Religion, what's the point?

[MoneyMay]

Imagine that, an imam would provide an apologetic response to any criticism/negative review of the Qu'ran. No different than a cardinal/priest would for Catholics, or a pastor/preacher would for dozens of Christian sects.

It's also why I don't care much for religious scholars, biased in their research. Try debating a theology major from Liberty, nearly made my head explode multiple times.

Not comparable at all, as there are other Imams who believe she was 9, but if you do the math and use logic, it doesn't make sense. (That's not the point anyway.) Go and please check if her age is in the Qur'an. Also, please do check if this is a negative view or criticism because it clearly isn't. There are scholars who are not biased, it's up to you to discover them, and if they meet your agenda, you can choose to believe them.

 

[MrMarcello]

If a "prophet" was having sex with a 9-year old girl that is indeed a negative view of religion. It's why some debate she was much older.

 

[Werewolf]

Here come the insults again from Werewolf. The funny thing is, scientists are smarter than you and I, so that "insult", if you want to call it that, was a bit redundant. Funnily enough, I said Muslims introduced it, which doesn't mean they created it - YOU are deciding to twist things yet again, so it's not surprise. I have been open-minded and I said previously that I respect everyone's views, regardless of how absurd they are. I am open-minded because I consider the multiple definitions of words, or morals in society a while ago, for example.

No they did not introduce it. That's wrong. It is factually false to claim it.

 

[MoneyMay]

If a "prophet" was having sex with a 9-year old girl that is indeed a negative view of religion. It's why some debate she was much older.

I disagree, I don't think it's a negative view as it isn't telling people to do it. Like I said, the views different and just because one scholar says one thing, doesn't mean another scholar can't see the opposite.

No they did not introduce it. That's wrong. It is factually false to claim it.

First of all, I do apologise, but you need to stop being stubborn and stop with the insults. Introduce: make the subject known. It doesn't mean Muslims came up with the theory, they expanded on it, they added more to it, that's from what I read and understand, though a link to what you think would be great.

 

[Werewolf]

First of all, I do apologise, but you need to stop being stubborn and stop with the insults. Introduce: make the subject known. It doesn't mean Muslims came up with the theory, they expanded on it, they added more to it, that's from what I read and understand, though a link to what you think would be great.

So anyone who disagrees with you is insulting you ? Interesting...​

​

Now we have moved from Muslims introducing the concept of a spherical Earth in Europe to expanding on it and adding more to it...​

Let me give you the definition of "introduce" :​

Definition of introduce : to lead or bring in especially for the first time (Merriam-Webster)​

​

....​

 

[MrMarcello]

My point being a true man of God, or prophet in this regard, would know much better than to be taking up children as brides/sex partners. There's no story of Jesus taking up a young girl for himself (not that I believe Jesus existed).

I concede that it was common practice in those times for men to take up girls as young as 12, even thought it's disgusting at any point in the civilized world. Religion and power condoned and forced it. Arranged marriages are disgusting as well. So much for that free will God supposedly gave to man.

 

[MoneyMay]

So anyone who disagrees with you is insulting you ? Interesting...

Now we have moved from Muslims introducing the concept of a spherical Earth in Europe to expanding on it and adding more to it...
Let me give you the definition of "introduce" :
Definition of introduce : to lead or bring in especially for the first time (Merriam-Webster)

....

No, I have never accused members of disagreeing with me as being insulting. You, on the other hand, come across as condescending, arrogant, and someone who feeds off his own ego. I find it laughable that you can't man up and apologise. Nice one.

You're again twisting things. And never said they created it, as I explained the context in the previous page, but you're deciding to ignore this, which coincides with the way you ignored the pure definitions of the Arabic words in the previous page. Try harder.

My point being a true man of God, or prophet in this regard, would know much better than to be taking up children as brides/sex partners. There's no story of Jesus taking up a young girl for himself (not that I believe Jesus existed).

I concede that it was common practice in those times for men to take up girls as young as 12, even thought it's disgusting at any point in the civilized world. Religion and power condoned and forced it. Arranged marriages are disgusting as well. So much for that free will God supposedly gave to man.

