A question for theists...
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
So how come you get to make up a different moral future for your children than the one Mohammad married and then raped at 9?
How come its immoral to commit murder, but not immoral to murder that murderer?
Dear oh dear...
Not sure how this applies here but I think it has merit to be stated.
Right after the 2nd world war many countries like Italy were impoverished. The daughters ranging from 13 years old and up knew that they would be given away to be married. It was the only way to survive in a culture in which many families had many children. They knew they could not support them as they had hoped for and they knew that they can give their daughters a promising future. Sometimes the men would be 17 years old or even 30 to 40 years old to marry these young daughters. Just to give you an idea, my dad use to baby sit my mom before he married her. The only role morality played was that it was in the best interest of everyone to marry off these young girls. Were there girls who didn't want to marry young? Oh yes there were. The option was stay behind, share the slices of bread and hope for the best.
With this story I do not condone marriage at a young age especially 6 or 9 year olds (the thought of it disturbs me), nor do I condone the marriage of anyone younger than 19, but I am judging by my modern day standards however I do wonder if we are missing information about those times that would tell us just how acceptable or unacceptable those historic marriages were to them.
Notice that I focused on marriage and stayed away from sex with minors. That is something hard to grasp. As much as I have a hard time condoning marriage at an 'inappropriate age" I have a harder time on the topic of sex with a minor bride. That has no place in my world.
Until the twentieth century ,the age of consent in this country, the US,Uk, and Europe, at least, was 12 years. IE at puberty.
Until modern times, probably because of low life expectancy, people simply got married at puberty. Arranged marriages were the norm in many societies, but especially amongst royalty and the aristocracy, until quite modern times.
For centuries, all that was needed for two people to be married was for them both to agree, No ceremony, no witnesses, NO WRITTEN RECORD . , This was just dandy for the common man, but not for the uncommon man----
Arranged marriage was about PROPERTY AND POWER; on inheritance . Formal marriage with a ceremony, witnesses and written record ensured inheritance of property, of title and royal succession. Up until the late twentieth century, and DNA every child was legally 'a child of the marriage" IE legitimate.----Only a legitimate child could inherit.
Arranged marriages between power, titles, royalty, often took place between under age children. It was usually custom for each child to return to live with their parents until they were of age.
It's problematic to judge earlier ages by mores of today, especially sexual morality, which has changed regularly in history. It is still changing. Eg when I was growing up, homosexual acts were illegal. Same sex marriage was not in consideration ,and trans sexuality was all but unheard of. Until about the 1980's the age of consent in the Northern Territory, Australia was 14. I think that may have been due to the high Aboriginal population; their culture has different sexual values.
And that is the point. Theists argue for a "god given" or at least "inspired " morality which in Islam includes the marriage of a six year old by a half centenarian, and the sexual penetration of a nine year old by the same person.
Now that we understand the abuse of authority in these matters we modern people declare them immoral and anathema.
Unfortunately the iron age based theist cannot reconcile their own stories to that fact and continue with the sale of young brides and the rape of children and argue its 'morality'. Their moral code is unchanging due to its "divine or prophetic' source.
Which is of course absolute bollocks. .
They cannot be taken seriously until they admit that parts of their 'inspired moral code' is irrelevant, dangerous and must be disregarded in an enlightened society.
"however I do wonder if we are missing information about those times that would tell us just how acceptable or unacceptable those historic marriages were to them. "
You need to return to the backstory, that this situation immediately followed the most encompassing and destructive war mankind has ever endured. Can we agree that this was an era of unfortunate and extreme circumstances? That the norm was temporarily suspended? When people had to eat pets and horses just to survive?
Indeed David, almost as if morals are subjective. It astound me that theists don't see it.
On The Hadith; These are commentaries on the life of the prophet and are revered. However, they are not part of the Muslim canon. Only the Quran is Muslim Canon. The very meaning of the word "hadith" varies between Muslim scholars and different sects, of which there are many. Literally, "hadith" means 'tradition'
It is not only Christians who kill each other for belonging to the 'wrong' sect. EG The Sunni- Shia antipathy is centuries old.
Of course this irrelevant to me; I'm an atheist. That means I disbelieve in Gods. It therefore follows that I also disbelieve in revealed writing of any kind. That includes any and all things written about the prophet Mohamed . Even if I believed in Gods I'd have a hard time believing in a flying horse.
Want me to believe this stuff? First prove your god exists. Without proof, all religious beliefs are superstition.
How did anyone think comparing a fetus with an onion was a good idea? Was it meant to elevate the onion, or diminish the fetus?
