The Amazing Quran

[The Voice of Reason]

... I would denounce islam if either is proven wrong.

Based on the flow of this thread (and others), I'd say that you are patently lying.

 

[Fatihah]

Based on the flow of this thread (and others), I'd say that you are patently lying.

Response: Unfortunately for you, what you "say" and what's actually rational, is completely two different things.

 

[DallasApple]

Response: Unfortunately for you, what you "say" and what's actually rational, is completely two different things.

Is that all?

Liar liar pants on fier?

What about the "leap" of faith?

Love

Dallas

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Response: Unfortunately for you, what you "say" and what's actually rational, is completely two different things.

No. I'm saying that I believe you are lying - and it is a rational position, based on your posts in this and other threads.

Not only is it supported by mountains of evidence, I believe you could even find proof in the Q'uran. I'm sure of it.

 

[Fatihah]

Is that all?

Liar liar pants on fier?

What about the "leap" of faith?

Love

Dallas

Response: What about it.

 

[AxisMundi]

The message could have a perfect signal, but if there is a problem at the receiving end, there nothing that can be done unless the receiver is fixed... (I know a corny analogy) ...

Firstly, a PhD in front of someone's name doesn't mean they can't be wrong, especially when that PhD is totally unrelated to the subject at hand.

Claiming a math professor is an authority on religion is like claiming a plumber is an authority on brain surgery.

Secondly, like the bible, your scriptures are out there for any reasoning mind to look over. I have read your scripture, and I remain convinced that it is no different than the other two Abrahamics, a mere Theopolitical Manifesto that doesn't stand up to the light of science and relies on blind faith to maintain any authority whatsoever among its adherents.

Thirdly, how is one man joining Islam, in light of the estimated 6 million who leave every year, especially considering many who face death to do so, even merit a mention?

 

[Fatihah]

No. I'm saying that I believe you are lying - and it is a rational position, based on your posts in this and other threads.

Not only is it supported by mountains of evidence, I believe you could even find proof in the Q'uran. I'm sure of it.

Response: And I'm saying to you, post 162.

 

[Poet-Troll]

Firstly, a PhD in front of someone's name doesn't mean they can't be wrong, especially when that PhD is totally unrelated to the subject at hand.

Claiming a math professor is an authority on religion is like claiming a plumber is an authority on brain surgery.

Secondly, like the bible, your scriptures are out there for any reasoning mind to look over. I have read your scripture, and I remain convinced that it is no different than the other two Abrahamics, a mere Theopolitical Manifesto that doesn't stand up to the light of science and relies on blind faith to maintain any authority whatsoever among its adherents.

Thirdly, how is one man joining Islam, in light of the estimated 6 million who leave every year, especially considering many who face death to do so, even merit a mention?

Well, I have a Ph.D. in comparative religion and quite some experience with both Islam and the Qur'an. In my experience, however, getting a Ph.D. tends to teach one rather how little one knows than anthing else. I agree with Fatihah that the Qur'an is a Scripture worthy of faith, although I don't agree with his reasons for maintaining that faith, which seem partly irrational to me. I agree with AxisMundi that neither the Bible nor the Qur'an stand up to scientific criteria, although I disagree with him that they are merely "theopolitical manifestos", if that is what he is saying. They both have the potential of heavily contributing to religious and moral values. They both have the potential of contributing to a stable society.
The fact that there is some conversion between Islam and Christianity has little bearing on the value of either the Bible or the Qur'an. In reality, both of those faith traditions are far more complicated than their attachment to a canon, so that canonical considerations would generally be minimal as compared to others. I have met "reverts" to Islam who have never even read the Qur'an. I have met several such people whose sole apparent motive for reverting to Islam was Islamic dress. People have widely varying and sometime surprising motives. Muslim converts to Christianity report motivations just as irrational.

 

[skydivephil]

What do you mean by a scripture worthy of faith?

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Response: And I'm saying to you, post 162.

Response: And I'm saying to you, post #167, post #53, post #88, and post #14.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

... I agree with Fatihah that the Qur'an is a Scripture worthy of faith, although I don't agree with his reasons for maintaining that faith, which seem partly irrational to me.

