Religion, what's the point?

Mockney said:
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.
Click to expand...


I like this part of your post. I don't think we should debate the people here, or try to make it personal, because nothing kills a debate more than that.. In fact, just to answer your question briefly, my parents aren't Muslims, and let's just leave it at that.. Does that mean I'm right? Or does that make any point in my favor? No, which is why it's pointless to talk about specific personal issues, and why I ignore those questions..

I don't claim that I've studied everything, and neither can anybody.. But I did read about other religions, including Islam, and I'm more than an ignorant dude when it comes to science. In fact, the impression I'm getting here is that I know more about evolution, quantum mechanics, or science in general than you do about the Quran for example (again not you personally, but the people I debated here in general). Does that make me automatically in the right? No. It's the arguments we make that makes the difference. For me at least.

The rest of your post is just your impression about religions.
 
It's interesting how there are so many interpretations that lead to debates, even amongst scholars, and that religious apologists claim others don't fully grasp/understand the times these scriptures came about. Surely a God would continue with the times and constantly choose prophets and spit out scriptures left and right to keep up with the times. Or just reveal him/her/itself, what an idea. A divine work today would not condone slavery but slavery was accepted back then so scriptures written by man allowed it. I mean why state this imaginary God denounces slavery (and women as personal property) when slaves were used for labor even though a loving God would not condone such atrocious acts by humans.

Supposedly God hates homosexuals yet there's nothing about it in scriptures, save a verse or two that are debated to this day as to the actual meaning. Why if God hates homosexual so much did he not make it a commandment or mention it multiple times in scripture? Perhaps he was too busy allowing multiple wives, destroying tribes, making miracles, spilling seed, and taking vengeance that he didn't realize there were gay people.

Then we have religious segments arguing which tribe God chose. It's quite funny that Islam claims God (or Allah) chose them, and Christians claim God chose the Jews, and Mormons this and that, and Catholics that or this, and on and on and on. Why no universal God ensuring all mankind were united as his creation? Probably because God does not exist and each tribe created their own work to unite their own people, as they warred and hated other tribes. How dare a tribe give any sort of credit or humanity to other tribes.

A truly divine work would inspire and bring all together, a God that is so vain and arrogant would ensure this, unless God really hated some of his creations ("feck those Jews/Muslims/Egyptians/etc"). Instead, we're left to guess which tribe God chose, and to decipher these texts that are so vague yet clearly written in regard to that era. Hmm... the last bit, combined with all the factual errors and blatant theft of ancient myths and tales, seems clearly a work of man. Written in man's understanding of the times. A truly divine work would be so incomprehensible that even today it would make no sense. Ah, that's where prophets come into play to "deliver" God's message, yawn. God can cause miracles, destroy tribes, alter seas, cause rains, yet he couldn't magically create a book so he required man to assist. That's just bullshit right there. A work by a God would have been written by a being with an unmeasurable IQ - not dumbed down to the common man of ancient times, the common man that believed in dragons and unicorns, and had no clue how the universe worked or came to be.

One can state sin as a root cause but God created the snake, if you choose to believe in such nonsense to begin with. A talking snake tempted a woman to eat fruit, fruit that God created and yet forbid, what a loving God, such the prankster. That's so obviously a metaphoric wise tale, and stolen from ancient culture to boot, with bogus names as well. Man had no idea how things came to be so they created God, well after eliminating all the multiple Gods before God. http://www.godfinder.org/

Let's borrow another tale, the coming of the Son of God. Then he's crucified. Yawn. How many crucified saviors have "existed?" Sixteen. All before Jesus, granted some religions argue against Jesus as a savior, probably because they didn't create his story first. Ugh.
 
niMic said:
Enlightenment and secularism is fully capable of taking over the tasks of religion. Right now I believe that religion is a detriment to humanity.
Click to expand...

And this is where I diverge from the wave of non religious opinion in this thread and the 'of the moment' pop atheism in general. The atheism that seems imbued with the belief in and the promotion of; human progress and human Enlightenment*, in humanist* values, human truth and human narrative*. That these beliefs are sometimes wrapped up in an unpleasant, bordering on the bullying, zeal (yes in this thread), to me makes it a curious counterpoint to the faith based religious ideas that are attacked. It can feel like Dogma of a different shade.