An onion is a plant, its potential is limited by that fact. A fetus has the potential to become a human being. There is an ongoing argument between theists and humanists about at which point the fetus becomes a human being. A broadly accepted Christian position is that a fetus becomes a human being at conception. This is a religious belief, based on faith, not science.
My position is similar to science and the courts , where abortion is permitted: That a fetus becomes a human being when it is viable ex utero. This is broadly accepted as being at the end of the second trimester. I accept that position, and will continue to do so until another position is proved.
I do not base my life or actions on the superstitions of others. I get very cranky when believers try to impose their personal superstitions on me and the rest of society. Be it on abortion, same sex marriage or sexuality generally---or any other matter based on blind religious belief. By that I mean absent of reason.
Currently in Australia there is a committee, headed by our happy clapper Prime Minister which wants to pass laws enabling christian schools especially , to discriminate against those who do not share their beliefs; Eg a potential teacher in a same sex marriage.
It's tragic to realise that large numbers of gays and others with a non traditional sexuality are believing Christians (or Muslims or Hindus) who are rejected outright by their faiths. Bigotry is ugly no matter the source.
You said: “On The Hadith; These are commentaries on the life of the prophet and are revered. However, they are not part of the Muslim canon.”
No… hadith is indeed part of the Islamic canon.
You said: “Even if I believed in Gods I'd have a hard time believing in a flying horse.”
Actually, from a belief point of view both are equally weighted. Because once you believe in the supernatural, you are treading into a realm that’s outside the scrutiny of science. And so, whether it’s god or flying horse, there’s no way you can falsify either. If one seems more acceptable than the other, it’s just your subjective prejudice.
You said: “Want me to believe this stuff? First prove your god exists. Without proof, all religious beliefs are superstition.
As mentioned above, god cannot be proven scientifically. If God is some kind of a scientifically testable reality, then it would entail that the knowledge of God would grow with the advancement of science and also that He is more accessible to people of science… which would discriminate against the normal folks.
However, the proof of God is based on a simple logic that’s glaring at you at every instance of your existence. All around you, in nature and yourself, this proof is large writ. Look at the complexity in design of plants and animals and you will immediately realize that there is a great creator behind them all. This is such a powerful logic that not until the advent of the theory of evolution was there any serious challenge to this logic… and belief in God was universal. However, evolution wants us to make many leaps of faith in order to circumvent this powerful logic, and people like Anthony Flew, after years of dogmatic atheism, finally give in to the power of this logic. At the end of all the complicated explanation, the emergence of the first living cell is still an unfathomable conundrum. That’s like building a massive structure without a foundation. I know, you would have many things to say about my anti-science sentiments. But I will wait till you bring up your arguments.
You said: “My position is similar to science and the courts, where abortion is permitted: That a fetus becomes a human being when it is viable ex utero. This is broadly accepted as being at the end of the second trimester. I accept that position, and will continue to do so until another position is proved.”
Are you saying that once the fetus attains the ‘viable ex utero’ stage, then a woman has not right to abort it, even if that would be detrimental to her career etc. ?
You said: “I get very cranky when believers try to impose their personal superstitions on me and the rest of society.”
As long as you can’t objectively prove your values, then your values are superstitions too. What you are essentially doing is trying to impose your superstition on others.
You said: “Be it on abortion, same sex marriage or sexuality generally---or any other matter based on blind religious belief. By that I mean absent of reason.”
So what is your reason for your position on these issues? Is it objective?
@ROYISM: more retarded BS from a theist:
Ḥadīth is the Arabic word for speech, report, account, narrative.:471 Unlike the Qur'an, not all Muslim believe hadith accounts (or at least not all hadith accounts) are divine revelation. Hadith were not written down by Muhammad's followers immediately after his death but several generations later when they were collected, collated and compiled into a great corpus of Islamic literature. Different collections of hadīth would come to differentiate the different branches of the Islamic faith. A small minority of Muslims called Quranists reject all Ḥadīth, (MUSLIMS CALLED QUARANISTS REJECT ALL HADITH!!!) (NOT ALL MUSLIMS BELIEVE HADITH!!!!!D) (DIFFERENT COLLECTIONS OF HADITH DIFFERENTIATE DIFFERENT ISLAMIC SECTS).
Can we get just one theist on the site who knows what the fuck he is talking about before running his mouth and spewing shit? Seriously, how much more of this lame ass assertive nonsense can these people come up with?
You said: “Hadīth is the Arabic word for speech, report, account, narrative…..”
Over 85% of muslims in the world are Sunnis and 15% are Shias… that makes up 100%. Both these sects predominantly consider Quran and Hadith as canonical (of course hadith books they follow are different). There are differences of opinion as to the reliability of some hadith among the various sects in these two branches. That’s pertaining to some hadith, not the whole canon.
