Atheist's Misconceptions in Islam

Agathon

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Now, I'm obviously incorrect because I don't have god on my side, but I find the very thought of spreading religion by the sword to be an abhorrent, disgusting and immoral rape of the human species which not only destroys the moral credibility of the religion in question, but also putrifies into a shameful and anathemic joke, the character of the person who started that religion

Where exactly are your sources for Islam being spread by the sword? I'll clear this one for you quickly insha-Allah with proper understanding and context. Islam was actually spread by example, believe it or not.

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

This website collects hundreds of Koran verses which promote war, violence and death to non-muslims.

That's the whole point of an atheist web site: to collect all of the misconceptions in a religion, out of context, and lay them in front of ignorant fools to take in without proper verification/research!

Schuhart wrote: »

...as evidence of Mohammed’s good standing. I think he’s starting to realise it, but hasn’t yet come to the point where he realises that if you are in a hole you should stop digging.

...And what's your honest, genuine take on Muhammed (p) from proper sources.

merrionsq wrote: »

Also, depending on who you know and where you live, this could be your last chance (ever) to change your religion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam

Why would it be her last chance?? - In the end the faith is in the heart. Nobody is going to kill her if she can't follow some things in religion. This misconception scares so many people and they don't even understand the basics of it.

Schuhart wrote: »

To be honest, I haven't a clue why I'm posting here either. But I'm pretty certain I'm not seeking answers. Its more that I'm expressing concern at what you seem to think constitutes an answer...

This sums up what kind of person you are. you're confused: you don't have a clue why you're in the Islamic Forum; and you're not seeking answers!! So why are you still here! To convert some people to athesim?!!?

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Agathon, I've spoken strongly against religion and Mohammad, but I have not attacked Muslims or yourself because I believe in showing respect to people with whom I disagree. You lower yourself by hurling insults at us.

When you disagree with somebody you don't belittle his beliefs and insult his God and dead Prophet(p). You have an honest, civilized dialogue. I wouldn't have attacked if every atheist that's come into this forum wasn't in attacking mode. I treat people in these situations the way they treat me. If you had a proper argument without viscious attacks on Prophet Muhammed (p) or the religion, I would have been kinder to you. But I don't think there's any kindness due for your statements.

merrionsq wrote: »

I'm not an atheist. Your presumptuous intolerance speaks volumes about yourself. And gives a bad name to beliefs you promote ... This would certainly be of interest to me if I ever was changing my beliefs.

Intolerance for what?? - anti-theists?!! Are Richard Dawkins, Dennett, Hutchinson better examples for you?? When you consider changing your beliefs remember that humans make mistakes and by studying the core beliefs of the religion you'll come to realize the truth. I'm sorry if I've offended you!

CerebralCortex wrote: »

I'm not simple minded or an idiot.

Sorry; I should've said most (not all)!

oceanclub wrote: »

Umm, if longevity is a sign of truth, then why aren't you Hindu?

I was commenting on your prophet, Hutchins' book. I meant Hutchins' misconceptions about Muhammed (p) won't even last 100 years while the illiterate, Arab, Muhammed's book has lasted over 1400 years, influencing billions of people, and will outpace Hindu, Christian, Jewish scriptures and any other book on the planet by the next century. Was the guy a genius or was it really inspiration?!? You have to hand it to the illiterate Arab (p) - He was smarter than Dawkins, Hutchins, Dennett or any of the so-called philosophers of our time anyway!!

ironingbored wrote: »

Yeah, like the quran and the bible!

see comment above! I actually asked you about your beliefs a while back and I never saw you again!!! I'm curious to know what your beliefs are??

Schuhart wrote: »

I'm not self-important. Just ocassionally riled. Which is why I'll point out that, unlike the so-called miracles in the Quran, my prediction was clear and falsifiable.

I never said 'miracles'; little pieces of evidence that added up and coincidentally ALL matched up with modern scientific facts. Go back to the thread and see its ending. No errors!!! What's your evidence for atheism?

