Religion, what's the point?

[Werewolf]

"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 table is backed by primary sources. That's why I gave you the link. All the killings I mentioned are in Sahih Al Bukhari. Just face the facts.

Here we are again with the US/Allies. First of all I don't support US/Allies and I certainly do not agree with their conduct (I'm not even an occidental). Secondly, this does not justify Muhammad's killings. Those acts are as horrible nowadays as they were in the 7th century.

 

[Red Dreams]

"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?

both Iislam and Christianity are full of wisdom in how to live one's life. Unfortunately too many 'followers' of these faiths have their own agenda. US/Allies conduct has nothing to do with faith...but everything to do with politics.

 

[nimic]

"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?

Sultan, you have to stop taking everything as a personal attack on you or your faith. It appears that you do, such as when you thought Silva was targeting Islam by saying it believed all other religions are wrong. You tend to get very abrupt with people who you perceive as attacking your faith (but in your general non-hostile way, which just makes it seem out of place). I don't see where Werewolf was saying anything in regards to US conduct in the middle east. How is that even relevant? For all you know he might completely oppose it. You are treating him almost as if he was the ultimate representative of... I don't know, the west?

He can hold opinions about things even though his country does the opposite, like how you can hold opinions about things even though a minority of Muslims do the opposite.

 

[Sultan]

That's the problem. According to Islam. Why should I believe it? What makes you correct and everyone else wrong?

Quran is very clear to those not wanting to believe.

"To you be your Way, and to me mine"

 

[Saliph]

both Iislam and Christianity are full of wisdom in how to live one's life. Unfortunately too many 'followers' of these faiths have their own agenda. US/Allies conduct has nothing to do with faith...but everything to do with politics.

Yeah, and where could they possibly have gotten it from?

Spoiler

“It is the same whether or not you forewarn them [the unbelievers], they will have no faith” (2:6). “God will mock them and keep them long in sin, blundering blindly along” (2:15). A fire “whose fuel is men and stones” awaits them (2:24). They will be “rewarded with disgrace in this world and with grievous punishment on the Day of Resurrection” (2:85). “God’s curse be upon the infidels!” (2:89). “They have incurred God’s most inexorable wrath. An ignominious punishment awaits [them]” (2:90). “God is the enemy of the unbelievers” (2:98). “The unbelievers among the People of the Book [Christians and Jews], and the pagans, resent that any blessing should have been sent down to you from your Lord” (2:105). “They shall be held up to shame in this world and sternly punished in the hereafter” (2:114). “Those to whom We [God] have given the Book, and who read it as it ought to be read, truly believe in it; those that deny it shall assuredly be lost” (2:122). “[We] shall let them live awhile, and then shall drag them to the scourge of the Fire. Evil shall be their fate” (2:126). “The East and the West are God’s. He guides whom He will to a straight path” (2:142). “Do not say that those slain in the cause of God are dead. They are alive, but you are not aware of them” (2:154). “But the infidels who die unbelievers shall incur the curse of God, the angels, and all men. Under it they shall remain for ever; their punishment shall not be lightened, nor shall they be reprieved” (2:162). “They shall sigh with remorse, but shall never come out of the Fire” (2:168). “The unbelievers are like beasts which, call out to them as one may, can hear nothing but a shout and a cry. Deaf, dumb, and blind, they understand nothing” (2:172). “Theirs shall be a woeful punishment” (2:175). “How steadfastly they seek the Fire! That is because God has revealed the Book with truth; those that disagree about it are in extreme schism” (2:176). “Slay them wherever you find them. Drive them out of the places from which they drove you. Idolatry is worse than carnage. . . . f they attack you put them to the sword. Thus shall the unbelievers be rewarded: but if they desist, God is forgiving and merciful. Fight against them until idolatry is no more and God’s religion reigns supreme. But if they desist, fight none except the evil-doers”(2:190–93). “Fighting is obligatory for you, much as you dislike it. But you may hate a thing although it is good for you, and love a thing although it is bad for you. God knows, but you know not” (2:216). “They will not cease to fight against you until they force you to renounce your faith—if they are able. But whoever of you recants and dies an unbeliever, his works shall come to nothing in this world and in the world to come. Such men shall be the tenants of Hell, wherein they shall abide forever. Those that have embraced the Faith, and those that have fled their land and fought for the cause of God, may hope for God’s mercy” (2:217–18). “God does not guide the evil-doers” (2:258). “God does not guide the unbelievers” (2:264). “The evil-doers shall have none to help them” (2:270). “God gives guidance to whom He will” (2:272).
“Those that deny God’s revelations shall be sternly punished; God is mighty and capable of revenge” (3:5). “As for the unbelievers, neither their riches nor their children will in the least save them from God’s judgment. They shall become fuel for the Fire” (3:10). “Say to the unbelievers: ‘You shall be overthrown and driven into Hell—an evil resting place!’” (3:12). “The only true faith in God’s sight is Islam. . . . He that denies God’s revelations should know that swift is God’s reckoning” (3:19). “Let the believers not make friends with infidels in preference to the faithful—he that does this has nothing to hope for from God—except in self-defense” (3:28). “Believers, do not make friends with any but your own people. They will spare no pains to corrupt you. They desire nothing but your ruin. Their hatred is evident from what they utter with their mouths, but greater is the hatred which their breasts conceal” (3:118). “If you have suffered a defeat, so did the enemy. We alternate these vicissitudes among mankind so that God may know the true believers and choose martyrs from among you (God does not love the evil-doers); and that God may test the faithful and annihilate the infidels” (3:140). “Believers, if you yield to the infidels they will drag you back to unbelief and you will return headlong to perdition. . . . We will put terror into the hearts of the unbelievers. . . . The Fire shall be their home” (3:149–51). (6:125).

