Very disturbing action by some athiests co-workers

215 posts / 0 new
Last post
Old man shouts at clouds's picture
I would welcome an

I would welcome an explanation from you.
I would welcome a fuller intro into Islamic theory as I tended to disregard its history after the 1000sCE as it seemed to me to be relative latecomer to the 'heresy' stakes and indeed seemed to copy Paul/Sauls idea of starting anew with the gentiles. Just in a much bloodier and nastier way.
Islam IMHO was also subject to the same "interpretive dance" and splits ( Wahabi, Shia, Sunni, and others) that we saw in later Christianity resulting in much the same rapine, murder, genocide, reprisals, empire building and so on that we come to expect from all of the Abramaic religions.
As it stands however, any 'interpretation' unless provable from the exact same source as your text would be someone else's subjective method. So we come full circle to a subjective stance whether it is yours, Uthmanns, one of the 'Companions' or a whole raft of imams, sheiks and scholars since 632 CE.

Valiya's picture
@Old man shouts

@Old man shouts

I don’t know how much justice I can do the subject in this thread. But here is a short version of Islam.

Islam says that there is one God who is the creator of the universe. He created the first man and woman. And as mankind grew and formed nations, God sent messengers to the people in different places with one fundamental message: that there is only one God and we have to live according to the moral principles dictated by God.

The messengers include Adam, Noah, Moses, Jesus and hundreds of thousands of others who came in different parts of the world at different times. Mohammed is the last of those messengers.

In the case of the earlier prophets, people corrupted their messages and created new religions. For example – Jesus came to teach people to worship the one true God and follow His commands, but Jesus’ followers corrupted his message and ended up worshipping Jesus himself.

Mohammed being the last messenger, the message he brought has been preserved by God.

Now, coming to the question of interpretation. The method of interpreting anything in Islam has to be based on proofs from Quran and the life of the prophet (called Hadith). Any verse in Quran should be interpreted in the light of Prophet’s life and teachings – the differences in interpretation arises because this principle is not followed by some people.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ROYISM

@ROYISM
And how do you personally identify the 'some people' who are in error and by implication, the remainder who are "correct'?

I've not commented on the first two paragraphs because they are claims without evidence and can be dismissed without evidence.

Your third paragraph is evidenced through history regarding the corruption of messages so I agree, assuming of course you can prove the existence of those prophets. If not...Hitchens razor.

"Mohammed being the last messenger, the message he brought has been preserved by God." Evidence of several statements here is required. "Last messenger" requires evidence; there have been several self proclaimed prophets since Mohammed some with as much evidence and at least as many corpses.
"Message brought" which message the unified message? the individual texts he dictated over 30 years and self contradicted? or the one finally accepted by others after his death? Please enlighten me.

"Preserved by God" in which case why have these "pure" messages not been 'preserved' and obviously changed to accommodate Yazhidi, Sufi, Sunni, Wahabi, Ahmadiyyas, Druze, Alevis, and `Alawis and I don't even include the bahai here...how is that "preserved'? Each sect subjectively changes the message (if there was one) and each claims authority.

So I am eager to hear how you, I assume Sunni, (as that is the majority in Kuwait) claim to have the unchanged, preserved message and can claim that your secondhand interpretation is correct?

Valiya's picture
@Old Man Shouts

@Old Man Shouts

I didn't mean to prove Islam to you in my last post. I thought you were asking for a quick rundown of Islamic theology, which is what i presented.

But if you are interested, I shall start a separate thread where i will present the whole of it with sufficient proofs and logic.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
If you didn't meant to

If you didn't meant to attempt to prove Islam then assertions without evidence is not the way to start.
So we can disregard the 'proofs" as in discussion with several Sh'ia imams in the past they use the same circular logic as the Christians, "it's in the book, therefore it must be true because the book says so" ( and of course they add ("and Mohammed SODC is perfect') I assume, and please correct me if I am wrong, that is the only proof you have to offer?