@ROYISM: Both Sects??? SAY SOMETHING ELSE RETARDED: Sunni Islam is separated into four MAIN schools of jurisprudence, namely, Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i, Hanbali. These schools are named after Abu Hanifa, Anas bin Malik, al-Shafi'i, and Ahmad ibn Hanbal, respectively. Shia Islam, on the other hand, is separated into three major sects: Twelvers, Ismailis, and Zaydis.
Lets look a bit closer into these MAIN GROUPS who are killing one another in tribal warfare over their belief systems.
Basic Belief Distinguishing it from Others
Followers of Abu'l-Jarud, They believe Prophet (pbuh) designated Ali (ra) as the Imam by his characteristics but not by name.
2. Sulaimaniah / Jaririyah
Followers of Sulaiman ibn-Jarir al-Zaidi, They believed Imamat was a matter of conference and could be confirmed by two best Muslims.
3. Butriyah / Hurariyah
They did not dispute the Khilafat of Uthman, neither they attack him nor praise him.
They accepted the Khilafat of Abu Bakr and Umar, but did not reject those who rejected these Khulafaa. They also believed that Muslim committers of Major sins will be in hell fire forever.
Followers of the Imammate of Muhammad ibn-al-Hanifah. They believe that Allah might have had a beginning.
They believed that Imam Muhammad ibn-al-Hanifah is not dead and is the Imam Ghaib (in disappearance) and the expected Mahdi.
Followers of abu-Kamil. They believed companions to be heretic because they forsook their allegiance to Ali and condemn Ali for ceasing to fight them. They believed in the returning of the dead before the Day of Resurrection and that Satan is right in preferring fire to clay.
8. Muhammadiyyah / Mughairiyah
Followers of Muhammad ibn-'Abdullah ibn-al-Hassan. They do not believe that Imam Muhammad ibn-'Abdullah died and that he is Imam Ghaib and awaited Mahdi.
Followers of Muhammad ibn-'Ali al-Baqir. They believe him to be the Imam Ghaib and expected Mahdi.
They believe that those who consider themselves better than anyone else are Kafirs (disbelievers).
They believe that the one who has recited La Ilaha Il-Allah (There is none worthy of worship except Allah), whatever she or he does, will never be punished.
They believe that faith for one is what he/she sincerely practices.
They believe in the continuity of Imammate among the descendants of Ismail ibn-Ja'far.
14. Musawiyah / Mamturah
They believe Musa ibn-Ja'far to be the Imam Ghaib and expected Mahdi.
They believe in the continuity of Imammate among the descendants of Muhammad ibn-Ismail ibn-Ja'far.
16. Kathiyah / Ithn 'Ashariya (the Twelvers)
They believe that expected Mahdi will be the twelveth Imam among the descendants of 'Ali ibn-abi-Talib.
17. Hashamiya / Taraqibiyah
They Predicate a body to Allah and also allege Prophet (pbuh) of disobedience to Allah.
They believed that Allah did not live nor had any attributes till He created for Himself life and His attributes.
Followers of Younas ibn-'Abd-al-Rahman al-Kummi. They believe that Allah is borne by bearers of His Throne, though He is stronger than they.
20. Shaitaniyah / Shireekiyah
They believed in the view that deeds of servants of Allah are substances; and a servant of Allah can really produce a substance.
Followers of Nafi ibn-al-Azraq. They do not believe in the good dreams and vision and claim that all forms of revelation has ended.
Followers of Najdah ibn-'Amir al-Hanafi. They abolished the punishment for drinking wine also they believed that sinners of this sect would not be treated in hellfire but some other place before allowed in paradise.
Followers of Ziyad ibn-al-Asfar. They believed that sinners are in fact polytheists.
Followers of Abd-al-Karim ibn-Ajrad. They believed that a child should be called to Islam after it has attained maturity. Also they believed booty of war to be unlawful till the owner is killed.
They believe Allah loves men of all faiths even if one has been disbeliever most of his life.
26. Shuaibiyah / Hujjatiyah
They believe that what Allah desires does happen no matter what and what does not happen it means Allah desires it not.
Followers of Khalaf. They do not believe in fighting except under the leadership of an Imam.
28. Ma'lumiyah / Majhuliyah
They believed that whoever did not recognize Allah by all His names was ignorant of Him and anyone ignorant of Him was a disbeliever.
Followers of Salt ibn-Uthman. They believed in the conversion of adults only and if father has converted to Islam children were considered disbeliever till they reach maturity.
Followers of Hamza ibn-Akrak. They believe that children of polythiests are condemned to hell.
