Not randomly killed each other.
Religion, what's the point?
- Thread starter TheRedFlag
- Start date
Not randomly killed each other.
Oh jesus christ. I can't even be bothered, this is the most simplistic stuff.
Debatable. People have been killing each other for as long as we've existed. But it depends what you mean by randomly, you don't really do anything randomly, so that kinds of makes the whole statement moot.
No offense moses, I don't want it to be personal here, I'm only talking about the impression I'm getting from hearing those "scientific errors" where most of them actually can be easily answered if you just think about them (reallllly think about them, with open mind) for 5 minutes, like the example I gave.
And if you read all the posts in this thread (well the last few pages at least), you'll have a different view about where the source of arrogance is coming from..
What the feck are you talking about?
Not really. Granted, there have been many different contexts in which different civilizations have deemed it appropriate to kill, but it's never been acceptable to kill another person for no reason at all.
Again, we don't do anything for no reason at all. So it does make that point rather irrelevant. We don't even kill bugs for no reason at all, if you kill a fly or a mosquito it'll be because it's pissing you off or because you have some animosity against them, not randomly for no reason. But I don't know the attitudes of every civilization ever and I can't think of any where killing people within their clan* (or equivalent) is openly acceptable. So that might be an exception to the point.
*Killing people outsides of ones clan (or equivalent) hasn't always, and still isn't totally seen as going against the social norms.
Are you being deliberately obtuse? Fine, let's make it easier: "Don't kill people in your own tribe/group" has been a universal social norm. Exceptions are irrelevant; there are exceptions to many (if not all) social norms.
A bit yeah, I kind of realized you were right straight away and wanted to see if I could wear you down, but no. You have to go and keep on beating at it.
Fair enough.
Empathy is a evolutionary trait?
Traits are mostly physical characterestics driven by genes. For example, hair colur and such.
Emotional traits are common emotional charcterestics and they are not evolutionary.
No. He is not...atleast on that post! He argues that most atheists claim science and facts as their defence for not believing in god and he has pointed out that moral characterest are still common though without scientific evidence. Science can tell you water is hydrogen & oxygen, but still cannot create it. Emotional traits are beyond scietific proof...at least for now.
I see many argue that some religion books cannot prove the existance of god. Same way, Science cannot prove the non-existance of one.
Empathy is a evolutionary trait?
Traits are mostly physical characterestics driven by genes. For example, hair colur and such.
Emotional traits are common emotional charcterestics and they are not evolutionary.
No. He is not...atleast on that post! He argues that most atheists claim science and facts as their defence for not believing in god and he has pointed out that moral characterest are still common though without scientific evidence. Science can tell you water is hydrogen & oxygen, but still cannot create it. Emotional traits are beyond scietific proof...at least for now.
I see many argue that some religion books cannot prove the existance of god. Same way, Science cannot prove the non-existance of one.
It can prove easily prove the non-existence of an Abrahamic one as described in the texts. Granted religious people do not try to turn any factual inconsistency to a metaphor in order to escape the contradiction.
Well it is offensive to be so dismissive,and assume those who disagree do so because of a closed mind. And I don't really give a toss about who else is being arrogant. It doesn't alter the fact you are being arrogant. And again you imply I don't have an open mind. After apologising for saying just that. There is nothing except your choice to believe that one of man's many aetiological books is true yet the many many others are not. Your criteria can be applied to any collection of fables.
We don't "use" the metaphor, it is a metaphor, you're the one who is trying to force us to translate/interpret it literally.
I already gave an example, but here is another one.. This was one of Revan's arguments...
He's trying to tell me that the stars (including the sun) don't rise and set but actually move in orbits, and so does the earth, so it's a grave error that points out to the scientific ignorance at the time, which led to this grave error. But, but, we still use the term sunrise and sunset till now, in our "scientifically developed age".. Are we making this grave error because of our ignorance? Do we really mean that sun rises up and then goes down now? No. We use that term just as a figurative term to describe the event, and we all understand it when it comes to our daily life, and we don't even question it. We just understand what's meant by it when we encounter it in our lives, yet, when it comes to the Quran, which talks to people who had no idea what the hell is an orbit, you don't want him to use the terms you yourself use till now, and then you go on about some (silly) literal translations to prove that it was "wrong". (Anybody watched "Married with Children"? You're just playing Kelly here..
