Let's just say 'hate websites' shall we? Wanton generalization is as bad as plagiarism.
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.
Let's just say 'hate websites' shall we? Wanton generalization is as bad as plagiarism.
I wasn't trying to generalise. I wanted to make the point that there are a few Christian websites that act as experts. Apologies on the wording.
Wording is quite important, because the point you ended up making was quite different and could be quite offensive.
I disagree - not "... could be..." but it definitely was offensive for someone reading my post with an open mind. Again, apologies to anyone it has offended, though not many have viewed it I suppose. I'm more interested in the response to the explanation of verses I provided.
What does "we are energy" even mean?
There is no getting away from the fact that according to the Quran, Muhammed was a genocidal warlord who condoned the butchery of men and the enslavement (and probable rape) of women and children. The context doesn't really matter when it comes to things like Banu Qurayza, because there is no justifying it.
Where did you get these "facts" from? Especially the assumption that he condoned rape, which is something I expect an EDL member to say. Can you point me to relevant sources? Because as far as I'm concerned (since I have read the Qur'an), there is no such thing. I find the enslavement of women part laughable, too.
The execution of the tribe of Banu Qurayza and the enslavement of its women and children, on Muhammed's orders, is a matter of fact according to the Quran and Sunni Hadith, and it is not something that is contested by Islamic scholars.
The women and children were either sold on or kept as slaves by Muhammed's men. It is likely that Muhammed himself kept one as a concubine (Ibn Ishaq).
So you think it's just an intuition?! You're not really sure?! So if I tell you that killing a 5 years old is the right thing to do you'll just accept my opinion, because "well, it's all relative"?!
Then why are you judging the religions and people from other religions as "wrong" if it's all relative? They just have a different set of moral values that differ from yours.. Why are you going like "Hey look at those! They killed a 5 years old! That's disgusting! We have to fight them!". It's meaningless. Why are you talking about things like "pride", "justice", "dignity", ...etc. and how you're ready to give up your life for them. It's meaningless, because those terms are just "relative", they are just intuitions that we don't really care about and we don't really believe in!
If you are downgrading those beliefs to just "intuitions" just to try to save your argument about God, then it just gives you a glimpse about which direction you'd be really going if you keep this "factual materialistic evidence" condition for any debate.
Ok. First of all, had you taken the time to read carefully what I have wrote in this thread, you would have noticed that I have mentioned the context in which the verse was produced. I have studied 12 years of Islamic education, I have been raised in an Islamic country (and not even a conservative one) and I know full well what is and what is not in this religion. So spare me your nonsense about having an agenda and such.
Again if you had taken the time to read what I wrote in this thread you would have noticed that I did mention the context (I did mention Badr's battle) and I did mention the generalization that follows. Let me quote the verse for you :
8:13 That is because they have split off from God and His messenger. Anyone who splits off from God and His messenger [will find out] that God is Stern in punishment.
You see that bold part ? Well that kind of bothers me. Especially the word "Anyone". If you don't see a call to violence behind this I have nothing more to say to you. You make it sound like muslims have always used violence as a response to others initiating war. Who are you kidding ? You know the word "Foutouhat Islamya" right ? Here is what your peaceful prophet has to say for instance :
"I have been ordered by God to fight with people till they bear testimony to the fact that there is no God but Allah and that Mohammed is his messenger, and that they establish prayer and pay Zakat (money). If they do it, their blood and their property are safe from me" (Bukhari Vol. I, p. 13).
I have also mentioned in this thread the concept of abrogation and how the Quran's tone changes between Mecca and Medina as Islam became more and more imperialist. But you chose to ignore that.
Again, you are kidding yourself. Doesn't Islam say that the Quran is adequate everytime and everywhere ?
There was no compulsion in the religion when it first started because Muhammad needed followers. As soon as he went to Medina and became more and more powerful, all those kind words were forgotten. Quran became more and more violent and Islam began to look for expansion.
Last point : I am an atheist, I do not believe in an Abrahamic god. I don't have any agenda, I happen to use my brain and realize that Islam is full of bullshit as is Judaism and Christianity. I happen to be born in an Islamic country so that's the religion I know best.
No, I'm not a cultural relativist. Which means that this post was a waste of time.
Actually a physicist named Lawrence Krauss has just released a book dealing with that very subject.
Yeah, let's set a predefined environment with predefined conditions and predefined laws that control them as the starting point and then call it "the nothing", and then claim we've found the answer..Why do other animals nurture and protect their young?
