Aargh!

[Professor Smooth]

Because as time goes by, people change, but Islam cannot.

Did you type that without the least bit of irony?

[sprunkner]

Yeah, Yaya, I'm not of that opinion, obviously.

Although I still like you. More than I ever liked Commander Shockwav.

I'm searching for the God Delusion on Amazon, and all the copies I'm finding are still above my cash range. Maybe for Christmas. (See that? That is more irony.)

[Metal Vendetta]

What kind of religion then, is it, that changes depending upon what people and society hope or want as the truth?

The kind of religion that survives changing times?

[Shanti418]

Just reading over this topic, it seems like Smooth and Yaya are on ideological extremes, and sprunkner is trying to carve out some sort of space in the middle, using logic, but both sides are resisting fiercely.

[Yaya]

What kind of religion then, is it, that changes depending upon what people and society hope or want as the truth?

The kind of religion that survives changing times?

But if a religion changes, its no longer the same religion, is it? It's some new religion, its a people-fashioned ideology.

Islam will survive the ages, as it is truth, even if none are around to believe in it. Though for sure the number of Muslims in the world, though a majority now, will dwindle to but a few. This is foretold by the Prophet (PBUH). He said a time will come when holding onto Islam will be like holding onto a hot coal.

Just reading over this topic, it seems like Smooth and Yaya are on ideological extremes.

And yet we both hate Bush.

That should tell you something about our president.

[Guest]

Just reading over this topic, it seems like Smooth and Yaya are on ideological extremes.

And yet we both hate Bush.

That should tell you something about our president.

"The enemy of my enemy is my enemy" > "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" ?

[Professor Smooth]

Just reading over this topic, it seems like Smooth and Yaya are on ideological extremes, and sprunkner is trying to carve out some sort of space in the middle, using logic, but both sides are resisting fiercely.

I refuse to resist logic. When anything logical is said that supports religion, I'll be the first to admit it.

[Yaya]

Just reading over this topic, it seems like Smooth and Yaya are on ideological extremes, and sprunkner is trying to carve out some sort of space in the middle, using logic, but both sides are resisting fiercely.

I refuse to resist logic. When anything logical is said that supports religion, I'll be the first to admit it.

What's logical to one is illogical to another.

Yes, even logic has as its basis personal thought processes and inclinations.

And assume for a minute that God exists. Who are you to comprehend His logic? You can't, for logic is based on understanding and reason.

If God exists, can you claim to have such knowledge and understanding?

No one can. So just because you can't find logic in something doesn't make it illogical.

[Professor Smooth]

Just reading over this topic, it seems like Smooth and Yaya are on ideological extremes, and sprunkner is trying to carve out some sort of space in the middle, using logic, but both sides are resisting fiercely.

I refuse to resist logic. When anything logical is said that supports religion, I'll be the first to admit it.

What's logical to one is illogical to another.

Yes, even logic has as its basis personal thought processes and inclinations.

And assume for a minute that God exists. Who are you to comprehend His logic? You can't, for logic is based on understanding and reason.

If God exists, can you claim to have such knowledge and understanding?

No one can. So just because you can't find logic in something doesn't make it illogical.

Alright. I'll bite. I'm assuming (once again) that God exists. I'm also assuming (once again) that I am not equiped to understand its logic. Your holy book equips you do just that?

Because you can't find logic doesn't mean that "invisible man in the sky" is the default.

Much of this is covered in Chapter 8 of The God Delusion, btw. It's now available on audiobook if you're so inclined.

[Shanti418]

Just reading over this topic, it seems like Smooth and Yaya are on ideological extremes, and sprunkner is trying to carve out some sort of space in the middle, using logic, but both sides are resisting fiercely.

I refuse to resist logic. When anything logical is said that supports religion, I'll be the first to admit it.

It's not logic trying to support religion, it's logic saying that for a solution to a situation, there must be compromise. You can no easier convince the world that atheism is right as you could convince them any particular religion is right. So standing on the other extreme holding a book, stamping your foot, quoting it, saying you're right, really doesn't help in the reality of religion and the good and bad things it does in the world currently. Coming from a perspective of "being religious and being liberal/openminded are irreconcilable, and so anyone who tries to come to that place in their lives must be twats," as sprunkner said, undermines a great, great many people.