Bottle_of_Smoke

Agathon wrote: »

I was commenting on your prophet, Hutchins' book. I meant Hutchins' misconceptions about Muhammed (p) won't even last 100 years while the illiterate, Arab, Muhammed's book has lasted over 1400 years, influencing billions of people, and will outpace Hindu, Christian, Jewish scriptures and any other book on the planet by the next century. Was the guy a genius or was it really inspiration?!? You have to hand it to the illiterate Arab (p) - He was smarter than Dawkins, Hutchins, Dennett or any of the so-called philosophers of our time anyway!!

Meh, what does it actually matter? You said something similar to me when I mentioned Hitchen's ref to Islam in GING in Jannah's thread. You can't say Hitchen's book won't last 1400 years as you'll be dead. And you know Muhammed's Quran has lasted 1400 years because.... it has.

It's a childish response and argues longitivity means we should respect. How long did people think the world was flat? Sun Gods are still talked about, does it mean they're real? It's like saying Westlife are more talented than Brendan Behan because they've sold more records.

I don't believe GING will be talked about in 1400 years and I do think the Quran will but it's a ridiculous comparison and you know it.

Agathon

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

It's a childish response and argues longitivity means we should respect. How long did people think the world was flat? Sun Gods are still talked about, does it mean they're real? It's like saying Westlife are more talented than Brendan Behan because they've sold more records.

I don't believe GING will be talked about in 1400 years and I do think the Quran will but it's a ridiculous comparison and you know it.

Why is longivity childish? It's the process of how classics and masterpiece works are based on. For example, the classics studied in school, college, and at university level. Furthermore, so-called Musical Legends such as John Lennon, Bob Dylan, Cat Stevens, the Beatles, Frank Sinatra, etc. To be really great (according to materialism) you must last in the eyes of humans (live forever, as oasis put it)! Is this not true?? Muhammed (p) has done an excellent job of it as an illiterate Arab in the middle of the desert (barbaric lands) while the educated, so-called intellectual elite of the modern era will definitely be forgotten... Why should I or any other Muslim care if Hutchins or Dawkins write their stupid views in a book?! Only fools follow them anyway.

Schuhart

Agathon wrote: »

...And what's your honest, genuine take on Muhammed (p) from proper sources.

Well, are there any ‘proper’ sources? I mean, the only detailed accounts of his life are from Muslim sources.

However, from those sources, he would look to be someone who skilfully used religion to build up a political base, which was expanded by the people who followed him.

You may have an alternative picture, which is that the Islamic Empire grew accidently out of a series of defensive wars over a couple of hundred years, until they miraculously found themselves at the battle of Tours having no idea how they managed to get there.

Agathon wrote: »

This sums up what kind of person you are. you're confused: you don't have a clue why you're in the Islamic Forum; and you're not seeking answers!! So why are you still here! To convert some people to athesim?!!?

I think you are overestimating the effort it takes to contribute here. Indeed, I could just buzz off and read a book. Maybe I will in a minute.

I’m not seeking converts. But I am open to discuss anything that folk might be interested in. What I haven’t figured out yet is whether you are interested in such a discussion. Its clear enough that you have a flawed picture of certain things. But you may be happy enough to let those flaws lie, as your next comment suggests.

Agathon wrote: »

I never said 'miracles'; little pieces of evidence that added up and coincidentally ALL matched up with modern scientific facts. Go back to the thread and see its ending. No errors!!! What's your evidence for atheism?

But we did find errors, you simply rode past them as if they were not there. We found that the Quran incorrectly ruled out the possibility of asexual reproduction and also envisaged that the Earth was possibly flat and that most certainly the Sun rotated about it in a similar orbit to the Moon.

What constitutes ‘evidence for atheism’? I mean, to quote that old adage, we’re both atheists as regards all but one of the gods on offer. We’re both atheists in respect of Zeus. What particular evidence are you looking for?

Caoimhín

Agathon wrote: »

ignorant fools

You lost the debate before you even started with that language.