 

[Sultan]

both Iislam and Christianity are full of wisdom in how to live one's life. Unfortunately too many 'followers' of these faiths have their own agenda. US/Allies conduct has nothing to do with faith...but everything to do with politics.

Quite

I was answering werewolf when he said "Some of the killings are responses to others killing muslims. Again, this is not something that is well regarded by modern standards."

 

[Saliph]

Quran is very clear to those not wanting to believe.

"To you be your Way, and to me mine"

The Quran preaches hatred of unbelievers ad nauseam. You know that.

 

[nimic]

Yeah, and where could they possibly have gotten it from?

I looked at that post for at least two minutes thinking it was Sultan, and I was extremely confused.

 

[Werewolf]

Quran is very clear to those not wanting to believe.

"To you be your Way, and to me mine"

Quran (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them"

Just one example...

Quite

I was answering werewolf when he said "Some of the killings are responses to others killing muslims. Again, this is not something that is well regarded by modern standards."

Well yes responding to murder with murder is not something that is well regarded nowadays. I don't think you will find many that agree with USA/Allies conduct even among occidentals. People's opinions is not always reflected by governments' acts you know.

 

[Sultan]

Quran (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them".

This is sheer hypocrisy of copying from sites who are dishonest.

When (in the meantime) your Lord revealed to the angels: "I am certainly with you, so make firm the feet of those who believe. I will cast fear into the hearts of those who disbelieve. So strike at their necks and strike at every finger which holds a sword or bow".

Deliberately missing the main part of the quote. It's clearly directed at those fighting against Muslims during a battle.

 

[Raoul]

The fact that some of these religious books are littered with seemingly contradictory passages just highlights the utter absurdity of religion in general. Luckily the world is gradually divesting itself from this nonsense.

 

[Silva]

They are quite badly written, why couldn't god wait for an Oscar Wilde to come along?

 

[Werewolf]

This is sheer hypocrisy of copying from sites who are dishonest.

When (in the meantime) your Lord revealed to the angels: "I am certainly with you, so make firm the feet of those who believe. I will cast fear into the hearts of those who disbelieve. So strike at their necks and strike at every finger which holds a sword or bow".

