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.
I don't, I'm still learning.
I do not think there is a right or wrong religion and in Sikhi it doesnt say that any other religion is wrong, we believe everyone has the right to practise what they want as long as it is not forced on other or brings harm to others.
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.
Isn't that what science is trying to achieve as well? Religion provides an explanation of things (whether right or wrong) that science has not yet unravelled, and for that purpose it still is a good thing to have.
People have been committing crime in the name of money, power, passion, possessions etc and religion is just one such thing. We have not classified any of the others as evil, but are ready to jump at religion alone!
There's a difference between pursuing factual knowledge and believing made up nonsense.
There is nothing called 'pursuing factual knowledge'. It's all up in the air theory till the proof is obtained. You can only pursue theories in hopes of turning them into facts or disproving them.
Many relgious events do have a backing in science. 300 years ago people would have been calling religions trash because it said gods fly which they thought was impossible. I did post this before in this thread, but in ancient times knowledge of celestial bodies and planets was nonexistant, how do you explain an eclipse to a common man? They came up with snakes and bears eating part of the sun. Now we know better, but it does not reduce the utility at that point of time.
There is never an answer to stupidity. Calling regetion complete bollocks is an extremist view same as blind faith. People should be aware that the most holy books have been rewritten based on sayings and so are inherantly suspect. They definitely are not complete crap, but people should make leeway to things that may have become redundant or obsolete. Common sense can never be replaced.
It is just a tool. You can't blame a tool for the stupid misuse by the weilder.
Isn't that what science is trying to achieve as well? Religion provides an explanation of things (whether right or wrong) that science has not yet unravelled, and for that purpose it still is a good thing to have.
People have been committing crime in the name of money, power, passion, possessions etc and religion is just one such thing. We have not classified any of the others as evil, but are ready to jump at religion alone!
There is nothing called 'pursuing factual knowledge'. It's all up in the air theory till the proof is obtained. You can only pursue theories in hopes of turning them into facts or disproving them.
Many relgious events do have a backing in science. 300 years ago people would have been calling religions trash because it said gods fly which they thought was impossible. I did post this before in this thread, but in ancient times knowledge of celestial bodies and planets was nonexistant, how do you explain an eclipse to a common man? They came up with snakes and bears eating part of the sun. Now we know better, but it does not reduce the utility at that point of time.
There is never an answer to stupidity. Calling regetion complete bollocks is an extremist view same as blind faith. People should be aware that the most holy books have been rewritten based on sayings and so are inherantly suspect. They definitely are not complete crap, but people should make leeway to things that may have become redundant or obsolete. Common sense can never be replaced.
It is just a tool. You can't blame a tool for the stupid misuse by the weilder.
That's the problem. What we know is so less and the mysteries of this world and the universe so vast. We will be starting from the middle with no knowledge of the beginning or the end. Both assumptions of existence or otherwise of god has no proof. We may yet prove both to be right if god turns out to be an omnipotent alien, lol!You're complicating simplicity. Start with what we know and go from there rather than giving fabricated mysticicm equal footing with knowledge and reason.
You're missing the point here. The case against religion isn't that sometimes religious people do bad things. It is that there are specific injunctions and commandments to do bad things in religion (not all of them, obviously, but certainly the Abrahamic ones).
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.
The thing about religion is that people really do think these books were divinely written or inspired, and that one should live in accordance with its contents. When that content is filled with hatred and violence, what do you think the logical consequences are going to be?
Not to mention that religion is innately divisive in itself. It's a form of tribalism where people are positing a transcendental difference between themselves and others. That will inevitably lead to bad blood and, ultimately, violence.
You're complicating simplicity. Start with what we know and go from there rather than giving fabricated mysticicm equal footing with knowledge and reason.
As isn't part of faith having some form of trust in something you may not fully understand?