Agathon

Schuhart wrote: »

Well, are there any ‘proper’ sources? I mean, the only detailed accounts of his life are from Muslim sources.

Ok, that's resolved. You don't have any proper sources so you're assuming and imagining like your leader Dawkins. Your views could be right in the end but so could the Muslim's views... I don't we should waste any more time with that issue.

I’m not seeking converts. But I am open to discuss anything that folk might be interested in. What I haven’t figured out yet is whether you are interested in such a discussion. Its clear enough that you have a flawed picture of certain things. But you may be happy enough to let those flaws lie, as your next comment suggests.But we did find errors, you simply rode past them as if they were not there. We found that the Quran incorrectly ruled out the possibility of asexual reproduction and also envisaged that the Earth was possibly flat and that most certainly the Sun rotated about it in a similar orbit to the Moon.

Obviously you didn't go back to that thread. I sent you a link for the asexual reproduction (if you look back through it); it doesn't say 'the earth is flat' any where in the Qur'an; it doesn't say 'the sun rotated about in a similar orbit to the moon' any where in the Qur'an; but you seem to be taking an atheists views on this and looking at things from a totally different perspective (as you do when you're trying to find faults in something). Where does it actually mention these errors in the book??

What constitutes ‘evidence for atheism’? I mean, to quote that old adage, we’re both atheists as regards all but one of the gods on offer. We’re both atheists in respect of Zeus. What particular evidence are you looking for?

That the universe came about by accident; that the earth (and jupiter's protection from meteors, etc.) was placed in its position in the solar system by accident; that the first living cell came about by luck (& everything involved - DNA, RNA, etc.); that an asteroid wiped out the dinosours and left our ancestors in tact by luck; that we have developed consciousness & emotions all by mother nature's lucky roll!!!

Evidence for this, if it's not too much to ask?!

stevejazzx

Agathon wrote: »

That the universe came about by accident; that the earth (and jupiter's protection from meteors, etc.) was placed in its position in the solar system by accident; that the first living cell came about by luck (& everything involved - DNA, RNA, etc.); that an asteroid wiped out the dinosours and left our ancestors in tact by luck; that we have developed consciousness & emotions all by mother nature's lucky roll!!!

Evidence for this, if it's not too much to ask?!

That is pathetic to be honest. You criticise Schuart for his supposed lack of sources and yet you rant off like a young earther on evolution showing outrageous ignorance of it. The 'accident' you refer is one of the most uninformed arguments in the religous arsenal. The universe contains bllions of galaxies each of which contains billions of stars. The universal constants therefore become not lucky but probable in considerartion of the essentially endless galaxies and stars that exist. But even, as Dawkins classic argument goes, even if we accept your idea of chance to infer a creator (which is so painfully flawed btw) we're still with no explanation of the creator and indeed it's so difficult to explain an initial complexity this huge that our only response is that he exists outsdie of everything but somehow can interact with us; not only that but by some turn of gratuitous self fortune he is also the Christian/Muslim God.
As Dawkins says:

Dawkins wrote:

So, all those calculations with which creationists love to browbeat their naive audiences with are counter productive as the mega-astronomical odds against an entity spontaneously coming into existence by chance turn out to be exercises in eloquently shooting themselves in the foot.

---

He is not my leader by the way (I don't have one) he's just moderate Atheist who happens to be a very well respected scientist.

---

Your notions of evolutionary 'luck' you are also very mistaken, read this if you will, the sentimnet contained within is the generally agreed priniciple of the worlds greatest minds on the matter;

Miller wrote:

“[n]atural selection is a distinctly non-random process that acts as a sieve through which genetic changes are filtered.” Just as a sieve filled with various rocks will not end up filtering out its contents randomly, natural selection does not filter organisms randomly.
But how else can it be said natural selection is non-random? In The Origin of Species, Charles Darwin compares it to artificial selection. That is, when humans breed, say, dogs, for particular traits, they are applying a form of selection pressure to a phenotype (a particular dog or particular dogs). This in turn results in the great variety we see among our beloved pets. The key difference here, however, is that this form of selection had a particular goal in mind, i.e. floppy ears, sleek body, fluffy coat, wrinkly skin, etc. Humans were able to apply their foresight and consciousness to the reasoning behind the selection. Nature does not do this.
This notion that natural selection is both a non-random process and an undirected one at the same time can lead to confusion. The concept is essentially that this mechanism lends itself to increasing complexity because it builds in cumulative steps. For a step to be cumulative, it (quite obviously) must be based on the previous step. A random process does not lend itself to cumulative steps because, by definition, it is not based on anything. So in this way natural selection is non-random. But it also does not look to end in the phenotype of a tiger or a bat. It has no conscience, merely results. For this reason, it is undirected.

So before you go on about poelpe being ignorant of Islam have a look at your own posts.

Schuhart

Agathon wrote: »

Ok, that's resolved. You don't have any proper sources so you're assuming and imagining like your leader Dawkins. Your views could be right in the end but so could the Muslim's views... I don't we should waste any more time with that issue.

Erm, you do realise this kind of assertion is utterly unconvincing?

What I’m suggest to you is the Muslim sources do confirm the essential picture of Mohammed as someone who skilfully used religion as a political base. Do I take it this is why you want to move swiftly along?

Agathon wrote: »

Obviously you didn't go back to that thread. I sent you a link for the asexual reproduction (if you look back through it);

But the link you made here just tries to deny the problem. It doesn't actually refute it. It attempts to pretend that asexual organisms are actually paired.

Agathon wrote: »

it doesn't say 'the earth is flat' any where in the Qur'an; it doesn't say 'the sun rotated about in a similar orbit to the moon' any where in the Qur'an; but you seem to be taking an atheists views on this and looking at things from a totally different perspective (as you do when you're trying to find faults in something). Where does it actually mention these errors in the book??

It clearly equates the movement of the Sun and Moon and we’ve already dealt with that here. I’m greatly amused at you apply the term ‘atheists views’ to my quotes from a Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia.

Agathon wrote: »

That the universe came about by accident; that the earth (and jupiter's protection from meteors, etc.) was placed in its position in the solar system by accident; that the first living cell came about by luck (& everything involved - DNA, RNA, etc.); that an asteroid wiped out the dinosours and left our ancestors in tact by luck; that we have developed consciousness & emotions all by mother nature's lucky roll!!!

Evidence for this, if it's not too much to ask?!

So you’re arguing for a God of the gaps. If there’s something we don’t understand, we should immediately assume that this is because some all-powerful God did it.

I’ve formed the opinion that you have no interest in rational argument. Nevertheless, I’ll give you this quote from a contemporary Muslim cosmologist who (IMHO) convincing dismissing the approach to religious knowledge that you espouse.

In the Middle Ages,the distance to God's throne was “measured” by the Arab astronomer al-Farghani to 120 million km, under simple assumptions on the properties of the planetary spheres in the paradigm of the Ptolemaic cosmology. This ``spatial horizon'' was eventually evacuated by the scientific revolution of the Renaissance and the emergence of the Newtonian paradigm. In a simplistic interpretation of the standard Big--Bang model, which has been rather fashionable during the last decades, God takes place at the horizonof the singularity t=0 and at the ``particle horizon'' located 15 billion light-years from us. Now, it is indeed possible that quantum cosmology will evacuate the notion of an initial singularity.The universe might have emerged as a quantum fluctuation of the vacuum. Moreover, according to the theory of chaotic inflation, our observable universe is only a bubble located somewhere in an infinite number of ``patches'' of the physical universe, which could even have different values for the constants of nature. Is there still a ``place'' for God if the universe emerges from a random fluctuation of ``nothing'', if it has no spatial and temporal boundaries, if the constants themselves could have any value?

Clearly, the writer of that still sees a place for a divinity, even as human understanding removes the need for supernatural explanation for things that we thought were beyond our understanding.

Go your own way. But you're setting yourself up for a fall.