I don't think that the questioning and rejection of religious beliefs, should automatically lead to beliefs in the human* (for want of a better catch all term) as a truth and I dislike the way it is often assumed. I reckon (possibly as a result of my literary bias) the writings of Arthur Schopenhauer and then Darwinism could have been the 1-2 knock out combo to such ideas. But they are pervasive and have gone on to survive counter-enlightenment and Berlin, postmodernism* and the French. To somehow become, what seems like the default atheist (or non religious) view. Perhaps their persistence comes from a religiosity.

Although it's not so much the ideas I object to but the circle jerk that can sometimes surround them.

*I'm to lazy and ill equiped to clarify what I mean by these general terms, so they'll have to do as broad generalisations.
 
I didn't say anything about atheism, though, did I. You can have a 100% secular state with a 100% religious population.

Also, may I just say how utterly garbage I find the concept of the "circle jerk". It's a terrible word that is barely even tolerable when used in its right context of stuff like reddit. Besides, you appear to be talking about humanism, which is not the same. All in all I am not sure it is quite relevant to the thread.
 
There is a context for the term circle jerk?

I just use it as a crude term for the over indulgent patting each other on the back, mutual masturbation or gratification. I think it fits.
 
Abbsta said:
Bonus question: Why didn't Mohammed have extraordinary visual miracles like Noah with his ark, Moses in splitting seas, locus etc. and Jesus in raising the dead, speaking in his infancy etc.?
Click to expand...

Concerning Mohammed's visual miracles, there are at least two mentioned in Sahih Al Bukhari :

Narrated Anas bin Malik: "The people of Mecca asked Allah's Apostle to show them a miracle. So he showed them the moon split in two halves between which they saw the Hiram' mountain."
Click to expand...

Sahih Bukhari 5:58:208

Narrated Anas bin Malik: I saw Allah's Apostle when the 'Asr prayer was due and the people searched for water to perform ablution but they could not find it. Later on (a pot full of) water for ablution was brought to Allah's Apostle . He put his hand in that pot and ordered the people to perform ablution from it. I saw the water springing out from underneath his fingers till all of them performed the ablution (it was one of the miracles of the Prophet).
Click to expand...

Sahih Bukhari 1:4:170
 
niMic said:
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.
Click to expand...

Glad I'm not the only one that came to that conclusion.
 
Don't Kill Bill said:
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.
Click to expand...

I don't know what part you don't understand. You're clearly ignoring the facts to make your version, which coincides with your agenda. When someone hits puberty, it is okay to have sex with them. I really don't see what you're trying to prove, as your first argument was very weak...
 
MoneyMay said:
I don't know what part you don't understand. You're clearly ignoring the facts to make your version, which coincides with your agenda. When someone hits puberty, it is okay to have sex with them. I really don't see what you're trying to prove, as your first argument was very weak...
Click to expand...

Have you been in prison long?
 
Silva said:
That doesn't make sense, unless that whole sentence fabricated itself.
Click to expand...

It was me trying to get you guys to do research for yourselves. What I said was sarcasm. However, the point the sarcastic comment made was that different societies, generations, etc. had different laws. And even now, this rule applies. Take a look at the link below. I fail to see why people can't be open-minded, it certainly wasn't attributed to Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) only, but to the time he lived in, too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_Europe
 
Ah yes, that argument again. If you read up a bit, you'll see it has actually been addressed. We're frankly fine with admitting that Mohammed was merely a product of his time. As opposed to, you know, the deliberately chosen prophet of a perfect and unchanging omnipotent being. I would hold that particular person to higher standards than the early middle age culture he was brought up in.
 
niMic said:
Ah yes, that argument again. If you read up a bit, you'll see it has actually been addressed. We're frankly fine with admitting that Mohammed was merely a product of his time. As opposed to, you know, the deliberately chosen prophet of a perfect and unchanging omnipotent being. I would hold that particular person to higher standards than the early middle age culture he was brought up in.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, bruh. In fact, I quite like the "... product of his time" bit. It shows you have sound knowledge on the topic. Believing in God is a different matter all together obviously.
 