Followers of Tha'labah ibn-Mashkan. They believe that parents remain guardian over their children of any age until children make it clear to parents that they are turning away from truth.
They did not believe in taking or giving alms from or to slaves.
They do not believe in waging a war except in defense or when the opponent is known personally.
34. Shaibaniyah / Mashbiyah
Followers of Shaiban ibn-Salamah al-Khariji. They believe Allah resembles His creatures.
They believe that land watered by springs, canals or flowing rivers should pay half the Zakat (Tithe), while land watered by rain only should pay the full Zakat.
36. Mukarramiyah / Tehmiyah
Followers of abu-Mukarram. They believe that ignorance constitutes as disbelief. Also that Allah enmity or friendship depends upon the state of a persons belief at his death.
37. Ibadiyah / Af'aliyah
Consider Abdullah ibn-Ibad as their Imam. They believe in doing good deeds without the intention of pleasing Allah.
Consider Hafs ibn-abi-l-Mikdam as their Imam. They believe that only knowing Allah frees one from polytheism
Followers of Harith ibn-Mazid al-Ibadi. They believe that the ability precedes the deeds.
40. Ashab Ta'ah
They believe that Allah can send a prophet without giving him any sign to prove his prophecy.
41. Shabibiyah / Salihiyah
Followers of Shabib ibn-Yazid al-Shaibani. They believe in the Imamate of a woman named Ghazalah.
Followers of Wasil ibn-'Ata al-Ghazza. They believe that those who commit major sins will be punished in hell but still remain believers.
Followers of 'Amr ibn-Ubaid ibn-Bab. They reject the legal testimony of people from supporters of either side of the battle of Camel.
44. Hudhailiyah / Faniya
Followers of abu-al-Hudhail Muhammad ibn-al-Hudhail. They believe that both Hell and Paradise will perish and that preordination of Allah can cease, at which time Allah will no longer be omnipotent.
Followers of abu-Ishaq Ibrahim ibn-Saiyar. They do not believe in the miraculous nature of the Holy Quran nor do they believe the miracles of Holy Prophet (pbuh) like splitting the moon.
They Believe that Allah neither creates life nor death but it is an act of the nature of living body..
Followers of Bashr ibn-al-Mu'tamir. They believe that Allah may forgive a man his sins and may change His mind about this forgiveness and punish him if he is disobedient again.
Followers of Hisham ibn-'Amr al-Futi. They believe that if a Muslim community come to consensus it need an Imam and if it rebels and kills its Imam, no one should be chosen an Imam during a rebellion.
Followers of Isa ibn-Sabih. They believe that staying in close communication with the Sultan (ruler) makes one unbeliever.
Followers of Ja'far ibn-Harb and Ja'far ibn-Mubashshir. They believe that drinking raw wine is not punishable and that punishment of hell could be inferred by a mental process.
Followers of Muhammad ibn-Abdallah al-Iskafi. They believe that Allah has power to oppress children and madmen but not those who have their full senses.
Followers of Thamamah ibn-Ashras al-Numairi. They believe that he whom Allah does not compel to know Him, is not compelled to know and is classed with animals who are not responsible.
Followers of 'Amr ibn-Bahr al-Jahiz. They believe that Allah is able to create a thing but unable to annihilate it.
54. Shahhamiyah / Sifatiyah
Followers of abu-Yaqub al-Shahham. They everything determined is determined by two determiners, one the Creator and the other acquirer.
55. Khaiyatiyah / Makhluqiyah
Followers of abu-al-Husain al-Khaiyat. They believe that everything non-existant is a body before it appears, like man before it is born is a body in non-existance. Also that every attribute becomes existant when it makes its appearance.
Followers of abu-Qasim Abdullah ibn-Ahmad ibn-Mahmud al-Banahi known as al-Ka'bi. They believe that Allah does not see Himself nor anyone else except in the sense that He knows Himself and others.
Followers of abu-'Ali al-Jubbai. They believe that Allah obeys His servants when He fulfill their wish
Followers of abu-Hashim. They believe that one who desires to do a bad deed, though may not do it, commits infidelity and deserves punishment.
They believe that Holy Prophet (pbuh) was a wise man but not a prophet.
They believe that God has no control over His creations.
They do not believe in the punishment of grave.
They do not believe in the punishment for deeds on the grounds that because everything is determined so whatever one does s/he is not responsible for it..
They believe that doing Dhikr and Fikr (Remembering and thinking about Allah) is better than worship.
64. 'Aliviyah / Ajariyah
They believe that Hadhrat Ali share prophethood with Muhammad (pbuh).
They believe in the re-incarnation of soul.
They believe that Hadhrat Ali ibn-abi-Talib will return to this world.