Deliberately missing the main part of the quote. It's clearly directed at those fighting against Muslims during a battle.

Sorry but you are the one being hypocrit here, here are the verses in arabic :

١١﴾إِذْ يُوحِى رَبُّكَ إِلَى ٱلْمَلَٰٓئِكَةِ أَنِّى مَعَكُمْ فَثَبِّتُوا۟ ٱلَّذِينَ ءَامَنُوا۟ ۚ سَأُلْقِى فِى قُلُوبِ ٱلَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا۟ ٱلرُّعْبَ فَٱضْرِبُوا۟ فَوْقَ ٱلْأَعْنَاقِ وَٱضْرِبُوا۟ مِنْهُمْ كُلَّ بَنَانٍۢ ﴿١٢﴾ذَٰلِكَ بِأَنَّهُمْ شَآقُّوا۟ ٱللَّهَ وَرَسُولَهُۥ ۚ وَمَن يُشَاقِقِ ٱللَّهَ وَرَسُولَهُۥ فَإِنَّ ٱللَّهَ شَدِيدُ ٱلْعِقَابِ ﴿١٣﴾ذَٰلِكُمْ فَذُوقُوهُ وَأَنَّ
لِلْكَٰفِرِينَ عَذَابَ ٱلنَّارِ ﴿١٤

There is absolutely no mention of a sword or a bow. The word شَآقُّوا۟ means "contradict" and no necessarily fight. My initial translation is correct.

http://www.almaany.com/home.php?language=arabic&lang_name=عربي&category=كلمات+القران&word=شاقوا

 

[Werewolf]

They are quite badly written, why couldn't god wait for an Oscar Wilde to come along?

Or an Arthur Rimbaud ! I swear Rimbaud has written more beautiful things at 15 than I have ever read in any religious text.

 

[MrMarcello]

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.

The biggest flaw in religion. God won't prove that it exists yet each person must believe in God to see this afterlife. God gave a person this supposed gift of life*, and God being omniscient knows what path this person will take in life and thus knows who goes to heaven and who is condemned to hell before birth, despite the FACT this God gave this person the gift of life knowing this person was already going to hell. Seems rather twisted. Religious apologists coined a term 'faith' as a rebuttal to the reluctance of God proving its existence to ensure belief. The God of the Christian bible that demands attention and acknowledgment (quite the arrogant and vengeful being too) would surely ensure all living beings know of its existence. It's kind of hard to respect and follow a leader, or king if you will, without actually knowing of the leader/king's existence. Who would follow a president (or national equal) of their country without actually knowing of his/her existence? Not a single person.

Something is fundamentally wrong. Hmm...

Or perhaps the whole afterlife is simply a scare tactic to force the masses of ancient society, that were quite uneducated and very limited in life by the way, to accept a supernatural law over the limited powers of man's laws, and to ensure the clergy and nobles (in bed together most often) retained power and money. Still works this very way today. Course back in ancient times those that committed blasphemy would be put to death or booted out of the society. Can't just kill people today because God wills it.

Once I figured all of this out, through logic (light bulb!) and education, ridding myself of this disease called religion started to occur. Thank god for that!



*Supposed gift of life - This is odd considering the true gift would be the afterlife that God wants all to be there. It's not so much a gift with the necessity to eat and drink to survive in addition to surviving famine, disease, drought, predators, mankind itself, etc. And certainly not so much a gift for mentally handicapped persons and those born with deformed/without limbs, or born addicted to crack and whatnot. Why doesn't God heal amputees yet salamanders can regenerate lost limbs? This God has one sick view of humor.