Secondly you haven't addressed my points about the preserved message which directly impinge upon your Objective morality stance.

That is, if you are accepting as your own take a third party interpretation of your text then the morality is subjective. The other 'takes' and interpretations have equal value to your chosen text.
I wonder did you choose your path to follow? Or was it an accident of birth?

Valiya's picture
@Old man shouts

@Old man shouts

You said: “If you didn't meant to attempt to prove Islam then assertions without evidence is not the way to start.”

I thought you wanted a quick rundown of the basic ideas behind Islam… probably I misread your post. That’s why I gave you a theology of Islam (but yes, you are right, I did not substantiate any of the claims with proofs, because I did not intend to take this discussion in that direction and digress far from the main subject). If you are interested I will start a new thread on the topic of the veracity of Islam.

You said: “… they use the same circular logic as the Christians, "it's in the book, therefore it must be true because the book says so"

No, I don’t use that logic. My logic is basically about information in the Quran that Mohammed or any mortal back in his times could have never known… therefore it must be divinely inspired.

You said: “That is, if you are accepting as your own take a third party interpretation of your text then the morality is subjective.”

NO matter who brings the interpretation, I look for evidence from the scriptures – Quran and Hadith (prophet teachings). Let’s say one scholar says that apostates have to be killed, and another scholar says they should not be killed. Here are two contradictory interpretations. But when I look at the proofs these scholars bring: I find that the quran says “There is no compulsion in religion.” And I find in the hadith that the prophet had never slain anyone who left Islam. IN fact there was a companion who left and rejoined Islam a couple of times and this person died a natural death as a governor of an Islamic province. SO the scriptural evidence is heavily stacked in favor of the second interpretation and I take that. It’s objective and easy.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
"My logic is basically about

"My logic is basically about information in the Quran that Mohammed or any mortal back in his times could have never known… therefore it must be divinely inspired."
" NO matter who brings the interpretation, I look for evidence from the scriptures"

I did say " circular logic as the Christians, 'it's in the book, therefore it must be true because the book says so' " and you are doing just that.

I would be fascinated to find the verses that "any mortal back in his times could have never known" ( which is an opinion based on an interpretation) as surely then that would have been direct proof of divine intervention, or, at the very least least, sorcery? Of course they would have to be very direct and plain language as the Quran itself says:

Holy Quran Chapter 16 Surah Nahl verse 89:"We have sent down to you this Book, which makes everything plain, and is a guidance, blessing and good news to those who have surrendered themselves entirely." and

Holy Quran Chapter 18 Surah Kahf verse 1-3: "All praise is for Allah Alone, Who has sent down this Book to His Servant and assigned nothing crooked to it. This Book says everything directly, so that he may warn the people of the severe chastisement of Allah, and give good news to the believers who do righteous deeds, that they will have an excellent reward."

So plain language would be a requirement with no interpretation required.
The fact that interpretation IS required and that many of the "sciency" and instructional verses in the Qu'ran are capable of being read in a variety of different ways to fit in with later discoveries seems to contradict itself.

If you want I can start a new topic on "debunking the science myths of the bible and Qu'ran"

And back to your original subjective vs objective, regarding morality. If it needs interpretation and is not "plain","direct" and clear then it is subjective. In your last paragraph you even admit to picking and choosing; "cherry picking", the interpretations that suit you best.

Valiya's picture
@Old man shouts

@Old man shouts

You said: “I would be fascinated to find the verses that "any mortal back in his times could have never known"

Here is one example. Quran discusses a person called Haman whom the pharaoh asked to build a lofty tower.

“O Chiefs! no god do I know for you but myself: therefore, O Haman! light me a (kiln to bake bricks) out of clay, and build me a lofty palace, that I may mount up to the god of Moses: but as far as I am concerned, I think (Moses) is a liar!” (Surah Al-Qasas, 38)

Egyptology today proves that there was a person named Haman who was a builder, and known to have built very tall towers. I will provide the proofs if you want.

