ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags islam , koran

Reply
Old 15th October 2017, 05:06 PM   #201
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 14,625
Originally Posted by metacristi View Post
Obviously I cannot be such optimistic as you are. The truth is much more complex than you suggest, suffice here to say that there is actually a big difference between Islam and the other Abrahamic religions in what the value given to the unaided Human Reason is concerned (Robert Reilly does a good job in showing the clear theological difference between them by the way*).

In short Islam severely downplays Reason (especially in theological matters) whilst Christianity and Judaism gives it more importance (thus one is not limited to blindly follow the Revelation and tradition). Contrary to what you suggest the Church was not against Reason, it is simplistic to see the advent of modernity as a continuous retreat of religion under the blow of the forces of progress (how could have developed such forces in an era when very religious people where huge majorities?, Reformation is not enough to explain this).

Truth is that at least after Thomas Aquinas (and the return of Aristotelianism) Reason began to be considered again as important in western Christendom. Sure the initial belief was that it can only confirm the Revelation but when discrepancies were spotted the reaction was not to reject it altogether and return to faith. In short the established Church was guilty of not choosing the most rational path (putting brakes to progress in some instances along history) but this did not amount to a strong minimisation of Reason**. In Islam unfortunately it is very different, Reason was severely downplayed during Middle Ages and this is still largely so to this day (that's why we hear invariably 'no one is allowed to change...' instead of just opening 'the gates of 'ijtihad' in non trivial ways in order to finally bring islam in the 21st century).

In other order of ideas what I suggest is to open Islam to criticism, to put Islamic studies on the same foot with the existing biblical criticism. Muslims have never been capable to do that so far (for obvious reasons) but this does not mean that we have to just sit passively and accept their points of view in the hope that time solves everything. In academic biblical criticism we have since the 18th century the conjecture 'Jesus the proto-zealot / Christianity intrinsically violent' (even if very shaky, implausible) so why should we refrain to put forward a much more plausible hypothesis 'Muhammad. The Desert Warrior' / islam intrinsically violent'? Only when we will be able to criticize Islam safely as we do with Christianity and Judaism will there be a significant progress, history showed plenty that biblical criticism had a major impact in the making of Modernity.

So no I do not advocate to make muslims abandon their religion***, the idea is to bring Reason to the forefront (not the case today) in order to create a 'critical mass' of muslims determined to finally align Islam with modernity in spite of weakening some important tenets held today. I'm afraid no healthy, durable, secularisation of the Islamic world is possible without strong criticism of islam, if we continue with the same degenerative conjecture (largely disproved by history) that modern values can be easily implemented with minimal change at the theological / institutional /educational levels of islam we risk the erosion of the basic values of Enlightenment in the West itself. We do not want that of course.


* although I disagree with his main conclusion that a mere return of the Mutazilite view on Reason is enough to solve the problems with Islam today; for example the Shiite world retained something from the Mu'tazilites and yet there was no important improvement (as I said above only an Enlightenment view on Reason can do that, with Human Reason more important sometimes than what is clearly stated in the Revelation)

** some clarifications, all those familiarized with some philosophy know that there are different levels of Rationality (Reason and Rationality are synonymous) there is no contradiction to say that the Church valued Reason whilst not choosing the most rational path available at certain moments in time (thus putting some brakes to progress)


***although the rational ones will be forced to find weaker variants of the doctrine of the divine inspiration of the Quran, not based on inerrancy
Even this isn't correct or at least requires some clarification.

2 Corinthians 10:5 says Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;
Proverbs 3:5
5 Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.
Neither Christianity or Judaism want people to think too much but yes it is more open to reason than Islam.
__________________
“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th October 2017, 12:22 PM   #202
JJM 777
Illuminator
 
JJM 777's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 3,987
New Testament in several places appraises faith over rational thinking, which it says to lead people astray, at least what comes to spiritual and theological matters. Apostle Paul calls the gospel "foolishness" for wise people, as if designed by God to make sense only through blind and unquestioning faith, after all rational thinking is abandoned.
JJM 777 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th October 2017, 03:27 PM   #203
metacristi
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 630
@Craig

Well I did not know that I am an apologist for the Church just for pointing out that the development of Science for example (and not only) was not a never ending conflict between progressives and the Church (anyways this view is not tabu in the philosophy of Science for example). The Church did block progress at some points in history to be sure but the antagonism is not that sharp as some suggest.

There are actually good reasons to credit the Church (after the era of Thomas Aquinas, when Western Christianity elevated Reason on another level) with some positive effects in the making of modernity (Reason was valued, the idea of an omnipotent lawgiver who is primary Reason catalysed the belief in regularities in Nature, laws of Nature etc), see for example Rodney Stark's books 'The victory of Reason' and 'How the West Won' (his overall theses are too strong but it still remains valid that some religious ideas at least catalysed the Scientific Revolution and the Enlightenment, this coupled of course with the incapacity of Christianity to block efficiently the forces of progress, unlike islam by the way, and the good effects of the Reformation) or Toby Huff's books (to a certain extent relevant here, for example in showing how islam strongly blocked the development of science via its intrinsic occasionalist philosophy; God being primarily Will-Power not Reason in islam).

As for the other points you made I don't think they are relevant, Christianity and Judaism have their Liberal wings (unrecognisable for Middle Age Christians) for centuries now whilst Islam is still in the remote past. This says everything about how elastic to interpretations are these religions and especially how Reason is valued. Finally with the fundamentalists in Christianity you can have at most never ending debates whilst the Muslim counterparts are more expedite: they censor and kill you of course. You'll have a point if Islam already had the counterpart of Reform Judaism and Liberal Christianity (which we should strive to develop, this is my main point). It hasn't. That should at least make us think again, there is an intrinsic problem with Islam which makes it different thus the required solutions are different.