 

[Commadus]

Sorry but you are the one being hypocrit here, here are the verses in arabic :

١١﴾إِذْ يُوحِى رَبُّكَ إِلَى ٱلْمَلَٰٓئِكَةِ أَنِّى مَعَكُمْ فَثَبِّتُوا۟ ٱلَّذِينَ ءَامَنُوا۟ ۚ سَأُلْقِى فِى قُلُوبِ ٱلَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا۟ ٱلرُّعْبَ فَٱضْرِبُوا۟ فَوْقَ ٱلْأَعْنَاقِ وَٱضْرِبُوا۟ مِنْهُمْ كُلَّ بَنَانٍۢ ﴿١٢﴾ذَٰلِكَ بِأَنَّهُمْ شَآقُّوا۟ ٱللَّهَ وَرَسُولَهُۥ ۚ وَمَن يُشَاقِقِ ٱللَّهَ وَرَسُولَهُۥ فَإِنَّ ٱللَّهَ شَدِيدُ ٱلْعِقَابِ ﴿١٣﴾ذَٰلِكُمْ فَذُوقُوهُ وَأَنَّ
لِلْكَٰفِرِينَ عَذَابَ ٱلنَّارِ ﴿١٤

There is absolutely no mention of a sword or a bow. The word شَآقُّوا۟ means "contradict" and no necessarily fight. My initial translation is correct.

http://www.almaany.com/home.php?language=arabic&lang_name=عربي&category=كلمات القران&word=شاقوا

All of these translations are open to interpretation - I have read another which says strike the neck. But if you want to take another interpretation then thats fine - but to say yours is the authentic as it supports your view is just as closed minded as the argument of the believer.

Which then comes back to my original point all of this is nonsense - there are far more pressing issues than your religion killed x amount of people ergo its a bad doctrine / ideology / ism.

 

[Werewolf]

All of these translations are open to interpretation - I have read another which says strike the neck. But if you want to take another interpretation then thats fine - but to say yours is the authentic as it supports your view is just as closed minded as the argument of the believer.

Which then comes back to my original point all of this is nonsense - there are far more pressing issues than your religion killed x amount of people ergo its a bad doctrine / ideology / ism.

Sorry but no. Whenever there is a verse which clearly exposes the violence in the Quran or its factual errors people bring up the interpretation card. In this particular case, there are no multiple interpretations. The verse clearly states to strike the necks (ٱلْأَعْنَاقِ) (my translation states heads, not a big difference for the victim don't you agree ?). This verse is clear and anyone saying that it is open to interpretation is clearly acting out of hypocrisy.

 

[Danny1982]

On what evidence, if I may inquire?

Well it's a long story, may be we'll go into more details as the debate goes, but basically I worked it the other way around. Not start by the "unclear things", but rather the broad lines, the main things.

For me, it doesn't sound logical that there is no creator for the universe. You can say all you want about the scientific theories, but in reality, they're all only trying to explain what could have been the mechanism for the creation, or how things work. It's like seeing somebody shot by a bullet, and when I ask you who did it, you tell me, well there was a small explosion inside something called a gun, which lead to big pressure that pushed the bullet at a very high speed, and eventually hit the man. Ok, yeah, but who pulled the fecking trigger? Personally that was my thought process.

Religions (Abrahamic religions) are the only available source that provided me with a logical answer. Somebody, or something named God.

Now those different religions, as much as they differ from each other, do give you the feel that they belong to the same source, especially when you read the book of the last one (Islam), and you see that it acknowledges indeed that they were all from the same source. "God".

Then I started to think about other things, logically. For example, God can't be materialistic, otherwise he's just part of the universe rather than the creator of it. And if God isn't materialistic then God can not be seen. It makes sense. Things like that are also explained in the Quran.

Then when I read it, it actually made sense to me (especially the parts that were easy to understand, including the things it asked the people to do), and it provided me with answers nobody else could provide me with (like what happens after we die, why was Earth created, why don't God just show us himself in some way so we all become believers, why doesn't he force people to become believers, why does God allow bad things to happen on Earth...etc.) and all the answers made sense to me. The Quran is also supported by historical facts from that period and historical facts from other periods, that convinced me that it's very unlikely that it was just a "crazy man making stuff up".

There is of course more to it, but that's basically how I got there.

Also all the "evidences" that "prove" that the Quran is wrong, can be easily answered, especially if you have a good grip about the Arabic language (even though they might not be easy to explain fully).

