law.
Islam still believes the other religions are wrong. For example, they disagree with the Church that Jesus was the son of God. Even the Abrahamic religions have irreconcilable differences, let alone when you compare them to the non Abrahamic ones.
Yes, quite. Notice how a lot of religious people suddenly turn vaguely Deist whenever it suits them in a religious debate. Don't let them get away with it. Fact of the matter is that almost all religions are mutually exclusive. It's admittedly easier with polytheistic religions, but even within certain religions there are very clearly defined differences in creed.
Yes, however it would be tough for either of us to prove his point in this regard.
You'll tell me the book says this which is wrong.
I tell you yeah, but it meant this.
You say why not take it literally?
I tell you it isn't meant to be taken literally. It's a metaphor, and it can be interpreted in more than one way.
You tell me well what's the use of a book if you can interpret it in more than one way.
I tell you it's not all of that kind. Many things are clear in it, and some are not clear that carry more than one interpretation, what's important in religion is that you follow what's clear.
You'll tell me then why isn't it all clear so we know everything?
I tell you there are two reasons for that, first you can't know everything, because you're asking the religion to give you scientific facts, which actually change over time from people's perspective, so what you now think is right, people back then would have thought that's clearly wrong, and would have dismissed the whole religion and not believe it, even though it was correct. That's why it has to use logic, rather than actual scientific facts that are only going to fit one era.. The second reason is also because the idea behind life on Earth (according to religion) is not establishing peace and welfare on Earth, but rather a test for the people, so they can earn their destiny in the eternal life. So, God can actually give a damning evidence or force the people to believe in him or become good people, but that's not the point, because it defeats the purpose of life being a test for the people to choose their path voluntarily, so that can be rewarded or punished for it.
You tell me, that's bullshit, I don't believe in any of that. When I die, I die, and nothing will happen after that.
I tell you how do you know?
You tell me I don't know, and you have no proof either that there is an "eternal life" after life. I'm not convinced, and I don't care.
I tell you, that's fine.
It's not exclusive to Islam.
All religions believe other faiths but their own to be wrong.
I used Islam in that example because it's the one Dany used. But yeah, like nimic said, it applies to all religions. Deism =/= Religion.
Well, that's a bit shit. What's the point of defining a worldview if people can just decide to interpret it in their own way?
So just because the man wrote undesirable poems about Muslim women then he deserved to be killed ? And what if he encouraged attacks to kill Muslims ? The Coran is full of verses encouraging muslims to kill just about anyone who refuses to follow Islam. The fact is he did not kill anyone and was murdered for voicing his opinion and writing satirical poems that the prophet did not like. Compare that to how we would treat such a case nowadays while keeping in mind that the prophet's life is to be considered as an example for muslims.
And what about Abu'Afak ? What about Asma bint Marwan ? (Also mentioned in Sirat Rasul Allah even though the story is disputed by the likes of Al Bukhari)
All poets who were killed for voicing their opinions.
No, it's an assertion, which is either true or false.
We can assess it by the man who wrote it.
If all Marxists suddenly stopped supporting secularism, that wouldn't mean Marxism changed, just that people aren't Marxists anymore.
Encouraging attacks and causing animosity amongst people would be seen as a very serious offence even in this day and age.
Yes, I told you there are differences. but you're here only focusing on the differences, which even Islam acknowledges, and explains by human modifications to religions. However you can clearly see that what they agree on is actually far more important and crucial for the religion itself. For example, they all agree that there is a God who created the whole universe, and there is an afterlife where people would be rewarded or punished for what they've done in their lives on Earth.
That's the crucial thing that you don't believe in as an atheist. All Abrahamic religions agree on that important point.
If religions were exactly the same as each other there wouldn't be a need for a new one, or a new book. Each one was meant to correct/complete the one before it, and the Quran was meant to be preserved (and protected against human modifications) so Islam would be the last Abrahamic religion, and Mohammad would be the last prophet (as is mentioned in the Quran), which indeed it was.
Islam believes that all Abrahamic religions are right (in their original forms). But they were modified by people (the books too) so a lot of things needed to be corrected again, hence the need for Islam, and the Quran.
Why are things that aren't clear and that should be taken as a metaphor happen to be those factually wrong ?
First of all, scientific facts do not change over time from people's perspective. Rather, our knowledge expands and we refine more and more our models. Quantum mechanics does not contradict Newtonian mechanics but rather give a more precise and faithfull account when we are working with very small particles while still preserving the validity of the later in certain circumstances.
Religion uses logic rather than actual scientific facts ?? The thing is scientific facts are based on logic so something is wrong there...
And you are telling me that I should discard what my brain tells me about what is logically/scientifically true just to pass the test even though God himself gave me that brain ? That's actually quite perverse to be honest. Are you realizing the amount of complexity you are adding just to justify your religion and slot in that God hypothesis ?
The thing is, the burden of proof is on you not on me. There is nothing that justifies for now me believing that there is something beyong this life and it is more likely that there is nothing (we no longer need a "soul" hypothesis to explain our emotions, our consciousness and such, we know everything happens in the brain and when it shuts down everything is gone). You see, this is pretty simple and is based on common sense/logic/scientific evidence. Of course I am not sure 100% but I know what is more likely and I don't need to formulate extravagant stories to fit in my beliefs.