I don't think it is a case of 'apology' of any sort from my part, all those rational (who read also extensively on the subject) will easily agree with me (albeit maybe disagreeing on some points).
__________________
“It is often said that knowledge is power, but it might be more correct to say that [critical] thinking is power.” - Stuart Sim

ibn Warraq - Why I am not a Muslim

My review of Ayaan Hirsi Ali's book 'Heretic'

Last edited by metacristi; 16th October 2017 at 04:10 PM.
metacristi is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th October 2017, 04:09 PM   #204
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 14,625
Originally Posted by metacristi View Post
Well I did not know that I am an apologist for the Church just for pointing out that the development of Science for example (and not only) was not a never ending conflict between progressives and the Church (anyways this view is not tabu in the philosophy of Science for example). The Church did block progress at some points in history to be sure but the antagonism is not that sharp as some suggest.

There are actually good reasons to credit the Church (after the era of Thomas Aquinas, when Western Christianity elevated Reason on another level) with some positive effects in the making of modernity (Reason was valued, the idea of an omnipotent lawgiver who is primary Reason catalysed the belief in regularities in Nature, laws of Nature etc), see for example Rodney Stark's books 'The victory of Reason' and 'How the West Won' (his overall theses are too strong but it still remains valid that some religious ideas at least catalysed the Scientific Revolution and the Enlightenment, this coupled of course with the incapacity of Christianity to block efficiently the forces of progress, unlike islam by the way, and the good effects of the Reformation) or Toby Huff's books (to a certain extent relevant here, for example in showing how islam strongly blocked the development of science via its intrinsic occasionalist philosophy; God being primarily Will-Power not Reason in islam).

As for the other points you made I don't think they are relevant, Christianity and Judaism have their Liberal wings (unrecognisable for Middle Age Christians) for centuries now whilst Islam is still in the remote past. This says everything about how elastic to interpretations are these religions and especially how Reason is valued. Finally with the fundamentalists in Christianity you can have at most never ending debates whilst the Muslim counterparts are more expedite: they censor and kill you of course. You'll have a point if Islam already had the counterpart of Reform Judaism and Liberal Christianity (which we should strive to develop, this is my main point). It hasn't. That should at least make us think again, there is an intrinsic problem with Islam which makes it different thus the required solutions are different.

I don't think it is a case of 'apology' of any sort from my part, all those rational (who read also extensively on the subject) will easily agree with me (albeit maybe disagreeing on some points).
I think you give the church too much credit. The church was and is fine with learning until it threatens the dogma of the church. That's where it ends. Think of Galileo and the Bible itself being written in languages other than Latin. Hell, for 200 years in the US Catholic congregations didn't understand their priests as mass was conducted in Latin. There are other examples.
__________________
“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th October 2017, 07:20 PM   #205
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 21,294
@metacristi

Let all that you say be true, and without question much of it is, it nonetheless is not germane to my basic point
Now that is to require Muslims, on pain of being regarded as potential terrorists, to abjure the essence of their faith. This is ironic, for that is exactly how Catholics were abused before emancipation.
and I cite Blackstone at that point. Catholicism was as ridiculous or as reasonable after 1829 as it was before, yet experience thereafter showed that Emancipation was not any danger to the state, catholic doctrines about papal supremacy notwithstanding.
Craig B is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th October 2017, 10:40 PM   #206
metacristi
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 630
I don't see how's that relevant to our discussion, you begin from the hidden assumption that Islam is more or less like Christianity or Judaism and after that use historical examples showing that Catholics or Jews (themselves attacked by some in England at the end of the 19th century) did not actually pose threats to the state. Not sound of course, even the idea of secular rights extended to the other religious denominations, in fact secularism itself, is a deeply Christian one (Islam lacking it in major sects).

People tend to downplay the good influences of Christianity* (direct or indirect) because it had also some very bad ones but this is not the killer blow they believe it is, if one lets aside the anticlericalism or cultural relativism biases one can easily see that the compared history of Christianity and islam shows that there wouldn't have been any Enlightenment had these two religions been so similar as some claim.


* its best 'asset' being that it was not as efficient to block the forces of progress along history, unlike Islam
__________________
“It is often said that knowledge is power, but it might be more correct to say that [critical] thinking is power.” - Stuart Sim

ibn Warraq - Why I am not a Muslim

My review of Ayaan Hirsi Ali's book 'Heretic'

Last edited by metacristi; 16th October 2017 at 10:41 PM.
metacristi is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th October 2017, 11:13 PM   #207
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 21,294
Originally Posted by metacristi View Post
I don't see how's that relevant to our discussion, you begin from the hidden assumption that Islam is more or less like Christianity or Judaism and after that use historical examples showing that Catholics or Jews (themselves attacked by some in England at the end of the 19th century) did not actually pose threats to the state. Not sound of course, even the idea of secular rights extended to the other religious denominations, in fact secularism itself, is a deeply Christian one (Islam lacking it in major sects).

People tend to downplay the good influences of Christianity* (direct or indirect) because it had also some very bad ones but this is not the killer blow they believe it is, if one lets aside the anticlericalism or cultural relativism biases one can easily see that the compared history of Christianity and islam shows that there wouldn't have been any Enlightenment had these two religions been so similar as some claim.
This is pure apologetics: secularism is deeply Christian?

Nonsense. Christianity lost state power to enforce itself, while Islam retained it more effectively. Not only do I admit that, I hypothesise why that should be so, and call for it to be ended. But secularism is no more Christian than it is Islamic.

I have also said that it doesn't matter as far as our treatment of Muslims living among us is concerned. I indicate that anticatholicism resembled modern islamophobia, and history has demonstrated that it was superfluous. I said that was my prime point, and you have not addressed it, contenting yourself with another irrelevant course of Christian apologetics.