[Professor Smooth]

It is not the same thing. Look at the books in question.

The first set of books, The Bible, The Koran, etc, are collections of stories that people hold up as absolute fact. This set requires faith and the discarding of thousands of years worth of evidence to the contrary

The second book, Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion, is a work of science that explains in a very understandable and easy way, why the first set of books are, at best, extremely unlikely. The book is not just Dawkins saying "Religion is wrong because it's what I believe." The book is saying "Here it is, collected in one place, the mountain of evidence against religion being "true."

Everything that Yaya or yourself say about religion is countered in this book (with help from his earlier works).

[Best First]

didn't this part of the topic already happen?

[Professor Smooth]

didn't this part of the topic already happen?

Twice. But I'm hoping to learn from my mistakes the first two times around.

[sprunkner]

So why haven't you taken this on? This is, I presume, what Shanti is talking about.

Liberal religiosity, the kind of tolerance that does not make news and few people talk about, is based on the idea that a hierarchal system is not the way to God. A tribal culture only has the power each individual member is willing to lend it. You go to church for support, friendship, discussion, and whatever degree of worship you wish to do, but you do not go to be told what to do. You do not have to agree with your fellow worshippers, even on basic claims-- something dogmatic churches stress. Dawkins' claims-- that the liberal religious empower fundamentalists-- seems to me a giant red flag indicating that he does not understand the character of liberal doctrine. It is, as I said before, about action, not belief. It is about drawing lines between faith and reason, creating a system of personal checks and balances. I will not strap a bomb to myself no matter what my faith says, because my reason outweighs it. I will not support Creationism, because my reason outweighs it. But my faith, though it's nothing like the faith I used to have, still makes my life a little bit better and more rewarding. Dawkins should read "The Church in a Postliberal Age" by George Lindbeck before he spreads more of this stuff, at least to understand the arguments.

[Shanti418]

It did already happen. And I'm probably neither as eloquent or passionate about the subject as BF.

It is not the same thing. Look at the books in question.

The first set of books, The Bible, The Koran, etc, are collections of stories that people hold up as absolute fact. This set requires faith and the discarding of thousands of years worth of evidence to the contrary

The second book, Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion, is a work of science that explains in a very understandable and easy way, why the first set of books are, at best, extremely unlikely. The book is not just Dawkins saying "Religion is wrong because it's what I believe." The book is saying "Here it is, collected in one place, the mountain of evidence against religion being "true."

Everything that Yaya or yourself say about religion is countered in this book (with help from his earlier works).

The only thing I'm saying about religion is that it's deeply embedded in our history, beliveing in things that can not be proven and/or disproven is a fact of human psychology is various areas, and that to simply hold out "Anyone who isn't an atheist is an idiot" until everyone flocks to you is a fool's errand. I'm not commenting as to any sort of validity or truth to religion, simply that it's there, and its effects on society are gray, not black and white.

Now, to the unbiased observer, you're both standing on each end, shouting, waving a book. What you ASSUME is that, because your book is based on science and not on faith, the 4.6 billion of us should and would pick your book over the other.

I could show a mountaing of evidence against blacks being inferior in the 1950s, against Bigfoot existing, against 9/11 being caused by the government, against the gender wage gap. But people STILL choose what they want to believe. If things don't fit their cultural frame, people can igrnore truth quite easily. Just because you hold somehting up as "irrefutable truth" doesn't mean that everone will accept it as fact. I wish it were that easy.

You can hold up an absolute ****load of evidence on any subject (global warming, evolution), and there will still be plenty of people who will fight tooth and nail to deny it simply because it would change their status quo. If tomorrow a storm of locusts and pestilence came upon the world, Christians would be heralding Revelations, and you'd be looking for scientific reasons for insect migration and viral contagion.

