Religion, what's the point?

[nimic]

Thanks for explaining. I agree with you about the ascendancy of the West from around then and maybe up to now. But here is my problem. If you took out the Muslim contribution towards science (from that point) say, give or take, 800 years do you think we would be at the same level we are at now, higher or lower?

First of all, what you call "Muslim contribution towards science" I call "contribution towards science from people who happened to be Muslims". There is nothing inherently scientific about Islam, or Christianity, or most religions. But, as they turned out to be of extreme significance in the societies of the time, any progress was inevitably made by people with some connection to the prevailing faith.

Secondly, I'd like to turn the question on its head. There was certainly particularly one period of great scientific progress from the Muslim world, but dogmatic and fundamentalist religion vanquished it. If that progress had been allowed to continue, I believe the entire world would be both more secular and more advanced, and certainly the Muslim world.

To me, this and other examples, some recent such as stem cell research, signify that while religion doesn't always get in the way of science, when it does the consequences are invariably detrimental to science and progress.

 

[Danny1982]

Good about third one. Read Quran in my native language and in Quran, don't know about Arabic so I guess it's just a lazy translation.

Doesn't agree with the stars one, simply because at the time when Quran was written there was no difference between Stars and other objects there. Heck, humanity didn't know that the Sun is a star. The problem is that Quran is a book for all the time, and yet seems to be as much ignorant as humanity of that time. It's good to say that there wasn't a word for meteorids but from the context it doesn't differentiate the objects that fall from the stars.

The missile for devils is as bizarre reasoning, so better to not even speak about it.

The Quran is a book for all time. That's right. But it's not a physics book. You're asking the Quran the keep producing scientific discoveries for every generation.. That's not what the Quran is for. It did give us the recipe for that (science), but that's not its job. The Quran is a book about how people should behave, in all times (in the proper context), and what they should do in different situations.

By the way, the verse is much harder to understand than your translation.. First of all, the word used in the verse wasn't "stars", it was "lights", also it's not even clear if the "lights" are actually the "rojom" (which you interpreted as things thrown at them, even though it isn't necessarily used in its literal meaning, like when you say United crushed Arsenal, they didn't actually "crush" them, but it's a figurative word used to describe the result), or if it is indeed the heaven (/sky) from which those things come "that are thrown at them". (We beautified the sky with lights and made from it "what's thrown at devils".. It isn't clear if the "it" refers to the lights, or the sky.).. We can go even deeper than that, but I don't think it will be worth it.

So your impression IMO isn't based on actual deep analysis for the verses, but rather a shallow opinion based on the fact that you believe the Quran is wrong in the first place, and the assumption that you should find the laws in Quantum mechanics in it..

 

[Raoul]

 

[dumbo]

Bees do eat fruit. Stars do fall. HTH.

 

[Danny1982]

Actually, I am a teacher, so I know a little bit about it. And one thing I do know is that you won't actually teach them anything if you only use their vocabulary. Or she's going to grow up thinking cows are moo's and stars fall from the skies.

Teacher: Go back to your place Lisa.
niMic: No no no, what kind of bullsh*t is that?! Lisa can't actually go back to her "place", because "place" is relative, and without mentioning the frame of reference, what you said is simply meaningless.
Lisa: What?!

Also, can you tell me why do you think the Quran's job is to teach people astronomy?!

 

[Abbsta]

First of all, what you call "Muslim contribution towards science" I call "contribution towards science from people who happened to be Muslims". There is nothing inherently scientific about Islam, or Christianity, or most religions. But, as they turned out to be of extreme significance in the societies of the time, any progress was inevitably made by people with some connection to the prevailing faith.

Secondly, I'd like to turn the question on its head. There was certainly particularly one period of great scientific progress from the Muslim world, but dogmatic and fundamentalist religion vanquished it. If that progress had been allowed to continue, I believe the entire world would be both more secular and more advanced, and certainly the Muslim world.

To me, this and other examples, some recent such as stem cell research, signify that while religion doesn't always get in the way of science, when it does the consequences are invariably detrimental to science and progress.

I see what you mean. You are basically saying if someone scored a good goal is because they are a good footballer and not because he is a Muslim footballer. Fair enough. I am not comparing science to Islam or other religions. I'm trying to answer questions about the Quran.

I don't think I said Islam is a/science or it's scientific. I think it would be odd if I did. It's a way of life and thought. What I am defending here is the notion that Islam or its book (Quran) was a detriment to human thought and science and therefore knowledge and wisdom (two different things).

You see secularism as what freed people from the 'shackles' of religion to reach this advancement. And I see Islam as what freed (some) people from ignorance to at least reach '1600s'.