Partly irrational? How far detached from reality would one have to be, to achieve "delusionally unhinged" status in your eyes?

I... They both have the potential of heavily contributing to religious and moral values. They both have the potential of contributing to a stable society.

They also both have the potential of contributing highly to people having a distorted view of their place in the family of man, which can (and has) led to bigotry, racism, and wars.

The fact that there is some conversion between Islam and Christianity has little bearing on the value of either the Bible or the Qur'an. In reality, both of those faith traditions are far more complicated than their attachment to a canon, so that canonical considerations would generally be minimal as compared to others. I have met "reverts" to Islam who have never even read the Qur'an. I have met several such people whose sole apparent motive for reverting to Islam was Islamic dress. People have widely varying and sometime surprising motives. Muslim converts to Christianity report motivations just as irrational.

Good point, based on obersvations.

 

[AxisMundi]

Well, I have a Ph.D. in comparative religion and quite some experience with both Islam and the Qur'an. In my experience, however, getting a Ph.D. tends to teach one rather how little one knows than anthing else. I agree with Fatihah that the Qur'an is a Scripture worthy of faith, although I don't agree with his reasons for maintaining that faith, which seem partly irrational to me. I agree with AxisMundi that neither the Bible nor the Qur'an stand up to scientific criteria, although I disagree with him that they are merely "theopolitical manifestos", if that is what he is saying. They both have the potential of heavily contributing to religious and moral values. They both have the potential of contributing to a stable society.
The fact that there is some conversion between Islam and Christianity has little bearing on the value of either the Bible or the Qur'an. In reality, both of those faith traditions are far more complicated than their attachment to a canon, so that canonical considerations would generally be minimal as compared to others. I have met "reverts" to Islam who have never even read the Qur'an. I have met several such people whose sole apparent motive for reverting to Islam was Islamic dress. People have widely varying and sometime surprising motives. Muslim converts to Christianity report motivations just as irrational.

Agreed to the above, with these exceptions...

Morals are society based, not based on religion. "Morals" specific to a religion are religious laws, not morals. Morals against murder, theft, rape/incest, vandalism etc only effect society, not the religion itself, and are found across cultures and time regardless of religion and/or the amount of inclusion that culture permitted their religion to have within society. The prohibition against homosexuality, and the resistance to Equality of Marriage present in the US today, are examples of religious laws, not morals.

We also differ on any "worthiness" of the Quran, and probably the Torah and Bible as well.

Keep in mind that when those where written, the average person could not read. They were written by clergy for clergy, people who could take the time to learn how to read and write, to filter out to the populace. Consider the original term for the word "pagan". If those scriptures contained merely "teaching parables" instead of myths specifically designed to forward some inherent Ultimate Authority in Jehovah, and through him the clergy, then you'd have a point. This is why they are indeed "Theopolitical Manifesto", meant to gather as much political power to that religion by creating the political largest power base (adherents) as possible.

We also disagree on any stability motivated by Scriptures within society. All three sets are exclusionary at it's core, producing an Us v Them environment hardly conductive to a stable society, particularly the scripture of the younger two Abrahamics which are exclusionary to the other two religions as well.

 

[Poet-Troll]

Agreed to the above, with these exceptions...

Morals are society based, not based on religion. "Morals" specific to a religion are religious laws, not morals. Morals against murder, theft, rape/incest, vandalism etc only effect society, not the religion itself, and are found across cultures and time regardless of religion and/or the amount of inclusion that culture permitted their religion to have within society. The prohibition against homosexuality, and the resistance to Equality of Marriage present in the US today, are examples of religious laws, not morals.

We also differ on any "worthiness" of the Quran, and probably the Torah and Bible as well.

Keep in mind that when those where written, the average person could not read. They were written by clergy for clergy, people who could take the time to learn how to read and write, to filter out to the populace. Consider the original term for the word "pagan". If those scriptures contained merely "teaching parables" instead of myths specifically designed to forward some inherent Ultimate Authority in Jehovah, and through him the clergy, then you'd have a point. This is why they are indeed "Theopolitical Manifesto", meant to gather as much political power to that religion by creating the political largest power base (adherents) as possible.