The danger arises when religion coalesces with the state. Apart from that, let Muslims or Roman Catholics believe what they want, because secularisation is not promoted either by invading countries or by demanding that believers abjure their religious affiliation before they will receive the same treatment enjoyed by their fellow citizens.
Craig B is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th October 2017, 02:03 AM   #208
Kumar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Kumar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 13,975
Originally Posted by Scorpion View Post
DC

Muslims think the entire quran is the absolute words of God sent down as dictation throught the angel Gabriel. Therefore to show the quran says the sun orbits the earth would utterly destroy this, and leave muslims with no ground to stand on.
I simply want to know: whether such absolute words of God in the Quran are expression or basic & absolute truth or also of gross rationals?
__________________
To try reach to Absolute & Final(A&F) is my honest desire. Let the things be A&F or die in themselves, if odd. Just Logical & Equanimious Discussions, No commitments.
Kumar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th October 2017, 06:43 AM   #209
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 21,294
Originally Posted by Scorpion View Post
DC

Muslims think the entire quran is the absolute words of God sent down as dictation throught the angel Gabriel. Therefore to show the quran says the sun orbits the earth would utterly destroy this, and leave muslims with no ground to stand on.
Well in that case here's the text you're looking for.
18:83 They will ask thee of Dhul-Qarneyn. Say: I shall recite unto you a remembrance of him.
84 Lo! We made him strong in the land and gave unto every thing a road.
85 And he followed a road
86 Till, when he reached the setting place of the sun, he found it setting in a muddy spring, and found a people thereabout
Craig B is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th October 2017, 03:51 PM   #210
Belgian thought
Graduate Poster
 
Belgian thought's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 1,578
Originally Posted by Kumar View Post
I simply want to know: whether such absolute words of God in the Quran are expression or basic & absolute truth or also of gross rationals?

See here http://www.internationalskeptics.com...1&postcount=82
__________________
... er, that's it
Belgian thought is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th October 2017, 07:48 PM   #211
Kumar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Kumar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 13,975
Originally Posted by Belgian thought View Post
Current. Say for example: covering distance by walking is our basic and by modern latest vehicle is gross/current. And covering by some older vehicle will be intermediate.
__________________
To try reach to Absolute & Final(A&F) is my honest desire. Let the things be A&F or die in themselves, if odd. Just Logical & Equanimious Discussions, No commitments.
Kumar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2017, 04:30 PM   #212
Belgian thought
Graduate Poster
 
Belgian thought's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 1,578
Originally Posted by Kumar View Post
Current. Say for example: covering distance by walking is our basic and by modern latest vehicle is gross/current. And covering by some older vehicle will be intermediate.
Yeah, whatever. Let us just make words mean the same.

Elephant equals Laptop...
__________________
... er, that's it
Belgian thought is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2017, 11:34 PM   #213
Kumar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Kumar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 13,975
Originally Posted by Belgian thought View Post
Yeah, whatever. Let us just make words mean the same.

Elephant equals Laptop...
Answer to my question should be just ABC of anything or of any Philosophy or of any science. Refer, one story given be me in other topic. We need to check what shall we be getting by our choice. Just walking, an old car, an intermediate car or a latest car. Everyone will have its own merits and demerits.
__________________
To try reach to Absolute & Final(A&F) is my honest desire. Let the things be A&F or die in themselves, if odd. Just Logical & Equanimious Discussions, No commitments.
Kumar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th October 2017, 11:30 AM   #214
metacristi
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 630
Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
This is pure apologetics: secularism is deeply Christian?

Nonsense. Christianity lost state power to enforce itself, while Islam retained it more effectively. Not only do I admit that, I hypothesise why that should be so, and call for it to be ended. But secularism is no more Christian than it is Islamic.

I have also said that it doesn't matter as far as our treatment of Muslims living among us is concerned. I indicate that anticatholicism resembled modern islamophobia, and history has demonstrated that it was superfluous. I said that was my prime point, and you have not addressed it, contenting yourself with another irrelevant course of Christian apologetics.

The danger arises when religion coalesces with the state. Apart from that, let Muslims or Roman Catholics believe what they want, because secularisation is not promoted either by invading countries or by demanding that believers abjure their religious affiliation before they will receive the same treatment enjoyed by their fellow citizens.

What I meant is that Christianity leads much easier to modern secularism. I do not know what history you learnt or what you believe you have proved (nothing) but I think there is more than enough (secular) support for what I argued:

1. Christianity has (luckily, unlike islam) an inbuilt tendency to separate the state and religion (some cite often the cannon law as being the counterpart of sharia without understanding that it does not apply to the state and that since the beginning it was acknowledged that it was completely separate from state law)

2. After the wars of religions of the 17th century the (still deeply religious) Europeans realized that religious wars must leave place to reason and dialogue (even today not the case in Islam)

3. Without the important support inside main Christian sects the idea of secularism may have not succeeded (the same about abolitionism, feminism and so on, totally lacking in islam where the ulema can even now count on large masses to block progress). As historian Owen Chadwick puts it well:

Quote:
Unbelief is not by any means the only cause of secularization. Thus, attempts by orthodox apologists to establish religion on a secure, rational basis often had an unintended secularizing effect, in that the criteria of rationality could oust the sanction of the supernatural. More important has been the effect of religious pluralism, the separation of Church and State, and the view that religion was essentially a private and personal matter, which often contributed to the secularization of key areas of public life such as education, even when most individuals retained strong religious commitments ….

.................................................. .................................................. ......................

Part of the development of Christian doctrine was forced upon the churches by advances in knowledge which in other directions made men’s minds more ‘secular’. And part of the development of Christian doctrine, during the nineteenth century, contributed to the growing 'secularity' of men’s minds.

.................................................. .................................................. ........................