)So there is an honesty gene I'm not aware of?
Let's first separate two things, being a "revolutionary trait" doesn't have anything to do with you taking (serious) action based on your belief that they're right, even though you don't have a scientific evidence to prove it. So that's a separate issue.
Let's come back to your massive claim that telling the truth was beneficial to our survival. Do you have some factual scientific evidence to support it? Or is evolution now becoming a "faith", that we just throw the word evolution out there whenever we don't understand something because we're assuming that evolution should know all the answers? If you don't have a factual materialistic evidence to support that telling the truth was beneficial to our survival, then I think evolution is slightly drifting away from being a science, to becoming a faith.
And if you say I don't have materialistic evidence to prove that telling the truth is beneficial to our survival, I'm just using simple logic, then are you admitting that logic is enough sometimes to make conclusions without materialistic evidences?
By the way, we all form social groups, and we all lie all the time, so your theory actually kind of doesn't make sense even on logic level.
Two important things. First having sex with a sexually immature girl is not allowed in Islam. Forbidden. So I hope we're done with this kind of stupid claims.
And second, the second bolded part, then why are you criticizing Muslims when they think that some of your morals/actions are disgusting?? And you call them backwards, and close-minded, ...etc. Why do you want to force your morals on others, when you don't really have factual scientific evidences to prove that your morals are right?
I do apologise, but you still have taken things out of context. I'll address the verses and hadith below, but first I will say that the difference in the tone of the Qur'an will be discussed at another time, so don't worry - you will get a response. I didn't choose to ignore anything, you just decided to insert something about Mecca and Medina and then you ultimately said I chose to ignore it... Funny.
Anyway, Sultan said the following:
Part of your response to this was:
So quite clearly, you never understood the context in which those verses were revealed in. I explained the context - it had nothing to do with people not believing in Islam, it never has and it never will. Islam doesn't force anyone to believe in it, hence it is clearly stated in the Qur'an that we, as Muslims, should only act as a reminder to the people. The verse - "remind, for you are only a reminder", revealed to Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) - clearly states this, thus Muslims entail on something known as dawah. No one is forced to convert, we are taught about religious tolerance. Some Muslims do force their views on others, which is wrong, but then we'd be lying if they represented the majority...
Now to the Hadith, may I ask that you quote the right numbers and so on, so that it makes it easier to know where I can find them? Here is it again, with the right numbers:
Volume 001, Book 002, Hadith Number 024.
-----------------------------------------
Narrated By Ibn 'Umar : Allah's Apostle said: "I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle, and offer the prayers perfectly and give the Obligatory charity, so if they perform a that, then they save their lives an property from me except for Islamic laws and then their reckoning (accounts) will be done by Allah."
It's already been argued that the hadith refers directly to war, so those who Allah has permitted us to fight, and has nothing to do with killing anyone we see. Nearly every Muslim scholar has stated this, and again I fail to see why people are immediately "experts" in this regard. It's baffling, barbaric, and laughable - there are many scholars (Christian, Muslim, etc.), we as humans have decided to do our own research, without involving context.
He's trying to tell me that the stars (including the sun) don't rise and set but actually move in orbits, and so does the earth, so it's a grave error that points out to the scientific ignorance at the time, which led to this grave error. But, but, we still use the term sunrise and sunset till now, in our "scientifically developed age".. Are we making this grave error because of our ignorance? Do we really mean that sun rises up and then goes down now? No. We use that term just as a figurative term to describe the event, and we all understand it when it comes to our daily life, and we don't even question it. We just understand what's meant by it when we encounter it in our lives, yet, when it comes to the Quran, which talks to people who had no idea what the hell is an orbit, you don't want him to use the terms you yourself use till now, and then you go on about some (silly) literal translations to prove that it was "wrong". (Anybody watched "Married with Children"? You're just playing Kelly here..