They believe in the Fardh (obligations) in faith but deny the sunnah.
They believe that this world will live forever.
They do not believe in the acceptance of repentance.
They believe that Quran is not the word of God but only its meaning and essence is the word of God. Words of Quran are just the words of narrator.
The believe that Qiyas (taking a guess) is wrong and amounts to disbelief.
They believe that obedience to Ameer is obligatory no matter what he commands.
This may be helpful.
Now there are some groups who people might also consider as sects but they are not sects such as Hanafis, Hanbalis, Shafiis, Malikis, Asharis, Maatureedis, etc, etc.
Hanafis, Hanbalis, Malikis and Shafiis are followers of schools of jurisprudence and it is allowed as the four follow one of the Imams of Ahlul Sunnah Wal Jama’a, also known as Arba’a Ahlul Sunnah wal Jama’a
Imam Abu Hanifa Noman bin Sabit(rah): Hanafis
Imam Ahmed bin Hanbal(rah): Hanbalis(or Salafis)
Imam Abu Abdullah Muhammad bin Idris Shafi’i(rah): Shafi’i
Imam Maalik bin Anas(rah): Maalikis
Now there are also schools of theology or kalam schools. They were formed by scholars of their time. Ilm e Kalam was started as a response to the heretic Mutazila rationalic creed which was totally based on Rational Greek philosophy. Mutazila was formed by Wasil ibn Ata. To counter his philosophy some Imams of Ahlul Sunnah wal Jama’a created their ideologies. They were:
Imam Abu Al-Hasan Al-Ashari(rah) formed Al-Ashariyya creed: his followers are called Asharis.
Imam Abu Mansur Al-Maturidi(rah) formed Al-Maturidiyya creed : his followers are called Maturidis.
Imam Abu Ja'far Ahmed bin Muhammad Al-Tahawi(rah): he was a co-partner to Abu Al-Hasan Al-Ashari(rah) and Abu Mansur Al-Maturidi(rah).
The fourth group is known as Atharis or traditionalists. They rejected Ilm e Kalam and said that only Quran and Hadith are reliable sources.
Wasil ibn Ata, he formed his heretic Mutazila creed which was based on rational Greek philosophy. Its followers are known as Mutazilis.
Al-Ashariyya, Al-Maturidiyyah and Al-Athari are known as schools of Sunni orthodoxy. Regarding Mutazila, they were once recognized as a Sunni creed and flourished during the Abbasid period, especially during the reign Mamun Al-Rasheed who made Mutazila the official faith of the empire. But then after the orthodox Sunni schools were formulated, Mutazila declined steadily and significantly. It was also declared as heretic by the scholars of that time.
Till now I have discussed schools of jurisprudence and ideology, now I am discussing some major schools of Sufism(Tasawwuf) as mostly Sunnis are Sufis.
There are 4 major Silsilas of Tasawwuf:
1) Qadri: Sheikh Abdul Qadir Jilani(rah)
2) Chishti: Khwaja Moinuddin Chishti(rah)
3) Suhrawardi: Khwaja Shahabuddin Suhrawardi(rah)
4) Naqshbandi: Khwaja Bahauddin Naqshband Bukhari(rah)
These are just only Sufi order and not sects. For a person to join these orders, he must give baiyat to a peer of that order and then he can put Qadri, Naqshbandi, etc with his name. A person may also give baiyat to more than one order. There is also a baiyat known as baiyat e Usmani. In this the person is in not physical contact with the peer and have contacted them through a letter or through the agency of a responsible and trustworthy person. The Holy Prophet SAW, on the occasion of the Pledge of Ridhwan, took the bay’ah of ‘Uthman RZ in his absence. The Holy Prophet SAW placed his right hand on his own left hand and announced that he had made the bay’ah of ‘Uthman RZ.
YOU HAVE NO FRIGGING IDEA AT ALL WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT!!! Next you will assert that the Quaran has never changed or that it was written by Muhammad. Please say something else completely RETARDED.
You said: Both Sects??? SAY SOMETHING ELSE RETARDED: Sunni Islam is separated into four MAIN schools of jurisprudence, namely, Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i, Hanbali. These schools are named after Abu Hanifa, Anas bin Malik, al-Shafi'i, and Ahmad ibn Hanbal, respectively. Shia Islam, on the other hand, is separated into three major sects: Twelvers, Ismailis, and Zaydis.
