Ask About Islam

[KWED]

Here you go hijacking another Islamic post. Go find someone else to complain to about your monkeys to humans. This thread was about sincere people who are interested in learning about Islam. You on the other hand, just want to cause problems and ridicule and seem to make fun of our belief and others. Go bother someone else.

The problem here is that you seem to believe that everyone must agree with you, or at least accept your claims to be correct, and not challenge your obvious nonsense.
Unfortunately you have made several claims that are demonstrably, verifiably untrue. People with better knowledge than you on these issues are not going to change their position simply because you are upset about it.

Several people have provided you with clear evidence from unbiased sources that under normal conditions pigs are clean animals, and that lean pork is a healthy food. All you have done is merely repeat your original claims - which have been completely disproved.
Now, you are perfectly entitled to believe that pigs are disgusting and pork is dangerous, but you have no evidence to support your belief. It is based entirely on ancient religious texts rather than evidence and rational argument.

 

[KWED]

No, am not claiming that at all. But every time I post he intervenes and ridicules and calls everyone a straw man and their views are so below his own. If you were sincere enough, you would see it as well am sure many do.

This is an open, public debate forum. Anyone can respond to anyone else.
One man's 'ridicule' is another man's 'reasonable argument'.
With all due respect, some of the claims you have made, and your insistence of repeating them despite clear evidence against them, places those views "below" the reality of the issue.
As a matter of interest, do you think that a teacher who gives a low mark and gives corrective comments on a test that gets all the questions wrong (despite having just had a lesson on that subject) is ridiculing the student and considers their views below their own? Or are they just doing their job well?

 

[KWED]

Maybe. Maybe you guys like it more then other meat because of the sin factor. Who knows.

What "sin factor"?
There is no sin in eating pork if you don't follow a religion that proscribes it. By your argument, it is Muslims who should enjoy eating pork the most.

 

[KWED]

Sounds like it is difficult for some non Muslims to accept that in islam pigs are Haram, non Muslims soes not have to like or follow the haram rule, but maybe the just can't let believers have their faith?

Not so. Of course I understand that eating pork is haram in Islam. Not only that, I understand why it is (because it was already forbidden in some of the beliefs and cultures that inspired Islam).

The issue here is the nonsense claims made by some apologists in order to justify this prohibition. We are simply pointing out the flaws in their arguments
It seems a common thing amongst religious apologists to attempt to construct "rational and scientific" justification for ancient superstitions (as though faith itself is not enough for them). Unfortunately these justifications are usually full of holes and seem to have been developed for existing believers rather than for an external audience who will likely critically analyse the claims. As we have seen with the arguments made here for justifying the prohibition on swine, they are nonsense and could only be accepted through confirmation bias.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Not so. Of course I understand that eating pork is haram in Islam. Not only that, I understand why it is (because it was already forbidden in some of the beliefs and cultures that inspired Islam).

The issue here is the nonsense claims made by some apologists in order to justify this prohibition. We are simply pointing out the flaws in their arguments
It seems a common thing amongst religious apologists to attempt to construct "rational and scientific" justification for ancient superstitions (as though faith itself is not enough for them). Unfortunately these justifications are usually full of holes and seem to have been developed for existing believers rather than for an external audience who will likely critically analyse the claims. As we have seen with the arguments made here for justifying the prohibition on swine, they are nonsense and could only be accepted through confirmation bias.

Why?

 

[KWED]

Nobody stopping them.

But if you ask a Muslim about why they dont eat pork. And they answer "because our religion say we should not eat pork"
Then the answer should be. Ok thank you for explaining it to me.

No need for an argument just to argue. Its ok people dont agree, but no need to push someone down just because they accept that certain Foods can't be eaten

How hard can it be?

This is a religious debate forum. Its whole purpose is to facilitate a back-and-forth discussion on religious issues.
This thread is "Ask About Islam". If I ask "what is the justification for prohibiting pork in Islam", I would be very unhappy if the response was "Because it is prohibited in Islam".

The person who started this thread provided specific reasons that they claimed to be based on real-world conditions, not just a spiritual command. Those reasons were nonsense and evidence was presented to show this. It's how debate works. If people do not want their claims challenged, they should not make them on an open debate forum.

 

[Spirit of Light]

This is a relies debate forum. It's whole purpose is to facilitate a back-and-forth discussion on religious issues.
This thread is "Ask About Islam". If I ask "what is the justification for prohibiting pork in Islam", I would be very unhappy if the response was "Because it is prohibited in Islam".

The person who started this thread provided specific reasons that they claimed to be based on real-world conditions, not just a spiritual command. Those reasons were nonsense and evidence was presented to show this. It's how debate works. If people do not want their claims challenged, they should not make them on an open debate forum.

Why?

 

[KWED]

READ MY ABOVE POSTS PLEASE

You claimed that pigs are different to any other livestock animal. That they are dirtier and more dangerous to eat. The evidence you presented was flawed because it cherry-picked articles about pigs. Articles on other livestock animals show that they present the same, or sometimes worse problems.
Several people presented evidence that contradicted your claims, and explained why your claims are flawed.
You just ignore this and keep repeating the same, disproved claims. You have not addressed the counter arguments made to rebut your original claims.

 

[KWED]

seriously? I told him to go away and bother others isn't that enough of a hint? lol Do you always come to his rescue?

This is an open, public debate forum. You do not decide who can and can't post here.
You started the thread and invited people to question Islam, but when people do question it, you don't like it.

People who claim to know what Islam is, and yet do not accept it when told by Muslims this is how it is, not our problem

Every sceptic knows that eating pork is forbidden in Islam. Many of us understand why it is forbidden.
The issue here are your attempts to justify that prohibition. You are making claims that are demonstrably wrong. This has nothing to do with Islam itself, but rather your own attempts to justify what Islam says.