Agathon

stevejazzx wrote: »

That is pathetic to be honest. You criticise Schuart for his supposed lack of sources and yet you rant off like a young earther on evolution showing outrageous ignorance of it. The 'accident' you refer is one of the most uninformed arguments in the religous arsenal. The universe contains bllions of galaxies each of which contains billions of stars. The universal constants therefore become not lucky but probable in considerartion of the essentially endless galaxies and stars that exist. But even, as Dawkins classic argument goes, even if we accept your idea of chance to infer a creator (which is so painfully flawed btw) we're still with no explanation of the creator and indeed it's so difficult to explain an initial complexity this huge that our only response is that he exists outsdie of everything but somehow can interact with us; not only that but by some turn of gratuitous self fortune he is also the Christian/Muslim God. ...

---

He is not my leader by the way (I don't have one) he's just moderate Atheist who happens to be a very well respected scientist.

---

Dawkins is a moderate?!? That's a good one. He's the most fundamental, religion-hating Atheist there is out there, spawning a new generation of anti-theists! Dawkins has evolved into a phony scientist; He might've published one good scientific book (selfish gene) but after reading 'Climbing Mount Improbable' he comes across as a man with a very rich imagination (instead of a true scientist). And 'the God Delusion' totally destroyed his scientific credibility! What the heck is a scientist doing speaking about god?!?

... And so what if the Creator would have to be an unbelievably complex being? Does that mean it's improbable -- The main thing is the Creator is Infinite (something which you find impossible to comprehend) but it doesn't mean it's untrue.

Your notions of evolutionary 'luck' you are also very mistaken, read this if you will, the sentimnet contained within is the generally agreed priniciple of the worlds greatest minds on the matter;

I'm not talking about natural selection. My main questions were aimed at things like:
How did these universal (physical) forces come into existence in the first place?; how did the first cell come into existence in the first place? The probability is actually against you, not ,as you would like to believe, with you!

So before you go on about poelpe being ignorant of Islam have a look at your own posts.

I've read many books on evolution. I agree with some things, but perplexed about some issues (like the beginning of the universe, etc.) like a lot of scientists.

doolox

I would have been prepared to live in peace with Islam until the Taliban destroyed the statues of Buddha in Afghanistan.
Although there is a 1400 yr history of hatred between Christian and Muslim I didn't realise there was a similar hatred between Buddhists and Muslim.

What is so threatening about Buddhism that made the Taliban react in such a way?

Is there a militant side to Buddhism that I am not aware of or is it a peaceful religion?

After that action I am very wary of Islam.

Agathon

Schuhart wrote: »

Erm, you do realise this kind of assertion is utterly unconvincing? What I’m suggest to you is the Muslim sources do confirm the essential picture of Mohammed as someone who skilfully used religion as a political base. Do I take it this is why you want to move swiftly along?

Give me one example of this from sources? - The picture I get from the sources is that Muhammed (p) was never after worldly power or riches. He was just trying to get a simple message, like the other Messengers before him (i.e. One Creator, be good to thy neighbour, etc.) to the idol-worshippers and stray people of the time (and for the rest of time, as he is the final Messenger).

...the link you made here just tries to deny the problem. It doesn't actually refute it. It attempts to pretend that asexual organisms are actually paired.It clearly equates the movement of the Sun and Moon and we’ve already dealt with that here. I’m greatly amused at you apply the term ‘atheists views’ to my quotes from a Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia.

The good sheik evidently holds the Copernican theory...

This is his views in the end. The Qur'an is timeless and only Allah knows the nature of some of the things contained in it. But when we try to argue for some things in it we have to find something clearly being stated (i.e. 'We created a flat earth for you' or 'Do you not see how the sun and moon revolve around the earth' or 'we created you from iron!' etc. You're not pointing out where it says these things in the Qur'an. Muslims don't agree with anybody who contradicts the Qur'an or Sunnah (regardless of his high status). As far as I can see, this Mufti should not have been speaking about things he has no knowledge about, but again this his theories.

