Thank you ! That's my whole point. People are free to believe whatever hell they want and practice it as they want but do not shove down our throats from a young age, do not brainwash generations and do not mix it with politics/public life.
Religion, what's the point?
- Thread starter TheRedFlag
- Start date
Thank you ! That's my whole point. People are free to believe whatever hell they want and practice it as they want but do not shove down our throats from a young age, do not brainwash generations and do not mix it with politics/public life.
Smackdown when the guy talked about human consciousness as his proof of God yet when Harris mentioned mathematics and language the guy said because he studied it. That's the debate equivalent of when Kevin Johnson dunked over Hakeem Olajuwon.
Anyone ever watched Joel Osteen? He has a lovely smile and great hair. He gives me comfort but I'd never send the cnut any money.
This thread, what's the point?
This forum, what's the point?
Do you ever think about, like, the universe, man, and how it's, like, totally huge? What's is the point of all that, man?
Puff puff pass man, you've had it for, like, ages, man.
I've considered it, but the matter of fact for me, every time somebody makes such a claim, it strengthens my belief that the problem lies in the people criticizing the Quran for failing to understand simple things..
If you look closely to the approach of the people who criticize the Quran (from a scientific point of view), you'll find that they take kind of an "autistic approach" to it. Imagine if I say to you: "Ok, let's take the people who live in this city, and put them in (or move them to) that city. They should be safer there.". If it's God who said this, you'll say: So does God really have such big hands that he can "put them" in a village? Or how did he "move them", did he drag them across the streets with his big hands?! While when you hear anybody else say it you recognize immediately that what he meant is simply take the measures necessary to achieve that target, rather than literally meaning to "put them" like a pot, or "move them", like a table.
Most of the arguments made (the scientific ones) are actually silly literal translations of some sentences or words (which can be bad enough if it was across one language, let alone it being done across two languages, one of them is one of the most complicated languages in the whole world), and totally neglecting the context or the other verses that explain more about the exact same thing..
So to answer your question, yes I've considered it but no, I don't think there are "scientific errors" as much as I believe you simply didn't spend enough time thinking about it.
Autistic? 
No jake, first there are no evidences pointing against my faith. And second no, I wasn't referring to Jihad, I'm not talking about Muslims here, I'm talking about the atheists. I'm trying to show him that his stance towards those morals are more than just "he thinks", he actually believes in them.
I'll give you an example: you're a soldier, your colleague has been shot dead, would you try (and probably even risk your life in doing so) to drag his body to get it back home or not? I assume most of us would do it, including atheists. It doesn't have anything to do with the "factual scientific evidence" that proves for him that that is the right thing to do. It's just a moral value. It's just something we think is the right thing to do regardless of "scientific evidences", even if we were atheists.
The point I'm making here, even though atheists try to picture themselves as people who only believe in science, and only act upon "factual scientific evidence", they still follow morals that can not be proven by science, but they believe in them, not just "think it's right" or "intuition thing", no, they believe in them to the point they're ready to risk their life for it.
I gave an example here about "risking your life" just to show the commitment you show for those non-materialistic principles that aren't proven by science. Dignity, honesty, love, ...etc. all those things we believe in (or most of us probably), even the atheists who try to pretend that they only believe in and act upon materialistic evidences in their lives.
That's the first part. Now not only this, they also use their morals, that are not proven by science, to judge others' morals. An example of this is how many atheists attack Mohammad because according to some hadith he may have been married to a teenager. "How disgusting is that?!" Right? Well, aren't you here making the same mistake you criticize the Muslims for? Using your scientifically unproven morals to judge other people??
Those are the points I tried to make. Two things you criticize Muslims (or religious people) for (believe in and act upon things unproven by science, and using their scientifically unproven morals to judge other people), but you still do yourself.
Autistic?
Yes.
For the millionth time, what is the difference between the Quran, the Book of Mormon and Lord of the Rings? Until you can answer that, don't claim that there's no evidence for the Quran being bullshit, because it unequivocally is.
And FYI, morality and the way we behave is dictated by society, not by "beliefs", we don't believe that murder wrong, we have been brought up in a society which tells us not to kill each other and we see the point in following said rule. That's why different societies have different behavioral structures, laws and morals.
Good fecking lord, it's called empathy. It's an evolutionary trait that was beneficial to our survival as a species. Stop this strange pretence you have that it's some killer argument up your sleeve, it's about as effective as responding to people with "bananas bananas bananas".
Can I ask what your faith is?
Put it this way, not many people are saying your views are definitely wrong, but pointing out facts that point to the contrary. There are a lot of things in every religion that don't only not make mathematical sense, but opposing theories do make mathematical sense. Just because we haven't proven some things with science, doesn't mean we won't.
I would save somebody to risk my own life, but that doesn't point in the direction of their being a God. It just points in the direction that I've been taught to try and help other people. It's called humanity, and it's been around a hell of a lot longer then any religion that's knocking about.
To be fair Danny, you are linking two thing that don't need to get linked. The faith in some omnipotent power, and the morals we decide to keep themselves.
Morals cannot be proven scientifically, because they are things we (our brain) decide that are good or bad to do. We don't have to believe on morals, we only choose which we want to keep and which not.