You said: “So plain language would be a requirement with no interpretation required.”

I don’t know how you have understood ‘interpretation.” There is a verse in the quran that says, “Christians take even their priests as God.” This is a simple verse with a straight and clear meaning. But an ex-christian disciple of the prophet came to him and said that they used to worship Christ but not their priests. And the prophet explained that to take the words of their priests over the words of God in their scripture is equal to making gods of them. SO that’s the interpretation of that verse. So, you are wrong in saying that direct and clear verses don’t need interpretation.

You said: “In your last paragraph you even admit to picking and choosing; "cherry picking", the interpretations that suit you best.”

Let me continue from the example I quoted above. Imagine someone comes along and says that the verse which says Christians worship their priests means that Christians pray to their priests like praying to Jesus. That’s one interpretation, but there is the other interpretation as given by the prophet. I would go with the interpretation of the prophet in this regard, for obvious reasons. That’s how I choose, it’s not some subjective way of choosing.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
"Quran discusses a person

"Quran discusses a person called Haman" and? So what? Who knows what tales were handed down in various pre Islamic tribal units? That just isn't evidence. The Qu'ran contains several cultural influences, it just isn't proof.

You avoided the question of contradiction in the verses I quoted re clarity and proceed to give me a story that proves that the text is unclear and capable of several meanings.
It the text needs interpretation to get to the true meaning then those verses I quoted are contradicted. That's quite a simple conclusion. If the author was not available then a subjective interpretation would have been made.

Again in your final paragraph you use an example that in fact I agreed with. In my second reply to you. "Unless the interpretation comes from the source". In this case you have complied and accepted that interpretation from the author of the text. However in the sects of Islam there are many other interpretations and fatwas promulgated some hundreds of years after the last survivor of the 650 consolidation died...so if you accept those interpretations, why?

Secondly if secondhand interpretations are accepted they are subjective...we are just playing word games unless that is agreed.

Valiya's picture
@Old man shouts

@Old man shouts

You said: “Who knows what tales were handed down in various pre Islamic tribal units? That just isn't evidence. The Qu'ran contains several cultural influences, it just isn't proof.”

Here is a character whom the Quran introduces with no precedence whatsoever (including the bible and torah, which the prophet is often accused of plagiarizing from), and Egyptology confirms it. If you say that this was part of some folklore handed down the generations in the Arab culture, you have to bring evidence for it. You can’t dismiss an evidence from a position of ignorance.

You said: “You avoided the question of contradiction in the verses I quoted re clarity and proceed to give me a story that proves that the text is unclear and capable of several meanings.

I think you don’t fully appreciate the idea of interpretation. Every text gets interpreted. Take for example a sentence that’s as simple, straight and clear as, “I love to eat apples.” You understand that the word ‘apples’ refers to the fruit and not the computer. How did you understand that? Because the sentence is talking about ‘eating’ apples. Nobody eats computers, right. This is an interpretive process you applied to that sentence in order to understand it right. But some dickhead could come and argue that it’s about ‘eating computers’ - well that’s an interpretation, but obviously wrong. So, just because there are two interpretations to a verse, you don’t say it’s unclear. If the interpretive process by which you can eliminate wrong ones and lock the right meaning is there, then it’s good to go.

You said: “It the text needs interpretation to get to the true meaning then those verses I quoted are contradicted.”

No… for the same reasons explained above.

You said: “However in the sects of Islam there are many other interpretations and fatwas promulgated some hundreds of years after the last survivor of the 650 consolidation died...so if you accept those interpretations, why?”

If you are talking about the interpretation of the verses of Quran… we only take it from the prophet’s teachings and life. Period. In fact the many differences of opinion arises precisely because different sects take interpretations from other than the prophet. That is a wrong practice.