Not really, you're saying that all the moral values are "relative" and they're just intuitions not beliefs, which means that we shouldn't really be defending them, so when we're talking about "justice", "army pride", ...etc. were just talking bullsh*t really.
No. You're the one who claimed that my moral values are based on "faith". Which is ridiculous.
..
They are. They are not based on factual scientific evidence. You yourself said it's just an "intuition" and you were actually ready to drop them to save your argument.
No, they're not. Stop being silly.
If I'm in love with someone, I don't take it on "faith" that I am. I just am.
If you're looking for scientific evidence you have to connect the term morality to something else. You can't just say "scientifically prove that action X is moral", it makes no sense at all. But I see you've retreated to obscurantism and bickering, which speaks volumes.
No as I said before, that's not where I'm going. I'm only arguing a logical point used to discredit any belief that isn't based on factual scientific (materialistic) evidence. Morals/ethics aren't based on any scientific factual evidence, yet we believe in them and defend them, only based on logical arguments and personal feeling.
But you're ready to die for him/her (/it, the moral value), aren't you?
Exactly, yet we keep defending our morals, even the atheists, and we're ready to die for them.
I have no idea what kind of a point you think you have.
I'm not sure it's that tough to understand to be honest. You're ready to defend something (even with your life) and be so sure that what you're doing is the right thing to do, even though you don't have a factual scientific evidence that supports that belief. You're just acting based on "intuition".
Not only this, but you're also using your own set of morals as a reference to judge the morals of other people as well..
Scientific errors in Quran:
We created man from sounding clay, from mud moulded into shape; (15:26) Man created from clay?
Until, when he reached the setting of the sun, he found it set in a spring of murky water: Near it he found a People: We said: "O Zul-qarnain! (thou hast authority,) either to punish them, or to treat them with kindness." (18:86) Sun in water?
It is God who made for you the earth a fixed place and heaven for an edifice; And He shaped you, and shaped you well, and provided you with the good things. That then is God, your Lord, so blessed be God, the Lord of all Being. (40:64) Earth is not a fixed place.
Hast thou not Turned thy vision to one who disputed with Abraham About his Lord, because Allah had granted him power? Abraham said: "My Lord is He Who Giveth life and death." He said: "I give life and death". Said Abraham: "But it is Allah that causeth the sun to rise from the east: Do thou then cause him to rise from the West." Thus was he confounded who (in arrogance) rejected faith. Nor doth Allah Give guidance to a people unjust. (2:258) Sun doesn't rise on the east. The effect is because of the Earth's revolution
And when the stars fall (81:2) Stars doesn't fall
The stars which rise and set (81:16) Neither rise or set
And verily We have beautified the world's heaven with stars/lamps, and We have made them missiles for the devils, and for them We have prepared the doom of flame. (67:5) Starts who could be million of times bigger than Earth are missile for devils. Also, how stars are missils?
See ye not how Allah has created the seven heavens one above another,
'And made the moon a light in their midst, and made the sun as a (Glorious) Lamp (71:15-16) Moon in the middle?
Reclining in the (Garden) on raised thrones, they will see there neither the sun's (excessive heat) nor (the moon's) excessive cold. (76:13) Moon's excessive cold?
The hour drew nigh and the moon was rent in twain. (54:1) Moon divided in two
We created the heavens and the earth and all between them in Six Days, nor did any sense of weariness touch Us (50:38) Universe created in six days
And that He it is Who is the Lord of Sirius (53:49) Sirius is a double star, while here the verse implicates that he is a single star, using singular form
Verily the knowledge of the Hour is with Allah (alone). It is He Who sends down rain, and He Who knows what is in the wombs. Nor does any one know what it is that he will earn on the morrow: Nor does any one know in what land he is to die. Verily with Allah is full knowledge and He is acquainted (with all things). (31:34) Only him?
Then We made the sperm into a clot of congealed blood; then of that clot We made a (foetus) lump; then we made out of that lump bones then (not and) clothed the bones with flesh; then we developed out of it another creature. So blessed be Allah, the best to create! (23-14) Contrary to the verse, the first muscles are created before the bones
Behold! they fold up their hearts, that they may lie hid from Him! Ah even when they cover themselves with their garments, He knoweth what they conceal, and what they reveal: for He knoweth well the (inmost secrets) of the hearts. (51:49) People don't think with their hearts
Between them is a Barrier which they do not transgress (55:20) About the different seas
And at the Earth, how it is spread out? (88:20) Earth is flat?
He Who has, made for you the earth like a carpet spread out; has enabled you to go about therein by roads (and channels); and has sent down water from the sky." With it have We produced diverse pairs of plants each separate from the others. (20:53) According to Quran, yes it is.