Mohammed marrying Aisha when she was in young age (don't want to be rude to call him pedophile cause I don't know if they made sex when she was that young) is entirely a morale thing. If he did bad or not, is not something scientific (unless we want to set psychology on equation and prove that everyone can manipulate a young child, and sex when she's so young could cause trauma on her later life etc etc but that's not my point). We decide based on our morals if he did bad or not. Of course is not a simple thing, judging someone 1400 years ago in a completely different society, but still I think that it is a disgusted act. It's not something that needs to be proven scientifically here morals, as it doesn't need to say for a serial killer that he is not a good person (without doing anything scientifically).
So, my point is that morals are something we perceive and our brain (and society) creates. It is not something scientific and has nothing to do with you point to compare setting morals is equal to trusting in an omnipotent power.
Morals cannot be proven scientifically, because they are things we (our brain) decide that are good or bad to do. We don't have to believe on morals, we only choose which we want to keep and which not.
Mohammed marrying Aisha when she was in young age (don't want to be rude to call him pedophile cause I don't know if they made sex when she was that young) is entirely a morale thing. If he did bad or not, is not something scientific (unless we want to set psychology on equation and prove that everyone can manipulate a young child, and sex when she's so young could cause trauma on her later life etc etc but that's not my point). We decide based on our morals if he did bad or not. Of course is not a simple thing, judging someone 1400 years ago in a completely different society, but still I think that it is a disgusted act. It's not something that needs to be proven scientifically here morals, as it doesn't need to say for a serial killer that he is not a good person (without doing anything scientifically).
So, my point is that morals are something we perceive and our brain (and society) creates. It is not something scientific and has nothing to do with you point to compare setting morals is equal to trusting in an omnipotent power.
£5 says he's going to go on a tangent about empathy and how you can't explain it.
They're definitely wrong.
Actually another thing I think is flawed in your argument, Danny. Is the fact that not all people would stop to save somebody else, where is God there? You can't say that when a man saves another man, he's doing it because God is in his heart, but when he chooses not to, he isn't. So much for an all seeing God.
Empathy goes in, empathy goes out: you can't explain that?
Married at 6, made sex at 9.
jakec, I've said this many times already. This is not where I'm going. God has nothing to do with you saving somebody (or even somebody's dead body). You do it, not him, and that's why according to religions (Islam for example) you're going to be rewarded for it.
My point is only about acting upon things that are scientifically unproven. That's it.
People who do not save their colleagues are actually the true materialistic people, that have the right to argue against religion solely based on the fact that religious people act upon scientifically unproven things.
I need to make sex soon, have a terrible case of blueballs.
Histiography, especially epic tomes that validate political structures is something I have spent quite a large amount of time on. To assume the contrary because you hold an opposing opinion is extremely arrogant.
This exact argument is actually mentioned in the Quran.
I'd love to see the quote.
Dignity is beneficial to our survival? Honesty is beneficial to our survival? Telling the truth is beneficial to our survival?! I'd say lying would help us survive much better to be honest, and it is the natural thing we're inclined to do when we're in trouble, but we still all agree that the opposite thing to what help us get away with it is actually the right thing.
If the Quran talks about Elvis, I'm becoming a Muslim
Because everyone acts in a dignified manner and never lies, right?
So if I pull 40 people out of a burning building, sacrificing my life in the process, I'd still go hell if I drank alcohol and had a bacon sandwich?
Acting on things because of science is an interesting field, and the lad that was on this thread today with other videos has a very good viewpoint on it.
They're beneficial to our lives (human well-being), hence why they've become social norms. So yeah.
There are no universal social norms though.
In China, it's a social norm only to want sons, and as such baby girls suffer awful consequences. How is that social norm in line with morality?
The simple truth is, morality isn't a real thing. The word needs to be understood in line with Wittgenstiens Language Games, we know what we understand when we say 'morality' or 'wrong' or 'right' but they only mean something in the context of our society. They're not real things.
In China, it's a social norm only to want sons, and as such baby girls suffer awful consequences. How is that social norm in line with morality?
The simple truth is, morality isn't a real thing. The word needs to be understood in line with Wittgenstiens Language Games, we know what we understand when we say 'morality' or 'wrong' or 'right' but they only mean something in the context of our society. They're not real things.
Rape and pillaging used to be social norms, we wouldn't call them right.
And thus you aptly display just how little you understand human evolution. Or just evolution, really. No wonder you come to the conclusions you do when you're operating with such misconceptions.
Forming social groups was crucial to our survival. Good luck doing that when everyone's a deceitful piece of shit.
That's a pretty bold statement (which is why I bolded it lolz).
These two points go against each other actually and both don't touch the point raised by Ubik.
First what Ubik said was "beneficial to our survival", which means the people who tell the truth survived because they told the truth, and the people who lie had a disadvantage because they lied, so they died, or suffered huge losses because of it that gave the people who tell the truth the advantage. Which is why we ended up with most people believing that telling the truth is good. I don't agree with this.
Silva is the closest to reality IMO, and he points out to the fact that we still survived not because "telling the truth helped us" but because many of us lie too. Which is correct, from survival point of view, I think lying will give us a better chance.. But then again, if lying give us a better chance to survive, then why do we still think telling the truth is the right thing to do?
Saliph, when we talk about survival (in the evolution sense) we don't care about the social norms, or how it makes us feel about ourselves. I can be very happy with what I have, but still become more vulnerable to extinction. Survival means gives me better chance to beat the rivals, and survive, not a better chance to live a better life.
There aren't. Aside from things like breathing, name one thing which all civilizations throughout history have done.