 

[Raoul]

Well it's a long story, may be we'll go into more details as the debate goes, but basically I worked it the other way around. Not start by the "unclear things", but rather the broad lines, the main things.

For me, it doesn't sound logical that there is no creator for the universe. You can say all you want about the scientific theories, but in reality, they're all only trying to explain what could have been the mechanism for the creation, or how things work. It's like seeing somebody shot by a bullet, and when I ask you who did it, you tell me, well there was a small explosion inside something called a gun, which lead to big pressure that pushed the bullet at a very high speed, and eventually hit the man. Ok, yeah, but who pulled the fecking trigger? Personally that was my thought process.

Religions (Abrahamic religions) are the only available source that provided me with a logical answer. Somebody, or something named God.

Now those different religions, as much as they differ from each other, do give you the feel that they belong to the same source, especially when you read the book of the last one (Islam), and you see that it acknowledges indeed that they were all from the same source. "God".

Then I started to think about other things, logically. For example, God can't be materialistic, otherwise he's just part of the universe rather than the creator of it. And if God isn't materialistic then God can not be seen. It makes sense. Things like that are also explained in the Quran.

Then when I read it, it actually made sense to me (especially the parts that were easy to understand, including the things it asked the people to do), and it provided me with answers nobody else could provide me with (like what happens after we die, why was Earth created, why don't God just show us himself in some way so we all become believers, why doesn't he force people to become believers, why does God allow bad things to happen on Earth...etc.) and all the answers made sense to me. The Quran is also supported by historical facts from that period and historical facts from other periods, that convinced me that it's very unlikely that it was just a "crazy man making stuff up".

There is of course more to it, but that's basically how I got there.

Also all the "evidences" that "prove" that the Quran is wrong, can be easily answered, especially if you have a good grip about the Arabic language (even though they might not be easy to explain fully).

This is basically the god of the gaps argument, which is quite myopic and frankly lazy. You should broaden your analysis and consider that religion is mass hallucination created by humans to rationalize the mysteries of life and the Universe into a tidy package that is digestible to the human brain.

 

[Danny1982]

Sorry but no. Whenever there is a verse which clearly exposes the violence in the Quran or its factual errors people bring up the interpretation card. In this particular case, there are no multiple interpretations. The verse clearly states to strike the necks (ٱلْأَعْنَاقِ) (my translation states heads, not a big difference for the victim don't you agree ?). This verse is clear and anyone saying that it is open to interpretation is clearly acting out of hypocrisy.

Why don't you read the full context to understand the meaning. شَآقُّوا۟ here doesn't mean contradicted, but fought. Read two to three verses before that to see the full context. (verse 9. As you're asking God for help...)

 

[Danny1982]

This is basically the god of the gaps argument, which is quite myopic and frankly lazy. You should broaden your analysis and consider that religion is mass hallucination created by humans to rationalize the mysteries of life and the Universe.

That's a possibility, but calling me lazy implies that you have a proof that the possibility you're suggesting is the correct one.

By the way, I didn't exclude that possibility at all, it just looked less likely to me. Far less likely actually. Do you have any evidence that supports your suggestion?

 

[Raoul]

That's a possibility, but calling me lazy implies that you have a proof that the possibility you're suggesting is the correct one.

By the way, I didn't exclude that possibility at all, it just looked less likely to me. Far less likely actually. Do you have any evidence that supports your suggestion?

Do you know what evidence is ? It doesn't involve making a mystical claim and then asking others to prove you wrong.

 

[Kaush949]

"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?

Sultan, come on, you are wiser than that. I whole definitely agree that US interference in Muslim countries is unjustified and evil. But two wrongs don't make a right. If the prophet did order the killings of various dissidents, then I am not sure how one can condone that. It is as disgusting as what the US is currently doing.

 

[Danny1982]

Do you know what evidence is ? It doesn't involve making a mystical claim and then asking others to prove you wrong.