From the moment that European opinion decided for toleration, it decided for an eventual free market in opinion. A toleration of a minority is not the same as equality before the law between opinions. But in the circumstances of European history the one must lead into the other....Once concede equality to a distinctive group, you could not confine it to that group. You could not confine it to Protestants; nor, later, to Christians; nor, at last, to believers in God. A free market in some opinions became a free market in all opinions...Christian conscience was the force which began to make Europe 'secular;' that is, to allow many religions or no religion in a state, and repudiate any kind of pressure upon the man who rejected the accepted and inherited axioms of society...My conscience is my own.

You do not seem even a bit aware of the fact that the Islamic world lacked (in main sects) the counterpart of Christian support for abolitionism, Reason, secularism etc and yet you build 'castles'. I'm sorry but they are built on sand. As I said there is large evidence that Islam leads to a very different worldview (at the average level in the population) and we should do better and acknowledge this openly. There is a reason why Islam lacks even now the counterpart of Liberal Christianity or Reform Judaism.

Finally as I already said, but you did not pay attention, 70 years of leaving muslims to 'clean their own rubbish' produced largely the contrary effect (whilst the same policy applied for example to Germany or Japan lead in the right direction), Islam returned toward the past in important ways and the best we have seen are half-sharia states, in spite of the recent 'revolutions' . You defend a severely degenerative 'research program', the burden of proof is entirely yours, and yet have the arrogance to take me to task for alleged 'islamophobia' and 'apologia for Christianity' (your hubris is in no way justified by facts, you think you are on a high moral ground but you aren't).

You can continue to believe as much as you wish that we can create a much better world via basically leaving Islam intact, I'm afraid evidence points in the other direction (poor muslims they do not deserve the horrible fate of a Quranic criticism on a par with existing Biblical criticism; this whilst having no problem with strong criticism in the case of the other Abrahamic religions). If someone is biased here that's definitely not me (History points out that we have to open Islam to a criticism on a par with that of Christianity and Judaism, even if this might produce the total collapse of this religion).
__________________
“It is often said that knowledge is power, but it might be more correct to say that [critical] thinking is power.” - Stuart Sim

ibn Warraq - Why I am not a Muslim

My review of Ayaan Hirsi Ali's book 'Heretic'

Last edited by metacristi; 20th October 2017 at 11:56 AM.
metacristi is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th October 2017, 12:20 PM   #215
fuelair
Cythraul Enfys
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 55,469
Originally Posted by Kumar View Post
I simply want to know: whether such absolute words of God in the Quran are expression or basic & absolute truth or also of gross rationals?
Any claimed words of some tinpot "god" in any trashed up "holy" book is a giant load of fecal matter and (provably for the big name ones) bits of stuff stolen from other cultures after they died out and then from each other. There are no absolute words of god as there is no god, just fake gods that people who waste time on it discuss as if they were real/part of reality.
__________________
There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed.

Wash this space!

We fight for the Lady Babylon!!!
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th October 2017, 12:22 PM   #216
fuelair
Cythraul Enfys
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 55,469
On the bright side, crap like homeopathy is way worse as it and it's like can kill sick people directly by it's use by the frauds and slimes that push it!!!!!!!
__________________
There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed.

Wash this space!

We fight for the Lady Babylon!!!
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th October 2017, 12:25 PM   #217
fuelair
Cythraul Enfys
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 55,469
Originally Posted by Kumar View Post
Answer to my question should be just ABC of anything or of any Philosophy or of any science. Refer, one story given be me in other topic. We need to check what shall we be getting by our choice. Just walking, an old car, an intermediate car or a latest car. Everyone will have its own merits and demerits.
I see we are still having problems turning our claimed beliefs and related into clear and easily followed (by real English readers) text.
__________________
There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed.

Wash this space!

We fight for the Lady Babylon!!!
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th October 2017, 12:27 PM   #218
fuelair
Cythraul Enfys
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 55,469
Originally Posted by Kumar View Post
Answer to my question should be just ABC of anything or of any Philosophy or of any science. Refer, one story given be me in other topic. We need to check what shall we be getting by our choice. Just walking, an old car, an intermediate car or a latest car. Everyone will have its own merits and demerits.
Could you possibly, for example, convert the above paragraph into standard US English (or even clear British English) - as I can follow and interpret either of those.
__________________
There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed.

Wash this space!

We fight for the Lady Babylon!!!
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th October 2017, 12:34 PM   #219
fuelair
Cythraul Enfys
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 55,469
Originally Posted by Belgian thought View Post
Yeah, whatever. Let us just make words mean the same.

Elephant equals Laptop...
Yes, this is K at his best possible communication skill usage!!!!
__________________
There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed.

Wash this space!

We fight for the Lady Babylon!!!
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th October 2017, 12:39 PM   #220
fuelair
Cythraul Enfys
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 55,469
Originally Posted by metacristi View Post
What I meant is that Christianity leads much easier to modern secularism. I do not know what history you learnt or what you believe you have proved (nothing) but I think there is more than enough (secular) support for what I argued:

1. Christianity has (luckily, unlike islam) an inbuilt tendency to separate the state and religion (some cite often the cannon law as being the counterpart of sharia without understanding that it does not apply to the state and that since the beginning it was acknowledged that it was completely separate from state law)

2. After the wars of religions of the 17th century the (still deeply religious) Europeans realized that religious wars must leave place to reason and dialogue (even today not the case in Islam)

3. Without the important support inside main Christian sects the idea of secularism may have not succeeded (the same about abolitionism, feminism and so on, totally lacking in islam where the ulema can even now count on large masses to block progress). As historian Owen Chadwick puts it well:




You do not seem even a bit aware of the fact that the Islamic world lacked (in main sects) the counterpart of Christian support for abolitionism, Reason, secularism etc and yet you build 'castles'. I'm sorry but they are built on sand. As I said there is large evidence that Islam leads to a very different worldview (at the average level in the population) and we should do better and acknowledge this openly. There is a reason why Islam lacks even now the counterpart of Liberal Christianity or Reform Judaism.

