Religion, what's the point?

Silva said:
I said Abraham didn't exist, because you know, he didn't. We're expected to believe this man had a child when he was 100 and his wife was 90.
Click to expand...

:lol:

I didn't know that one. I'm learning Islamic scripture as I go along here. We obviously have access to enough biological evidence to confidently state that a ninety year old woman cannot reproduce. That in itself is only evidence of that part of the story being bollocks though, not necessarily evidence that Abraham didn't exist.

Edit: The 100 Muslims example would under no circumstance be considered evidence. You wouldn't get scientific consensus on such a comprehensively shite test.
Click to expand...

I implied it'd be flimsy evidence; obviously not enough to garner a consensus regarding the existence of Christians in Egypt. It's nevertheless evidence though, just not very compelling evidence on its own.

Or perhaps there's an official cutoff point when evidence becomes merely data?
 
Werewolf said:
Oh I know a great deal about Islam, and certainly more than you. I have already exposed your ignorance numerous times in this thread.
"Shirk" means not believing in Allah. You could be an Atheist and be a "Moushrik", not necessarily a polytheist. Do you need me to give you another lesson ?
Click to expand...

:lol: You're wrong. Atheist is a name you call yourself.. God doesn't call you atheists, he calls you "Mushrikeen", and he doesn't differentiate between people who you call "atheists" and people who believe in more than one God, or people who follow anything other than God.. Why did the Quran say that some Christians and Jews are following their priests as Gods other than God? No Christian or Jew believes that a priest created the universe..

Also Shirk/Sharaka in Arabic means to share something with somebody else, i.e. to have multiple Gods, other than the one God, i.e. you follow them, regardless if it's right or not.
 
It's Jewish scripture technically, Christianity and Islam just borrowed it. Which kind of makes their constant wars all the more strange, "Grrr, my lies are the true ones about the same god, you blasphemous heathen!"
 
Danny1982 said:
:lol: You're wrong. Atheist is a name you call yourself.. God doesn't call you atheists, he calls you "Mushrikeen", and he doesn't differentiate between people who you call "atheists" and people who believe in more than one God, or people who follow anything other than God.. Why did the Quran say that some Christians and Jews are following their priests as Gods other than God? No Christian or Jew believes that a priest created the universe..

Also Shirk/Sharaka in Arabic means to share something with somebody else, i.e. to have multiple Gods, other than the one God, i.e. you follow them, regardless if it's right or not.
Click to expand...

Yet another indication that god is stupid.
 
ciderman9000000 said:
:lol:

I didn't know that one. I'm learning Islamic scripture as I go along here. We obviously have access to enough biological evidence to confidently state that a ninety year old woman cannot reproduce. That in itself is only evidence of that part of the story being bollocks though, not necessarily evidence that Abraham didn't exist.



I implied it'd be flimsy evidence; obviously not enough to garner a consensus regarding the existence of Christians in Egypt. It's nevertheless evidence though, just not very compelling evidence on its own.

Or perhaps there's an official cutoff point when evidence becomes merely data?
Click to expand...


Do you think a 4 years old girl can reproduce?
 
Danny1982 said:
:lol: You're wrong. Atheist is a name you call yourself.. God doesn't call you atheists, he calls you "Mushrikeen", and he doesn't differentiate between people who you call "atheists" and people who believe in more than one God, or people who follow anything other than God.. Why did the Quran say that some Christians and Jews are following their priests as Gods other than God? No Christian or Jew believes that a priest created the universe..

Also Shirk/Sharaka in Arabic means to share something with somebody else, i.e. to have multiple Gods, other than the one God, i.e. you follow them, regardless if it's right or not.
Click to expand...

Yeah so you agree with me, Shirk is not exclusively used for polytheists.


Atheism is described as shirk because it denies the position of Allah as the unique creator and sustainer of the universe (tawhid ar-rububiyya, the Unity of Lordship).
Click to expand...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shirk_(Islam)
 
Silva said:
You do realize that, apart from not being able to reproduce, 90 year olds, especially thousands of years ago, quite simply weren't the norm, and they certainly weren't capable of going through childbirth and living another 37 years.
Click to expand...

I know it isn't the norm.. That's why Abraham was surprised himself.

Do you know that there are 3 recorded cases in the last hundred years, and 8 in the last couple of centuries alone of women who gave birth above the age of 70?
 