I didn't claim that I have an evidence, but I didn't call you lazy for missing something "obvious". When you claim to have a superior view and knowledge about something, then you have to show something that supports your view.

 

[Raoul]

I didn't claim that I have an evidence, but I didn't call you lazy for missing something "obvious". When you claim to have a superior view and knowledge about something, then you have to show something that supports your view.

If you admittedly don't have proof then why are you arguing in favor of it ?

 

[Silva]

When you claim to have a superior view and knowledge about something, then you have to show something that supports your view.

What? Like the claim that you follow the one true god and that everyone else is going to hell?

 

[Danny1982]

If you admittedly don't have proof then why are you arguing in favor of it ?

By proof I meant the "scientific evidence" as a term that is used nowadays, which basically refers to materialistic evidences. IMO it's not possible to have such an evidence to prove that there is God, because for me (like I said) if God created the universe, then he can't be materialistic, and if he isn't materialistic then he can't be detected by materialistic means, and thus can't be proved by science, in the way people define science these days.

On the other hand there are logical indications/proofs that you can work out, or at least make you believe something, even though you don't have a materialistic evidence to prove it.

For example, when somebody is grimacing, you tend to make the conclusion that he's in pain, even though you don't know what pain is (as a feeling) and you don't have a scientific evidence that it exists.

So unless I find a better explanation, I'm gonna continue to assume that there is somebody/something/some power called "God" who created the whole universe.

 

[Werewolf]

Why don't you read the full context to understand the meaning. شَآقُّوا۟ here doesn't mean contradicted, but fought. Read two to three verses before that to see the full context. (verse 9. As you're asking God for help...)

I know the context. I know that the sourate is in the context of the war of Badr and in the previous verses Allah speaks about how he helped the muslims during the war. However, the word شَآقُّوا۟ does not mean fought in this context, it means opposed. The next verse generalizes the punishment to anyone who opposes Allah and Muhammad so it becomes not just about Badr war (...وَمَن يُشَاقِقِ ٱللَّهَ وَرَسُولَهُۥ فَإِنَّ ٱللَّهَ شَدِيدُ ٱلْعِقَابِ). This means that if non-Muslims try to resist you and do not surrender to your religion (in general !) they will be punished. There is no interpretation here, it is just clearly written.
It's pretty annoying when muslims try to make it sound like muslims only fought when they were attacked whereas the Quran and Sunnah actively encourage muslims to die in war against the non-believers. You should understand that for a religion to become as widespread as Islam, there was a need for a violent period of expansion at the detriment of other people's own religions. The violence in the Quran is what has allowed it to survive and become important. Like it or not, people who had their own religions were killed because they wanted to keep their traditions and not surrender to Islam.

 

[Silva]

By proof I meant the "scientific evidence" as a term that is used nowadays, which basically refers to materialistic evidences. IMO it's not possible to have such an evidence to prove that there is God, because for me (like I said) if God created the universe, then he can't be materialistic, and if he isn't materialistic then he can't be detected by materialistic means, and thus can't be proved by science, in the way people define science these days.

On the other hand there are logical indications/proofs that you can work out, or at least make you believe something, even though you don't have a materialistic evidence to prove it.

For example, when somebody is grimacing, you tend to make the conclusion that he's in pain, even though you don't know what pain is (as a feeling) and you don't have a scientific evidence that it exists.

So unless I find a better explanation, I'm gonna continue to assume that there is somebody/something/some power called "God" who created the whole universe.

We know what pain is, it's neurons shooting to your brain causing you to perceive that something is wrong with a particular part of your body.

And even if we assume that god created the universe, how do you make the jump to religion? And more specifically, why your religion and not the other ones?

 

[Danny1982]

We know what pain is, it's neurons shooting to your brain causing you to perceive that something is wrong with a particular part of your body.

And even if we assume that god created the universe, how do you make the jump to religion? And more specifically, why your religion and not the other ones?