The last statement is too big to what I am trying to answer. But I think what the Muslim faith would start by asking: does the benefit of this stem cell research outweigh its harm? Benefit to people? And from that one proceeds to the next moral test. I don't know much about this field, or in a position at all, to comment.

However I understand how some religious, Muslim or otherwise, establishments may approach such new challenging fields. But my main point is that the Quran is not a science book. One should understand what it is to understand its workings. In addition to the worldly instructions, it triggers interactions between various parts of conscience (spirit/heart/mind/intellect whatever) to steer you through this world. Those are words, there are meant to be uttered with a present heart. It's predominantly spiritual - something else. I can not begin to think how one can measure this in a lab.

 

[Danny1982]

I see what you mean. You are basically saying if someone scored a good goal is because they are a good footballer and not because he is a Muslim footballer. Fair enough. I am not comparing science to Islam or other religions. I'm trying to answer questions about the Quran.

This is not true though, because Islam did promote science and urged Muslims to pursue it, which is why the development in science in that region coincided with the emergence of Islam. People can actually read the Quran if they want to know if what I said is true..

Also I'm glad you're taking questions now about the Quran, because I'm kind of getting bored now..

 

[Laphroaig]

Can I ask my fellow noggies (sallif and nimmikj) a simple question? Why the feck do you care this much? I get it when it's people from countries where religion actually plays a part, but the Norwegians? Misplaced energy! Religion is pretty much inconsequential in our country. We know that doomsday will be brought upon us not by evil muslims, but by libertarian anti-environmental economics. The willingness to argue against religion is because it's so fecking easy. People wanting to go all peacock. It's like nutmegging a lame 80 year old. We all know it's bullshit. Grow up and start actually thinking and arguing about something of some sort of consequence.

 

[Silva]

There's no particularly active thread about environmentalism to be fair, besides, what does it matter? This is just one random corner of the internet, whether they're talking about religion or libertarian anti-environmental economics it'll have literally zero impact on anything.

 

[Mihajlovic]

I'm freelancing at the moment, which is close enough to unemployed. Even though that's not what you were getting at, obviously.

Are you actually going to make any worthwhile contribution to this thread or are you just going to carry on popping in every now and again to tell us how awesome you are? Because frankly, it's getting tiring now. If this is the level that you and Mockney discussed religion at, I can see how he got the reputation of being a good poster and you didn't.


Newton and religious works aren't comparable, Newtons work has been peer reviewed and found to be quite a good contribution, the same can't be said of religious works.

I'm freelancing at the moment, which is close enough to unemployed. Even though that's not what you were getting at, obviously.

Are you actually going to make any worthwhile contribution to this thread or are you just going to carry on popping in every now and again to tell us how awesome you are? Because frankly, it's getting tiring now. If this is the level that you and Mockney discussed religion at, I can see how he got the reputation of being a good poster and you didn't.


Newton and religious works aren't comparable, Newtons work has been peer reviewed and found to be quite a good contribution, the same can't be said of religious works.

I'm very busy with work and family and hardly have the time to even think about spending my energy on arguing some mute points with a person as uneducated as yourself. For someone who has actually studied religion I'm finding it hard to engage in your type of 'arguments' which essentially boil down to 'religion is shit and needs to piss off.' So I only occasionally visit the caf and skim through the CE, where for some strange reason the religion thread is always at the top, and then I read some of your contributions which I find amusing. You simply know nothing, you're just moaning and complaining about religion while your understanding of it is Katastrophal. First I thought I would find pleasure in providing some deeper insight into your trollism but it couldn't really be more obvious that this would be an enormous waste of time as you simply love to bitch about religion, and couldn't give two shits about any counter argiments presented to you.

As for 'having a good reputation' on an internet forum, you got to be fcking kidding.

 

[Raoul]

Brilliant comedy this thread.

 

[Silva]

I'm very busy with work and family and hardly have the time to even think about spending my energy on arguing some mute points with a person as uneducated as yourself. For someone who has actually studied religion I'm finding it hard to engage in your type of 'arguments' which essentially boil down to 'religion is shit and needs to piss off.' So I only occasionally visit the caf and skim through the CE, where for some strange reason the religion thread is always at the top, and then I read some of your contributions which I find amusing. You simply know nothing, you're just moaning and complaining about religion while your understanding of it is Katastrophal. First I thought I would find pleasure in providing some deeper insight into your trollism but it couldn't really be more obvious that this would be an enormous waste of time as you simply love to bitch about religion, and couldn't give two shits about any counter argiments presented to you.

As for 'having a good reputation' on an internet forum, you got to be fcking kidding.