Shias and Sunnis are the two broadest branches. Almost all the sects fall under either of these two branches. However, the explanation I gave for the variance of interpretations works for all sects, even if there a thousand. For example take the 4 schools of jurisprudence. These are just 4 schools that came to become popular among several more. Now, does that pose a big challenge to the objectivity of islam? Not at all. The differences is schools arise because of differences in the interpretation of a ruling. For example, the Hanafi school says that touching one’s spouse breaks ablution (a ritual wash before prayer). The Shafi school says it does not. And if you analyze their interpretations, you will come to know that the Hanafi school follows a verse in the quran that says ‘touching one’s spouse breaks ablution.’ However, the Shafi school goes one step further to look at how the prophet understood this verse. From the hadith we come to know that the prophet kissed his wife before going to the mosque for prayer. Therefore, what the quran meant by touch was ‘sexual intimacy’ not the normal touch. This way we come to know that with regard to ritual wash, the SHafi school is right and Hanfi school is wrong.
That was just an example. Further between Shia and Sunni islam, It can be established that the Shia corpus of hadith is unreliable owing to the fact that they reject all the companions of the prophet as unreliable transmitters of hadith. That leaves them with hardly any first-hand information about the prophet, making their interpretive system extremely suspect. That’s just the tip of the ice-berg. Science of hadith is an ocean and it’s hard to do justice to it in this space.
Moreover, the list you have put out may look tortuously long and hence hard to negotiate. But the fact is, these sects can be easily categorized under broader branches. So once you eliminate a bigger branch, a whole lot of sub-sects can be eliminated along with it. This makes it easier.
BUT NOBODY RUNS AROUND TRYING TO SLAUGHTER OTHER PEOPLE OR GROUPS WHO MIGHT PLAY CHESS BY SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT RULES!!!
(Just wanted to point that out real quick for those (he) who obviously can't quite figure that out yet.)
Edit to add:
AND REGARDLESS OF WHICH RULES THEY PREFER TO USE, PEOPLE WHO DO PLAY CHESS DO NOT GO AROUND SLAUGHTERING PEOPLE WHO PREFER TO PLAY GAMES OTHER THAN CHESS, NOR DO THEY TEND TO WANT TO SLAUGHTER PEOPLE WHO DO NOT LIKE CHESS AT ALL.
(Was in a rush when I made original post and forgot to include this part. Oops.)
Nor does anyone claim the rules are inherrant and perfect, then expend time and energy killing anyone who says otherwise.
It's also axiomatic that if rules are open to subjective interpretation they can't possibly be touted as objectively true. Not without one of those interpretations demonstrating sufficient objective evidence to support its claims, and none of them can.
You said: AND REGARDLESS OF WHICH RULES THEY PREFER TO USE, PEOPLE WHO DO PLAY CHESS DO NOT GO AROUND SLAUGHTERING PEOPLE WHO PREFER TO PLAY GAMES OTHER THAN CHESS, NOR DO THEY TEND TO WANT TO SLAUGHTER PEOPLE WHO DO NOT LIKE CHESS AT ALL.
Once again you are taking the example to its literal end. It’s to be understood like this. If you and your friend decide that the one who wins in an arm wrestling match check mates the other’s king, that wouldn’t be a game of chess any more, right? Similarly, those who resort to slaughter people in the name of religion, are not following Islam. Let those who do so bring their proof.
"No… hadith is indeed part of the Islamic canon."
Truly? I was under the impression the Hadith are not considered divine inspiration as is Quran . That you say this is not the case is not enough to change my position. I will do some research to find an authoritative explanation.
On abortion ; is it morally right to abort a fetus once it is viable outside of the uterus.? My opinion? No, it is not , for at that time the fetus is a human being, as far as I'm aware
"Actually, from a belief point of view both are equally weighted. Because once you believe in the supernatural, you are treading into a realm that’s outside the scrutiny of science. And so, whether it’s god or flying horse, there’s no way you can falsify either. If one seems more acceptable than the other, it’s just your subjective prejudice."
Fair enough. I do in fact disbelieve in the supernatural, of which the prophet's flying horse is just a tiny bit. .
"However, the proof of God is based on a simple logic that’s glaring at you at every instance of your existence. All around you, in nature and yourself, this proof is large writ."
Well no, it isn't . Your argument is one of the common fallacies use as proof of the existence of god.; intelligent design. Look it up if you are interested. I won't try to explain it to you , because it is not my wish to challenge or weaken your faith. If you claim that is not not possible, that simply shows a closed mind, which blindly believes. It is only a fool who never doubts their most fervent beliefs.
Sorry, that's far more than I usually bother with a theist apologist. . There is no common ground, so it''s a waste of both time for each of us.
You said: “Truly? I was under the impression the Hadith are not considered divine inspiration as is Quran”
Yes Cranky. Actually this is basics… ask any scholar (shia or sunni) about the canons in islam and they would mention two things, Quran and Sunnah (not to be confused with sunni)… Sunnah means the ‘prophetic way’ (found in hadith).