Fair enough, though I disagree with you, but I respect your opinion.

 

[MoneyMay]

And just to give you an example because your arguments are tedious, Guardiola introduced tiki-taka. Spain also introduced a tiki-taka system. Does it mean they created it? No. You're being very puerile now.

 

[Mihajlovic]

Imagine that, an imam would provide an apologetic response to any criticism/negative review of the Qu'ran. No different than a cardinal/priest would for Catholics, or a pastor/preacher would for dozens of Christian sects.

It's also why I don't care much for religious scholars, biased in their research. Try debating a theology major from Liberty, nearly made my head explode multiple times.

All scholars are biased, no matter the subject area. Is your world really that binary?

 

[rednev]

My point being a true man of God, or prophet in this regard, would know much better than to be taking up children as brides/sex partners. There's no story of Jesus taking up a young girl for himself (not that I believe Jesus existed).

I concede that it was common practice in those times for men to take up girls as young as 12, even thought it's disgusting at any point in the civilized world. Religion and power condoned and forced it. Arranged marriages are disgusting as well. So much for that free will God supposedly gave to man.

Not to mention Muhammed's enslavement and rape of captured women. How can any Muslim reconcile these actions with Muhammed's status of a morally righteous prophet of God?

 

[Werewolf]

No, I have never accused members of disagreeing with me as being insulting. You, on the other hand, come across as condescending, arrogant, and someone who feeds off his own ego. I find it laughable that you can't man up and apologise. Nice one.

No you are right, I should apologize : I apologize for pointing out 7th century world-class bullshit. Forgive me for showing you the vacuity of your arguments. I blame my common sense and my brain.

You're again twisting things. And never said they created it, as I explained the context in the previous page, but you're deciding to ignore this, which coincides with the way you ignored the pure definitions of the Arabic words in the previous page. Try harder.

I have never said that you claimed they created it. You said they introduced it to Europe. Which is false. Plain and simple.

Show me where I was wrong with my arguments against the definitions. This is the third time or so I ask you to do this but choose to ignore it again.

And just to give you an example because your arguments are tedious, Guardiola introduced tiki-taka. Spain also introduced a tiki-taka system. Does it mean they created it? No. You're being very puerile now.

That's not what you said. Using your example,it is as if you said that Spain introduced tiki-taka to Guardiola which is very different from what you say in your example.

 

[MoneyMay]

No you are right, I should apologize : I apologize for pointing out 7th century world-class bullshit. Forgive me for showing you the vacuity of your arguments. I blame my common sense and my brain.


I have never said that you claimed they created it. You said they introduced it to Europe. Which is false. Plain and simple.

Show me where I was wrong with my arguments against the definitions. This is the third time or so I ask you to do this but choose to ignore it again.


That's not what you said. Using your example,it is as if you said that Spain introduced tiki-taka to Guardiola which is very different from what you say in your example.

Nah, I'm done. Your common sense and brain led you to generalise Muslims. Your post is drivel and it shows how much of a man you are. You can't even apologise on a internet forum.

 

[nimic]

All scholars are biased, no matter the subject area. Is your world really that binary?

It's ironic that you should say that, considering you are the one with the absolute "all scholars are biased".

Heh.

 

[rednev]

MoneyMay, what is your view on Muhammad's keeping of concubines? Do you think that it is ever morally righteous to trade women for the purpose of sexual enslavement? Do you think it is ever morally righteous for a slave owner to rape his female slaves?

If not, can you explain how your prophet can be considered to have lived a morally righteous life, despite having been guilty of what I have referred to above?

 

[Werewolf]

Nah, I'm done. Your common sense and brain led you to generalise Muslims. Your post is drivel and it shows how much of a man you are. You can't even apologise on a internet forum.

Just how old are you ?

Anyway, we have already established that you reached your limits some time ago. Thank you for the participation though !

 

[MoneyMay]

Just how old are you ?

Anyway, we have already established that you reached your limits some time ago. Thank you for the participation though !

No, the question is how mature are you? Throwing insults and telling people they reached their limit, when you're the one who reached their limited when you started the insults. The fact you tried to twist the word introduced is ironic because you did the same thing with the Arabic words. Grow up.