It's extremely ignorant to think that Mohammad was just the product of his time in term of morality, because Mohammad changed many many things that were prevalent at the time among his people, in fact he changed far more things than the things he kept, which is why he was fought very hard by his own people, because they didn't want to change.

Also, what makes you think that your morals are the correct and the standard ones that we should compare the morals of the whole world against?! I mentioned this point before, but you failed to answer my question.
 
Werewolf said:
Concerning Mohammed's visual miracles, there are at least two mentioned in Sahih Al Bukhari :



Sahih Bukhari 5:58:208



Sahih Bukhari 1:4:170
Click to expand...

Thanks. The first falls into the same area as other prophets' 'miracles' which we neither can prove nor disprove. The second, and many like it, falls under the 'perks' of prophethood. Another example would be the cloud that followed him to shade him from the Arabian sun. Other prophets had such 'perks' as well since it comes with the 'job' and so it is to be expected.

The splitting of the moon was witnessed by a group of people and some caravans. But the point is he (Mohammed) didn't split the moon every time he was questioned and therefore it wasn't 'his' miracle.

What Muslims consider to be his true miracle is the Quran. And that's good news, right? because we can physically have something to study and debate about. And for now, I excluded the spiritual aspects of it in this discussion since it is something you have no means to detect and measure so, it's unfair. I have, also, for now, ignored the connection between Islamic teaching and Muslim contribution towards science.

So, I am just defending the Quran against the notion that it is/was a detriment to science and progress. That was my point of entry in this thread.
 
niMic said:
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.
Click to expand...

I would like to understand your position further, please. Is this secular model that you are championing is better than the religion model since time began or today only (or from 1600s as you mentioned earlier)?

If Arabs or otherwise stopped benefiting from their whatever, does that make their whatever useless/less beneficial?
 
MoneyMay said:
I don't know what part you don't understand. You're clearly ignoring the facts to make your version, which coincides with your agenda. When someone hits puberty, it is okay to have sex with them. I really don't see what you're trying to prove, as your first argument was very weak...
Click to expand...


The part I don't understand is the part where you have sex with a girl of nine and then talk about being a moral teacher. I have you defending the action as something that went on back in the day and Danny saying he often challenged the status quo but not the child molesting bit which seems to be a bit odd.



Don't eat pigs check. I don't understand why not but fair enough (eating pigs rather than other animals is obviously right up there on the moral agenda).



Don't consummate marriage with a nine year old, well that is more of a guideline rather than a rule and there are a few work arounds.



It doesn't make any sense at all and this is gods outline to righteous living which will be rewarded with eternal bliss.

Really?
 
Abbsta said:
I would like to understand your position further, please. Is this secular model that you are championing is better than the religion model since time began or today only (or from 1600s as you mentioned earlier)?

If Arabs or otherwise stopped benefiting from their whatever, does that make their whatever useless/less beneficial?
Click to expand...

That is an impossible to answer question. All I can say is that religion may have had some positive effect in the past. It's not like a enlightenment model was impossible, it's just that there were a whole lot more things that people were simply completely ignorant about, and it made culturally sense to attribute those to something "known", i. e. gods.
 
Revan said:
Re-posted:
- Man created from clay
- Earth being a fixed place
- Stars fall
- Stars being missiles for devils
- Moon being in the middle of stars
- Universe created in 6 days
- Bones created before the muscles
- About the seas that have a barrier between them
- Bees eating fruits
- Noah taking in his boat a male and a female of every species.

Thank you.
Click to expand...

Hi Raven. I'm guessing those above are your questions. Sorry for the delay.

Clay:
Here is an article that explores the possibility.

Fixed Place:
Please state which reference you used. What I can find is a 'dwelling place' not 'fixed place'. However there are verses which may seems to the non Arabic speaker that the Quran says 'Earth was flattened' but to the Arab it means the ground is not rocky and treacherous.

Stars Fall:
The verse is to do with judgment day like the one precedes it.

Missiles:
I don't know whether it's actually referring to devils/jinns or astrologers/soothsayers or both from what I can understand. But regarding the word 'stars' - again try and see it from an eathrling at the time. Unlike science which now classifies those objects into Stars, Shooting stars, Planets, Planetary satellites e.t.c, the Quranic verse is speaking from the point of view of naked eye i.e. we all see the sky being decorated with 'lamps' (be them stars, satellites, meteors).