Finally as I already said, but you did not pay attention, 70 years of leaving muslims to 'clean their own rubbish' produced largely the contrary effect (whilst the same policy applied for example to Germany or Japan lead in the right direction), Islam returned toward the past in important ways and the best we have seen are half-sharia states, in spite of the recent 'revolutions' . You defend a severely degenerative 'research program', the burden of proof is entirely yours, and yet have the arrogance to take me to task for alleged 'islamophobia' and 'apologia for Christianity' (your hubris is in no way justified by facts, you think you are on a high moral ground but you aren't).

You can continue to believe as much as you wish that we can create a much better world via basically leaving Islam intact, I'm afraid evidence points in the other direction (poor muslims they do not deserve the horrible fate of a Quranic criticism on a par with existing Biblical criticism; this whilst having no problem with strong criticism in the case of the other Abrahamic religions). If someone is biased here that's definitely not me (History points out that we have to open Islam to a criticism on a par with that of Christianity and Judaism, even if this might produce the total collapse of this religion).
As to your numbered para 1. I like cannon law as it is mostly physics and a bit of geometry. I find cannons admirable when they are used in slowing the advance of religion and thus useful!!!!!

I am also fine with the collapse of religion as a major sport in anyone's life.
__________________
There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed.

Wash this space!

We fight for the Lady Babylon!!!
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th October 2017, 01:50 PM   #221
Peregrinus
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,021
Suddenly we find the age of a vehicle is one of the finer points in theology or philosophy?
Peregrinus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th October 2017, 05:28 PM   #222
Emre_1974tr
Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 227
Originally Posted by Scorpion View Post
The Quran says the earth was created before the heavens (sura 2.29)
The Quran says the earth is flat
The Quran says the sun orbits the earth (sura 21.33 sura 36.40)
The Quran says the sun rests and is reset every dawn (sura 36.38)
The Quran says the heaven and earth were created in six thousand years

.
1- No. The universe and other universes are created in 6 days/stages. In the meantime, the earth is being created within the universe.

The universe is created in 6 days/stages, and the world is in 2 days/stages.

After , The arrangement of the existing heavens/universes is in 2 days.

Kaf 38. And verily We created the heavens and the earth, and all that is between them, in six days, and naught of weariness touched Us.


Fussilet

9. Say: Is it that ye deny Him Who created the earth in two Days? And do ye join equals with Him? He is the Lord of (all) the Worlds.

11. Then turned He to the heaven when it was smoke, and said unto it and unto the earth: Come both of you, willingly or loth. They said: We come, obedient.

12. Then He ordained them seven heavens in two Days and inspired in each heaven its mandate; and we decked the nether heaven with lamps, and rendered it inviolable. That is the measuring of the Mighty, the Knower.

12. verse about arrangement of the existing heavens/universes is in 2 days.


2- No.

According to Quran our Earth, universe and other universes are geoid.

http://www.quranmiracles.com/2011/03...-of-the-world/

http://emre1974tr.blogspot.com.tr/20...revrenler.html

3- no

"And He it is Who created the night and the day, and the sun and the moon. They float, each in an orbit." 21.33

"It is not for the sun to overtake the moon, nor doth the night outstrip the day. They float each in an orbit." 36.40


It says here that the sun and moon are in different orbits and that they will not come together.

Another verse says He writes on the Doomsday (big crunch) that they will come to the same place.

4- No

38- And the Sun moves on to its destination.
That is the ordinance of the Mighty, the Knower.
(36- Ya-Seen, 38)

The sun is going to the decision point.

http://www.quranmiracles.com/2011/03...o-moves-along/

5- No

"He directeth the ordinance from the heaven unto the earth; then it ascendeth unto Him in a Day, whereof the measure is a thousand years of that ye reckon." 32.5

"The angels and the Spirit ascend unto Him in a Day whereof the span is fifty thousand years." 70.4

These verses giving us RELATIVITY OF TIME.

http://www.quranmiracles.com/2011/03...400-years-ago/

Example in Paradise universe time is different from our universe.

One day/stage in the creation of the universe is 2.25 billion years

Quran 50:38. We assuredly created the heavens and the earth and all that is between them in six days, and nothing of fatigue touched us.

Quran 41.9 Say, "Do you indeed disbelieve in He who created the earth in two days and attribute to Him equals? That is the Lord of the worlds."

The verses say the universes and our universe have been created in 6 days/stages, and our Earth is in 2 days/phases.

So the age or creation phase of the universe means three times the age of our Earth or the stage of creation.

Today, science also gives a similar knowledge: Our universe is 13.5 billion years old and our Earth is 4.5 billion years old....

In other words, science indicates that the age of our universe is 3 times the age of our Earth(4.5 X 3 = 13.5).

Last edited by Emre_1974tr; 20th October 2017 at 06:05 PM.
Emre_1974tr is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th October 2017, 06:01 PM   #223
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 16,895
Truly is it not said...

2:458 Truly, the early moth shall reap the benefits
2:459 for as the moth is silent the worm is tardy
2:460 Thus shall the silent moth feast on the tardy worm

And your moral lesson is???
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th October 2017, 08:40 PM   #224
Belgian thought
Graduate Poster
 
Belgian thought's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 1,578
Originally Posted by Emre_1974tr View Post
1- No. The universe and other universes are created in 6 days/stages. In the meantime, the earth is being created within the universe.

The universe is created in 6 days/stages, and the world is in 2 days/stages.

After , The arrangement of the existing heavens/universes is in 2 days.

Kaf 38. And verily We created the heavens and the earth, and all that is between them, in six days, and naught of weariness touched Us.


Fussilet

9. Say: Is it that ye deny Him Who created the earth in two Days? And do ye join equals with Him? He is the Lord of (all) the Worlds.

11. Then turned He to the heaven when it was smoke, and said unto it and unto the earth: Come both of you, willingly or loth. They said: We come, obedient.