 

[Werewolf]

No, the question is how mature are you? Throwing insults and telling people they reached their limit, when you're the one who reached their limited when you started the insults. The fact you tried to twist the word introduced is ironic because you did the same thing with the Arabic words. Grow up.

Show me where. This is the fourth time I ask you so.

 

[Commadus]

An organised system of belief in the supernatural.

Does it require the belief in the supernatural? Can I not believe in spirits but not organised system?

 

[Mihajlovic]

It's ironic that you should say that, considering you are the one with the absolute "all scholars are biased".

Heh.

Me talking in absolutes is just keeping to the tone of this discussion

 

[Saliph]

Does it require the belief in the supernatural? Can I not believe in spirits but not organised system?

I'd call that a (quasi-)religious belief, but not a religion (well, there probably is a religion centered on the belief in spirits).

 

[Commadus]

I'd call that a (quasi-)religious belief, but not a religion (well, there probably is a religion centered on the belief in spirits).

So does religion require an organised set of beliefs? If not are there any religions that have no organised set of beliefs?

 

[MoneyMay]

MoneyMay, what is your view on Muhammad's keeping of concubines? Do you think that it is ever morally righteous to trade women for the purpose of sexual enslavement? Do you think it is ever morally righteous for a slave owner to rape his female slaves?

If not, can you explain how your prophet can be considered to have lived a morally righteous life, despite having been guilty of what I have referred to above?

I was busy typing a response, but this superb post puts it more eloquently than I could: http://theletteredwayfarer.wordpres...muhammad-allow-muslims-to-rape-female-slaves/

 

[Saliph]

So does religion require an organised set of beliefs? If not are there any religions that have no organised set of beliefs?

This is semantics, and "religion" is pretty much a useless word in a sense, but generally I'd say people associate it with an (at least partly) organized set of (at least partly) supernatural beliefs.

 

[Mihajlovic]

"A world view, or a general picture of the world as a whole and the place of the individual therein. This picture contains some specification of an over-all purpose or point of the world and an indication of how the individual fits into it"

 

[MoneyMay]

I'd say it's a way of life. Religion is an organised set of beliefs, which contains a moral code.

 

[Commadus]

This is semantics, and "religion" is pretty much a useless word in a sense, but generally I'd say people associate it with an (at least partly) organized set of (at least partly) supernatural beliefs.

So they key defining point is that you must believe in something that you do not fully understand which can be supernatural?

 

[Werewolf]

So they key defining point is that you must believe in something that you do not fully understand which can be supernatural?

I'd say the key defining point is that you must believe in something you consider to be sacred. What you consider to be sacred can be a god/spirit or a concrete thing such as a rock or a tree or the Sun. Afterwards comes all the set of beliefs and practices which surround this sacred thing.

 

[Dion]

Does it require the belief in the supernatural? Can I not believe in spirits but not organised system?

Thats the difference between spirituality and religion, religion is an organisation of people with similar spiritual beliefs.

So they key defining point is that you must believe in something that you do not fully understand which can be supernatural?

You and others (although in your statement "something that you do not fully understand" and "supernatural" is probably a tautology)

 

[Commadus]

I'd say the key defining point is that you must believe in something you consider to be sacred. What you consider to be sacred can be a god/spirit or a concrete thing such as a rock or a tree or the Sun. Afterwards comes all the set of beliefs and practices which surround this sacred thing.

But that's a circular argument because if its sacred that means it religious and if its religious its sacred?

Why does it have to be sacred.

 

[Commadus]

Thats the difference between spirituality and religion, religion is an organisation of people with similar spiritual beliefs.

You and others (although in your statement "something that you do not fully understand" and "supernatural" is probably a tautology)

But can't you have a religion that does not have spiritual beliefs - belief in things you do not undertand but they are not spiritual.

 

[Commadus]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion

Looking at a definition of religion:

a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

So it does not require a) god , higher power or b) devotion or ritual observance or c) a moral code for it to comply as being a religion.

 

[Saliph]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion

Looking at a definition of religion:

a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

So it does not require a) god , higher power or b) devotion or ritual observance or c) a moral code for it to comply as being a religion.