Well, that's utter bullshit. See Language Games, everything is within its context, the sun and stars do rise and set, even if the mechanism isn't understood as them literally moving around the world.
If god was being so kind as to tell us this particular ignorance of the time, why didn't he tell mohhamed not to feck a 9 year old girl?
Wrong. Morality isn't a real thing. And are you simple? Emotional traits are in no way beyond scientific proof, neuroscience and psychology are quite big fields.
Wrong again. Science doesn't try to prove the non-existence of god, lack of evidence for god proves the non-existence of god.
But marrying one is fine?
How can you play the moral card in relation to the existence of god if you're not willing to talk about what is morally wrong and right?
Without resulting to isults, you are again wrong. You are confusing morals with emotions. There are certain nerves which when stimulated trigger emotions. But morals are more subjective. The concept of "lesser harm for greater good" can de debated in a thread as big as this. Morality is the choice a person makes depending on the situation which has a bit of emotion, a bit of logic and a bit of his own psych profile. No science can predict the outcome and the choice a person will make in different situations.
Take for example creation, if you read my quote from Stephen Hawking's lecture, all science can come up with is "Singularity" ebfore the big bank. There are no proof's on what this singularity is apart from assumption that all laws of physics would become extinct. Though no proof exists for the existence, definition or descritpion of this, it still is a valid and acceptable theory. So the arguement of no proof = no existance is not valid even in science.
What seems to be your arguement here? So the guy has done something wrong, so everything he did and said otherwise should be ignored irrespective of the good or benefits many others may have derived from his actions/words?
There is no difference between the trigger and the result. The neuron interactions are all we are. Morals are dictated by the society the person happens to belong to, nothing more.
And there is some logical reasoning for the singularity, there's nothing similar for any of the worlds religions.
My argument here is that morality has nothing to do with religion, and in no way proves anything.
Amount amount of good and bad that's caused by religion is irrelevant to weather or not it's correct.
This statement is self contradictory
I agree with the last part. Morals are dictated by the society. If a person moves from one society to another, his perspective of morals would change. No change to his neurons or nervous systems!
Ok. This I can agree with you!
, but unfortunately if I recall, the arguement was about morality and science. They have nothing to do with each other either!Cheers!
How is that statement self contradictory? What does someones nervous system have to do with morality? Are you just saying words now? And no, depending on how old this person is his perspective would either not change or take an apt amount of time to change. The children of immigrants (speaking from experience more than anything else) are quite different to their parents and hold very different views.This statement is self contradictory
I agree with the last part. Morals are dictated by the society. If a person moves from one society to another, his perspective of morals would change. No change to his neurons or nervous systems!
Ok. This I can agree with you!
Cheers!
What? I never said morality has anything to do with science, it doesn't. It's not a real thing.
We have been trying to understand out emotions and actions for millenia now, we have been discussing ethics, or virtues since the dawn of recorded literature. Moral values do appear to have some universals but they vary from time to time and region to region. The one thing is that what is accepted as moral is becoming more universal and much more enlightened as we move though time. The lot of the average person is getting better, and the universal application of a societies morals is improving, for although the Greeks and the Romans in particular discussed ethics/morals they applied them quite selectively. If they were instructions from a God they would surely have arrived fully formed?
OK. My mistaken then, when you quote neurosciene and stuff, I thought you mistook morality for emotional traits!
Not quite. A common example would be downloading from torrents. You can argue that it is morally and legally wrong, but among many it still is a acceptable practice. Lying is morally wrong but everyone does it. Knowing about moral rights/wrongs and acting on it are not getting universal or standardized.
I did not understand the last sentance about god. Just in case, I mentioned clearly that I too believe that religion and morals are not related!