Very educated reply sir. Honestly, if you're only going to make posts without substance, where you do nothing but bash others for not having any, don't.

 

[MoneyMay]

Care to explain?

Also, with today's standard he was pedophile, considering that Aisha was very young when they got married (6 years old married, 9 years old when they made sex, Werewolf posted some pages ago).

Yes, sure. This is actually so easy to explain, but because we're not doctors and so on, it's hard for us to understand when viewing this information. And, it's even harder because we tend to just look up sources, which know nothing, and we use them as authentic sources, without exploring these sources ourselves.

There is a hadith narrated by Aisha, which says that she married him when she was six and consummated when she was nine years old:

“It is reported from Aisha that she said: The Prophet entered into marriage with me when I was a girl of six … and at the time [of joining his household] I was a girl of nine years of age.”

“Khadija died three years before the Prophet departed to Medina. He stayed [alone] for two years or so. He married Aisha when she was a girl of six years of age, and he consummated that marriage when she was nine years old.”

This site describes all the different interpretations perfectly. Some say she's older (14, 15, etc.) and there is strong evidence. However, I'll use the two adahith above. Medical science tells us that humans reach puberty at different years. In India, it's 13, 14, 15; in America, it's 12/13. The age for puberty changes depending on atmosphere, surroundings, and so on. Medical science also tells us that the age of puberty is earlier when you're closer to the equator. There are cases where girls reach the age of puberty earlier. About 15% of American girls now begin puberty by age 7, according to a study of 1,239 girls published last year in Pediatrics. Aisha also confirmed that she hit puberty, when she said:

"Whenever Allah's Apostle wanted to fondle anyone of us during her periods (menses), he used to order her to put on an Izar and start fondling her." 'Aisha added, "None of you could control his sexual desires as the Prophet could."

That is from an authentic hadith. So it's logical that he did marry her at nine years old, as she confirmed herself that she hit puberty. It also must be noted that every country has different laws on when you can legally get married. For example, in the UK - it's 16 (parental consent)... In America, it's 18 and so on. This debunks the myth that he was a paedophile (authentic sources used). I just find it lazy that people would use fabrications as evidence.

 

[Commadus]

This thread is about religion, there's a plethora of threads in the CE about other things and you're more than welcome to make threads about famine and pollution if you want. But to come in here and say "lol, doesn't matter, famine's worse" is a ridiculous thing to do. Would you consider it a good argument if someone went into all the other threads in the CE and said "lol, doesn't matter, famine's worse"?

Yes, there are a lot of bad things in the world, but religion is one of those bad things. To try and negate this by saying "well, it's not as bad a famine" is an awful argument.

You need to put the scope of the argument into perspective. Rampant uncontrolled capitalism and resource plundering will make the debate concerning religion moot. In no way am I negating the impact of religion, as a force of good or evil - it has its place in society for some and not for others. You only consider it as an awful argument because you have blown up this religious debate. I would contend that many of the people who class themselves as religious are far more concerned with the realities of daily life than their religious teachings to the point I would say they would know more about their favourite soap opera, club etc than their religion. Most people take up the religion of their parents and in most cases they spend more time trying to work out who they are what they want to be and who they want to be with than sitting down and reading their religous books.

 

[Mockney]

 

[nimic]

Can I ask my fellow noggies (sallif and nimmikj) a simple question? Why the feck do you care this much? I get it when it's people from countries where religion actually plays a part, but the Norwegians? Misplaced energy! Religion is pretty much inconsequential in our country. We know that doomsday will be brought upon us not by evil muslims, but by libertarian anti-environmental economics. The willingness to argue against religion is because it's so fecking easy. People wanting to go all peacock. It's like nutmegging a lame 80 year old. We all know it's bullshit. Grow up and start actually thinking and arguing about something of some sort of consequence.

This is an internet debate forum. It is a place where people on the internet debate other people on the internet. If I believed I had the power to single-handedly improve the perception of environmentalism in Norway (which is already a pretty good perception), I would have done so. If you follow me at all on this site you know I spend at least as much time debating politics (American or otherwise), environmentalism, education, etc, as I do religion. Actually, I haven't spent much time in this thread at all, just a few separate "series" of posts.

I honestly find the entire premise of your question quite absurd. Why do you spend so much time talking about football, even about players who aren't part of Manchester United? Why don't you grow up and spend that time thinking and arguing about something of some sort of consequence, like libertarian anti-environmental economics?

Do you see?

 

[nimic]

Teacher: Go back to your place Lisa.
niMic: No no no, what kind of bullsh*t is that?! Lisa can't actually go back to her "place", because "place" is relative, and without mentioning the frame of reference, what you said is simply meaningless.
Lisa: What?!