And He it is Who sends the winds as good news before His mercy; and We send down pure water from the cloud, (25:48) The average of PH in rain is 5.6. Also, rain can be acidic
And thy Lord taught the Bee to build its cells in hills, on trees, and in (men's) habitations;Then to eat of all the fruits (of the earth), and find with skill the spacious paths of its Lord: there issues from within their bodies a drink of varying colors, wherein is healing for men: verily in this is a Sign for those who give thought. (16:68-69) Bees don't eat fruit
And (He has created) horses, mules, and donkeys, for you to ride and use for show; and He has created (other) things of which ye have no knowledge. (16:8) Horses have been created for us?
At length, behold! there came Our command, and the fountains of the earth gushed forth! We said: "Embark therein, of each kind two, male and female, and your family - except those against whom the word has already gone forth,- and the Believers." but only a few believed with him. (11:40) How big that boat was?
The Jews call 'Uzair a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. Allah's curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth! (9:30) Historically there isn't evidence that Jews called Uzair (Ezra) son of God.
We (once) sent Noah to his people, and he tarried among them a thousand years less fifty: but the Deluge overwhelmed them while they (persisted in) sin. (29:14) Noah lived for 950 years?
There is not an animal (that lives) on the earth, nor a being that flies on its wings, but (forms part of) communities like you. Nothing have we omitted from the Book, and they (all) shall be gathered to their Lord in the end. (6:38) Leopard lives single
And well ye knew those amongst you who transgressed in the matter of the Sabbath: We said to them: "Be ye apes, despised and rejected." (2:65) Humans transformed into apes
And Solomon was David's heir. He said: "O ye people! We have been taught the speech of birds, and on us has been bestowed (a little) of all things: this is indeed Grace manifest (from Allah.)And before Solomon were marshalled his hosts― of Jinns and men and birds, and they were all kept in order and ranks. (27:16-17) Army of birds?
4.11: Allah (thus) directs you as regards your Children's (Inheritance): to the male, a portion equal to that of two females: if only daughters, two or more, their share is two-thirds of the inheritance; if only one, her share is a half. For parents, a sixth share of the inheritance to each, if the deceased left children; if no children, and the parents are the (only) heirs, the mother has a third; if the deceased Left brothers (or sisters) the mother has a sixth. (The distribution in all cases ('s) after the payment of legacies and debts. Ye know not whether your parents or your children are nearest to you in benefit. These are settled portions ordained by Allah; and Allah is All-knowing, Al-wise.
4.12: In what your wives leave, your share is a half, if they leave no child; but if they leave a child, ye get a fourth; after payment of legacies and debts. In what ye leave, their share is a fourth, if ye leave no child; but if ye leave a child, they get an eighth; after payment of legacies and debts. If the man or woman whose inheritance is in question, has left neither ascendants nor descendants, but has left a brother or a sister, each one of the two gets a sixth; but if more than two, they share in a third; after payment of legacies and debts; so that no loss is caused (to any one). Thus is it ordained by Allah; and Allah is All-knowing, Most Forbearing. (4:11-12)
- wife: 1/8 = 3/24,
- daughters: 2/3 = 16/24,
- father: 1/6 = 4/24,
- mother: 1/6 = 4/24,
- total = 27/24=1.12
Revan, have you considered the possibility that you didn't understand what was meant correctly? I'll give you the same advice I've given over and over again. Consider the other possible explanations, and read the whole Quran to see which of those possibilities become the likeliest one.
It's not difficult actually to answer all of those points, even though it will be time-consuming to do them all now.. Anyway, I'll begin with the last one, as I assume this looks the most convincing one (because hey, that's math, and personally I love math, how can the Quran make such a grave error?!).
The answer is actually a couple of verses above.. ((For men is a share of what the parents and close relatives leave, and for women is a share of what the parents and close relatives leave, be it little or much - an obligatory share.)).
That's why the wives and husbands are not given their shares as "part" of the whole inheritance system, but they follow a separate system, because they're not relatives (blood relatives). So we should first give the husband/wife his/her share/right, and then what's left is actually what is "left" for his "relatives" i.e. parents/sons/daughters...etc.
Which is why you have to take the 1/8 out of your equation, as we should give the 1/8 to the wife first, and then the remaining 7/8 will be what the man left for his relatives.
It's not difficult actually to answer all of those points, even though it will be time-consuming to do them all now.. Anyway, I'll begin with the last one, as I assume this looks the most convincing one (because hey, that's math, and personally I love math, how can the Quran make such a grave error?!).