I would argue that having faith is accepting that you can not and will not understand something. I trust in the fact that my computer will work, even though I don't fully understand how it works. But simultaneously I know that I can understand how it works, if I want to or need to. Using another example, there are things about the universe we do not fully understand, such as quantum mechanics. That doesn't mean we have "faith" in quantum mechanics, however. There is nothing that suggests we won't some day be able to understand fully quantum mechanics, and indeed we are slowly progressing towards that point.
Faith is settling in and accepting the knowledge that you don't and will never be able to understand something.
No that's not really true.
First of all, science only explains the mechanisms for things, materialistic science that is. Even if the quantum mechanics become far more advanced, as you've put it, all we'll know is "how it works" really. It can't give us an explanation outside the limits it's defined by, the materialistic limits, like ok, but "where did all this come from?", and "what caused this to happen?", which will remain the next question for any discovery we make? (like the example I gave with the gun that shot the man)
Also time has proved that the more advances we make in science, the more it makes us realize that there is now even more for us to learn, rather than less left to learn. So the current curve in knowledge doesn't suggest that there is a time at any point in the future, where we should expect to answer all our questions. If you look closely, you'll see that even though we know more now than they knew 1000 years ago, what we also know now is that what we don't know now is far far more than what they thought they didn't know 1000 years ago.. So, the way things are going doesn't suggest that we're going to "know it all" through materialistic science only if we wait long enough.
Another crucial point in my argument is: even now, even those people who believe in science and say that they don't believe in faith, or anything unless it's supported by factual evidences, most of them actually do have faith in things they don't have factual evidences that support it. They do exercise faith as well, even though they might not realize it. I gave an example about that when I asked: Do you think that killing a 5 years old kid is right or wrong? Most here would say that it's wrong, and they are (probably) totally 100% convinced and have total belief that it's wrong. But, there are no scientific facts or evidences (like they ones frequently asked for us to believe in God) that support their belief. This proves that no matter how we try to deny it, there is an aspect in our life, or a dimension if you like, that's not materialistic. And that's why we can't rely on materialistic evidences to debate about things that fall in that dimension. However we can still use logic, and sometimes even our feelings to try to know more about it, or try to debate about it.
Yes there is, but you have to define what you mean by wrong. Our morality, our thoughts and our conscious states all relate to the brain, which is a material thing.
And no, rational people don't take things on faith.
Even if we assume that's it's all related materialistically to the brain (which is far from a given, and I actually totally disagree here), you still didn't show "materialistic evidences from the brain" to support your argument that your morals are the right ones. You still have complete faith it them.
No that's not really true.
First of all, science only explains the mechanisms for things, materialistic science that is. Even if the quantum mechanics become far more advanced, as you've put it, all we'll know is "how it works" really. It can't give us an explanation outside the limits it's defined by, the materialistic limits, like ok, but "where did all this come from?", and "what caused this to happen?", which will remain the next question for any discovery we make? (like the example I gave with the gun that shot the man)
Also time has proved that the more advances we make in science, the more it makes us realize that there is now even more for us to learn, rather than less left to learn. So the current curve in knowledge doesn't suggest that there is a time at any point in the future, where we should expect to answer all our questions. If you look closely, you'll see that even though we know more now than they knew 1000 years ago, what we also know now is that what we don't know now is far far more than what they thought they didn't know 1000 years ago.. So, the way things are going doesn't suggest that we're going to "know it all" through materialistic science only if we wait long enough.
Another crucial point in my argument is: even now, even those people who believe in science and say that they don't believe in faith, or anything unless it's supported by factual evidences, most of them actually do have faith in things they don't have factual evidences that support it. They do exercise faith as well, even though they might not realize it. I gave an example about that when I asked: Do you think that killing a 5 years old kid is right or wrong? Most here would say that it's wrong, and they are (probably) totally 100% convinced and have total belief that it's wrong. But, there are no scientific facts or evidences (like they ones frequently asked for us to believe in God) that support their belief. This proves that no matter how we try to deny it, there is an aspect in our life, or a dimension if you like, that's not materialistic. And that's why we can't rely on materialistic evidences to debate about things that fall in that dimension. However we can still use logic, and sometimes even our feelings to try to know more about it, or try to debate about it.