We also disagree on any stability motivated by Scriptures within society. All three sets are exclusionary at it's core, producing an Us v Them environment hardly conductive to a stable society, particularly the scripture of the younger two Abrahamics which are exclusionary to the other two religions as well.

You didn't concede anything, did you! I would agree that the exclusionary traits in Islam, Judaism and Christianity are historically associated with prejudices that have at times irrupted in violence. I would also point out that the social stability to which these faith traditions contributed historically was maintained by controlled and manipulated violence at least partly justified by the respective canons. It was social stability nontheless, and social stability that depended in a certain degree on the faith traditions in question and by extension the canons of those traditions. If it is true that no religion has produced a perfect society, it is still unrealistic to claim that the influence of religion is completely negative in regard to social stability.

 

[skydivephil]

You claim social stability, yet in order to do so , one needs to compare these socities to similar socieities and specifiy in advance your metric for concluding stability.
For example in the West we might comapre, religious countires such as the USA or Italy with non religious coutnries sucha as Scandianvia. Perhaps our metric might be the crime rate. This might be a meaningful comparison.
Until you present some sort of data, what basis do you have to suggest there mono theistics socieities have mroe social stability?

 

[skydivephil]

BTw any one know what happened to the thread on homosexuality? It seems to have vanished overnite

 

[Poet-Troll]

You claim social stability, yet in order to do so , one needs to compare these socities to similar socieities and specifiy in advance your metric for concluding stability.
For example in the West we might comapre, religious countires such as the USA or Italy with non religious coutnries sucha as Scandianvia. Perhaps our metric might be the crime rate. This might be a meaningful comparison.
Until you present some sort of data, what basis do you have to suggest there mono theistics socieities have mroe social stability?

Very good point. One can compare two distinct contemporary societies as you suggest. One can also look at social changes that take place in a single society over time. Take Arabia, for example. On what I might consider a negative side, after the rise of Islam Arabs became more aggressive, or at least more successful in their imperial designs. Some of that might be attributed to Islam, but there are certainly other factors, such as a power vacuum. On the positive side, there is a definite improvement in the status of women in post-Islamic Arab society compared with the pre-Islamic. In pre-Islamic times, Arabs buried unwanted female babies alive, had no system of inheritance for women, and had no laws protecting women's rights in regard to family. Islam did away with infanticide, legislated female inheritance (which was lacking among Jews and Christians), and balanced the burden of child support, giving men more responsibility. Probably the single most important factor in the franchizing of women is the right to inherit and own property. It was a big step forward that was made in the name of Islam.

 

[AxisMundi]

You didn't concede anything, did you! I would agree that the exclusionary traits in Islam, Judaism and Christianity are historically associated with prejudices that have at times irrupted in violence. I would also point out that the social stability to which these faith traditions contributed historically was maintained by controlled and manipulated violence at least partly justified by the respective canons. It was social stability nontheless, and social stability that depended in a certain degree on the faith traditions in question and by extension the canons of those traditions. If it is true that no religion has produced a perfect society, it is still unrealistic to claim that the influence of religion is completely negative in regard to social stability.

There is no to little difference in the ME prior to the advent of their Christianity or islam and today.

 

[skydivephil]

Very good point. One can compare two distinct contemporary societies as you suggest. One can also look at social changes that take place in a single society over time. Take Arabia, for example. On what I might consider a negative side, after the rise of Islam Arabs became more aggressive, or at least more successful in their imperial designs. Some of that might be attributed to Islam, but there are certainly other factors, such as a power vacuum. On the positive side, there is a definite improvement in the status of women in post-Islamic Arab society compared with the pre-Islamic. In pre-Islamic times, Arabs buried unwanted female babies alive, had no system of inheritance for women, and had no laws protecting women's rights in regard to family. Islam did away with infanticide, legislated female inheritance (which was lacking among Jews and Christians), and balanced the burden of child support, giving men more responsibility. Probably the single most important factor in the franchizing of women is the right to inherit and own property. It was a big step forward that was made in the name of Islam.