Now I ask you the question, without interpretation, does this verse say anything about the earth being flat:

YUSUFALI: "'And Allah has made the earth for you as a carpet (spread out),

This is speaking about the earth being laid out under you like a carpet. It's not about the planet in the universe. It's merely saying we have laid a solid ground under you to walk on... It doesn't need special interpretation like some other verses. The sheikh is a human and has made a mistake in his judgements.

So you’re arguing for a God of the gaps. If there’s something we don’t understand, we should immediately assume that this is because some all-powerful God did it.

Again, no I'm not arguing for the god of the gaps. I'm perplexed about the beginning of the universe, the first cell, etc. Are you not? These things WILL never be found out (for as long as we live) ... So you wait for these gaps to be resloved soon.

Go your own way. But you're setting yourself up for a fall.

In what way will I fall. We all die the same death in the end. I'll be in the same boat as you ... but not for long!!!

stevejazzx

Agathon wrote: »

Dawkins is a moderate?!? That's a good one. He's the most fundamental, religion-hating Atheist there is out there, spawning a new generation of anti-theists!

He hates what religon can cuase not religous people. He has always made this clear. You dislike him becasue of his passion about his belief.

And 'the God Delusion' totally destroyed his scientific credibility! What the heck is a scientist doing speaking about god?!?

Giving his well informed opinion...?

My main questions were aimed at things like:
How did these universal (physical) forces come into existence in the first place?; how did the first cell come into existence in the first place?

So your answer is a God. A particular type of God with a religous bias imposed on eathlings. How did you get there? The God who created the universe, matter, space and time is a God with religon on his mind? That is just absolutely bizzare.

I've read many books on evolution. I agree with some things, but perplexed about some issues (like the beginning of the universe, etc.) like a lot of scientists.

So don't go for the easy answer becasue it is harder to solve in the long run.

Agathon

doolox wrote: »

I would have been prepared to live in peace with Islam until the Taliban destroyed the statues of Buddha in Afghanistan.
Although there is a 1400 yr history of hatred between Christian and Muslim I didn't realise there was a similar hatred between Buddhists and Muslim.

There has never been any 'real' hatred between Islam and Judaism, Christianity or Buddhism; but the propaganda always give a bad image of Islamic history, or any other religion for that matter, i.e., if you search you will even find a militant side to Buddhism from the vicious media (& internet!):
http://www.spiritual-teachers.com/articles/isbudhism.htm

What is so threatening about Buddhism that made the Taliban react in such a way? ...
After that action I am very wary of Islam.

I didn't agree with the Taliban's actions when it happened; These statues were there before the prophet (p) and no Islamic leader has ever touched them. The taliban turned into an extreme Islamic group, like many other Islamic groups in the last two or three centuries. But in saying that, I also didn't agree with the American invasion of Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. And so my friend, we all have to live in a violent world whether we like it or not!

Agathon

stevejazzx wrote: »

He hates what religon can cuase not religous people. He has always made this clear. You dislike him becasue of his passion about his belief.

I don't dislike him. I just don't agree with his views. Him, Hutchins and the like: They make it clear they despise religious people (because of their utter ignorance) comparing them to mentalists, etc. Why are you defending him so much if he's not your leader!?! - only joking ... Can you not see that his remarks are vicious and patronizing?? He hates religious people deep down (and the same with Hutchins and a lot of anti-theists). They don't understand how people can come to accept belief in God.

So your answer is a God. A particular type of God with a religous bias imposed on eathlings. How did you get there? The God who created the universe, matter, space and time is a God with religon on his mind? That is just absolutely bizzare.

Well I got there by researching religions, different scriptures and coming to the conclusion that deep down there's a consistent message throughout the history of mankind. The Creator has created humans for a purpose. He has created every single thing in the universe for a purpose (galaxies, forces, nature, evolution, chaos, happiness, emotions, etc.) Everything about us is limited (our sight, hearing, and even imaginings/mind) and this is the reason why we find it impossible to comprehend a Creator or another existence after we die!

So don't go for the easy answer because it is harder to solve in the long run.