Also, can you tell me why do you think the Quran's job is to teach people astronomy?!

If I've discovered anything about you in this thread, Danny, it's that you do well whenever you debate your own straw men. Which tends to be most of the time. You take the absolute extreme example of whatever you think I said and you think you've somehow made a point, yet you fail to see how that is just as bad as whenever people intentionally misinterpret the Koran.

I don't think it's the Koran's job to teach people astronomy. In fact, I don't think it's the Koran's job to teach people anything, and indeed it does nothing worthwhile. I think that as the perfect, unchanging divine word of God, it should at least aim to not further the ignorance of the people who were chosen to first receive the holy word. Yet somehow, every part of the Koran matches exactly the knowledge level of the people in which it was conceived.

 

[Danny1982]

If I've discovered anything about you in this thread, Danny, it's that you do well whenever you debate your own straw men. Which tends to be most of the time. You take the absolute extreme example of whatever you think I said and you think you've somehow made a point, yet you fail to see how that is just as bad as whenever people intentionally misinterpret the Koran.

I don't think it's the Koran's job to teach people astronomy. In fact, I don't think it's the Koran's job to teach people anything, and indeed it does nothing worthwhile. I think that as the perfect, unchanging divine word of God, it should at least aim to not further the ignorance of the people who were chosen to first receive the holy word. Yet somehow, every part of the Koran matches exactly the knowledge level of the people in which it was conceived.

Actually, that's the exact point I was making. Glad you got the point.

The Quran's job is to teach people things you don't care about.. If you like Math and a book doesn't talk about Math that doesn't make the book pointless.

I'll ask you a question, what's going to happen to me after I die?

 

[nimic]

Yes, but that's my point. If the Koran can do nothing as well as a specialized book would, then it is essentially useless. And considering it's the divine and perfect word of God, I would expect more than that.

When you die, I imagine nothing is going to happen to you. You'll just be dead. It won't be like you're sleeping, or floating in a void, you just... won't exist. It's impossible for me to know for some, of course, but that's what I imagine considering we are essentially our brains, which stop working when we die.

 

[Abbsta]

This is not true though, because Islam did promote science and urged Muslims to pursue it, which is why the development in science in that region coincided with the emergence of Islam. People can actually read the Quran if they want to know if what I said is true..

Also I'm glad you're taking questions now about the Quran, because I'm kind of getting bored now..

I am not disputing that Islam promoted science. What I am defending here is against the notion that the Quran was a detriment to science and progress. If they can't accept that Islam and more specifically the Quran opened people eyes, I hope at least to show that the Quran didn't put a blanket over there heads.

So, I am just playing along with the notion that the contributors at the time happened to be Muslims and nothing from their contribution is Islamic. I think that what's niMic was saying, unless I misunderstood.

I'll see the depth of these questions and hopefully I won't get bored.

 

[nimic]

Yes. Although my argument was indeed also that the Islamic scientific golden age was cut terribly short by religious fundamentalism. And I don't think you can argue against the notion that Islam today is a detriment to scientific progress in many countries, along with Christianity (to a lesser degree, since it has been further "pacified".

I guess you would argue that that is only from faulty interpretation of Islam, but then that is none of my concern. I don't particularly care about internal theological debate. What I care about is the real world effect. If some people believe that God wants them to oppose stem-cell research, homosexuality, abortion or equal rights for women, that is what I care about.

 

[Danny1982]

Yes, but that's my point. If the Koran can do nothing as well as a specialized book would, then it is essentially useless. And considering it's the divine and perfect word of God, I wouIf d expect more than that.

When you die, I imagine nothing is going to happen to you. You'll just be dead. It won't be like you're sleeping, or floating in a void, you just... won't exist. It's impossible for me to know for some, of course, but that's what I imagine considering we are essentially our brains, which stop working when we die.

May be you'll realize the point of the Quran when you die.. May be not.. We'll see.

However, as much as you know much about science (if we can use the word "much" here, because I'm sure in 500 years people will beg to differ), you don't actually know anything about the main things the Quran tackles, and the main things the Quran is here for. So if you don't believe in the Quran because it doesn't give you enough evidence to convince you, then don't force me to believe in your "imaginations" either.

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

Yes, sure. This is actually so easy to explain, but because we're not doctors and so on, it's hard for us to understand when viewing this information. And, it's even harder because we tend to just look up sources, which know nothing, and we use them as authentic sources, without exploring these sources ourselves.

There is a hadith narrated by Aisha, which says that she married him when she was six and consummated when she was nine years old:

“It is reported from Aisha that she said: The Prophet entered into marriage with me when I was a girl of six … and at the time [of joining his household] I was a girl of nine years of age.”