Just because Yaya holds up the Koran as absolute fact doesn't mean that every Muslim does, nor does it mean that the Bible is the same thing. Some people do think that. They're called fundamentalists. But for most Christians, the Bible is a collection of stories/fables/anecdotes representing the word of God which are supposed to impart basic lessons. I think Dawkins would agree that not killing each other and not coveting your neighbor's wife just make the world work better. (Obviously, not the way it actually works with all Christians, but the point is, this viewpoint of the Bible is not holding it up as absolute fact, nor does it require discarding of any kind of evidence)

So in summary, your rebuttal, summarized as "Those books are based on faith. My book is based on science. Therefore, it's clear that my book rocks socks and the other books bite balls. Don't judge me because I believe in science [/nacholibre]" does not work because it operates on the assumption that everyone equally values science overwhelmingly over faith, and that when presented with scientific evidence that contradicts faith, people will choose science regardless of how it implodes their long standing belief system and so therefore let's shove Dawkins down everyones throat until it sticks, is fallacious.

[Best First]

i think you matched me just fine.

although i'd add that you further entomb your position by presenting it in the manner of someone who has discovered the divine truth with seemongly bugger all sense of irony.

i have loads to say on this... bloody work.

[Professor Smooth]

I completely missed that incredibly well reasoned and eloquent reply. Sorry about that.

The type of situation you describe, religion for the sake of meeting people, maintaining a social circle, and having a support network without adhering strictly to what the holy book says seems completely harmless. I say that because I don't see the harm in it. People in these kind of situations don't hurt anybody (which is my main beef with religion). They won't vote to take away rights. They won't protest the release of a book, movie, or video game, and, rather than blindly follow a 2,000 year old anthology, think for themselves, independently, perhaps, even from the group. The majority do not believe in creationism and, if they do, probably don't want it to take the place of evolution in schools. They are the kind of people that see The Bible not as the word of God, but as alegory. Which is fine. Even the most horric passages in The Bible become little more than provacative fiction when looked at from that perspective. Slaughter, rape, etc? We can look at them and say, "Wow, that'd never fly today! Look how far we've come!" As for churches, when done for recreation, going to church is just spending time with friends listening to old stories. It's like a going to a concert. Stories of gods and demons, monsters and heroes, princes and princesses, what could be more fun.

So what's my problem? What am I going to find to dissect? What tiny little piece am I going to pull out to try to make you look the fool and make myself look like an even bigger one?

There isn't one. The situation you describe? No problem at all. I read that paragraph and found it possible to replace the religion in it with general fandom. The people could be Star Wars fans, Star Trek fans, or perhaps even Transformers fans. The people you mention probably believe in a God in some form or another but don't think that it will ever really matter all that much in every day life.

There's a part of me that's screaming: BUT THERE IS NO GOD! But it doesn't really matter to these people. They don't care one way or the other. I believe what I believe, they believe what they believe, let's get a beer.

Telling someone that goes to chuch because they enjoy it, not because they fear that if they (and everyone else) don't try to make everyone live their lives according the the popular interpretation of The Bible would be like telling me that I shouldn't go to the comic book store every wednesday because there are better things I could be doing.

Guess that's the end of this rant. Smoothweisers to anyone who anyone who made it all the way through.

[Yaya]

This set requires faith and the discarding of thousands of years worth of evidence to the contrary
).

There are no scientific contradictions to what we know today in the Koran, and that was 1400 year ago.

In fact, it's quite amazing. The Koran details the growth of the embryo through its gestational phases, impossible to know without the use of a microscope which, of course, did not exist then. My textbook from college on Embryology began with those particular descriptive passages quoted from the Koran.

There are other instances where things in nature are described, in simple words, that completely jive with what we know today. For example, the sky is described in the Koran as "a canopy". Now, most who were not learned in science would think the sky as being open, not the opposite, as a protective covering. We now know about the ozone layer and the Van Allen radiation belts protecting us from things that would kill us. The sky is like a protective canopy.

And the Koran says things in nature were created in pairs, some seen and some unseen. "Glory be to God, who created in pairs all things, of what the earth produces, of themselves, and of which they have no knowledge. (36:36) " Of what they have no knowledge....positive and negative poles, proton and neutrons, and likely numerous other things.

About evolution? "Do not the unbelievers see that the heavens and the earths were joined together (as a single mass), before We clove them asunder? We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe? (21:30) " Before Darwin said anything about crawling out of the sea, the Koran states that water was the source.

