Questions for Muslims

[The_Fisher_King]

It is un-natural but should be dealt with kindness. Mixing male female genders, premarital activities, breaking families, abuse of women has direct link with this increasing issue.

What is 'unnatural' about it? What do you mean by 'this increasing issue'? And what evidence do you have for a direct link between homosexuality on the one hand and break-up of families and abuse of women on the other?

 

[firedragon]

One does not need to criticize everything in order to criticize one thing. Criticizing Islam all by itself is not a fallacy. In a separate thread I might choose to criticize Christianity (and I have done that many times).

It was an example.

 

[firedragon]

No, not really. Behaviors and talk are two different things. If you say religion is not to blame, you're making a claim that is subject to debate and criticism. If you say you did something in the name of your religion, that is mostly not debatable. If I am to treat you well, I must take you at your word when you make a claim like that, that is not falsifiable.

So you take one persons word, without examining his evidence for his religious claims and you believe him, also support his view, the view of a religion understood tyranically. Not the other persons word who speaks a peaceful rendition.

 

[Rival]

So you take one persons word, without examining his evidence for his religious claims and you believe him, also support his view, the view of a religion understood tyranically. Not the other persons word who speaks a peaceful rendition.

That's not what Icehorse was saying. He meant he will have to take someone at his word when that someone makes an unfalsifiable claim.

 

[firedragon]

That's not what Icehorse was saying. He meant he will have to take someone at his word when that someone makes an unfalsifiable claim.

I got it. But don't u think I killed a man in the name of Islam is also falsifiable? He could be lying. Unless you ask for evidence. What evidence can he give other than his word?

You not only believe him, you also propagate his word. Because he killed, because he said he did that in the name of religion, you also conclude the religion to be the reason behind, you repeat it to all, support his view like it is the gospel truth.

Another person comes, says no, he had his own agenda, and he didn't read but rather listened to someone, the religion is righteous, he was led astray. When one says this good message the you can verify, why don't you propagate that instead?

Or is there some other agenda?

 

[icehorse]

Hey firedragon,

Religions are ideas. Despite how slippery apologists make them, they are still ideas. They have scripture. These are debatable things.

When a person says he did something "in the name of religion", how do you debate him? How do justify saying that you know more about his intentions than he does? Claiming to know a person's intentions better than the person does seems to be the height of arrogance, wouldn't you say?

I would say that if a person says he did something "in the name of religion", and you think you know better, you're probably the one with the agenda.

 

[firedragon]

Hey firedragon,

Religions are ideas. Despite how slippery apologists make them, they are still ideas. They have scripture. These are debatable things.

When a person says he did something "in the name of religion", how do you debate him? How do justify saying that you know more about his intentions than he does? Claiming to know a person's intentions better than the person does seems to be the height of arrogance, wouldn't you say?

I would say that if a person says he did something "in the name of religion", and you think you know better, you're probably the one with the agenda.

It's not about showing you know better. You haven't understood at all.

Again, you take the word of a person who claims he did a late say a murder in the name of a religion. Just his word. He could be lying. Mislead. You just take his word.

But you don't take the word of a person showing you that his religion does not propagate murder or whatever you makebit to be.

If you can't understand this point, there is no point.

Peace.

 

[icehorse]

It's not about showing you know better. You haven't understood at all.

Again, you take the word of a person who claims he did a late say a murder in the name of a religion. Just his word. He could be lying. Mislead. You just take his word.

But you don't take the word of a person showing you that his religion does not propagate murder or whatever you makebit to be.

If you can't understand this point, there is no point.

Peace.

If a Christian or a Muslim tells me his religion does not propagate murder, that person has a LOT of history to explain. That "no murder" claim is an extraordinary one, and it needs amazing evidence to back it up.

 

[firedragon]

If a Christian or a Muslim tells me his religion does not propagate murder, that person has a LOT of history to explain. That "no murder" claim is an extraordinary one, and it needs amazing evidence to back it up.

Oh. I understand. You believe religion is explained by history. Especially the bad history because of you study it, most recorded history are violent and exagarated and one sided. That's yours to keep.

Alright mate. Peace.

 

[icehorse]

Oh. I understand. You believe religion is explained by history. Especially the bad history because of you study it, most recorded history are violent and exagarated and one sided. That's yours to keep.

Alright mate. Peace.

Hey Mate, I'm specifically talking about religious people throughout history who said they were acting in the name of their religion. How is that bad history?

 

[Augustus]

The words of religious scripture and the bad behaviors of the religious - in the name of their religion - over centuries, do NOT support your claim that religions are not violent. They most certainly are violent.

The important question is not have religious people frequently been violent (obviously yes), but does religion make people more violent than they would be otherwise. Humans are violent, always have been and always will be. If there were no religions we would still be violent.

You say the Muslims killed 10s of millions of Hindus because of the Quran as if it were self-evident. Why was what they did different from what the Mongols did when conquering Central Asia though? We have always been good at rationalising great cruelty to the 'other'.

People killed, raped, enslaved and looted during conquests. That's just what many people did regardless of whether or not they were Muslim, Hindu, Tengriist, Christian, Pagan, etc.

Religion has not been a major cause of war historically, and even when it appears to be, it is often almost impossible to distinguish it from other causes (i.e. was the 30 years war about religion or politics?)

 

[firedragon]

Hey Mate, I'm specifically talking about religious people throughout history who said they were acting in the name of their religion. How is that bad history?