You said: “On abortion ; is it morally right to abort a fetus once it is viable outside of the uterus.?”
Okay, I understand your position. But why so? Based on what are you saying this? Someone can still argue that the mother’s career is more important than an unborn child. Why should one be valued over the other?
You said: “Well no, it isn't . Your argument is one of the common fallacies use as proof of the existence of god.; intelligent design.”
Yea, I know about intelligent design and that’s what I am hinting at. However, to dismiss it outright without engaging me on it is not fair. But I know, it’s a very long discussion, and I have had several discussions on this topic with atheists on this forum. If you are interested we can start a new thread.
@cranky47: YOU ARE 100% CORRECT - THE HADITH ARE NOT A PART OF THE QUARAN. DIFFERENT MUSLIM SECTS ADOPT DIFFERENT HADITH AND SOME NO HADITH AT ALL. Royce is outright lying to you. Next he will tell you that Muhammad was born in Mecca. Theists only know what they have been taught from their leaders. They know nothing of history, nothing of the formation of their holy books, and very, very little about the actual beliefs of their own sects. Theists "DON'T DO THE RESEARCH."
See the comment I made above for an appropriate quote and link.
@ROYCE: RE: "However, the proof of God is based on a simple logic that’s glaring at you at every instance of your existence. All around you, in nature and yourself, this proof is large writ.
Then you should be able to post that simple logical evidence and find complete agreement. Well? 6 pages into your bullshit and we are still waiting? Post your frigging argument your logical argument or admit that you have none and then crawl back into the Mosque from whence you came. Why do you insist on bullshit when "THE PROOF OF GOD IS BASED ON A SIMPLE LOGIC." Stop all the bullshit and just POST THE FRIGGING LOGIC!
@ROYCE: Takes the time to respond to the Hadith and then completely avoids the meat and potatoes.... WHERE IS THIS "SIMPLE LOGIC?" WE are all still waiting. You said it now state it or admit you are a liar.
The simple logic is 'intelligent design' as I had explained. This is the simplest and strongest proof for god. If you want to discuss it further i am game.
There is zero evidence for design. Its an objective scientific fact that all living things evolved.
You said: “There is zero evidence for design. Its an objective scientific fact that all living things evolved.”
Regarding evidence for design. Design is an observable fact in nature. What I mean by design is specified complexity, i.e. an arrangement of primitive parts in a highly specific order for accomplishing a task. This can also be called information. Information requires planning and foresight… in other words intelligence.
In the whole of human existence, mankind has only known one single cause for the rise of information – and that is intelligence.
Moving on to evolution – it too has a factually observable part and an assumption part. The observation is about similarities between species. And the assumption is that it’s owing to common descent. Nobody disputes the similarity part, as that’s a factual. However, the assumption that similarity arises from common descent is disputable. When facts contradict the assumption, the theory makes adjustments to keep the assumptions intact. For example, the similarity between the human eye and the octopus eye, violates the common descent assumption, because the two are separated by a long way in the evolution tree. And so, the theory brings in another assumption, which is convergence. What I am driving at is that the theory is built on a set of unfalsifiable assumptions.
There is zero evidence for design in nature.
You can't just roll past that and repeat the claim. Complexity is not evidence of design. That's simply an assumption creationists like to make, in the mistaken belief this lends credence to facile archaic design myths.
ALL LIVING THINGS EVOLVED, and that is supported by a weight of objective scientific evidence, gathered continuously over 160 years of rigorous scientific research globally.
To deny the evidence for evolution now, is like denying the rotundity of the earth. Its asinine...religion and creationists don't get to question scientific fact based on ignorance and superstition.
Now please name ten scientific facts you deny that in no way contradict any part of your vapid superstitious beliefs?
Since you've ignored the other questions in the thread OP I'm guessing you'll carry on preaching at us and ignore this one.
You said: “There is zero evidence for design in nature.”
If by design what is meant is an arrangement of primitive parts in a specific order to accomplish a task… you just can’t deny there is design in nature. Take your eye for example. It is composed of many parts (lens, retina, iris, etc). And those parts have been arranged in a specific order (if the retina was put in the front of the lens, there would be no vision). This is what I mean by design.
You said: “Complexity is not evidence of design.”
Complexity is not, but specified complexity is evidence of design.
You said: “ALL LIVING THINGS EVOLVED, and that is supported by a weight of objective scientific evidence, gathered continuously over 160 years of rigorous scientific research globally.”