The current knowledge of the expanding universe? "And the firmament: We constructed it with power and skill, and We are spreading it. (51:47) "

The French scientist Jacques Cousteeu has discovered that the Mediterranean and the Atlantic Ocean differ in terms of their chemical and biological constitution. Captain Cousteau conducted various undersea investigations at the Straits of Gibraltar in order to explain this phenomenon, concluding that "unexpected fresh water springs issue from the Southern and Northern coasts of the Gibraltar. These water sprouts gush forth towards each other at angle of 45°, forming a reciprocal dam like the teeth of a comb. Due to this fact, the Mediterranean and the Atlantic Ocean cannot intermingle." Subsequent to this assessment, Cousteau was amazed upon being shown the Koranic verse "He has let forth the two seas, that meet together. Between them a barrier, they do not overpass" (55:19-20).


All 1400 years ago. If there are contradictions in the Koran today, it is only because modern science has yet to reveal the truth of things.

[Shanti418]

You're sweet, dude. I mean, the scientific validity of pulling a few passages out of a hundreds page book to go, "See? That happened! Everything in it must be right and predicatory of the future!" is like going Nostradamus or DaVinici Code on us.



But your unwavering faith and belief in Islam is a breath of fresh air, IMO, especially on this site, even if I don't agree with you. You're out there, believing what you believe, trying to live a life according to the morals that you believe are right, and I respect that. Rock on.

[Brendocon]

"My book says something that contradicts your book."

"Ah, but my book contradicts your book."

"Well my book happens to reflect what I believe."

"But my book is how I live my life."

"And my book says that your book shouldn't be how you live your life."

... that's the basic gist, right?

didn't this part of the topic already happen?

So it's settled then. We consult Holly.

[Shanti418]

Holly?

[Yaya]

You're sweet, dude. I mean, the scientific validity of pulling a few passages out of a hundreds page book to go, "See? That happened! Everything in it must be right and predicatory of the future!" is like going Nostradamus or DaVinici Code on us.

Nonetheless, these are things that could not have possibly been realized back then.

Actually, very rarely do I pull out the scientifically inclined verses of the Koran.

As science is a creation of the Creator itself, I am loathe to use it as a basis for argument for His existence. Why must we follow the logic of science when it is not the end all be all?

[Metal Vendetta]

...a white hole?

Yaya - Galen and Aristotle who were men of science, covered work on embryology 450 years before the Koran was written.

Let's compare, shall we?

"Look further at the bones, how We bring them together and clothe them with flesh ..." (Al-Baqara 2:259)

"Nature forms from the purest material the flesh ... and from the residues thereof bones, sinews, hair, and also nails ... and lastly, round about the bones, and attached to them by thin fibrous bands, grow the fleshy parts. ..." (Aristotle, On The Generation Of Animals)

The Koran authors merely copied what was general scientific "knowledge" at the time. Blatantly. Otherwise, they would have known that bones don't form before flesh, they form at the same time, though bones take longer to form. Muscle development occurs when bones are still cartilage.

Furthermore, the Koran states that we begin life as a seed, then a "clot":

"He it is Who created you from dust, then from a sperm-drop, then from a leech-like clot (‘alaqa) ... THAT PERHAPS YOU MAY UNDERSTAND," (Al-Mu'min 40:67)

"O mankind! if you have doubt about the resurrection (consider) that We have created you from dust, then from a drop of seed, then from a clot (‘alaqa)..." (Al-Hajj 22:5)

Interestingly enough, Aristotle and Hippocrates all wrote about how the male seed (semen) mixes with the female menstrual blood to form a foetus:

"The seed (embryo), then, is contained in a membrane ... Moreover, it grows because of its mother's blood, which descends to the womb. For once a woman conceives, she ceases to menstruate..." - Hippocrates

Galen took his theory one step further, suggesting there was a female semen that mixed with the male semen and the menstrual blood:

"The substance from which the fetus is formed is not merely menstrual blood, as Aristotle maintained, but menstrual blood plus the two semens."

Of course, we now know that the function of menstrual blood is not to conceive, but to wash away the lining of the uterus.

The Koran is wrong. And plagiarised.

The rest of your points are so vague that debating them is pointless.