Moon:
From Shih Int.
And made the moon therein a [reflected] light and made the sun a burning lamp?[71:16]

Again I don't see where it says moon in the middle. The verse is about the lights (how they differ) of the moon and the sun.

6 Days:
A day in Venus = 243 Earth days. Again one should try and understand how the Quran uses perspective. Quran even says so that a day is not like how you (i.e. earthlings) count. What about light years? Some people today wouldn't even understand this concept.

Bones:
From Sahih Int.
Then We made the sperm-drop into a clinging clot, and We made the clot into a lump [of flesh], and We made [from] the lump, bones, and We covered the bones with flesh; then We developed him into another creation. So blessed is Allah, the best of creators.[23:14]

Sorry, I don't see it above where it states that. It just says... covered bones with flesh and it didn't specify which was first.

Barrier between seas:
Gulf of Alaska?

Bees eating fruit:
Here is one munching on a grape. Please note that the word Thamarat doesn't mean just fruits in the literal sense but like... fruit of our labour or this discussion is fruitless.

Noah:
A wiser man would say...It's possible however improbable. Again it was supposed to be a visual miracle for the people of the time to which I can neither prove nor disprove. Whether the whole earth or a smaller area, I don't know. And if I was to omit Noah's story from the Quran, the message would still stay the same that God is one etc.

----------

I struggled to find your references so it'll be helpful if you could state them. Peace.
 
niMic said:
That is an impossible to answer question. All I can say is that religion may have had some positive effect in the past. It's not like a enlightenment model was impossible, it's just that there were a whole lot more things that people were simply completely ignorant about, and it made culturally sense to attribute those to something "known", i. e. gods.
Click to expand...

That was my POV regarding the Arabs though. They were ignorant on many levels with respect to advance societies such as Rome and Persia at the time and how this 'new' found knowledge or a way of thinking changed that.

It is similar to your model where one would accepts a theory until someone betters it. Both models have things that are set in stone, a certain procedures for testing and so on.

Anyways, I don't think we are yet at a position to claim a high percentage of knowledge to consider such texts as pointless. But to be fair, I understand and to a certain extent agree with what you are saying on how one would use god/s to control and starve one's intellect from learning and therefore progress.
 
Danny1982 said:
It's extremely ignorant to think that Mohammad was just the product of his time in term of morality, because Mohammad changed many many things that were prevalent at the time among his people.
Click to expand...


And there is your answer. All the morals of the Abrahamic religions were espoused in various other places well before their miraculous promotion in the holy texts. Hence the idea that religion gives us our defining morality is infinitely more ignorant of history.

Incidentally I will get back to your earlier, longer post. I'm just very drunk right now.
 
Mockney said:
And there is your answer. All the morals of the Abrahamic religions were espoused in various other places well before their miraculous promotion in the holy texts. Hence the idea that religion gives us our defining morality is infinitely more ignorant of history.

Incidentally I will get back to your earlier, longer post. I'm just very drunk right now.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what your point is.. Being the product of his time means that he was simply following what was acceptable in his time (the point being discussed here is being married to a young girl). The matter of truth is he didn't simply follow what was acceptable in his time, he actually changed a lot, which was the exact reason why his people resisted him for years.
 
And my point was that he didn't bring anything new to the table on a global scale. Yes he may have influenced people of his time IN his area, but his changes weren't divinely inspired. They were readily available and espoused in many parts of the world well before that time, all he (may have) done is introduce them to one of the most backward, tribal, conservative areas of the globe. Who then took them on as divine, and still do, because they were so backward, tribal and conservative and ignorant of how old hat these values were in the East and beyond.
 
First, this means that your point is totally to the contrary of the point raised above (to which I was replying), so I'm glad you agree with me on this issue.

Second, nobody said Mohammad brought something "new".. In fact that's actually mentioned in the Quran, that Mohammad is essentially continuing what the other prophets before him called for, which actually supports the idea that it all came from the same source.. Not sure how you came up with the idea that Mohammad "invented" something "new" that didn't exist before him.
 
Don't Kill Bill said:
The part I don't understand is the part where you have sex with a girl of nine and then talk about being a moral teacher. I have you defending the action as something that went on back in the day and Danny saying he often challenged the status quo but not the child molesting bit which seems to be a bit odd.