That’s why I explained my POV. There is an observed, factual side to evolution. ANd that is similarity between species and fossils. And then there is an assumption side to it, which is that similarity arises from common descent. But when data that contradicts this assumption arrives, they invent more assumptions to keep the theory intact. Convergence is a case in point.
You said: “To deny the evidence for evolution now, is like denying the rotundity of the earth.”
No it is not. Spherical earth is an observable fact. The other is a series of assumptions.
You said: “Now please name ten scientific facts you deny that in no way contradict any part of your vapid superstitious beliefs?”
That’s a false question. Even if I am coming with ideological bias, that doesn’t change anything in the context of our discussion. Because I am presenting my arguments, and not simply dismissing the theory because it doesn’t agree with my worldview. So, you have to play the ball, and not the man.
I didn't deny there is design in nature, I said there is zero evidence for design on nature. I also said rolling past this FACT won't change it, you then hilariously simply ignore it and rewassert your unevidenced belief.
I'm not interested in creationist lies thanks. If anyone were able to falsify any part of evolution then they would so, collect their Nobel prize, and the approbation of idiotic creationists everywhere, who mistakenly think this would validate their unevidenced archaic myths.
Scientific theories are not validated by a series of assumptions, what a shocking lie ROYISM.
Denying the fact of evolution is like denying the rotundity of the earth.
We also see your bias laid bare, as you can't name any scientific fact you deny other than evolution. Obviously because you recognise what it means for your superstitious beliefs of creationist myths.
ROYISM "I am presenting my arguments, and not simply dismissing the theory because it doesn’t agree with my worldview. So, you have to play the ball, and not the man."
That's hilarious, given the ball is scientific fact, and you're denying it in an internet forum. Get your facile fatuous arguments peer reviewed and falsify evolution, then I'll accept it, until then you're denying a scientific fact in favour of bronze age superstition. Your arguments are risible and woeful creationist propaganda, pseudoscience, nothing more.
But do please link the breaking news that evolution has been entirely falsified, the world's religions, and the world's press, and the entire scientific world seem bizarrely to have missed this.
ROYISM: Nothing logical or intelligent about intelligent design. "Simplistic!" sure. "Intelligent design (ID) is a pseudoscientific argument for the existence of God, presented by its proponents as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins"
"Though the phrase "intelligent design" had featured previously in theological discussions of the argument from design, the first publication of the term intelligent design in its present use as an alternative term for creationism was in Of Pandas and People."
Still waiting for this SIMPLE LOGICAL bullshit you are spouting as evidence. "Intelligent Design in every form it has ever taken is a COMPLETE FAILURE OF LOGIC. " Why don't you read a book? Any quick Google search will point to the fallacies of all the intelligent design theories. How many times has ID been to court and lost?
At least 10: https://ncse.com/library-resource/ten-major-court-cases-evolution-creati...
STILL WAITING FOR THIS "SIMPLE LOGIC." English obviously is not your first language. Because an idea is "SIMPLISTIC" does not mean it is simple. The only thing simple around here is your post.
You said: “"Intelligent design (ID) is a pseudoscientific argument for the existence of God, presented by its proponents as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins"
If you had read my other posts, you would know that I have clearly stated that proof of god is not scientific. So, I am not putting forward ID as a scientific proof for god, rather it’s a logical proof. And logic precedes science, and hence a more fundamental evidence.
You said: "Intelligent Design in every form it has ever taken is a COMPLETE FAILURE OF LOGIC.”
Instead of making assertions, why don’t you rebut my argument of how nature/life is full of information, and that information has only one known cause, which is intelligence.
You said: “How many times has ID been to court and lost?
At least 10: https://ncse.com/library-resource/ten-major-court-cases-evolution-creati...”
I know that. First of all, I don’t think a court can be the final word on matters related to science/philosophy/logic. A court in India said in a legal verdict related to a temple issue that God was born there. Would you accept it?
Secondly, as I made clear, ID is not a scientific theory. So, yes to that extent, I agree with the court that it’s not to be taught in schools as a scientific theory.
You said: “English obviously is not your first language. Because an idea is "SIMPLISTIC" does not mean it is simple.’
I stand corrected on the wrong use of the word ‘Simplistic’… yes I meant simple. Thanks for pointing that out.
Creationism is woo woo superstition, there is no evidence to support it at all. The argument that complexity infers design is absurd, we already know as an objective scientific fact that complex living things can and have evolved.
Re branding creationism as ID is fooling no one.
Nor would design be a logical argument for any deity, this is in fact a common logical fallacy called argumentum ad ignorantiam. It certainly isn't "proof" of anything, I don't think you know what the word means.
What objective evidence do you have for an intelligent designer? All you faithfools have is subjective evidence coming from the mind.