[Yaya]

...a white hole?

Yaya - Galen and Aristotle who were men of science, covered work on embrology 450 years before the Koran was written.

Let's compare, shall we?

"Look further at the bones, how We bring them together and clothe them with flesh ..." (Al-Baqara 2:259)

"Nature forms from the purest material the flesh ... and from the residues thereof bones, sinews, hair, and also nails ... and lastly, round about the bones, and attached to them by thin fibrous bands, grow the fleshy parts. ..." (Aristotle, On The Generation Of Animals)

The Koran authors merely copied what was general scientific "knowledge" at the time. Blatantly. Otherwise, they would have known that bones don't form before flesh, they form at the same time, though bones take longer to form. Muscle development occurs when bones are still cartilage.

The Koran is wrong. And plagiarised.

The rest of your points are so vague that debating them is pointless.

So Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), who was unable to read nor write, plagarized Aristotle? There was a reason why God chose His prophet to come to the most uneducated, backward part of the world at the time in the deserts of Arabia . They were equivalent to the bushmen of Africa, worshipping idols and the like.

I guess they studied Aristotle too.

[Shanti418]

Nonetheless, these are things that could not have possibly been realized back then.

Yes, but it's the idea that if tried to predict 5,000 things about our understanding of life 5,000 years in the future, SOMETHING would be bound to stick. But just because 132 of those 5,000 things come to pass doesn't mean I'm a seer. It means that I threw enough **** up against the wall, and some of it stuck.

C'mon, Mr. Y, I was tryin' to give ya love.

[Metal Vendetta]

So Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), who was unable to read nor write, plagarized Aristotle? There was a reason why God chose His prophet to come to the most uneducated, backward part of the world at the time in the deserts of Arabia . They were equivalent to the bushmen of Africa, worshipping idols and the like.

I guess they studied Aristotle too.

Yes, they did. Potted history:

Sergius al-ras Ayni translated various works on medicine, including 26 books of Galen's works into Syriac. He died in Constantinople in 536.
Khosru I was King of Persia (531-579) conquered a great area of the middle east, and his people settled as far away as Yemen. He founded many schools in the area, and The Role of the Nestorians and Muslims in the History of Medicine records:

"The school of Jundi-Shapur became, during Khosru I's long reign of 48 years, the greatest intellectual center of the time. Within its walls Greek, Jewish, Nestorian, Persian and Hindu thought and experience were freely exchanged. Teaching was done largely in Syriac from Syriac translations of Greek texts."

One of the most learned physicians in Arabia at the time of Mohammed was Harith ben Kalada, who studied at Jundi-Shapur.

"Though Harith ben Kalada did not write any book on medicine, his views on many medical problems are preserved in his conversation with Khosru. About the eye he says that it is constituted of fat which is the white part, of water which is the black part, and of wind which constituted the eyesight." - Studies in Arabic and Persian Medical Literature

Harith ben Kalada returned to his native Arabia around the beginning of Islam and settled down at Ta'if. He was a contemporary of Mohammed and it's mentioned that Mohammed would sometimes refer patients to him - the King of Yemen even journeyed to Ta'if to be treated by him.

So basically, the theories of Aristotle, Galen and Hippocrates were certainly available to Mohammed at the time. During his lifetime a new medical school was founded at Alexandria that used Galen's 26 medical books as their texts. Far from being uneducated and backward, the Arabs living in Mecca and Medina in 600 AD had political and economic relations with people from Ethiopia, Yemen, Persia, and Byzantium. A cousin of Mohammed's, Nadr ben Harith, studied music in Persia so he was capable of speaking at least some Persian, though Mohammed later had him executed for making fun of the Koran after the Battle of Badr.

And far from your assertion that the Koran is corroborated by modern science, it's actually disproved by modern science, illustrating how it was cribbed from the Greek texts in the first place.

[Best First]

So Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), who was unable to read nor write, plagarized Aristotle?

450 year is plenty of time for ideas to travel - lets take the word canopy for example, which you use to suggest that the Koran shows an inate understanding of how things are (very badly, at least in that case).

where does that word originate? Ancient Greece.

MV - no need for that fatality crap.

[Metal Vendetta]

MV - no need for that fatality crap.