BTW, if a follower of Judaism made the same arguments for why the Torah prohibits pork, we would respond in exactly the same way. This isn't about "Islam" per se, it is about flawed arguments.

 

[KWED]

If a Muslim especially in RF says, I do not want to discuss it, they will be ridiculed by a few of the non believers (the standard group of 3-4 non believers who always have to discuss) and suddenly no matter what the Muslims says, it becomes fallacy, incorrect, straw man claims, false accusation of the faithful Muslims do not know their own teaching ( anyone recognize this?)

If anyone comes onto a forum like this and makes claims, then they should expect people to respond.
If the original poster then refuses to discuss it, people will naturally see this as pretty feeble and indicative of a poorly thought-out position, and will likely say so.
I don't see a problem with that.

Do you think sceptics should only respond with "Oh really? That's nice" to every claim made by a religionist, even if it is demonstrable nonsense?

 

[Spirit of Light]

If anyone comes onto a forum like this and makes claims, then they should expect people to respond.
If the original poster then refuses to discuss it, people will naturally see this as pretty feeble and indicative of a poorly thought-out position, and will likely say so.
I don't see a problem with that.

Do you think sceptics should only respond with "Oh really? That's nice" to every claim made by a religionist, even if it is demonstrable nonsense?

Yes, it does not have to be by your book, because you dont follow the same guidelines and thoughts as a believer.

It does not have to make sense to you, as long it make sense the one following the guidelines in their chosen religious beliefs

 

[joelr]

you can dispute any part of religious beliefs, but I have proof from my Creator. Ever create a human being? Ever say how we are created? Did an ape ever tell you how you were created? Well over 1400 years ago, in the Quran, it tells exactly how we are made. No ape or animal can ever come up with that type of knowledge. Science does prove things and they test evidences and they have told us that no way we have come from apes. Now there are missing links and wrongness being proven in Darwin's theory. I am not here to debate on this anymore. Seems you will never understand the humbleness one has for their Creator for the appreciation that our Creator has made and given us. According to Islam, it is indeed for those who understand and believe and you right now, are not one of them.

No science demonstrates we come from H Heidlbergensis who came from H Antecessor , then Ergaster, Erectus, and several other hominids who eventually are not hominids but some type of tree ape.
Looks like the Quran says we came from clay. There are over 100 myths that use that creation myth :
Creation of life from clay - Wikipedia

It looks like the OT/NT are a syncretic blend of Egyptian, Mesopotamisn, Hellenistic and Persian myths. But you seem to feel this religion is actually true. What evidence to you use to support your beliefs or is this just something you have decided to take on faith?

I wouldn't say that Quran tells us "exactly how we were made" because clay is not an exact description. Science has given us a model of how we were created but they have never said we can not come from apes?
Homo Sapien are of the classification sequence Primates. From there branched Haplorhini, Simiiformes, Catarrhini, Hominoidea, Homininae, Hominini, Human. Homininae branched out to also form great apes. Our closest classification, Hominini branched Chimpanzees.

You seem to reject evolution so that's not even going to register with you but the point is that there is science to explain some of this and some of what you say is not correct.

so what evidence is convincing for you.

 

[KWED]

One of Mohammad's pbuh miracles was that he was able to split the moon in half.

1. Such an event would have been noticed and recorded in cultures and societies around the world. There are no such records.
2. NASA has confirmed that there is no evidence that such an event ever took place.

Another was Mohammad pbuh accepted an invitation, to the host’s dismay, called all thousand of his companions to join him in the meal. Yet, Muhammad personally served all of them from the small dish until each one ate his fill. In the end, the tray of food remained just as full as it was at the beginning of the meal.

Mohammad pbuh and his companions may Allah be pleased with them, were travelling. There water supply ran out and Mohammad had a small water container and he put in his hands and water started pouring out of his fingers enough for all and more.

There were many many more miracles example like prayers answered, sickness healed etc.

The full answer is "Yes, there are stories of Muhammad performing miracles, but there is no evidence to support those stories".

 

[KWED]

Just walk away but this was my sincere thread about those who want to learn about Islam.

Are you saying that you cannot learn about Islam from anyone else, and that everything you say about Islam must be true and accurate?

 

[KWED]

What did I say to degrade you?

You questioned their pronouncements. Dissent is offence.
There is a sad irony in this exact approach on a larger scale leading to people being executed for dissent, when those doing the executing claim to be the victims.

 

[KWED]

There is what we tell ourselves, and trick ourselves and then there's what really deep inside know.

So you really deep inside know that there is no god, but trick yourself to believe there is?
Cool.

 

[KWED]

It could mean a weak argument, so ehen you or your discussion buddies call something a straw man falacy, they telling the other person that their argument is weak.

That is not what "straw man" means. I'm sure someone has already explained it.

 

[Sheldon]

I don't think anyone can demonstrate or show you the existence of God if you can't see it yourself.

That would seem to be the case, as every time it turns out to be an entirely subjective belief.

 

[KWED]

If a believer has faith in God, and take the message "do not eat pork" as coming from God.
You as a non-believer has nothing to argue about,

Perhaps - but if they then make specific claims like "pork is more unhealthy and dangerous than other foods", then these claims can, be examined in the light of the available evidence.
Do you agree?

 

[Sheldon]

It could mean a weak argument, so ehen you or your discussion buddies call something a straw man falacy, they telling the other person that their argument is weak.

No, that's not quite what a straw man fallacy means. It is a fallacy in informal logic, or a common logical fallacy. A straw man fallacy is where a person responds to an argument, but replaces the argument they are opposing with a weaker one that was not the argument made, presenting it as their opponents argument, and making it appear as if they have refuted their argument, when they have not.