LiveInFaith
Registered Senior Member
KennyJC said:
Those are crimes, not defending faith against who threatened.
Designer Religion
- Thread starter superluminal
- Start date
Those are crimes, not defending faith against who threatened.
samcdkey said:
I understand, but that doesn't make it any less interpretive. As well, we see a variety of messages from a variety of religions, all having different interpretations, some in complete contradiction to others. A "scholar" of Christianity will not have much in common with a "scholar" of Islam, for example.
Experimental results either support the assumption or not.
In other words, the author is talking apples and oranges.
Hey everyone.
Just an observation. I think we've gotten all the answers we're going to get here. Clearly there are extremeists in every faith who will interpret the writings to suit them. If that means killing infidels by jet-missile, or killing doctors who abort a ball of cells, so be it. There are also enlightened moderates who will mentally adjust the writings to agree more with their modern moral sense.
But isn't that the whole problem here? Looking to one instance of a book, written thousands of years ago, as your immutable, eternal source of wisdom and guidance? Can the quran or the bible ever incorporate the findings of sociobiology or other human behavioral sciences?
Look at a simple instance. It is now clear to any educated person that homosexuality is not a "lifestyle choice". It's a natural genetic predisposition that some portion of humanity will alwas exhibit. And it's harmless. If you understand anything about evolutionary biology, you will understand that the frequency of this behavior will always be relatively low. I leave you to look at the absolute turmoil this is causing because of ancient, immutable writings.
Look at abortion and stem cell research. There is zero evidence for a soul, let alone "ensoulment" at the time of conception. We are talking largely about a blastocyst containing a few dozen to a few hundred cells (which is naturally aborted, by some estimates, 30% to 40% of the time without the woman even realizing it). This little ball of cells, with close to a 50-50 chance under even normal circumstances, is the source of how much anguish? And how much potential improvement in the human condition?
Ancient immutable writings, ignorant of and immune to any discovery post- dating them, declare it off limits.
Can the theists here even remotely understand why we atheist/free-thinkers find this intolerable?
Just an observation. I think we've gotten all the answers we're going to get here. Clearly there are extremeists in every faith who will interpret the writings to suit them. If that means killing infidels by jet-missile, or killing doctors who abort a ball of cells, so be it. There are also enlightened moderates who will mentally adjust the writings to agree more with their modern moral sense.
But isn't that the whole problem here? Looking to one instance of a book, written thousands of years ago, as your immutable, eternal source of wisdom and guidance? Can the quran or the bible ever incorporate the findings of sociobiology or other human behavioral sciences?
Look at a simple instance. It is now clear to any educated person that homosexuality is not a "lifestyle choice". It's a natural genetic predisposition that some portion of humanity will alwas exhibit. And it's harmless. If you understand anything about evolutionary biology, you will understand that the frequency of this behavior will always be relatively low. I leave you to look at the absolute turmoil this is causing because of ancient, immutable writings.
Look at abortion and stem cell research. There is zero evidence for a soul, let alone "ensoulment" at the time of conception. We are talking largely about a blastocyst containing a few dozen to a few hundred cells (which is naturally aborted, by some estimates, 30% to 40% of the time without the woman even realizing it). This little ball of cells, with close to a 50-50 chance under even normal circumstances, is the source of how much anguish? And how much potential improvement in the human condition?
Ancient immutable writings, ignorant of and immune to any discovery post- dating them, declare it off limits.
Can the theists here even remotely understand why we atheist/free-thinkers find this intolerable?
Super! So you have just said that it all boils down to a philosophy. The "intentions" of gods word, as I said earlier. That's great!samcdkey said:
So, why not just alter it a bit more to remove the clearly hateful and violent passages, and incorporate some modern understanding of human nature?
Then, why not just call it a book of the best tried-and-tested human approaches to living, and call it a day? Everyone goes home happy.
superluminal said:
Perhaps, but you have to understand that the basic premise of a religion is that you follow its guidelines if you follow its philosophy.
There is actually no verse regarding homosexuality in the Quran. The current anti-homosexuality seen in Islamists is a result of their exposure to Christian misinterpretation of the verses regarding Sodom.
I don't know about the Bible but there is no decree specifically against abortion in the Quran; however, I believe it might be considered wrong at the point where the infant is sentient ( can feel pain ).
As for stem cell research, in Islam the use of embryos for research and therapeutic purposes is acceptable from fertilization through the 40th day of development.
samcdkey said:
Most theists follow neither. Theists rarely, if ever, follow scriptures, most have not even read scriptures. As for the laws of the country, check out the prisons, which are full of theists.
I would suspect that theists would place the laws of scriptures before the laws of their country. There is much observed evidence in that regard.
Therein lies a huge problem with religion, the ability to decide an action based on (mis)interpretation. Hasn't history revealed such actions? And of course, one set of scriptures contradicts another, who are we to believe?
Sorry, but the word of your god is different than the word of another god, and yet another, and yet another... The ultimate division of all mankind follows.
And of course, there are plenty of threads here and elsewhere showing that the Quran's philosophy and guidelines are flawed and contradictive. One could easily interpret the Quran as a book of warring.