So do you separate religion from history then?

 

[icehorse]

Augustus and firedragon, This is not a dodge, I'll get back to your questions, but first:

Do you contend that religion brings any benefits? If so, can you name a few? Because once again, it strikes me that the apologist contention is that when bad things happen, religion is above reproach, but somehow it also brings benefits.

 

[Augustus]

Do you contend that religion brings any benefits? If so, can you name a few? Because once again, it strikes me that the apologist contention is that when bad things happen, religion is above reproach, but somehow it also brings benefits.

I wouldn't exactly call myself an 'apologist', and don't recall making the arguments that you are talking about, but...

Religions can do good and do bad and those who promote harmful versions can certainly be criticised for the bad.

The point I was making though is about history. There seems to be a common idea amongst anti-theists that religions should be judged against a baseline of zero.

You are arguing about how the violent history of religions shows they are harmful, by pointing to incidences of violence (a baseline of zero).

This is not the correct way to view them though. They need to be evaluated against the standards of human history, which is very violent.

Had the Arabs been pagan, they would still have tried to conquer people as this is what all powerful nations did. Muslims and Christians have violent histories because they have been the most dominant societies, and the most dominant societies use their power to further their own ends.

Pound-for-pound, modern secular countries have the most violent records, although this is in part due to the effects of technology.

If religions had disappeared, they wouldn't have been replaced by 'nothing' they would be replaced by other ideologies, and seeing we are a violent species, many of these would have violent dimensions also.

What are your arguments about why monotheistic religions should be singled out as being especially violent compared to a baseline of all human history, rather than a baseline of zero?

 

[icehorse]

Hey Augustus,

Just to clarify (again), I'm focusing on the situations in which the perps declared their actions to be "in the name of god". For this discussion we could say that there are two types of violence:

1 - your general, garden-variety violence
2 - violence done in the name of a religion

Of course, both are common throughout history, and so I'm not blaming all historical violence on religion.

What are your arguments about why monotheistic religions should be singled out as being especially violent compared to a baseline of all human history, rather than a baseline of zero?

Would you agree that some religions have conquest and supremacy "baked in" more than others? It's those with conquest and supremacy baked in that I think we should single out. Because I think we can say that there is a link between belief and behavior.

 

[OurCreed]

Hey firedragon,

Religions are ideas. Despite how slippery apologists make them, they are still ideas. They have scripture. These are debatable things.

When a person says he did something "in the name of religion", how do you debate him? How do justify saying that you know more about his intentions than he does? Claiming to know a person's intentions better than the person does seems to be the height of arrogance, wouldn't you say?

I would say that if a person says he did something "in the name of religion", and you think you know better, you're probably the one with the agenda.

If religions are ideas, then atheism, by definition, (which is the idea that there is no God/deity), would be classified as a religion.

 

[icehorse]

If religions are ideas, then atheism, by definition, (which is the idea that there is no God/deity), would be classified as a religion.

There are at least two logical inconsistencies in your sentence.

 

[Jabar]

I have quite a few.

a) If Islam is God's perfected religion and God sent Jesus as a mere messenger, why is Christianity the world's dominant religion and has been nearly since its inception? Why would Allah do that?

b) How is the Qur'an perfect and universal if it can only be studied and properly understood in Arabic? Also, why does the oldest copy not match up to any known copy we have today?

c) Why do all the earliest Mosques face Petra? And why does Petra fit the descriptions given in the Qur'an, not Mecca?

d) Provide me some non-Islamic evidence that Mecca existed in the time of Muhammad.
"Surprising as it may seem, not one map before 900 AD even mentions Mecca. This is 300 years after Muhammad’s death" http://www.academia.edu/1776803/The_Mecca_Question

e) Why couldn't Allah preserve the original message and where were the supposed 24,000 messengers that were sent to everywhere? Evidence?

f) Why isn't the word 'Muslim' or 'Muhammad' used during the Arabian conquests? Why do these words only appear years after Muhammad?

Thanks.

A) If you mean most followers, then it is not relevant. Allah does what he wills.

Btw, Islam is the fastest growing religion, soon to outstrip Christianity.

B) It can be understood without Arabic if you look at the right translations. The oldest copy primarily matched in meaning with the new one. But i think you can find that answer out yourself. There are different translations, thats it

D) https://discover-the-truth.com/2013/09/03/did-kabah-in-makkah-exist-before-4th-century/

 

[Augustus]

Just to clarify (again), I'm focusing on the situations in which the perps declared their actions to be "in the name of god".

Historically, how do you identify a war 'in the name of god' from a normal conquest for money, status and glory?

Were Alexander's conquests religious? he had gods and I'm sure he must have dedicated a victory or 2 to them.

What is the difference between conquering 'infidels' and conquering 'barbarians' also?

1 - your general, garden-variety violence
2 - violence done in the name of a religion

There isn't a nice clear dividing line between the 2. If religious people fight, they tend to invoke god.

Historically [which is what I'm focussing on], how do you tell the difference between say the Muslim conquest of India and the Mongol conquest of Central Asia?

Would you agree that some religions have conquest and supremacy "baked in" more than others? It's those with conquest and supremacy baked in that I think we should single out. Because I think we can say that there is a link between belief and behavior.

Plausible, but I'd say present some evidence beyond anecdote and assumption. [and not compared to a zero baseline]

 

[OurCreed]

There are at least two logical inconsistencies in your sentence.

And there is at least one unclarified point in your statement.