This is getting boring, really. I will not address the first part of your post as I have already given my opinion numerous times in this thread. You think that God saying numerous times in the Quran that those who are not believers will be punished is fine, I don't. The context of the verse is Badr's battle, the generalization that follows is not. But choose to ignore again this fact.
What the hell are you talking about when you say that Islam does not force anyone to believe ? Again, have you never heard about "Futuhat Islamya" ? Do you want me to give you accounts about how anyone who did not submit to Islam was attacked during those campaigns ? But choose to distance yourself again from this, despite your prophet and God openly calling for the spread of Islam.
Now for the hadith. Are you really this hyprocrite ? Read it again, slowly. "I have been ordered to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle...". Self defense you say ? Let me give you an overview of what imperialist Islam initiated by Muhammad during his last years looks like :
Letter to the christians of Aylah :
Letter to the King of ‘Oman, Jaifer, and his brother ‘Abd Al-Jaland :
Letter to Haudra bin 'Ali (Governor of Yamama) :
For more examples :
http://www.kalamullah.com/Books/The letters of the Prophet Muhammad to the Kings beyond Arabia.pdf
With respect to downloading torrents, my generation was introduced to them before being introduced to any particularly complex theory against stealing and as such is quite liberal towards their use and saw nothing morally questionable about them until being made aware of it. There was never any innate feeling of "oh, if I click download I'm a bad person"
Is Adam and Eve's story also a metaphor ? How did humans appear on Earth according to Islam ?
1) I don't know exactly when did he had sex. Werewolf said that when Aisha was 9 years old, but I don't know
2) As I said a billion times, morals are not something that can be proven scientifically. I judge him (and all people who marry infantile girls) because I think that is disgusting and unfair marrying (and fecking) a child, especially if the boy is 40 years older than her.
It is mentioned in several hadiths :
Narrated Aisha: "The Prophet engaged me when I was a girl of six (years). We went to Medina and stayed at the home of Bani-al-Harith bin Khazraj. Then I got ill and my hair fell down. Later on my hair grew (again) and my mother, Um Ruman, came to me while I was playing in a swing with some of my girl friends. She called me, and I went to her, not knowing what she wanted to do to me. She caught me by the hand and made me stand at the door of the house. I was breathless then, and when my breathing became Alright, she took some water and rubbed my face and head with it. Then she took me into the house. There in the house I saw some Ansari women who said, "Best wishes and Allah's Blessing and a good luck." Then she entrusted me to them and they prepared me (for the marriage). Unexpectedly Allah's Apostle came to me in the forenoon and my mother handed me over to him, and at that time I was a girl of nine years of age.
Sahih Bukhari 5:58:234
“My mother came to me while I was being swung on a swing between two branches and got me down. My nurse took over and wiped my face with some water and started leading me. When I was at the door she stopped so I could catch my breath. I was brought in while Muhammad was sitting on a bed in our house. My mother made me sit on his lap. The other men and women got up and left. The Prophet consummated his marriage with me in my house when I was nine years old. Neither a camel nor a sheep was slaughtered on behalf of me.”
Al-Tabari, Vol. 9, p. 131
I agree they are not related. I wasn't talking to you, but in general. And your point about Torrents is what I am saying, that morals are not set in stone, and in that case are blurred with legality and copyright which is completely inconsistent and only there to serve the interests of certain individuals. Law therefore trying to dictate morals. I'm not sure everyone that downloads does accept it is morally wrong. Morals are particular to a time and place. They have been codified many times and said to be the will of a deity or pantheon, and are usually published with tales of great feats by said deities to enforce their authority to compel the people to comply to whatever set of morals and codes of obedience they are peddling. Also included in these books are familiar folk tales and allegories, often modified slightly, to give the audience some familiarity to ease the selling of the overall. It's something we have done for a very long time and was very prevalent as societies took shape.
Exactly. Now we have multinational companies putting pressure on Governments to make laws and have ISPs send letters to us, and thus through the law, construct an applicable morality, so we have no need for the vengeful God watching over us. These books were the best way at the time to get an order and unity of sorts onto a society.