No that's not really true.
Also time has proved that the more advances we make in science, the more it makes us realize that there is now even more for us to learn, rather than less left to learn. So the current curve in knowledge doesn't suggest that there is a time at any point in the future, where we should expect to answer all our questions. If you look closely, you'll see that even though we know more now than they knew 1000 years ago, what we also know now is that what we don't know now is far far more than what they thought they didn't know 1000 years ago.. So, the way things are going doesn't suggest that we're going to "know it all" through materialistic science only if we wait long enough.
Sorry but do synonyms exist?
You first say their is no multiple interpretation and then agree there is. Your interpretation says chop off the heads.
I am not defending the qu'ran but you proved my point - you took an interpretation that suited your viewpoint. Someone else took another interpretation and drew a different conclusions.
If we both read a novel we can describe it differently even though we read the same words. You assume that if we read the same thing we will compute and interpret it the same. Wrong.
That's not how it works. Unless god is the only thing stopping you from killing 5 year olds. In which case, why you and not the people who are killing 5 year olds?
And by the way, things don't just happen in your brain, they're all results of neuron interactions and different chemicals being released. That's not really up for debate.
You're really reaching here. And there's no evidence to suggest that all of our subjective experiences are not related to the brain. A thoroughly decent and peaceful man can get a tumor in the wrong place and start becoming very aggressive and violent. In other words, his moral intuitions can change.
No, I don't have "faith" in my morals, and in any case there are no moral absolutes anyway. It's not as if moral action X is correct in any absolute sense.
Not off topic. You're the one claiming that because you don't know how emotional pain works it must be (your) god. And I think it's neither right or wrong, in the ethical sense, as ethics is a human invention which people more intelligent than myself still disagree about. It is however something that logic dictates we shouldn't do.Off topic. I'm not discussing here why somebody killed a 5 year old, or why didn't God stop him. Who said anything about that? I'm only assessing this act, by asking the question: do you think it's right or wrong?
Again off-topic. I don't agree with this, and by the way, when you say they're the result of, then you're actually admitting that the neuronal signals are the mechanism that leads to the sense of right or wrong (which is the result), not the essence of the feeling itself. However, let's stop debating about this, for a moment at least, because what I was asking for here is a materialistic evidence for your belief, rather an explanation of the mechanism. So in short, show me neuronal/factual/scientific evidence that makes you believe that killing a 5 years old kid is actually wrong.
Saliph, what do you believe? Is killing a 5 years old kid right or wrong?
I'm not discussing moral absolutism/relativity here, I'm discussing the basic logical argument you use to reject my belief that God exists.
Science at-least explain some things. Quantum mechanics and M-Theory explain a lot more than anything else.
Religion doesn't explain anything. It just says something without having any backing or proof and we must all obey that. 'The where does it all come from' question in Science can be easily transformed in 'where does God came from'. So, where does God came from? Why the God is exempt from this?
Of course we are going to know it all only if we wait enough, or more likely never. But we are going to know something. And religion doesn't even give the absolute minimum knowledge. What are we going to know from religion? That there is an omnipotent God that can do everything and has created all this universe (caugh caugh, multiverese) because he want some unimportant creatures like humans to adore him? If the religions would have been created in this century, even child would have laugh with them.
It isn't a dimension that isn't materialistic at all. In the end, everything we know, feel etc is a product of electric signals our brain process.
This is a fallacious argument. Things are known or unknown whether or not we know about them. We have a quantifiable broader understanding of the world than we did a thousand years ago. The fact that we now know more about what we don't know doesn't mean we don't know more than when we didn't. In fact, that's simply another kind of knowledge, and further proof that our knowledge is broadening and progressing.
The rest of your post has been adequately dealt with by other people.
Of course I think it's wrong
May I intervene here and ask you: based on what factual evidence?