12. Then He ordained them seven heavens in two Days and inspired in each heaven its mandate; and we decked the nether heaven with lamps, and rendered it inviolable. That is the measuring of the Mighty, the Knower.

12. verse about arrangement of the existing heavens/universes is in 2 days.


2- No.

According to Quran our Earth, universe and other universes are geoid.

http://www.quranmiracles.com/2011/03...-of-the-world/

http://emre1974tr.blogspot.com.tr/20...revrenler.html

3- no

"And He it is Who created the night and the day, and the sun and the moon. They float, each in an orbit." 21.33

"It is not for the sun to overtake the moon, nor doth the night outstrip the day. They float each in an orbit." 36.40


It says here that the sun and moon are in different orbits and that they will not come together.

Another verse says He writes on the Doomsday (big crunch) that they will come to the same place.

4- No

38- And the Sun moves on to its destination.
That is the ordinance of the Mighty, the Knower.
(36- Ya-Seen, 38)

The sun is going to the decision point.

http://www.quranmiracles.com/2011/03...o-moves-along/

5- No

"He directeth the ordinance from the heaven unto the earth; then it ascendeth unto Him in a Day, whereof the measure is a thousand years of that ye reckon." 32.5

"The angels and the Spirit ascend unto Him in a Day whereof the span is fifty thousand years." 70.4

These verses giving us RELATIVITY OF TIME.

http://www.quranmiracles.com/2011/03...400-years-ago/

Example in Paradise universe time is different from our universe.

One day/stage in the creation of the universe is 2.25 billion years

Quran 50:38. We assuredly created the heavens and the earth and all that is between them in six days, and nothing of fatigue touched us.

Quran 41.9 Say, "Do you indeed disbelieve in He who created the earth in two days and attribute to Him equals? That is the Lord of the worlds."

The verses say the universes and our universe have been created in 6 days/stages, and our Earth is in 2 days/phases.

So the age or creation phase of the universe means three times the age of our Earth or the stage of creation.

Today, science also gives a similar knowledge: Our universe is 13.5 billion years old and our Earth is 4.5 billion years old....

In other words, science indicates that the age of our universe is 3 times the age of our Earth(4.5 X 3 = 13.5).
What? And nothing about him being a naughty boy?

Hail Brian!
__________________
... er, that's it
Belgian thought is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2017, 01:11 AM   #225
Kumar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Kumar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 13,975
Originally Posted by Peregrinus View Post
Suddenly we find the age of a vehicle is one of the finer points in theology or philosophy?
True in religion. Things become odd and obsolete.
__________________
To try reach to Absolute & Final(A&F) is my honest desire. Let the things be A&F or die in themselves, if odd. Just Logical & Equanimious Discussions, No commitments.
Kumar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2017, 01:41 AM   #226
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 21,294
@metacristi

I agree with one point you make, namely
History points out that we have to open Islam to a criticism on a par with that of Christianity and Judaism, even if this might produce the total collapse of this religion).
I have no quarrel with that, as I have no quarrel either with applying that principle to the Catholic or Jewish religions. The rest of what you state is nonsensical or irrelevant.

It was pointed out by Blackstone in 19th century, that in their ideology Catholics exalted the Pope above local state authority, and so they did. That their Church tended to create a politicised state religion, and so it did. That such religious states imposed Catholic doctrine as state law, with the full support of the Church, and that is perfectly true, and deplorable, and Islam does all these things too, as I state.

But it turned out contra Blackstone that disparaging and marginalising RC inhabitants of the UK, or invading and going to war with Catholic countries, was no remedy for the evils represented by RC state religions, and simply made matters worse, and that such marginalisation and persecution, and demands that Catholics abjure their religion before enjoying full rights had the function of scapegoating peripheral populations within the UK. In the nineteenth century, it was Catholics in the UK who were oppressed by the state, not the reverse.

Likewise, it is the local Muslim population which is marginalised in the U.K. now, and Muslim countries which are being invaded by Western powers, or usurped by a Western imperial client, Israel. The propaganda that says, this is the fault of Muslims, derived from the essence of their religion which they must explicitly deny and abandon, is pure scapegoating, exactly as was applied to Jews and (in Protestant countries) Roman Catholics, in the past.

But that Muslim states should be secularised, yes of course, just as France was secularised in and after 1905, and to a large extent the Republic of Ireland, has fortunately been in recent decades. The Bush and Blair invasion will of course do little or nothing to secularise Iraq. The annexation of Golan by Israel will do nothing to secularise the Golani Muslims. The very opposite will be the inevitable result.

Last edited by Craig B; 21st October 2017 at 01:42 AM.
Craig B is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2017, 07:28 AM   #227
fuelair
Cythraul Enfys
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 55,469
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Truly is it not said...

2:458 Truly, the early moth shall reap the benefits
2:459 for as the moth is silent the worm is tardy
2:460 Thus shall the silent moth feast on the tardy worm

And your moral lesson is???
The early moth catcheth the worm and verily doth devour, digest and defecate him (or her)!!!!
__________________
There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed.

Wash this space!

We fight for the Lady Babylon!!!
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2017, 09:08 AM   #228
Peregrinus
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,021
Originally Posted by Peregrinus View Post
Suddenly we find the age of a vehicle is one of the finer points in theology or philosophy?

[Kumar:] True in religion. Things become odd and obsolete.

And for the nth time we see irony does not play well on the ISF stage.
Peregrinus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2017, 11:02 AM   #229
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 14,625
Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
This is pure apologetics: secularism is deeply Christian?

Nonsense. Christianity lost state power to enforce itself, while Islam retained it more effectively. Not only do I admit that, I hypothesise why that should be so, and call for it to be ended. But secularism is no more Christian than it is Islamic.

I have also said that it doesn't matter as far as our treatment of Muslims living among us is concerned. I indicate that anticatholicism resembled modern islamophobia, and history has demonstrated that it was superfluous. I said that was my prime point, and you have not addressed it, contenting yourself with another irrelevant course of Christian apologetics.