Another reason for different interpretations is owing to the kind of interpretation I cited above, “I like to eat apples,” can be interpreted to mean ‘eating computers’ but we can only pity the one who comes up with such interpretation.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
And absolutely none of the

And absolutely none of the above makes any sense. You have already and again in your last response proved my point. If it needs interpretation then the 'god' or prophet that inspired or wrote it are/were less than perfect. Meaning that by Islams' own definition they are false. If the meaning is not perfectly clear in all 7 dialects and subsequent translations then those verses I quoted are false...which means the whole lot of the texts allegedly dictated between 606CE and 632CE are also doubtful.

You are arguing in a circular manner, in a diminishing space.

Statement for Clarity: " if you need to exercise individual conscious judgement on the interpretation it then must inevitably be subjective."
No amount of tautology gets you off that giant hook.
If you cannot see the falsity of your two analogous statements then you are truly blinded.and should read "Alice through the Looking Glass".
You and Breezy have a lot in common with Humpty Dumpty as in " Words mean precisely what I want them to mean, neither more nor less"

Valiya's picture
@Old man shouts

@Old man shouts

You said: “If it needs interpretation then the 'god' or prophet that inspired or wrote it are/were less than perfect.”

I have explained to you with an example how interpretation is endemic to any text. Has the text been provided in a manner where wrong interpretations can be eliminated is the question.

You said: “Meaning that by Islams' own definition they are false.”

That’s because you have imposed a false criteria for clarity. It is impossible to do away with interpretation altogether. Take your own words in this post for example:

Your post: “No amount of tautology gets you off that giant hook”
Interpretation: You mean to say that I am suspended in the air hanging off a giant hook

Your post: “If you cannot see the falsity of your two analogous statements then you are truly blinded.”
Interpretation: You mean to say that I am visually handicapped.

Your post: “You and Breezy have a lot in common with Humpty Dumpty”
Interpretation: You mean to say that Breezy and I are fat and round and fell off a wall.

Do you understand what I mean? You can bring any text and I can interpret it in many ways. However, it will be easy to prove why my above interpretations are all wrong! And that’s what makes your posts clear. Not because an alternate interpretation is impossible.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
You make my point for me. 100

You make my point for me. 100% subjective.

Thank you.

Nyarlathotep's picture
ROYISM - You can bring any

ROYISM - You can bring any text and I can interpret it in many ways. However, it will be easy to prove why my above interpretations are all wrong!

Your notion that an interpretation can be PROVED True or False (right or wrong, whatever) is comical.

Sapporo's picture
Objective morality does not

Objective morality does not require interpretation.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Sapporo - Objective morality

Sapporo - Objective morality does not require interpretation.

exactly!

Tin-Man's picture
@Nyar

@Nyar

Yeah, I was rather thinking the same thing on that. I may not be the sharpest crayon in the box, but if morality has to be interpreted, isn't it then - by definition - subjective?

Nyarlathotep's picture
its about as subjective as it

its about as subjective as it comes

mykcob4's picture
Wrong Royism

Wrong Royism
You DO have to explain why there are differences because YOU are the one stating that YOU are right, that morality is objective, yet in practice it is subjective. If morality were objective there would be NO difference. There would be only ONE source, ONE authority, ONE guideline, but there isn't, never has been.

Valiya's picture
@Mykcob4

@Mykcob4

You said: “If morality were objective there would be NO difference. There would be only ONE source, ONE authority, ONE guideline, but there isn't, never has been.”

Even objective ideas can have conflicting interpretations. For example, theory of evolution has ‘Gradualism’ and ‘PET’ – two interpretations. Would you therefore say that evolution is ‘subjective’? Rather what you would do is listen to the evidences of both interpretations and choose the one that has more weightage of evidence. That would be an objective way of go forward, isn’t it?

Nyarlathotep's picture
Both are pretty objective. If

Both are pretty objective. If that confuses you, then you don't know what it means to be objective (which given all you have said, is pretty obvious).