Werewolf said:
Yeah so you agree with me, Shirk is not exclusively used for polytheists.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shirk_(Islam)
Click to expand...

No I don't agree with you.. Shirk doesn't mean not believing in Allah..

Atheists are not "Mushrikeen" because they don't believe in any God, that's not what the Quran say. Atheists are Mushrikeen because the Quran consider them as following Gods other than Allah (Al-Hawa, Al-Tagoot, Al-shahawat...etc.). This is actually basic things that every Muslim/everybody who studied Islam should know.. It's also basic Arabic language: Shirk (from sharaka) = sharing something. It's the opposite of Tawheed (which is mentioned even in the definition you posted), which means one God.

EDIT: Did you even read the definition in the link you posted?!

In Islam, shirk (Arabic: شرك‎ širk) is the sin of idolatry or polytheism, i.e. the deification or worship of anyone or anything other than the singular God (Allah), or more literally the establishment of "partners" placed beside God. It is the vice that is opposed to the virtue of Tawhid (monotheism).[1]
Click to expand...
 
Danny1982 said:
I know it isn't the norm.. That's why Abraham was surprised himself.

Do you know that there are 3 recorded cases in the last hundred years, and 8 in the last couple of centuries alone of women who gave birth above the age of 70?
Click to expand...

Do you know that 90 is is significantly higher than vaguely above 70? And that medical practice in the last 100 years is by the far at its pinnacle?

And Abraham's supposed reaction doesn't mean anything. Do you think the people who came up with these stories were going to say anything else? And don't you find it at least a little bit strange that the ages 100 and 90 are quite oddly rounded? It's almost as if the people telling these stories wanted a nice round number they could remember easily.
 
Danny1982 said:
No I don't agree with you.. Shirk doesn't mean not believing in Allah..

Atheists are not "Mushrikeen" because they don't believe in any God, that's not what the Quran say. Atheists are Mushrikeen because the Quran consider them as following Gods other than Allah (Al-Hawa, Al-Tagoot, Al-shahawat...etc.). This is actually basic things that every Muslim/everybody who studied Islam should know.. It's also basic Arabic language: Shirk (from sharaka) = sharing something. It's the opposite of Tawheed (which is mentioned even in the definition you posted), which means one God.

EDIT: Did you even read the definition in the link you posted?!
Click to expand...

I know what the definition is. My point is that Atheism (not believing in any God) as we know it now was not present during the apparition of Islam and so the concepts of Shirk or Kufr (which are different things) are extended to cover this case. The link says also that Atheism (modern sense) is considered as Shirk because it opposes tawhid. In a broader sense, it is also used to qualify enemies of Allah (see the link). Actually, Elhad might be a better word.

In Rubūbīyah (Lordship)

This category of shirk refers to either the belief that others share God's Lordship over creation as His equal or near equal, or to the belief that there exists no Lord over creation at all.
  • Shirk by association: This is the shirk concerned with associating "others" with Allah.
  • Shirk by negation: This is shirk in Rubūbīyah (Lordship).
Click to expand...
 
Werewolf said:
I know what the definition is. My point is that Atheism (not believing in any God) as we know it now was not present during the apparition of Islam and so the concepts of Shirk or Kufr (which are different things) are extended to cover this case. The link says also that Atheism (modern sense) is considered as Shirk because it opposes tawhid. In a broader sense, it is also used to qualify enemies of Allah (see the link). Actually, Elhad might be a better word.
Click to expand...

You've confused Kufr with Shirk.
 
I have no idea why everyone is reluctant to admit that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Saliph even tried to argue that it is. This is demonstrably untrue.

The point is that it's irrelevant. It's a complete curve ball by the religious to try and shift the burden of proof and deflect from the fact that none of their claims are supported by any evidence. It's also a spurious notion that relies on the idea that there must be equivalence in everything, so if one side needs evidence, then so must the other.

The reality is, you don't go on believing in things before they are proven, and then discard those beliefs one by one as you find 'evidence of non existence', because your head would be full of bullshit. Instead you believe in things once you get proof for them. I'm sure Danny follows this rule on a practical level himself, when it comes to anything other than religion.

In other words, it's not the case that you know something is untrue, but rather that you have no reason to believe that it is.

I'm not sure this can be put any more tersely, but I'm sure Danny will still find a way to continue his hamster wheel marathon, nevertheless.
 
Danny1982 said:
I know it isn't the norm.. That's why Abraham was surprised himself.

