4 Mistakes You Make When You Talk About Islam (And Religion in General)

[cheek100]

No that's not evidence. Those are claims passed off as evidence. I.e you wouldn't consider any other religions physical "evidence" as proof.

I mean things like evolutionary biology (and not only concerning humans), astro physics, archeology, geology etc

If even one thing is wrong in a holy book, I don't understand how it can be considered credible

what is wrong in the quran sir?
what have u discovered that 1/3 of the religious world have missed?
there are muslim biologist, physicists, archeologists and geologists
be clearer

 

[tru_m.a.c]

what is wrong in the quran sir?
what have u discovered that 1/3 of the religious world have missed?
there are muslim biologist, physicists, archeologists and geologists
be clearer

Doesn't mean they're not moderates, meaning they don't take every story literally. They just believe in the salvation through belief and good acts part. There is also a physicist that is clergy in the papacy.

Its all about the interpretation and application. If you don't believe the book is 100% fool proof, then of course you're not going to be scared of the sciences.

But for us non believers, it doesn't make sense to be a moderate. How do you conveniently accept half and dismiss the rest as allegory. Why not just become a deist or agnostic and live the rest of your life trying to find out the science behind how the universe was created?

Seriously that's what we don't get. A moderate and conservative when arguing with a non believer will swear up and down they are they same. But you're really not. You think believing in the same God puts you on the same side of the argument. But in reality you believe in different characteristics. Its like having 2 triangles with the same angles, but different sizes and trying to convince me they're congruent.

*and none of this was typed with anger*

 

[cheek100]

Doesn't mean they're not moderates, meaning they don't take every story literally. They just believe in the salvation through belief and good acts part. There is also a physicist that is clergy in the papacy.

Its all about the interpretation and application. If you don't believe the book is 100% fool proof, then of course you're not going to be scared of the sciences.

But for us non believers, it doesn't make sense to be a moderate. How do you conveniently accept half and dismiss the rest as allegory. Why not just become a deist or agnostic and live the rest of your life trying to find out the science behind how the universe was created?

Seriously that's what we don't get. A moderate and conservative when arguing with a non believer will swear up and down they are they same. But you're really not. You think believing in the same God puts you on the same side of the argument. But in reality you believe in different characteristics. Its like having 2 triangles with the same angles, but different sizes and trying to convince me they're congruent.

*and none of this was typed with anger*

i can dig that.. i know a few conservative muslims, even some that take the quran so serious its scary
i try not to convince people im right or theyre wrong.. i (and most muslims) believe that God chooses
whom hears the word and who remains deaf.. no diss tho
agnostics and muslims are actually on the same page fyi
also for the record, i have not met a single muslim that rejects
science
still curious about whats considered wrong in the quran friend

 

[FAH1223]

May Allah guide us all. Ameen

@Jesus Shuttlesworth

 

[NoMayo15]

i can dig that.. i know a few conservative muslims, even some that take the quran so serious its scary
i try not to convince people im right or theyre wrong.. i (and most muslims) believe that God chooses
whom hears the word and who remains deaf.. no diss tho
agnostics and muslims are actually on the same page fyi
also for the record, i have not met a single muslim that rejects
science
still curious about whats considered wrong in the quran friend

But to get back to tru's main point, which was this: Do you at least understand why someone would seriously doubt that the events in the Old/New Testament & Qu'ran actually happened as reported? You understand why one wouldn't accept the Bible/Qu'ran to be truth, right?

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

And do you have any sources for the argument that religion is directly responsible for education and science?

Chapter 2 shows that there was no "scientific revolution" that finally burst through the superstitious barriers of faith, but that the flowering of science that took place in the sixteenth century was the normal, gradual, and direct outgrowth of Scholasticism and the medieval universities. Indeed, theological assumptions unique to Christianity explain why science was born only in Christian Europe. Contrary to the received wisdom, religion and science not only were compatible; they were inseparable. Hence the last portion of the chapter demonstrates that the battle over evolution is not a conflict between religion and science but between True Believers on both sides.