“Khadija died three years before the Prophet departed to Medina. He stayed [alone] for two years or so. He married Aisha when she was a girl of six years of age, and he consummated that marriage when she was nine years old.”

This site describes all the different interpretations perfectly. Some say she's older (14, 15, etc.) and there is strong evidence. However, I'll use the two adahith above. Medical science tells us that humans reach puberty at different years. In India, it's 13, 14, 15; in America, it's 12/13. The age for puberty changes depending on atmosphere, surroundings, and so on. Medical science also tells us that the age of puberty is earlier when you're closer to the equator. There are cases where girls reach the age of puberty earlier. About 15% of American girls now begin puberty by age 7, according to a study of 1,239 girls published last year in Pediatrics. Aisha also confirmed that she hit puberty, when she said:

"Whenever Allah's Apostle wanted to fondle anyone of us during her periods (menses), he used to order her to put on an Izar and start fondling her." 'Aisha added, "None of you could control his sexual desires as the Prophet could."

That is from an authentic hadith. So it's logical that he did marry her at nine years old, as she confirmed herself that she hit puberty. It also must be noted that every country has different laws on when you can legally get married. For example, in the UK - it's 16 (parental consent)... In America, it's 18 and so on. This debunks the myth that he was a paedophile (authentic sources used). I just find it lazy that people would use fabrications as evidence.

Is this a piss take or am I missing something?



Disturbing doesn't really cover this. It can't be true that you are defending having sex with nine year old girls when they have early puberty. You are right about him not being a paedophile by your take he is a child molester if it makes you feel any better.

 

[Mockney]

May be you'll realize the point of the Quran when you die.. May be not.. We'll see.

I'll bet you 45 of my virgins we wont?

 

[adexkola]

Virgin men?

 

[Danny1982]

I'll bet you 45 of my virgins we wont?

What makes you think you're going to get any?

By the way, if you have any idea about what's going to happen to you after you die then please share..

 

[Mockney]

I don't. No one does. It's all pure speculation. Even anecdotal evidence of near death experience is spread overwhelmingly across every belief system including non-believers. Very few of whom purport to have been pulled into a fiery pit of hell for their sin of not being a Christian or a Muslim or a Mormon or whatever.

And what an absolutely farcical patriarchal idea getting 72 virgins is to begin with. Where do these sex slaves comes from? Are they beings with free will? are they pre-programmed celestial prostitutes? do they have any say in the matter? do they get their own 72 male virgins to compensate them? and if not, what kind of hideous pimp merchant is God anyway and why would you want 72 virgins who've you've not earned love from, but are merely slabs of heavenly meat? What about your actual wife who's love you've presumably earned and cherished? Does she mind you whoring about? What do you think about her being pumped nightly in her own personal Red light district paradise? It's frankly fecking disgusting if you ask me.

If that was included in Mormon or Scientology scripture you'd laugh it off as the obviously crass bargaining tactic to entice a male drive society it is.

 

[nimic]

May be you'll realize the point of the Quran when you die.. May be not.. We'll see.

However, as much as you know much about science (if we can use the word "much" here, because I'm sure in 500 years people will beg to differ), you don't actually know anything about the main things the Quran tackles, and the main things the Quran is here for. So if you don't believe in the Quran because it doesn't give you enough evidence to convince you, then don't force me to believe in your "imaginations" either.

There you go again, twisting my words to make a pointless point. There's a rather big difference between my "imaginations" and the Koran. For one, I never asked you to believe my imaginations; you asked to hear them. Secondly, unlike the Koran, I haven't said that unless you believe in and accept the truth of my imaginations you are going to hell for all eternity. I could go on, but I don't think you would even read it, so why bother?

This is the last time I'll reply to you, since you're obviously not interested in debating anyone but the arguments you conjure out of thin air.

 

[Danny1982]

There you go again, twisting my words to make a pointless point. There's a rather big difference between my "imaginations" and the Koran. For one, I never asked you to believe my imaginations; you asked to hear them. Secondly, unlike the Koran, I haven't said that unless you believe in and accept the truth of my imaginations you are going to hell for all eternity. I could go on, but I don't think you would even read it, so why bother?

This is the last time I'll reply to you, since you're obviously not interested in debating anyone but the arguments you conjure out of thin air.

I can read niMic, it's just that you seem to be able to quickly forget your (not your personal probably, I don't track who said what, but the atheists in general) arguments against religion. You asked me what the Quran is for, and I showed you a few crucial points it tackles. The Quran is not meant to make you drive a better car. That's what science is for, which Islam actually promotes, and urges people to pursue.