That's just a - and not the - definition of religion.

I don't know why this is relevant anyway. My beef (and I would imagine the beef of the other atheists in this thread) is with people believing without evidence, and pretending to be certain about things they cannot be certain about. That's the crux of the issue for me, and it extends beyond religion. But religion is the only area of discourse where believing without evidence is tacitly accepted and even celebrated (not to mention ridiculously widespread), which is why I think it demands extra attention from "bitter, spiteful cnuts" like myself. It's not about religion per se; it's about intellectual dishonesty and its consequences.

 

[Werewolf]

But that's a circular argument because if its sacred that means it religious and if its religious its sacred?

Why does it have to be sacred.

Sacred is a necessary condition but not a sufficient one. A religion needs a sacred element plus a set of collective ritual practices that pertain to it. Of course you can have other additional elements (moral code and such). It has to be sacred because you need that spiritual devotion to submit totally to the religion : Allah, God or whatever is the central element of devotion (in this case sanctity is associated with divinity) and that's why you find purists in Islam (Sufi) who are only interested in the esoteric dimension of Islam (the sacred part) and don't give as much importance to the exoteric part (Islamic law). They make a distinction between the two which combination is Islam as a religion.
This is all a personal opinion though and you will find many definitions of what is a religion.

I don't know why this is relevant anyway. My beef (and I would imagine the beef of the other atheists in this thread) is with people believing without evidence, and pretending to be certain about things they cannot be certain about. That's the crux of the issue for me, and it extends beyond religion. But religion is the only area of discourse where believing without evidence is tacitly accepted and even celebrated (not to mention ridiculously widespread), which is why I think it demands extra attention from "bitter, spiteful cnuts" like myself.

Spot on.

 

[Dion]

But can't you have a religion that does not have spiritual beliefs - belief in things you do not undertand but they are not spiritual.

Depends whether you consider supernatural and spiritual to be essentially synonymous, either way it's an exercise in semantics.

 

[Mihajlovic]

That's just a - and not the - definition of religion.

I don't know why this is relevant anyway. My beef (and I would imagine the beef of the other atheists in this thread) is with people believing without evidence, and pretending to be certain about things they cannot be certain about. That's the crux of the issue for me, and it extends beyond religion. But religion is the only area of discourse where believing without evidence is tacitly accepted and even celebrated (not to mention ridiculously widespread), which is why I think it demands extra attention from "bitter, spiteful cnuts" like myself. It's not about religion per se; it's about intellectual dishonesty and its consequences.

I really must have hurt your feelings Saliph, I'm very sorry about that.

 

[Abbsta]

Sorry for the remarks but I was (and I still am) under the impression that you were considering the Quran to be the true message of some God and Mohammed to be his genuine messenger. However, if we agree that Islam is just another religion and if you want to discuss its impact on the Arabs, I will leave the supernatural part out of the discussion.

You don't need to mock someone's 'beliefs' to make a point or two. Whether I belived in anything is irrelevant especially after I suggested removing any 'faith' related concepts from my arguments.

First thing is this version of creation was not only present in ancient Greek mythology. You can find it also in early Mesopotamian religions such as the Assyro-Babilonian, the Canaan or the Sumerian religions. It really is a common theme among religions worldwide.
Also, it is not impossible that Muhammad may have learnt a thing or two from the Greeks. One of his companions was Al Harith Ibn Kalada who was an Arab physician and who studied medicine in Gundeshapur (Persia) where many Greek philosophers fled the religious persecution of the Byzantine empire.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Harith_ibn_Kalada
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academy_of_Gondishapur

As for your second point, the Greeks did not have a messenger. At least not as in Abrahamic religions. Ancient Greeks had a significantly different view of religion (polytheism,...) so I doubt God sent them any messenger.

I find this odd. How is that proof? It's just a guess.

The Night and Day verse shows one thing : God (or the guy who wrote the Quran) did not know about people living in the poles.
If you are walking the earth would not appear to be spread out because you would see things gradually popping up in the horizon due to the curvature of the Earth. However, let see what Allah has to say about it (I will let you make your own conclusions):

Come on now. That was my own conjecture not from the author's.