First point, you need to provide reliable sources for the claims made. Almost every victor has made propaganda up about infanticide so lets see some reliable evidence.
Furthermore I thinks we can all see Islam is not a good example of the rights of women today, even if it was in the past.
Also why only compare to pre Islamic Arabia and not other societies? If one wanted to study the effect of religiousity in a contemporary setting one mght need to take out of radically different levels of economic development, but I doubt thats the case in pre industrial societies.
Why not consider other pre industrial societies that we can examine now. I just read a book about the Piraha tribe in south America, they seem to have
stable societies , no Mono theism required. So clearly there are many paths to social stability in pre industrial societies.
Most importantly even if useful that has no bearing on whether the Quran is actually true.

 

[Poet-Troll]

First point, you need to provide reliable sources for the claims made. Almost every victor has made propaganda up about infanticide so lets see some reliable evidence.
Furthermore I thinks we can all see Islam is not a good example of the rights of women today, even if it was in the past.
Also why only compare to pre Islamic Arabia and not other societies? If one wanted to study the effect of religiousity in a contemporary setting one mght need to take out of radically different levels of economic development, but I doubt thats the case in pre industrial societies.
Why not consider other pre industrial societies that we can examine now. I just read a book about the Piraha tribe in south America, they seem to have
stable societies , no Mono theism required. So clearly there are many paths to social stability in pre industrial societies.
Most importantly even if useful that has no bearing on whether the Quran is actually true.

"The infanticide of girls that was practiced among certain tribes--out of fear of poverty or a sense of shame--was forbidden" by the Qur'an. The New Encyclopedia Britannica, vol. 22, p. 8 (1b). The same paragraph reports the improved status of women under Islamic law.

I would agree that there are as many paths to social stability as there are stable societies. All societies, including the Piraha tribe in South America, rely on religious values to some extent in defining and maintaining their stability. Religious traditions of many centuries standing have proven themselves effective in contributing to social stability. The Qur'an is one example.

Whether the Qur'an is "true" in the sense that it is a perfect reflection of the Word of Allah written on celestial tablets is not a question I am prepared to debate. But if the positive contribution of the Qur'an has no bearing on its divine truthfulness, then the abuse of the Qur'an to excuse violence and oppression should have no bearing on the question either.

 

[AxisMundi]

"The infanticide of girls that was practiced among certain tribes--out of fear of poverty or a sense of shame--was forbidden" by the Qur'an. The New Encyclopedia Britannica, vol. 22, p. 8 (1b). The same paragraph reports the improved status of women under Islamic law.

The EB treated the Noah's Ark myth as factual well into the last century too. Please cite the passage of the Quran directly.

And the plight of women in Islam is indeed lessened, when Islam is brought under the auspices of western Secular Law. Women are still stoned to death for being raped or flogged for being alone with a male non-family member in some areas of the world.

I would agree that there are as many paths to social stability as there are stable societies. All societies, including the Piraha tribe in South America, rely on religious values to some extent in defining and maintaining their stability. Religious traditions of many centuries standing have proven themselves effective in contributing to social stability. The Qur'an is one example.

According to the info I can find, including the below, religion plays almost no role in Piraha culture. If you ahve something different, feel free to link it.
http://fora.tv/2009/03/20/Daniel_Everett_Endangered_Languages_and_Lost_Knowledge#chapter_23

Religion plays a much more disruptive role, particularly among the two younger Abrahamics, i culture by generating an Us v Them mentality, even within said religions.

Whether the Qur'an is "true" in the sense that it is a perfect reflection of the Word of Allah written on celestial tablets is not a question I am prepared to debate. But if the positive contribution of the Qur'an has no bearing on its divine truthfulness, then the abuse of the Qur'an to excuse violence and oppression should have no bearing on the question either.

"Positive contributions"? Feel free to enumerate some of these "positive contributions" that cannot be explained as secular culture.