An example would be: "any user who's name starts with 'tin' is evil" is an objective standard; because anyone who actually uses that standard will get the same result: that tin-man is evil!

A standard being objective does not mean it is true or logical. It just means that when applied there is only one result you can get (that there is no room for bias). Of course most standards are somewhere between objective and subjective. Color (the wavelength of a photon is a good example of something we might be tempted to say is more objective but not completely objective. It is possible for different people to measure different results; but in almost any realistic situation they will get the same result.

Valiya's picture
@Nyarl

@Nyarl

You said: "Both are pretty objective. If that confuses you, then you don't know what it means to be objective (which given all you have said, is pretty obvious)."

Thank you. That's exactly what I was trying to prove. An objective thing can have many interpretations. But old man shouts was trying to argue that what is objective can't have different interpretations.

Nyarlathotep's picture
ROYISM - Thank you. That's

ROYISM - Thank you. That's exactly what I was trying to prove. An objective thing can have many interpretations. But old man shouts was trying to argue that what is objective can't have different interpretations.

No, I agree with Old Man Shouts 100%. I've always suspected you don't read what people post carefully. I think you just confirmed that.

You can have two different objective standards that contradict each other:

1) the number 5 is evil
2) the number 5 is not evil

Those are both objective, do not require interpretation, and contradict.

Sapporo's picture
I think the confusion here is

I think the confusion here is caused by thinking that the objective world of facts is something we have objective experience of. We don't have objective morality or objective experience, because no one can truly claim their senses are objective. Morality is also inherently subjective to the individual.

A priori truths such as "All triangles on flat surfaces have three interior angles which add up to 180 degrees" are objectively true. If morality was objective to us, then it would have to be true in this sense.

Your implication when you say you have objective morality is that you believe your senses are infallible.

Tin-Man's picture
@Nyar Re: "...that tin

@Nyar Re: "...that tin-man is evil!"

Shhhhhhhhh.....! *whispering* keep it down, man. i'm trying to keep that a secret.

algebe's picture
@Royism

@Royism Even objective ideas can have conflicting interpretations.

Then any idea or any action based on those so-called objective ideas will be the result of subjective interpretation according to people's experiences in their families and society. So ultimately there's no objectivity. How is this different from the subjective morality argued by atheists here?

Valiya's picture
@Algebe

@Algebe

You said: “Then any idea or any action based on those so-called objective ideas will be the result of subjective interpretation according to people's experiences in their families and society.”

Can you explain with an example please.

algebe's picture
@ROYISM: "Can you explain

@ROYISM: "Can you explain with an example please"

The 10 Commandments state objectively: You must not kill.

Some tribal leaders in ancient times thought that meant you must not kill Jews, but it was ok to kill people of other ethnic groups. In wartime, priests have blessed soldiers, telling them they're doing god's work by killing their enemies. The Pope decided that was fine for Crusaders to kill Muslims in Jerusalem. A priest blessed the Enola Gay before it dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima. Hitler, a Catholic, decided that killing millions of Jews was a good thing to do.

All of these people were able to interpret this supposedly objective rule--"You must not kill"--subjectively to allow them to kill whomever they hated. So that rule is no longer objective. It's subjective according to the political, racist or strategic views of individuals.

Valiya's picture
@Algebe

@Algebe

What is the exact Christian position on this, I think you will have to ask an expert in Christianity. However, even if what you are saying is true, it’s still not subjective. Now, there is a commandment in the bible that is universal, with no qualifiers. And if one group of people are attributing a qualifier to it (only jews), then they have to bring their proof for it. So long as they CANNOT bring the proof for their restrictive meaning, then the other camp that says that this verse has to be universally applied trumps. We are able to establish the case (saying one group is right and the other wrong) precisely because it’s objective.

Sheldon's picture
Are you saying that not

Are you saying that not killing another human is a moral absolute? Therefore it can never be morally right to kill another human? Is that what you're saying?

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

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.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.