Don't eat pigs check. I don't understand why not but fair enough (eating pigs rather than other animals is obviously right up there on the moral agenda).



Don't consummate marriage with a nine year old, well that is more of a guideline rather than a rule and there are a few work arounds.



It doesn't make any sense at all and this is gods outline to righteous living which will be rewarded with eternal bliss.

Really?
Click to expand...

Like I said, you're not being open-minded. You're using your views today to formulate an opinion on the past, which is completely different. You called him a child molester, which I disproved. He was called a paedophile, which was also disproved.

I don't understand if the bit in parenthesis is a dig, but please yourself. Muslims don't eat pork because it is considered an unclean animal. In the region Islam originated in, which was more or less a desert, pigs ate anything, even human remains. So, when viewing this naturally, they're not an animal that you would deem hugely safe for human consumption (add to the fact they are omnivores). The pig lives and thrives off it's own waste, mud, etc. It may be helpful going to a farm and witnessing this for yourself. Also, read the below:

"A dangerous helminthes is Taenia Trichuriasis. A common misconception about pork is that if it is cooked well, these ova die. In a research project undertaken in America, it was found that out of twenty-four people suffering from Taenia tichurasis, twenty two had cooked the pork very well. This indicates that the ovas present in the pork do not die under normal cooking temperature."

I don't understand the point of your third paragraph. What are you alluding to?

Whether you believe in God or not, it does make sense. There are reasons you can't do certain things, they weren't made randomly...
 
Danny1982 said:
In fact that's actually mentioned in the Quran, that Mohammad is essentially continuing what the other prophets before him called for, which actually supports the idea that it all came from the same source...
Click to expand...


Really? Which Qur'an mentioned sources were the cause of Confucius's wisdom, or the Code of Hammurabi?

The Yusuf Ali Translation sadly misses those + 1,000 year predating non-Middle eastern prophets. Could just be that version though.
 
People really believe the moon split and a cloud followed a man all so God could prove this man was a prophet? Certainly it would have been far much easier for God to just appear and convince all versus some mysterious shit. A common fallacy with religion and the basis (apologetic reason) of faith. Most likely the moon split was an eclipse of some sorts, if such an event occurred at all. So a man claiming to be a prophet would certainly capitalize on an eclipse, either truly believing it was a sign or knowing it was a lie. But I'll just believe it was a story created to enhance Muhammad no different than stories created about Jesus by his believers. http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Moon_Split_Miracle

People believe by process of indoctrination. It becomes a core belief. It's why Christians believe a man built a large boat, loaded animals by twos, and sailed the flooded Earth for 40 days, not logically thinking this is impossible and inconceivable. And talking snakes. Only the brainwashed believe in such nonsense, as I once did through intense indoctrination from age 5 on up.

Here's some refutes on Islamic claims. http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Refutations Have at it if you want.
 
Sometimes I listen to this Catholic radio show when I am bored. One time a guy called in and said "if we're supposed to believe that the Noah's Ark story is literally true then how did the dinosaurs not kill the other animals". The host responded "well of course Noah took baby dinosaurs" as if that was the most obvious thing in the world.
 
dumbo said:
There is a context for the term circle jerk?

I just use it as a crude term for the over indulgent patting each other on the back, mutual masturbation or gratification. I think it fits.
Click to expand...

You forgot to mention webcams. Ask Plechazunga to explain if clarification is required.
 
Eboue said:
Sometimes I listen to this Catholic radio show when I am bored. One time a guy called in and said "if we're supposed to believe that the Noah's Ark story is literally true then how did the dinosaurs not kill the other animals". The host responded "well of course Noah took baby dinosaurs" as if that was the most obvious thing in the world.
Click to expand...

Well duh!
 
Eboue said:
Sometimes I listen to this Catholic radio show when I am bored. One time a guy called in and said "if we're supposed to believe that the Noah's Ark story is literally true then how did the dinosaurs not kill the other animals". The host responded "well of course Noah took baby dinosaurs" as if that was the most obvious thing in the world.
Click to expand...

Good thing those baby dinosaurs were so cute and cuddly and, most importantly, not hungry.
 
h49782E2A
 
You must log in or register to reply here.