The Quran is meant to give you an idea about the purpose of your short life, and an idea about what's going to happen after that, something atheists categorically reject, but in reality don't know anything about..

Also, if you're trying to pretend that atheists aren't fighting religions with all they got, and are actively trying to convert religious people to atheists, then you're kidding yourself. However, they always begin with mocking religious people, and explaining how they're ignorant, and how they actually have scientific evidences that proves that they're wrong, but after an objective debate, they come out annoyed because they failed to "prove" that religion itself is "wrong" (from a scientific point of view), and close with statements like: "Well I'm not asking you to be an atheist!", or "Well, I can't prove that God doesn't exist, but God is irrelevant to science" which is not where the debate started in the first place.

 

[Danny1982]

I don't. No one does. It's all pure speculation. Even anecdotal evidence of near death experience is spread overwhelmingly across every belief system including non-believers. Very few of whom purport to have been pulled into a fiery pit of hell for their sin of not being a Christian or a Muslim or a Mormon or whatever.

And what an absolutely farcical patriarchal idea getting 72 virgins is to begin with. Where do these sex slaves comes from? Are they beings with free will? are they pre-programmed celestial prostitutes? do they have any say in the matter? do they get their own 72 male virgins to compensate them? and if not, what kind of hideous pimp merchant is God anyway and why would you want 72 virgins who've you've not earned love from, but are merely slabs of heavenly meat? What about your actual wife who's love you've presumably earned and cherished? Does she mind you whoring about? What do you think about her being pumped nightly in her own personal Red light district paradise? It's frankly fecking disgusting if you ask me.

If that was included in Mormon or Scientology scripture you'd laugh it off as the obviously crass bargaining tactic to entice a male drive society it is.

Sex slaves? 72? Did you actually study the Quran and read it carefully and tried to understand what's really meant, or did you just pick up those jokes from streets and you called them an educated scientific opinion?

 

[MoneyMay]

Is this a piss take or am I missing something?



Disturbing doesn't really cover this. It can't be true that you are defending having sex with nine year old girls when they have early puberty. You are right about him not being a paedophile by your take he is a child molester if it makes you feel any better.

Firstly, I forgot to mention the context of the hadith you put in bold. It was in reference to his wives, which the "us" refers to. I, also, hope that you know what "fondling" means in this context. It means touch or stroke gently or lovingly, which makes perfect sense because Aisha clearly mentions that he could keep a hold of his sexual desires (not many men could do that, can they?). Apologies for not adding in this vital information. He's definitely not a paedophile, as I just proved, and at the same time, he isn't a child molester. That's plain ignorance and it shows that you didn't understand the saying and you don't know what molester means. Here's a sound definition: someone who subjects others to unwanted or improper sexual activities. It is a historic fact that girls in the past (over 1400 years ago and even now) used to get married from the ages of 9 to 14, in Europe, Asia, and Africa. Historians would actually call people with your thinking to be arrogant and ignorant because you've not considered the shape and form of society at the time. You're basing it on the knowledge of the society you live in now, but that's why historians are excellent and impartial. These girls also raised better families, might I add.

I'll leave you with this brilliant quote below:
“There is no single age at which the adolescent brain becomes an adult brain. Systems responsible for logical reasoning mature by the time people are 16, but those involved in self-regulation are still developing in young adulthood. This is why 16-year-olds are just as competent as adults when it comes to granting informed medical consent, but still immature in ways that diminish their criminal responsibility.” – Laurence Steinberg, Professor of Psychology at Temple University

 

[Abbsta]

Yes. Although my argument was indeed also that the Islamic scientific golden age was cut terribly short by religious fundamentalism. And I don't think you can argue against the notion that Islam today is a detriment to scientific progress in many countries, along with Christianity (to a lesser degree, since it has been further "pacified".

I see. I think it's here where we are clashing when you say 'Islam today'. Islam is the same in principles but it gives people the freedom to think and progress within God's boundaries. The Islamic golden age, is proof that those boundaries are wider than what the notions in this thread implies them to be.

I guess you would argue that that is only from faulty interpretation of Islam, but then that is none of my concern. I don't particularly care about internal theological debate. What I care about is the real world effect. If some people believe that God wants them to oppose stem-cell research, homosexuality, abortion or equal rights for women, that is what I care about.

But you are ignoring its style of teaching which led Muslims to a golden age. It's a system that doesn't just rely on one avenue (physical science) to reach the truth.

Even during the Muslim golden age there were various schools of thought arguing against each other on many abstract concepts. I think that was a great thing to have. But you see the issue here you see is us humans. It doesn't take much for us to fall back into chaos. And this scares people often far too much to cling to the literal interpretation of verses instead of understanding what was the main message.