Have not read this one, but was suggested by a rabbi.......

 

[WaveGang]

mannnn fukk the religion of our enslavers

I aint even gonna read that shyt

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

mannnn fukk the religion of our enslavers

I aint even gonna read that shyt

Funny, considering your sig is based on one of them.......​

 

[GetInTheTruck]

So where did god come from then? Did an omnipotent being just pop out of nowhere one day and decide to create the universe?

If you're arguing that the universe had to come from somewhere, then god also had to have come from somewhere so you need to explain how he came into existence. If you say this doesn't apply to god then that's special pleading and you already lost.

We don't have to explain anything about God beyond our limited understanding. When you see a car tinted black driving down your street is it logical to believe that the driver doesn't exist just because you don't see him? Do you need to know everything about the driver in order to acknowledge his presence?

 

[Type Username Here]

We don't have to explain anything about God beyond our limited understanding. When you see a car tinted black driving down your street is it logical to believe that the driver doesn't exist just because you don't see him? Do you need to know everything about the driver in order to acknowledge his presence?

What if it's one of those self driving cars?

You have seen a car your entire life, so you assume someone is driving. Fair assumption. The Logical assumption. But you would be wrong in the case I presented.

If you then say "Well, someone had to design the car to drive on it's own" then we get into the argument of who designed the designer.

 

[GetInTheTruck]

What if it's one of those self driving cars?

You have seen a car your entire life, so you assume someone is driving. Fair assumption. The Logical assumption. But you would be wrong in the case I presented.

If you then say "Well, someone had to design the car to drive on it's own" then we get into the argument of who designed the designer.

Why is "this all came about on its own, out of nowhere" a more logical position than "all of this must have been designed by some type of superior intelligence?"

Why do you need to know who designed the designer? What makes you feel that you are entitled to know the answer to that question?

 

[Type Username Here]

Why is "this all came about on its own, out of nowhere" a more logical position than "all of this must have been designed by some type of superior intelligence?"

Why do you need to know who designed the designer? What makes you feel that you are entitled to know the answer to that question?

I find either position equally logical. Don't know why you assumed I didn't. I was merely interjecting a philosophical line of questioning.

As for the second question, I don't need to know. As far as being entitled, that only applies if you view god as an authoritative figure. You assume that god forbids you from learning. Given your religion, I respect why you assume that, but I'm merely saying it doesn't make it true.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

We don't have to explain anything about God beyond our limited understanding.

If your understanding is limited, why not increase it and why should anyone believe you?

If you want to accept that there is some cause for 'everything' on faith alone, that's fine.....for you.

I ain't you and I require a tad bit more evidence than 'I said so.'​

 

[GetInTheTruck]

If your understanding is limited, why not increase it and why should anyone believe you?

If you want to accept that there is some cause for 'everything' on faith alone, that's fine.....for you.

I ain't you and I require a tad bit more evidence than 'I said so.'​

You believe what you do because you put faith in the scientists whom you receive your information from. I highly doubt you've done heavy research into these fields on your own.

And I'm not dismissing science, I have no problem with scientific theories which seek to explain the origin of the universe, I just don't feel I need to be talked down to by individuals who believe that the universe(s) popped up out of nowhere and that we are all here for no reason at all.

 

[GetInTheTruck]

I find either position equally logical. Don't know why you assumed I didn't. I was merely interjecting a philosophical line of questioning.

As for the second question, I don't need to know. As far as being entitled, that only applies if you view god as an authoritative figure. You assume that god forbids you from learning. Given your religion, I respect why you assume that, but I'm merely saying it doesn't make it true.

I view "God" as Supreme, and entities that are Supreme will naturally possess authority by default. I don't believe that we are are forbidden from learning, but we are forbidden from knowing EVERYTHING.