The answer is actually a couple of verses above.. ((For men is a share of what the parents and close relatives leave, and for women is a share of what the parents and close relatives leave, be it little or much - an obligatory share.)).
That's why the wives and husbands are not given their shares as "part" of the whole inheritance system, but they follow a separate system, because they're not relatives (blood relatives). So we should first give the husband/wife his/her share/right, and then what's left is actually what is "left" for his "relatives" i.e. parents/sons/daughters...etc.
Which is why you have to take the 1/8 out of your equation, as we should give the 1/8 to the wife first, and then the remaining 7/8 will be what the man left for his relatives.
Have you considered that the Quran is as made up as the Book of Mormon or Lord of the Rings?
Exactly. What separates it from any other aetiological book like the Odyssey or the Aeneid or the Bible? They are all fictitious histories drawn from existing texts to vaildate a political power.
Just saw this..
First, the verse "There is no compulsion in Religion" was recited in Medina.
Second, The bolded verse says God will punish him, not humans, how is that calling for violence on Earth?!
Third, yes, the Quran is adequate for every time everywhere, in the right context. Even in our days, verses that are about war apply in the event of war, and the verses that are about peace apply in the times of peace.
Fourth, there is a lot of discussion about the "Foutohat in Islam", and I have to say even though not all Muslims actually agree that the Muslims were right in all of their wars (bar the ones fought during Mohammad's life) because they were fought after all by humans not prophets, and they may have misjudged the situation, but, I have to remind you that "facts" like those can also be interpreted in more than one way.. For example, the US' occupation for Iraq is called liberation for some reason, the US' occupation of Afghanistan is called "bringing justice to America", and bombing Japan with 2 nuclear bombs "can be justified"...etc. Let's not allow ourselves to play the justification card when it comes to our actions, and then deny others from using it when it comes to their actions..
Have you considered the much more likely and fully logical scenario that the book reflected the scientific ignorance at the time it was written?
Doesn't the need for context defeat it being adequate for every time everywhere? The context, with what we know today, for example, is that the Quran is made up and is fiction.
Ok, cheers for that. What about for the other hundred I mentioned?
What does this even mean? And while I've got you here, what, exactly, am I ready to give my life for?
I think what he's trying to say is how come you can have so much faith in something that all the evidence known to man points against it.
The brackets was a reference to Jihad I think.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intuitionism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_intuitionism
Intuition has nothing to do with god or religion.
Religion makes some people feel better. Good for them, I guess. Smoke 'em if you've got 'em.
That being said, in this day and age it should be a personal thing only. The big churches (for lack of a better word) would struggle to defend their viability and even necessity in today's world.
That being said, in this day and age it should be a personal thing only. The big churches (for lack of a better word) would struggle to defend their viability and even necessity in today's world.
This pretty much sums up what a failure of thinking religion is. Harris speaking to a crowd of (mostly) Christians:
Lads, if you are quoting a source, can you provide a link to the source.
Cheers.
Cheers.
Brilliant summary by Dr. Harris, and when I attempt to use his argument against the crazy Xians in the US, I get dumbfounded looks in return.
Harris comparing religion to believing Elvis is alive is one of the greatest things ever.
Sourate Al Baqara from which that verse is taken was the first one to be recited in Medina so still early on. Muhammad did not change his tone from one day to the other but you can see it become more violent/direct compared to Mekka. Besides, you only have to look at Muhammad's collected conversations to realize that he was not tolerant with regards to non muslims. Do you want me to quote Al Azhar experts who confirm and accept Muhammad's and Islam's shift in aggressivity ?
Because you don't need anymore encouragment to start hating on those who are not muslims ! Imagine a government that explicitly targets a group within its nation and constantly threatens it. How do you think the general population will react overtime even though the government does not take any explicit action against them ? And that's supposed to be God talking, so the impact on believers mind is much greater. Let's not be hypocrits here.
Are you saying that Muhammad has never encouraged offensive wars ? Should I quote again hadiths where he explicitly encourages his followers to spread Islam by force if necessary ?
You know what's common about all of your examples ? Violence. And that was my initial claim. Violence is inherent in Islam, whether it is in the Quran as a the promise of punishment for any nonbeliever or in Muhammad's conversations encouraging his followers to convert people by force. The root of this is that in order for Islam to survive, it needed to be aggressive. Otherwise it would have been lost and forgotten amoung the countless other religions that failed. And let's stop mentioning other atrocities thinking that it has any importance. Those are as horrible as Foutouhat wars and I make no difference.