Do you know that there are 3 recorded cases in the last hundred years, and 8 in the last couple of centuries alone of women who gave birth above the age of 70?
Click to expand...

The oldest of which being seventy-three meaning none of which were anywhere near being ninety years old, all but two of which are entirely unconfirmed anyway, both of which were the result of successful IVF treatment and one of which wasn't in possession of a birth certificate to confirm her age.

Don't be a retard, Danny; ninety year old women can't have babies. I suppose you believe that Adam lived to be over nine-hundred years old too, right?
 
There are people in the book of Genesis that supposedly have lived 500 years and more. To dig out actual data and try to compare, and make it seem plausible is an exercise in futility.

Why would you even saddle yourself with this nonsense. Even Christians know better than that.
 
Moonwalker said:
There are people in the book of Genesis that supposedly have lived 500 years and more. To dig out actual data and try to compare, and make it seem plausible is an exercise in futility.

Why would you even saddle yourself with this nonsense. Even Christians know better than that.
Click to expand...

Adam, Noah and Methuselah all lived well into their 900's.

Yeah okay, god!
 
I wonder how many cases of people living well into their 900's in the last errr... 900 years will Danny dig up to prove this not that uncanny at all. I mean Adam was surprised himself to live that long.
 
Moonwalker said:
I have no idea why everyone is reluctant to admit that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Saliph even tried to argue that it is. This is demonstrably untrue.
Click to expand...

That's not true in probability theory (Bayesian theory). If you consider a hypothesis H and evidence E, then it can be shown using Baye's rule that :
P(H) < P(H|E) => P(H|~E) < P(H)
Meaning that if the presence of evidence increases the probability of H, then absence of evidence decreases its probability. This basically mean that the probability of some hypothesis lies somewhere between its probability given evidence with some weight and its probability given the lack of evidence with some weight. At any point in time, the fact that you searched actively for evidence has an effect on the hypothesis's probability whether you found evidence or not.

Furthermore, it can be shown that the weight of the probability of H given evidence is proportional to : P(E)/P(E|H) and the weight of the probability of H given the absence of evidence is proportional to P(~E)/P(~E|H)
Now suppose your hypothesis is a very strong one for which you would expect overwhelming evidence, then p(E|H) should be very high and conversely p(~E|H) very low. This means that you would need to find a lot of evidence (P(E)) in order to increase the probability of H and it means also that as you continue not finding evidence (P(~E)) then the probability of H decreases fast.

(For more info on Baye's theorem : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayes'_theorem)
 
We are not talking about probability theory though. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. What was the probability of the existence of dinosaurs back when there was no archeological evidence or evidence of any kind to support it?

As I've explained It's a complete a blind alley anyway. You're not the one who needs to prove anything.
 
Were there any hypothesis revolving around the existence of dinosaurs before any evidence was found? Because there's a key difference in a hypothesis being considered as evidence begins to emerge, and a hypothesis being considered when there is evidence to the contrary.
 
Silva said:
Were there any hypothesis revolving around the existence of dinosaurs before any evidence was found? Because there's a key difference in a hypothesis being born as evidence begins to emerge, and a hypothesis being considered when there is evidence to the contrary.
Click to expand...

The point is that non existence of evidence for dinosaurs didn't mean dinosaurs didn't exist. What you're saying is that if there were a hypothesis about them back when there was no evidence, then they definitely couldn't have been true?
 
Moonwalker said:
The point is that non existence of evidence for dinosaurs didn't mean dinosaurs didn't exist. What you're saying is that if there were a hypothesis about them back when there was no evidence, then they definitely couldn't have been true?
Click to expand...

No, but that the hypothesis would have been considered rather rubbish and completely baseless. If evidence of dragons begins to emerge, we'd be forced to accept that dragons are real, but as it stands, that hypothesis is based on nothing remotely substantial. Similarly to the dragon hypothesis though, the god hypothesis can be quite clearly seen to be a societal invention and and as such, there is enough evidence to say the hypothesis is probably wrong.
 
Moonwalker said:
The point is that non existence of evidence for dinosaurs didn't mean dinosaurs didn't exist. What you're saying is that if there were a hypothesis about them back when there was no evidence, then they definitely couldn't have been true?
Click to expand...

You're confusing evidence with proof.
 