According to the various Abrahamic religions, anyone not in their sect is going to hell. How is that so difficult for you to understand? Just because there some similarities it doesn't stop them from being mutually exclusive. Just because I agree with David Cameron on gay marriage it doesn't make me a conservative.
So you believe in the Mormon bible then (or whatever the latest is). Because if you don't, surely you must see how much shit you're chatting right now.
Quite
Are you a Muslim, Danny?
I understand it's a personal question, so ignore if you wish not to answer.
Some things (the most important ones in religion) can't take more than one meaning, and are very clear to understand. But you don't ask about those, you always ask about things that can be interpreted in more than one way, to prove that the Quran is wrong.
Let's be honest here, most people (who aren't Muslims) don't want to know what's really in the Quran (all of it) or try to understand it. They're just trying to find a way to prove that it's wrong, because they're already convinced it's bullshit and it has to be wrong.
And would deserve murder ? Let's be honest here ! Only in countries with dictatures would you see people silenced for voicing their opinions. Why not agree that in those early days, Islam needed to be this violent in order to impose itself ? Because, let's say, people tend to cherish the religions of their fathers and might not want to change it peacefully.
That's a neat new rule I haven't heard of before.
As for the rest of your post, I have no idea what you're talking about.
Islam believes that people who followed Christianity before Islam came along will still go to heaven. Yes, after Islam came along Islam should be followed, but that doesn't mean that Christianity is all wrong from the start, and Jesus just "dreamt about it" like somebody suggested, which how this discussion began. Islam do believe that Jesus is actually a prophet sent from God.
I would say that human creation is quite an important subject. Moreso because the book's author is presumably the creator so he should know one thing or two about the subject.
You will find this not only in Islam but in all areas. However, I have read the Quran, in arabic, and I have studied its content and the prophet's life for about 12 years. That does not prevent me from noticing that it is factually wrong.
FYI, I grew up less than 100 meters from a mosque, so it's not like I know nothing about Islam. And I question the ones that only have one meaning too. For example, the idea that god speaks to certain people and anoints them as prophets is absurd. Take the plethora of prophets roaming the world today, why don't you believe them in comparison to your prophet?
Your argument is still terrible though, as I said, if you don't believe the book of Mormon, the idea that the Quran holds any more truth as it's the latest of the Abrahamic religions doesn't make sense.
How about people who follow Christianity now?
You're not getting this are you, buddy. This guy was instigating killing of Muslims and causing animosity between different faiths. He was not ordered to be killed for voicing differences of opinions.
A Mercy Towards his Enemies
The prisoners of war taken captive at the battle of Badr were amongst his bitterest enemies. Nevertheless, he made sure that they were given the best of treatment. Among them was Suhayl bin 'Amr who was a fiery speaker and was denouncing the Prophet . 'Umar one the Prophet’s closest companions, suggested that two of his lower teeth be pulled out so that he might not be so vile in his speeches. The Prophet replied: “Were I to do this, Allah would disfigure me on the Day of Judgement, despite the fact that I am His messenger.” (Hadith)
In Makkah, his people inflicted him with every kind of suffering, eventually forcing him to emigrate to Madinah, and then waged war on him for five years. However, when he conquered Makkah without bloodshed in the twenty-first year of his Prophethood, he asked the Makkan unbelievers who were awaiting his decision about them: “How do you expect me to treat you?” They responded unanimously:"You are a noble one, the son of a noble one." He announced to them his decision:
“You may go free! No reproach this day shall be on you; may God forgive you.”
http://www.islamhouse.com/133015/en/en/articles/The_Prophet_Muhammad:_a_mercy_for_all_creation
They're going to hell according to Islam. If Danny doesn't believe that he's in a very small minority. Likewise, according to mainstream Christianity, if you don't believe Jesus was the son of god, you're going to hell (though it has to be said that a lot of Christians are starting to mellow on this. Heck, even the Pope said that atheists can get into heaven (though it was immediately walked back by the Vatican)).
fair point well made, I do also have Muslim family who've tried to recruit me (if that's the right word), can't say I've gotten through the Quran entirely though.What are you on about ? You don't kill someone for instigating murders or causing animosity ! You arrest them if there are enough proofs but you just don't send someone to kill them.
But if you aren't satisfied here is a more exhaustive list with the associated primary sources :
http://www.wikiislam.net/wiki/List_of_Killings_Ordered_or_Supported_by_Muhammad
Some reasons to kill (you will find precise references in the links):
Kill Abu Rafi' ibn Abi Al-Huqaiq for mocking Muhammad with his poetry and for helping the troops of the Confederates by providing them with money and supplies (Sahih Al Bukhari)
Kill Habbar ibn al-Aswad because he was a "liar", he claimed he was a Prophet (Sahih Al Bukhari)
Kill a man Muhammad suspected of being a spy (Sahih Al Bukhari)
Some of the killings are responses to others killing muslims. Again, this is not something that is well regarded by modern standards.
Yes, I do believe in Islam.
On what evidence, if I may inquire?
Like I said, according to Islam, now everybody should follow Islam, because it's more correct than the other religions, due to the other religions being subjected to human modifications, including their books, so they're no longer what they originally were.
"WikiIslam's goal is to become the one-stop source of information critical of Islam". Their own words.
How you been following US/Allies conduct in various Muslim countries over the last decade? Drone attacks/killings/imprisonment without trial?
That's the problem. According to Islam. Why should I believe it? What makes you correct and everyone else wrong?