Oh all right then.

I think you're being oversensitive though.

[Yaya]

So Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), who was unable to read nor write, plagarized Aristotle? There was a reason why God chose His prophet to come to the most uneducated, backward part of the world at the time in the deserts of Arabia . They were equivalent to the bushmen of Africa, worshipping idols and the like.

I guess they studied Aristotle too.

Yes, they did. Potted history:

Sergius al-ras Ayni translated various works on medicine, including 26 books of Galen's works into Syriac. He died in Constantinople in 536.
Khosru I was King of Persia (531-579) conquered a great area of the middle east, and his people settled as far away as Yemen. He founded many schools in the area, and The Role of the Nestorians and Muslims in the History of Medicine records:

"The school of Jundi-Shapur became, during Khosru I's long reign of 48 years, the greatest intellectual center of the time. Within its walls Greek, Jewish, Nestorian, Persian and Hindu thought and experience were freely exchanged. Teaching was done largely in Syriac from Syriac translations of Greek texts."

One of the most learned physicians in Arabia at the time of Mohammed was Harith ben Kalada, who studied at Jundi-Shapur.

"Though Harith ben Kalada did not write any book on medicine, his views on many medical problems are preserved in his conversation with Khosru. About the eye he says that it is constituted of fat which is the white part, of water which is the black part, and of wind which constituted the eyesight." - Studies in Arabic and Persian Medical Literature

Harith ben Kalada returned to his native Arabia around the beginning of Islam and settled down at Ta'if. He was a contemporary of Mohammed and it's mentioned that Mohammed would sometimes refer patients to him - the King of Yemen even journeyed to Ta'if to be treated by him.

So basically, the theories of Aristotle, Galen and Hippocrates were certainly available to Mohammed at the time. During his lifetime a new medical school was founded at Alexandria that used Galen's 26 medical books as their texts. Far from being uneducated and backward, the Arabs living in Mecca and Medina in 600 AD had political and economic relations with people from Ethiopia, Yemen, Persia, and Byzantium. A cousin of Mohammed's, Nadr ben Harith, studied music in Persia so he was capable of speaking at least some Persian, though Mohammed later had him executed for making fun of the Koran after the Battle of Badr.

That's very interesting, I have to admit.

The Arabs of Mecca were not of the educated type, however. Why not take many of the other way-off scientific concepts of Aristotle and Galen, and insert them in the Koran? Surely, to choose to insert the shaky scientific principles of past scientists, no matter how great, into a religious text for future generations to follow is taking a bit of a risk?

Nevertheless, you have your explanation which you favor. Like I said, I don't use these verses often in arguments as I do not find science to be something confirmatory for truth. The theories of science have changed more times since Aristotle, whilst the Koran has not changed in its guidance to mankind. It is a book of guidance, not a book for scientific discovery or study, though I am continuosly impressed with the way the wonders of nature are described in the Koran.

I choose to believe that this information was not stolen and inserted in the Koran. That it was revealed to the Prophet, and are verses of reflection, for times past, present and future. They serve as nothing more than a call for reflection on the wondrous nature of the universe and its workings, a reminder that chance alone does not lead to such things.

But you will disagree.

[Metal Vendetta]

I choose to believe that this information was not stolen and inserted in the Koran. That it was revealed to the Prophet*, and are verses of reflection, for times past, present and future. They serve as nothing more than a call for reflection on the wondrous nature of the universe and its workings, a reminder that chance alone does not lead to such things.

But you will disagree.

If you mean:

a) That the Koran is not literally true, but a series of allegories

and

b) We did not arrive here by random chance

then I agree with you.

However I don't believe it was revealed to the Prophet because I don't believe in a God, but if such a God were to exist and to reveal information to a guy in the desert, I find it even harder to believe that this God would make the same mistakes as the Greeks in terms of embryology. Why would God lie to Mohammed, his chosen prophet?

It makes far more sense to me that the human author of the Koran included information about what was considered to be the scientific truth at the time. Information that was available to him (as described above) and which lent his words more gravitas. He was, after all, trying to start a religion. Let's not forget that Christianity was also heavily influenced by Greek philosophy when it started.

*you missed off a (PUBH) there