No that's not pain. That the mechanism that leads to the pain sensation. The feeling of the pain is something we don't know yet what it is, because materialistic science (and evidences) doesn't cover things like pain, happiness, sadness, ...etc. It doesn't cover the "moral values", or the sense of right and wrong. You can't prove scientifically that a man shooting a 5 year old kid is "wrong". But you believe in it, and you feel it.

If we start to believe that there is (or very well might be) somebody or something (let's call it "God") who created everything, then we can examine it one step further, the characteristics of that God. And through his characteristics we can narrow down the religions, and you'll see the difference between the religions that were indeed created by the people, and how they logically fail (pretty easily), in contrast to the Abrahamic religions.

If you still don't think there is God, then there is no point in discussing heaven or hell or anything else about religions.

 

[Silva]

No that's not pain. That the mechanism that leads to the pain sensation. The feeling of the pain is something we don't know yet what it is, because materialistic science (and evidences) doesn't cover things like pain, happiness, sadness, ...etc. It doesn't cover the "moral values", or the sense of right and wrong. You can't prove scientifically that a man shooting a 5 year old kid is "wrong". But you believe in it, and you feel it.

If we start to believe that there is (or very well might be) somebody or something (let's call it "God") who created everything, then we can examine it one step further, the characteristics of that God. And through his characteristics we can narrow down the religions, and you'll see the difference between the religions that were indeed created by the people, and how they logically fail (pretty easily), in contrast to the Abrahamic religions.

If you still don't think there is God, then there is no point in discussing heaven or hell or anything else about religions.

Everything you feel is a mechanism. It's not mystical. Guilt is a mechanism. Emotional pain is a mechanism. It's all just neurons. It's not that difficult really.

Bullshit. There is no logical step between "god created the universe" to "god loves me, will send me to heaven, and everyone who doesn't believe to hell". The Abrahamic characteristics of god have long been proven wrong, unless you've got an answer to the problem of evil. And don't say free will, because the Abrahamic god is an intervening god.

 

[Danny1982]

Everything you feel is a mechanism. It's not mystical. Guilt is a mechanism. Emotional pain is a mechanism. It's all just neurons. It's not that difficult really.

Bullshit. There is no logical step between "god created the universe" to "god loves me, will send me to heaven, and everyone who doesn't believe to hell".

How can you prove scientifically that killing a 5 years old kid is wrong?

We haven't established the first point, so it's pointless to talk about next "logical steps".

 

[Silva]

How can you prove scientifically that killing a 5 years old kid is wrong?

We haven't established the first point, so it's pointless to talk about next "logical steps".

What on earth are you talking about? Do you need religion to give you morals? Should we just discard all the work of Kant or Bertrand Russel just because they don't say you need religion to work out something is wrong? We have an intellect and can use it for many things, pondering morality is one of those things. And there are many psychopaths out there who rape and murder 5 year old children, some of them religious leaders. Where was god then?

The point of this thread is religion. I don't pretend to know weather or not god exists, what I do however know is that weather or not god exists, religion is entirely made up.

 

[Raoul]

By proof I meant the "scientific evidence" as a term that is used nowadays, which basically refers to materialistic evidences. IMO it's not possible to have such an evidence to prove that there is God, because for me (like I said) if God created the universe, then he can't be materialistic, and if he isn't materialistic then he can't be detected by materialistic means, and thus can't be proved by science, in the way people define science these days.

On the other hand there are logical indications/proofs that you can work out, or at least make you believe something, even though you don't have a materialistic evidence to prove it.

For example, when somebody is grimacing, you tend to make the conclusion that he's in pain, even though you don't know what pain is (as a feeling) and you don't have a scientific evidence that it exists.

So unless I find a better explanation, I'm gonna continue to assume that there is somebody/something/some power called "God" who created the whole universe.

What ?