Regarding those areas you mentioned, I don't see how would you class them as progress (in science) apart from the first one. With the later three they existed for a long time.

Stem Cell: As I said before I don't know the ins and outs but I would start from: does have it benefit to people?
Homosexuality: If you buy into the religion, you can have homosexual tendencies but actions are not allowed. Ignoring the physiological limitations, it is OK to love a man like a brother/best friend/companion but keep the sex for women.
Abortion: It's OK to save a life i.e if one doesn't abort the mother would die.
Women: Islam gives them their 'own space' to be respected and flourish.

You can disagree with all of that and not buy into that. That's absolutely fine. But I find it puzzling for some to champion secularism (to me that's pure objectivity) and not see the different method applied by the Quran in conditioning people and allow 'progress'. If one starts from the beginning and follow along verse by verse, you'll understand why it worked and why it was a threat to those empires. There was a time in the Muslim world where they would seek any book on earth and engage in dialogue. But now they would burn any book that criticises. It is the atitude of the readers not the Quran to blame.

 

[nimic]

I think Islam, and Christianity, and most religions, could possibly have had largely positive influences on the world in which they were conceived. Religion is a part of the evolution of human psychology, after all. They came about because people were unable to explain phenomena, and they promoted the togetherness of society. So yes, perhaps the Arabs did benefit from the advent of Islam. But my honest opinion is that they do not today (overall; obviously good things are still done in the name of religion). Enlightenment and secularism is fully capable of taking over the tasks of religion. Right now I believe that religion is a detriment to humanity.

 

[Goooose]

I'll ask you a question, what's going to happen to me after I die?

You'll decompose.

 

[Mockney]

Sex slaves? 72? Did you actually study the Quran and read it carefully and tried to understand what's really meant, or did you just pick up those jokes from streets and you called them an educated scientific opinion?

The number is dependant on which Hadiths you follow. I'll concede if you're a Qur'an only muslim that number is largely derived from popular conception rather than direct scripture, though the Tirmidhi hadith clearly mentions 72 wives or "Companions" (Houri) as well as thousands of servants. Even without them, where do you think these "angles" come from and why are they serving you in ANY way? Sucks to be an angel.

The idea of sex slaves is perfectly valid in that context. The more orthodox you are, the less you can interpret around it. But again the very fact you're saying "what is meant by it" is farcical when you live by a particular practice of a particular religion which can't even decide within it's own ranks what's "meant" by half of it. There's no facts at play. Just as with all Abrahamic religions and their various sects.

Are you using your scientific mind to decide which bits are literal and which bits are not? Or are you going by whatever ones your parents and peers decided were, and what you feel is best suited to your outlook? That's not science.

 

[Danny1982]

The number is dependant on which Hadiths you follow. I'll concede if you're a Qur'an only muslim that number is largely derived from popular conception rather than direct scripture, though the Tirmidhi hadith clearly mentions 72 wives or "Companions" (Houri) as well as thousands of servants. Where do you think these "angles" come from?

The idea of sex slaves is perfectly valid in that context. The more orthodox you are, the less you can interpret around it. But again the very fact you're saying "what is meant by it" is farcical when you live by a particular practice of a particular religion which can't even decide within it's own ranks what's "meant" by half of it. There's no facts at play. Just as with all Abrahamic religions and their various sects.

Are you using your scientific mind to decide which bits are literal and which bits are not? Or are you going by whatever ones your parents and peers decided were, and what you feel is best suited to your outlook?

As I said before, there are clear "bits" in the Quran, which are the most important things.. You just don't discuss those or talk about them, you just refer to the things in which the Quran used examples to make an approximate picture for the people to understand it, because otherwise it will be tough for them to understand it.. And this is actually mentioned in the Quran, that there are parts of the Quran that are clear for everybody (which are the most important), and there are parts where it's not totally clear (for reasons also mentioned in the Quran).

Also it's worth mentioning that even though different sects might have different interpretations about those "virgins" (even though your idea about its interpretation didn't actually come from reliable Muslim sources, but rather from the terrorists (that the West itself promoted and supported) and the media that is trying to fight them, influenced by incidents like 9/11), pretty much all Muslims don't consider it as one of the pillars of Islam, and the differene in that interpretation is not even important..

 

[Mockney]

That last paragraph is bonkers. "Don't agree with me, your information comes from Terrorists"

The pillars of Islam are - as far as I understand them - what you should do during your life & how. I wouldn't imagine ANY Muslims consider the Koranic description of paradise one of them.