The danger arises when religion coalesces with the state. Apart from that, let Muslims or Roman Catholics believe what they want, because secularisation is not promoted either by invading countries or by demanding that believers abjure their religious affiliation before they will receive the same treatment enjoyed by their fellow citizens.
I agree 99.9 percent with this. With some tiny reservations. Christianity has always been able to point to 'Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's". This one line has allowed the church to abdicate authority when it is inevitable that they will lose it. From my understanding, there isn't anything similar in the Koran that Muslims can point to.
__________________
“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2017, 02:20 PM   #230
metacristi
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 630
Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
@metacristi

I agree with one point you make, namely
History points out that we have to open Islam to a criticism on a par with that of Christianity and Judaism, even if this might produce the total collapse of this religion).
I have no quarrel with that, as I have no quarrel either with applying that principle to the Catholic or Jewish religions. The rest of what you state is nonsensical or irrelevant.

It was pointed out by Blackstone in 19th century, that in their ideology Catholics exalted the Pope above local state authority, and so they did. That their Church tended to create a politicised state religion, and so it did. That such religious states imposed Catholic doctrine as state law, with the full support of the Church, and that is perfectly true, and deplorable, and Islam does all these things too, as I state.

But it turned out contra Blackstone that disparaging and marginalising RC inhabitants of the UK, or invading and going to war with Catholic countries, was no remedy for the evils represented by RC state religions, and simply made matters worse, and that such marginalisation and persecution, and demands that Catholics abjure their religion before enjoying full rights had the function of scapegoating peripheral populations within the UK. In the nineteenth century, it was Catholics in the UK who were oppressed by the state, not the reverse.

Likewise, it is the local Muslim population which is marginalised in the U.K. now, and Muslim countries which are being invaded by Western powers, or usurped by a Western imperial client, Israel. The propaganda that says, this is the fault of Muslims, derived from the essence of their religion which they must explicitly deny and abandon, is pure scapegoating, exactly as was applied to Jews and (in Protestant countries) Roman Catholics, in the past.

But that Muslim states should be secularised, yes of course, just as France was secularised in and after 1905, and to a large extent the Republic of Ireland, has fortunately been in recent decades. The Bush and Blair invasion will of course do little or nothing to secularise Iraq. The annexation of Golan by Israel will do nothing to secularise the Golani Muslims. The very opposite will be the inevitable result.

Well once again you ignore the clear differences between Islam and the other 2 main Abrahamic religions (perhaps subscribing also to the often heard assumption that Islamic religious reasons are seldom primary for the violent actions of muslims) whilst letting the impression that there is a huge difference between the Catholic and Protestant worldviews. You present an argument based on historical examples, unfortunately without these (hidden) assumptions your conclusions do not follow. Given that they are all either false or on very shaky grounds I'm afraid the historical examples you present are indeed not relevant to our discussion. Those attacking Catholics were wrong and that's all we can draw from there.

Finally there is factual evidence that Islam went downward in the last 70 years, exactly when they were left to 'clean their own rubbish'. Your hypothesis has already been tested for 70 years, it's not that it is a new hypothesis, let's wait more. Indeed at the end of colonial rule, in the 1930s and 1940s, the modernists-Westernizers were influential in the societies of the Middle East. What happened to them next? They were gradually eliminated by the traditionalists and islamists to the point that many adherents had to move to the West.

What will happen in the West itself if we continue to basically protect islam with all costs from rational criticism? Not that difficult to tell given the evidence of the last at least 40 years (this if muslims become at least sizeable minorities in the West and the same narrative about an extremely benign islam remains intact). What will happen with the basic values of Enlightenment in the West itself? Where will move the Islamic modernists then? America? And after that?

Honestly it's not rocket science to see that the present approach toward Islam (coupled with mass islamic immigration, islam considered extremely benign etc) leads, quite probably, at least to an Europe where some key values of Enlightenment are lost. The half-sharia states can easily move to the West. If you haven't yet realized rational people do not want this to happen. Good luck secularizing Islam via your approach then, it won't be easy to overcome the main problem outlined by me elsewhere.


PS neither is valid that I apologize for Christianity for I don't, I merely follow Reason wherever it leads but I am not shy to strongly criticize what deserve to be criticized (by the way is this guy also an apologist for Christianity?).
__________________
“It is often said that knowledge is power, but it might be more correct to say that [critical] thinking is power.” - Stuart Sim

ibn Warraq - Why I am not a Muslim

My review of Ayaan Hirsi Ali's book 'Heretic'

Last edited by metacristi; 21st October 2017 at 02:30 PM.
metacristi is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2017, 01:48 AM   #231
Kumar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Kumar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 13,975
Two common friends were fighting. One: we will walk and reach destination. Other, we shall go by Mercedes car. Various POVs and logics were argued but no solution. Third bit clever passerby came, listen their arguments and told, why don't you walk upto some distance, which you can cover comfortably, call car there and go further by that car. Problem solved, aurguments over and frienship continued.
__________________
To try reach to Absolute & Final(A&F) is my honest desire. Let the things be A&F or die in themselves, if odd. Just Logical & Equanimious Discussions, No commitments.
Kumar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2017, 06:15 AM   #232
Peregrinus
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,021
Originally Posted by Kumar View Post
Two common friends were fighting. One: we will walk and reach destination. Other, we shall go by Mercedes car. Various POVs and logics were argued but no solution. Third bit clever passerby came, listen their arguments and told, why don't you walk upto some distance, which you can cover comfortably, call car there and go further by that car. Problem solved, aurguments over and frienship continued.
And your allegory attempts (rather opaquely) to explain just what?
Peregrinus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2017, 06:55 AM   #233
metacristi
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 630
@Craig

To conclude, the Muslims are not the 'new Jews (or Catholics) of Europe (Britain respectively*)'**, if we were to follow your logic till the end then we should refrain from (strongly) criticizing even the sect Aum Shinrikyo. Unfortunately not 'anything goes' at this level, being 'poor' or 'minority' does not automatically mean that the associated ideologies have to be protected with all costs. The happy thing is that we can make a rational decision of what 'goes' or not, even if still considered fallible, especially in the case of ideologies (like islam unfortunately, at least based on existing evdence) which proved systematically to be incapable to fully accommodate Modernity.