 

[Danny1982]

I know the context. I know that the sourate is in the context of the war of Badr and in the previous verses Allah speaks about how he helped the muslims during the war. However, the word شَآقُّوا۟ does not mean fought in this context, it means opposed. The next verse generalizes the punishment to anyone who opposes Allah and Muhammad so it becomes not just about Badr war (...وَمَن يُشَاقِقِ ٱللَّهَ وَرَسُولَهُۥ فَإِنَّ ٱللَّهَ شَدِيدُ ٱلْعِقَابِ). This means that if non-Muslims try to resist you and do not surrender to your religion (in general !) they will be punished. There is no interpretation here, it is just clearly written.
It's pretty annoying when muslims try to make it sound like muslims only fought when they were attacked whereas the Quran and Sunnah actively encourage muslims to die in war against the non-believers. You should understand that for a religion to become as widespread as Islam, there was a need for a violent period of expansion at the detriment of other people's own religions. The violence in the Quran is what has allowed it to survive and become important. Like it or not, people who had their own religions were killed because they wanted to keep their traditions and not surrender to Islam.

The context is pretty clear. It's about war. The word شَآقُّوا۟ does have a meaning "become an enemy to" in Arabic.

And by the way, this word doesn't belong to the part where it says "kill those", even if it meant disobey here, it belongs to the part where it says: "Don't be afraid, God will put fear in their souls so fight them hard, because they disobeyed God and who disobey God then God will punish him." Notice here he said "then God will punish him", which means that the effect of the disobedience will be the act of God, not the people, which further proves that it does not mean "kill them because they disobeyed God", but rather "God will put fear in their souls because they disobeyed God", as there are also many other very clear verses that help you understand this point, like "There is no compulsion in religion, the right way is now distinct from the wrong way.". It's pretty clear what's meant in this verse, and it can help you clarify what the other verse meant if you're not sure, which is a common method used in the interpretations of the Quran through using the clear to clarify the unclear.

 

[Danny1982]

What on earth are you talking about? Do you need religion to give you morals? Should we just discard all the work of Kant or Bertrand Russel just because they don't say you need religion to work out something is wrong? We have an intellect and can use it for many things, pondering morality is one of those things. And there are many psychopaths out there who rape and murder 5 year old children, some of them religious leaders. Where was god then?

The point of this thread is religion. I don't pretend to know weather or not god exists, what I do however know is that weather or not god exists, religion is entirely made up.

I'm not giving "religion credit for the morals here", that's not where I'm going. You asked me for scientific evidence to prove the God or the religion that I believe in. I told you not everything we believe in has to be proven by scientific evidences. Non-materialistic beliefs (even though they exist!) they can't be scientifically proved. Yet we use the logic and the feeling in our argument to say that killing a 5 years old kid is wrong.

Also if you think you're too angry about religion and the people who believe in it then we don't have to have this conversation.

 

[Silva]

I'm not giving "religion credit for the morals here", that's not where I'm going. You asked me for scientific evidence to prove the God or the religion that I believe in. I told you not everything we believe in has to be proven by scientific evidences. Non-materialistic beliefs (even though they exist!) they can't be scientifically proved. Yet we use the logic and the feeling in our argument to say that killing a 5 years old kid is wrong.

Also if you think you're too angry about religion and the people who believe in them then we don't have to have this conversation.

Science doesn't concern itself with morality, why would (or should) it? And there is scientific reason for us not murdering 5 year old children, humans are social creatures, it wouldn't make sense for us to kill one another, we do better in groups than do alone. Besides, you're going completely off topic, just because scientists aren't concerning themselves with the self evident notion of not murdering children that doesn't legitimize religion. Religion doesn't have a monopoly on it. In fact, the moral guidelines of non theists make far more sense than the ethical guidelines of religion, which largely base themselves on the notion of achieving entrance into the good version of the afterlife. Which frankly, is nothing but selfish. I don't need a reward to keep myself from doing bad things.

I'm not angry. Why would I be angry?

 

[Giggzinho]

Has noone read up on Sikhism?

 

[Silva]

Only on wikipedia, why?

 

[Giggzinho]

I was wondering if we were generalising ALL religions or just specific ones.

I enjoy the debate in this thread, I am a sikh and try to practise it in the best way I can, but I also like to hear an atheists viewpoint all the same.