Well, it's not really the easy answer. Why would I go for the easy answer?? - I think atheism is actually the easier answer (no responsibilities, no care in the world). Why would I choose to be restricted in some of my desires(alcohol, free sex any time, etc.)??? Believe me, it's not the easier answer. (And these scientific questions will never be solved experimentally; already tried, tested & gone beyond; it's a matter of faith for the both of us!!)

Schuhart

doolox wrote: »

What is so threatening about Buddhism that made the Taliban react in such a way?

As I understand it, the Taliban’s actions were motivated as Islam had a traditional hostility to idolatry. This seemed to be rooted in its origins – Mohammed (put simply) was replacing a number of individual tribal religions with his faith. Each of those tribes would have had its own totem, and these would be the people that (on Mohammed’s return to Mecca) were given the chance to either convert or die. The Quran is more tolerant of ‘People of the Book’, meaning Jews and Christians.

So I don’t think that there is any especial hostility towards Buddhism per se (other than them not being People of the Book), although Buddhism did suffer along with Hinduism in the Muslim invasions of India. There are stories of Buddhist temples being massacred, with Muslim accounts claiming they mistook them for fortresses (as Islam demands that non-combatants should not be killed).

On the Taliban, it is fair to point out that many Muslim scholars did protest about the destruction of the statues in Afghanistan, correctly seeing it as an action that would harm perceptions of the faith. The Taliban represent a particularly ‘doctrinaire’ version of Islam.

Agathon wrote: »

Give me one example of this from sources? - The picture I get from the sources is that Muhammed (p) was never after worldly power or riches. He was just trying to get a simple message, like the other Messengers before him (i.e. One Creator, be good to thy neighbour, etc.) to the idol-worshippers and stray people of the time (and for the rest of time, as he is the final Messenger).

Perhaps, but is the accepted account of his life not that he fled Mecca to Medina, built up his strength there. Having defeated a Meccan army (sent presumably as he was becoming strong enough to be a threat) he returned to Mecca and took over, issuing an ultimatum to his former enemies. Along the way, he dealt decisively with tribes that threatened his position. (I have the story of the Banu Qurayza in mind here – I assume it will be familiar to you.)

I know I'm leaving out a lot of detail, but isn’t that basically the story?

Agathon wrote: »

You're not pointing out where it says these things in the Qur'an.

I have very clearly stated some relevant verses from the Quran in the other thread. I don’t see the point of repeating them here because you are denying what they very clearly say.

Agathon wrote: »

Now I ask you the question, without interpretation, does this verse say anything about the earth being flat:

Well, saying the Earth is laid out like a carpet certainly does seem to suggest its flat. And the verses equating the movements of the Sun and Moon could hardly be clearer.

Agathon wrote: »

Again, no I'm not arguing for the god of the gaps. I'm perplexed about the beginning of the universe, the first cell, etc. Are you not? These things WILL never be found out (for as long as we live) ... So you wait for these gaps to be resloved soon.

So you start by saying you’re not arguing for a god of the gaps, and then say that’s exactly what you propose. Because we don’t know everything, we must assume god is the explanation for whatever we don’t definitively know.

Indeed, I do wonder about the beginning of the Universe. However, I very clearly see that inventing a god is not a solution as it doesn’t explain where he came from. In fact, as far as I’m concerned, saying the universe is here because god made it so is exactly the same as saying ‘I don’t know’. I actually don’t understand how anyone feels that this is a solution.

I can understand people adopting a religion to satisfy immediate social needs, like getting a basis for morality. But religion simply doesn’t add to our understanding of the material world and how it got here.

Agathon wrote: »

In what way will I fall. We all die the same death in the end. I'll be in the same boat as you ... but not for long!!!

Tut tut. I rather thought that Allah would be deciding whether you are in the same boat as me.

The way I see you falling is because your expectation that the Quran is error free in its material knowledge is unsustainable, and I doubt if you’ll allow yourself to pretend otherwise forever. I already made this point in the other thread.