Someone's getting a little bit touchy. Maybe you should learn to respect another person's opinion, instead of getting arrogant. If it has become boring, stop debating with people with different viewpoints. Let's clear up one thing before I carry on, please stop inserting words into my posts. It makes you look desperate. The context is the Battle of Badr - that's when the verses were revealed, thus your point - no matter how many times you'll write it down - is redundant. There are parts of the Qur'an, which clearly state what will happen to the non-believers (hell fire), but what you're trying to suggest is no more than a fabrication and for someone who has apparently studied Islam, you must have not grasped the concept of understanding different times and context.
Your second paragraph is even more laughable. Islam doesn't convert anyone to convert and to easily demonstrate this, look at the majority of Muslims in the world. They do not force their views on others. You should also try to read the Qur'an again, knowing that context is integral. If you read the Qur'an, you would know that in Surah 88, verse 21, Allah says to Prophet Muhammad (PBUH): So remind, [O Muhammad]; you are only a reminder. In the subsequent verse (22), Allah then says to him: You are not over them a controller. Prophet Muhammad cared about everyone, hence these verses were written in the Qur'an - he was not only concerned about his Ummah, but the non-believers too, so please stop with the perpetual fabrications. In fact, in the two verses after verse 22, Allah states that he will punish the non-believers - yes... Allah... and not Muslims, as you are trying to allude to desperately. I'd love for you to explain more about Futuhat Islamya [Islamiya, actually].
Finally, I am not hypocrite. These accusations are coming from someone who said he knew the context of the hadith, yet you used it in response to Sultan's post, which is absurd. To debunk your claims, this is what a major scholar (Ibn Taymiyyah) said about the hadith above:
"It refers to fighting those who are waging war, whom Allah has permitted us to fight. It does not refer to those who have a covenant with us with whom Allah commands us to fulfil our covenant." [Majmû` al-Fatâwâ (19/20)]
I can continue, but it's futile because you've done the opposite of what I asked you to do. I said stop acting like an expert, but that seems to have not been processed for some weird reason. And for the record, here are two sites which give you the viewpoints of scholars, qualified people who understand the linguistics more than you and I (and they understand the context), which should help you:
http://seekersguidance.org/ans-blog/2010/11/06/jihad-abrogation-in-the-quran-the-verse-of-the-sword/
http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-65182.html
I find it almost unbelievably that someone who claims to have studied Islam can bring up such a weak argument regarding hadith of all things, without understanding the fundamentals. No one asked you to believe, no one ever will, it's your decision - and I can only translate this to bitterness since you lived in a society full of Muslims, but hey if you want to neglect the facts of scholars, then that isn't my problem, that's yours.
They are interpretations of scholars? We are having these discussions about 'faith' mostly in the absence of facts surely?
And if you are going to complain about arrogance then steer more clear of it when you post.
I actually meant to say facts and scholars, though I was in a rush to post. Facts in relation to what is written (what's clearly stated in the book) and scholars for obvious reasons. And I don't know what you're on about with regards to arrogance. You can view my posts again. Have I forced my beliefs on anyone? No. Have I reacted arrogantly? No. However, I have been surprised that someone who has studied Islam can't have an open mind and friendly discussion, instead of reacting in a hostile manner. It's really not much to ask.
Well what you meant to say is a different thing, and I still say there is a dearth of actual facts.
Your tone and phrasing is quite arrogant to be honest. Even the tone of that post. Like I said to someone previously, if you feel someone is being hostile, don't answer in kind. Don't reply or report them.
It's certainly not meant to be arrogant, I hate arrogance, probably as much as you do. But I would say the tone of my posts has been surprise/shock because I approached the debate with an open mind, only to feel that I haven't learned anything out of it - you can even see that I have apologised twice for wording/assumptions. I love these kind of debates, however, when someone acts hostile for some reason, it's disappointing. I'll take your advice though - loving the username.
I agree that is quite depressing how little exchange there is in this debate, and subsequently no real learning. Because believe what you will, there is always common ground if that's what you are looking for.