Secondly you say that you agree with the criticism of Islam. The problem is that at the practical level you never prove that. To remember you how many times you labelled me, and others for that matter, an 'islamophobe' just for advocating the view that islam needs a real Islamic Enlightenment (acting against poverty, education levels etc do not suffice)? I'm sorry but you are basically on the same level with the cultural relativists on this site, incapable to understand that a conjecture like 'Muhammad. The Desert Warlord / Islam inherently violent & discriminatory' is a legit direction of research and a necessary part of any rational critical thinking of Islam (at the Academic Quranic criticism level included, if 'Jesus the proto-zealot' / Christianity inherently violent' is legit in spite of its huge weaknesses then even more this is valid for the above mentioned conjecture). Weak criticism of Islam is not the best approach I'm afraid, history shows this plenty, Islam needs also the counterpart of the Radical Enlightenment (otherwise it is very probable that the liberal forces will remain on long term very fragile and having to do huge concessions to Islam).

Sure there are some who use the argument outlined by me for vested interests, going well beyond the preservation of Enlightenment values (even neo-Nazis), but this does not invalidate it. Stopping the strong rational criticism of Islam altogether is not the solution here.


* neither can we insist too much on the discrimination of Catholics by some in the England of the past (we should strongly criticize even Newton!) if we think that in the historical context (albeit making clear that it was not something good), what counts is that after the wars on religion the Christian world was firmly on a path of avoiding religious wars and giving the same rights to other religious denominations (even more valid during Modernity, after the first decades of the 19th century, this in spite of some opposition)

** not a great surprise that the Jews (or Catholics) did not create much problems for the secular state, especially if we take in account the worldviews of these religions; one cannot extend this automatically to Islam, unfortunately we deal here with a quite very different worldview + impact at the practical level (on average in the population), it would be a huge lie to claim that Islam gives to the unaided Human Reason more or less the same value as in the other 2 Abrahamic religions or that it is not much more militant than them
__________________
“It is often said that knowledge is power, but it might be more correct to say that [critical] thinking is power.” - Stuart Sim

ibn Warraq - Why I am not a Muslim

My review of Ayaan Hirsi Ali's book 'Heretic'

Last edited by metacristi; 22nd October 2017 at 08:14 AM.
metacristi is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2017, 11:00 AM   #234
Kumar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Kumar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 13,975
Originally Posted by Peregrinus View Post
And your allegory attempts (rather opaquely) to explain just what?
Different levels can only be a reason to aurguments/fight.
__________________
To try reach to Absolute & Final(A&F) is my honest desire. Let the things be A&F or die in themselves, if odd. Just Logical & Equanimious Discussions, No commitments.
Kumar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2017, 11:05 AM   #235
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 29,649
Originally Posted by Kumar View Post
Two common friends were fighting. One: we will walk and reach destination. Other, we shall go by Mercedes car. Various POVs and logics were argued but no solution. Third bit clever passerby came, listen their arguments and told, why don't you walk upto some distance, which you can cover comfortably, call car there and go further by that car. Problem solved, aurguments over and frienship continued.

Why it can not be by taxi/horsecarraige?
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2017, 01:27 PM   #236
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 21,294
Originally Posted by metacristi View Post
(by the way is this guy also an apologist for Christianity?).
I know him from a previous blog, Armarium Magnum which I consulted from time to time during a long thread on this forum about the existence of a historical Jesus, which on the whole I am inclined to accept.

From your link, which I have also seen before, he is clearly an apologist for Christianity, which doesn't mean that he is a Christian. Are you mixing the two concepts up? Anyway I find him rather nasty, as I suppose readers of your link may agree; not because he's an apologist for Christianity - I've met nice examples of them - but his response to the pertinent question “Why are you sometimes rude or sarcastic on this blog?” is unpleasant, as is his arrogance in "I know the Bible very well thanks, probably better than you".
Craig B is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2017, 04:50 PM   #237
Peregrinus
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,021
Originally Posted by Kumar View Post
Different levels can only be a reason to aurguments/fight.
"Only"? I suggest not.
Peregrinus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2017, 06:49 PM   #238
fuelair
Cythraul Enfys
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 55,469
Originally Posted by Kumar View Post
Two common friends were fighting. One: we will walk and reach destination. Other, we shall go by Mercedes car. Various POVs and logics were argued but no solution. Third bit clever passerby came, listen their arguments and told, why don't you walk upto some distance, which you can cover comfortably, call car there and go further by that car. Problem solved, aurguments over and frienship continued.
Definitely all involved are maroons!!!!!!!!!
__________________
There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed.

Wash this space!

We fight for the Lady Babylon!!!
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2017, 06:52 PM   #239
fuelair
Cythraul Enfys
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 55,469
Originally Posted by Kumar View Post
Different levels can only be a reason to aurguments/fight.
I shall here forbear to make the obvious and correct comments appropriate to the given statement.
__________________
There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed.

Wash this space!

We fight for the Lady Babylon!!!
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2017, 08:53 PM   #240
Kumar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Kumar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 13,975
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
Why it can not be by taxi/horsecarraige?
Broadly, It can be anything from basic to gross/current level. Prime/basic, intermediate and gross/current.
__________________
To try reach to Absolute & Final(A&F) is my honest desire. Let the things be A&F or die in themselves, if odd. Just Logical & Equanimious Discussions, No commitments.
Kumar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:35 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.