The idea that the interpretations are not important flies in the face of the very idea of hadiths themselves. Your particular outlook on Islam might not find it important, but others do. Eventually people start questioning WHY they're worshiping, and WHY they're pilgrimaging. And then people have to come up with silly ideas, which they then have to dismiss later because in hindsight they look so silly. Why not just dismiss them all and just be nice to people because it's nice?

What about my last paragraph? Did you study all the religions and all the sciences and gather as much knowledge as you could (as Islam encourages) before settling on Islam as the definitive one? (one thing I could say for sammsky is that he purported to have done this) or have you adopted the religion of your peers? Because the idea of the scientific method you keep referring to is that it removes these biases as a first port of call.

Accusations from the religious that we're not trying hard enough to look into their factless belief's more strenuous crevices is tough to take from people who've been brought up in one faith, in a world (and history) of thousands, and fail to question why the one they've ended up in by chance of their geographical or cultural upbringing is miraculously and coincidentally the right one!

Obviously ignore this if it doesn't apply to you. It's just one of the many, many blindingly obvious things that stand out as ludicrous about religious adherence to those who stand apart from it. Along with a loving sporadically interventionalist God, the importance of humans in a bafflingly large universe, the constant revelations to backwards sand peasants in an idiotic barbaric age and, well most of the rest of it.

Sometimes the very simplest questions are the best ones.

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

Firstly, I forgot to mention the context of the hadith you put in bold. It was in reference to his wives, which the "us" refers to. I, also, hope that you know what "fondling" means in this context. It means touch or stroke gently or lovingly, which makes perfect sense because Aisha clearly mentions that he could keep a hold of his sexual desires (not many men could do that, can they?). Apologies for not adding in this vital information. He's definitely not a paedophile, as I just proved, and at the same time, he isn't a child molester. That's plain ignorance and it shows that you didn't understand the saying and you don't know what molester means. Here's a sound definition: someone who subjects others to unwanted or improper sexual activities. It is a historic fact that girls in the past (over 1400 years ago and even now) used to get married from the ages of 9 to 14, in Europe, Asia, and Africa. Historians would actually call people with your thinking to be arrogant and ignorant because you've not considered the shape and form of society at the time. You're basing it on the knowledge of the society you live in now, but that's why historians are excellent and impartial. These girls also raised better families, might I add.

I'll leave you with this brilliant quote below:
“There is no single age at which the adolescent brain becomes an adult brain. Systems responsible for logical reasoning mature by the time people are 16, but those involved in self-regulation are still developing in young adulthood. This is why 16-year-olds are just as competent as adults when it comes to granting informed medical consent, but still immature in ways that diminish their criminal responsibility.” – Laurence Steinberg, Professor of Psychology at Temple University

You can use the don't judge the morality of historic figures argument to defend Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan etc but the one person you can't defend that way would be the guy who has spoken to the one all knowing god and is giving us a moral code to practice for all time. That guy is setting a moral example isn't he?

You are saying that he had sex with a nine year old girl but that’s ok because that is what they did back then. I think that god would know better and that the prophet of god would behave accordingly.

 

[Silva]

You need to put the scope of the argument into perspective. Rampant uncontrolled capitalism and resource plundering will make the debate concerning religion moot. In no way am I negating the impact of religion, as a force of good or evil - it has its place in society for some and not for others. You only consider it as an awful argument because you have blown up this religious debate. I would contend that many of the people who class themselves as religious are far more concerned with the realities of daily life than their religious teachings to the point I would say they would know more about their favourite soap opera, club etc than their religion. Most people take up the religion of their parents and in most cases they spend more time trying to work out who they are what they want to be and who they want to be with than sitting down and reading their religous books.

And I don't particularly care about the individuals who believe in religion, I'm mostly against the way in which the organisations themselves operate. Don't get me wrong, I do think rampant capitalism is a bigger threat to the west than religion is, especially with how much religion has been pushed back in the west, but what's that got to do with this thread? In the thread about the NHS you wouldn't say "well, this is a pointless discussion, capitalism is a bigger threat to people than what happened here" because that's completely irrelevant to the discussion. If you don't think religion is worthy of a debate, don't debate it. Like nimic said, if you apply that logic to everything else, the internet would be reduced to a fraction of the things on it.

 

[nimic]

You can use the don't judge the morality of historic figures argument to defend Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan etc but the one person you can't defend that way would be the guy who has spoken to the one all knowing god and is giving us a moral code to practice for all time. That guy is setting a moral example isn't he?

You are saying that he had sex with a nine year old girl but that’s ok because that is what they did back then. I think that god would know better and that the prophet of god would behave accordingly.

This is what gets me. I'm happy to agree with the notion that Mohammed was just a product of his time. But surely he should be so much more than that? They can't have it both ways.