Well we agree, obviously. Of course it's rubbish and baseless. The core idea of it is a metaphysical claim that cannot be disproven though, however unlikely and improbable. I really don't see a problem with admitting that, as the same goes for pink unicorns and Russell's teapot.

The onus is on those who believe in something to prove it's existence and not the other way around.
 
ciderman9000000 said:
You're confusing evidence with proof.
Click to expand...

All proof is evidence whilst some evidence may not be proof.

The strongest evidence of course is that which provides direct proof. That's the kind he's looking for and that's the kind you won't be able to give him, and shouldn't try.
 
Moonwalker, if you really cannot accept that lack of existence of evidence can be evidence of lack of existence then how would you answer my bull in the china shop problem from the previous page?

ciderman9000000 said:
As an example: imagine you're a scientist and you've been hired to do some research at the local china shop, you're investigating whether or not a bull has rampaged through in the last five minutes. You arrive at the shop and begin conducting a couple of experiments: first you test for bull shit on the floor and find none, then you test for any broken or displaced crockery and again find none. So there's no evidence of any bull rampaging through the china shop in the past five minutes. What would you report?

Obviously in the above case the lack of evidence to indicate the existence of a bull is very reliable extremely good evidence in itself that there wasn't a bull in the shop. Or in other words; lack of evidence for existence = evidence for lack of existence.
Click to expand...
 
Moonwalker said:
All proof is evidence whilst some evidence may not be proof.

The strongest evidence of course is that which provides direct proof. That's the kind he's looking for and that's the kind you won't be able to give him, and shouldn't try.
Click to expand...

Exactly. As I've explained in multiple posts over the last few pages, there's a subtle but very important difference between evidence and proof.

Absence of evidence =/= Evidence of absence

The above is incorrect. It should read:

Absence of evidence =/= Proof of Absence

Regarding the bull in the china shop problem, the lack of evidence of the bull is very strong evidence of no bull; to such an extent that the only reasonable conclusion one can draw is that no bull had rampaged through the shop. Of course though, this isn't proof that there was no bull, since I'm sure one could think of some incredibly implausible explanation for the complete lack of evidence (ex: magic, god etc.).

There's an important distinction between evidence, proof and reasonable conclusion which science relies upon. As I mentioned in an above post, science cannot absolutely disprove any hypothesis no matter how implausible, but it can certainly reasonably conclude that a hypothesis is incorrect on the basis of a total lack of supporting evidence.

It's impossible to prove that god doesn't exist, but it's certainly possible to find evidence to suggest that god doesn't exist, and lack of evidence of god's existence is perfectly reasonable evidence of his nonexistence.

If god did indeed exist then there would be an abundance of evidence to support the sensational claims made by the holy texts; instead we have no evidence of such and a bunch of evidence to refute them.

What's the only reasonable conclusion?
 
Moonwalker said:
I have no idea why everyone is reluctant to admit that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Saliph even tried to argue that it is.
Click to expand...

It is. Of course it is. There's an infinite number of ludicrous hypotheses that you could make up that you'd dismiss for no other reason than that there is no evidence for it. If there is zero (and I do mean zero) evidence for proposition X, that itself is evidence that X is not true. As cider has pointed out it's not proof (as in the 100% sense), but it's evidence. That's just painfully self-evident.
 
Oh for the love of all that is Mushrikeen.

You're splitting hairs now over a literal meaning of a phrase. Obviously, evidence is a broader term than proof and what they really mean to say is that it's not definitive, conclusive evidence. Of course, it wouldn't have quite the same ring to it if you put those words in.

What danny is demanding is definitive evidence for non existence, and you just won't be able to provide that. Going in circles over it however is pointless since you don't need to provide any such thing in the first place, in order to not believe.
 
Moonwalker said:
Oh for the love of all that is Mushrikeen.

You're splitting hairs now over a literal meaning of a phrase. Obviously, evidence is a broader term than proof and what they really mean to say is that it's not definitive, conclusive evidence. Of course it wouldn't have quite the same ring to it if you put those words in.

What danny is demanding is definitive evidence for non existence, and you just won't be able to provide that. Going in circles over it however is pointless since you don't need to provide no such thing in the first place, in order to not believe.
Click to expand...

Right, so we agree then, absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

I prefer Hitch's phrase anyway: What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
 
Not all zero are the same. For example 0.0 has a meaning in Chemistry but nothing in Maths. So this atitude towards 'zero' evidence cannot be applied here since it's not a physical entity we are dealing with.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.