Yes, we've also had some threads on the influence of Islam on science, mostly additions to mathematics and medicine. I'm not disputing that.
But if you notice from the very first link on that page "A Brief Chronology of Muslim History," you'll find an extensive list of campaigns and wars following the introduction of Islam.
It would appear that if you were one of those conquered by Muslims, you either accepted Islam or the sword.
Last edited:
I didn't know that. Interesting.samcdkey said:
Ahh. Exactly. You do know what a "catch 22" is?samcdkey said:
(Q) said:
Not surprising since 80% of the world is theist; and everyone gets religion in prison.
The still get arrested if they break the law and are not allowed God as a lawyer.
The ability to decide is what defines human beings; look around you, everyone is involved in a decision making process.
Mankind divides itself based on differences much less significant than religion; so do you not feel sympathy with an atheist, do you not automatically consider yourself against a theist? Religion is a crutch; man is born appreciating similarities and suspicious of differences. The history of man from the savages to colonization to the war against terror is about differences between people. The fact that people cannot live together is a failure of humanity not of religion.
It is people who are flawed since there are many peaceful guidelines which they could choose to follow. The only time violence is advocated is in defence. How people define defence is arbitrary e.g. the pre-emptive strikes against terrorists.
I wonder, did you even get to the other links?
If Islam spread by the sword, how do you explain that 1 in 5 people in the world is a Muslim?
Last edited:
We seem to have a problem here. In your first statement you claim it is "impossible" for an unqualified, (an atheist), to understand scripture, but then go on to claim that a qualified person can explain that scripture to the unqualified, (even though you've already said it's impossible for the unqualified to understand).
You're making it up as you go along, aren't you? If not, why bother preaching scripture to the unqualified, because it's "impossible" for us to understand it?
Indeed I even question why you're on this forum. Some atheist raises a biblical question: "Adam and Eve had no knowledge of good or evil.. so sayeth the bible", you simply retort that it is impossible for atheists to understand that scripture and that's the end of the argument. Go live in your little world of fantasy and done with it, why waste the atheists time, it is impossible for us to understand it?
I am under the distinct impression that you're making up a load of old horse poopy for the mere sake of it.
P.S Furthermore you say it is "impossible" for an 'unqualified' person to approach god. In that instance it means to even know god, one must be qualified, but given that we're all born unqualified, and it is impossible for an unqualified person to understand scripture, it means we can never be qualified, because to get to qualified we would have to do the impossible and understand scripture.
So if I was a passionate Christian and someone tries to convert me to another faith, It is not a crime for me to kill him because I am simply defending my faith as it says in the Bible? That wouldn't hold up in court in the 21st century I don't think.
samcdkey said:
Take a look at this site that has many quotes from your Quran:
http://www.blessedcause.com/Quran.htm
Please do enlighten me of the context of these quotes that explain why your religion is not barbaric.
Further to the point of science in Islam.
Is it such that one can make a distinct connection between the science of the time and Islamic intervention? In other words, were the additions to science by Muslims of that era a direct result of the teachings of Islam, were they inspired and under process of some Islamic tenet, were they revealed by Allah directly as dictated by their authors? A number of scenarios present themselves as to how these discoveries could have come about, and how they were claimed to have come about.
Interestingly enough, we find that much of those mathematical discoveries were from the works of the early Greeks and that much of medical discoveries were a result of the teachings from the original physicians in Muslim societies; Christians.
Perhaps it was such that those Muslims involved in the discoveries were not so interested in Islamic teachings at all and considered them nonsense, but were simply 'playing the game' so to speak, to further their goals in science under a strict regime of mysticism?
For example, from the link provided, Ibn Sina had studied the Quran as a child, but was well emersed into science by the age of 17 and devouted his life to it. He was a brilliant Russian living in an Islamic state, conquered by Muslims. Why would the mysticisms of Arabs be of any interest to him?
'Science' and 'Islam' in the same sentence need be analyzed carefully for connectivity.
KennyJC said:
Most of the "fighting" verses were revealed during war.
Here read this:
http://www.islamicamagazine.com/issue-15/feature/the-myth-of-the-myth-of-moderate-islam.html
samcdkey said:
They were every bit a theist when they went in, and they'll be every bit a theist when they re-offend and return.
Of course, but what were their priorities in the first place? They wouldn't be standing in front of a judge notwithstanding.
Yes, but it's those who base their decision making process on their religious beliefs that is disturbing, and with so many contradicting and misinterpretive beliefs to make it all the worse.
The humanity that has been governed and dictated entirely by theist based decision making processes. When has the world ever been run with the interest of humanity as its priority?
Clearly a case in which the guidelines failed as guidelines. And of course, a religion is not a religion if it advocates violence for any reason. Islam does so knowingly and blatantly, stating that people will act violent regardless of the guidelines. That would be admittance to having flaws in the original design of Allah's universe. It would also facilitate the need to have distinct societies other than Islamic states, else why the need to defend oneself? From other Muslims, perhaps?
The whole thing smacks of human creation, not devine.
A result of the former coupled with childhood indoctrination over generations.