Sure it changed many aspects of human life for the Arabs living in the Arabian peninsula and for those who would later suffer from the violent religious expansion of Islam as for any other imperialist religion. Saying that the Quran wasn't influential would be lying, saying that it brought something new to the table would be lying too.

That's quite an extreme view if you were championing science. Not matter how you dislike something, there is always something to learn but I think you're views are set so that's that.

 

[Werewolf]

You don't need to mock someone's 'beliefs' to make a point or two. Whether I belived in anything is irrelevant especially after I suggested removing any 'faith' related concepts from my arguments.

What I am targeting primarily here is blind faith. I don't 'mock' anyone's beliefs, I am pointing out bullshit when I see it. I get it that most religious people are not used to seeing their religions being dissected and analyzed rationally but this is different from the usual circle jerks that characterize the majority of religious discussions within the community.

I find this odd. How is that proof? It's just a guess.

Yes it is not a proof but it is infinetly more likely and credible than the whole God/messenger tale.

Come on now. That was my own conjecture not from the author's.

The verse is quite clear to be fair. It answered your questions I think.

That's quite an extreme view if you were championing science. Not matter how you dislike something, there is always something to learn but I think you're views are set so that's that.

I don't know what me championing science has to do with that quote. Quran simply did not bring anything new with regards to the civilizations that came before. Show me something that is new and was not present in the previous civilizations that appeared on Earth. This does not mean that I was not influenced by Islam since many of my values are inspired from it due to my upbringing.

No, my views are not set. Show me something that is reasonable, that relies on solid arguments and that is logical and I don't see any reason for me to not consider it.

 

[Commadus]

That's just a - and not the - definition of religion.

I don't know why this is relevant anyway. My beef (and I would imagine the beef of the other atheists in this thread) is with people believing without evidence, and pretending to be certain about things they cannot be certain about. That's the crux of the issue for me, and it extends beyond religion. But religion is the only area of discourse where believing without evidence is tacitly accepted and even celebrated (not to mention ridiculously widespread), which is why I think it demands extra attention from "bitter, spiteful cnuts" like myself. It's not about religion per se; it's about intellectual dishonesty and its consequences.

So we agree there is no complete and exhaustive definition of religion. The issue as you point out is people being certain about things they cannot be certain about - they are intellectually dishonest because if they comprehensively approached the matter it may cause them to rethink their views or beliefs. We have an understanding of how we think the universe was formed - it's not complete- so do you believe in the big bang theory, if you do are you not believing in something that is not certain and concrete ergo its intellectually dishonest?

 

[Saliph]

So we agree there is no complete and exhaustive definition of religion. The issue as you point out is people being certain about things they cannot be certain about - they are intellectually dishonest because if they comprehensively approached the matter it may cause them to rethink their views or beliefs. We have an understanding of how we think the universe was formed - it's not complete- so do you believe in the big bang theory, if you do are you not believing in something that is not certain and concrete ergo its intellectually dishonest?

I believe in it because it's a well-tested scientific theory, and because there is a consensus among experts that this is how it happened. The crucial point here isn't whether you believe in something that is "certain" or not, it's whether you have good reasons for believing what you do. If compelling new evidence about the origins of the universe were to arise that fundamentally challenges the big bang theory, a rational person would change his beliefs accordingly. I have no idea what you think is intellectually dishonest about that.

I'm not certain about anything, and I'm open to everything. I try my best to scale my convictions with the evidence.

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

So we agree there is no complete and exhaustive definition of religion. The issue as you point out is people being certain about things they cannot be certain about - they are intellectually dishonest because if they comprehensively approached the matter it may cause them to rethink their views or beliefs. We have an understanding of how we think the universe was formed - it's not complete- so do you believe in the big bang theory, if you do are you not believing in something that is not certain and concrete ergo its intellectually dishonest?

If you equate a theory built on observable and repeatable experiments which point to a conclusion, with a belief system built on faith, no facts and unsubstantiated superstitions then yes. Or to put it another way, if two different things were the same they would be the same except they are not.