Agathon

Schuhart wrote: »

As I understand it, the Taliban’s actions were motivated as Islam had a traditional hostility to idolatry. This seemed to be rooted in its origins – Mohammed (put simply) was replacing a number of individual tribal religions with his faith. Each of those tribes would have had its own totem, and these would be the people that (on Mohammed’s return to Mecca) were given the chance to either convert or die. The Quran is more tolerant of ‘People of the Book’, meaning Jews and Christians. So I don’t think that there is any especial hostility towards Buddhism per se (other than them not being People of the Book), although Buddhism did suffer along with Hinduism in the Muslim invasions of India. There are stories of Buddhist temples being massacred, with Muslim accounts claiming they mistook them for fortresses (as Islam demands that non-combatants should not be killed).

Again you have waffled without putting any reference of where you got this information from. These are your biased views (and we don't have one source here to verify them). You keep repeating yourself by saying Islam was spread by the sword, very violently destroyed other beliefs (a part from the people of the book), etc., without the slightest bit of evidence from historical sources. In fact, Islam being spread by the sword or true Muslims killing of innocents or forcing people to the religion is the biggest misconception in Islam. To get an introduction on this misconception, check this link out:
http://www.jannah.org/articles/misc.html

...And yes I know it's the first link I googled, but most Muslims couldn't be bothered writing their own views (repeating themselves to those who don't research truthfully; when they're laid out here!)

On the Taliban, it is fair to point out that many Muslim scholars did protest about the destruction of the statues in Afghanistan, correctly seeing it as an action that would harm perceptions of the faith. The Taliban represent a particularly ‘doctrinaire’ version of Islam.Perhaps, but is the accepted account of his life not that he fled Mecca to Medina, built up his strength there. Having defeated a Meccan army (sent presumably as he was becoming strong enough to be a threat) he returned to Mecca and took over, issuing an ultimatum to his former enemies. Along the way, he dealt decisively with tribes that threatened his position. (I have the story of the Banu Qurayza in mind here – I assume it will be familiar to you.)

You start off well in your analysis of the Taliban and Muslim scholars protesting (for once a bit of truth, & threw in why they might've done it!) but then start explaining your vision/perspective on the Seerah (biography) of the Prophet (p). Read the actual seerah from an Islamic perspective and then read it from a historians perspective and then come to a conclusion. But you have again given your views, without a reference from a historical book (or encyclopaedia or even a link)

The Banu Qurayza story should be looked at reasonably, as you would any war situation throughout the history of mankind: Context of the event, history of the Muslims, Jews and Christians in Arabia, and the pacts that were taken. The Jewish leaders broke a well-known pact, to try and destroy Islam (it's like a group of terrorists turning against a government nowadays, during war!); They committed an act of treason, which is a serious crime even it today's civilized states (UK, USA, etc.); the command to punish did not actually come from Prophet Mohammed (p); the orders came from a leader of the Banu Qurazy who said according to the laws of Torah Talmud that men and women should be killed. But the Prophet(p) punished only the men, because of his mercy, and to show an example. Muhammed (P) was a leader in every sense of the word. War is a part of life (defending one's country, protection of the citizens of the land, etc.) but you seem to take the violent parts of Islam out of context. Could you please post a link of where you got this story or the chapters of Muhammed (p) in Medina please, because you have ignored the context?

I have very clearly stated some relevant verses from the Quran in the other thread. I don’t see the point of repeating them here because you are denying what they very clearly say. Well, saying the Earth is laid out like a carpet certainly does seem to suggest its flat. And the verses equating the movements of the Sun and Moon could hardly be clearer.

Ok, so you believe this ayah is clear that the earth is flat? It is merely saying: 'We have made the earth as a carpet for you'; you as an individual walk in a field or on a path as if it is laid out like a carpet for you. What other way can you say that?? Why have you blocked simple language out of your head here? It makes perfect sense if you read it in any book. It's not saying the earth is flat!!!
'He created the moon and sun, and each is swimming in an orbit'. How is this equating to the sun and moon revolving around the earth. Where's the earth even mentioned? It never says anything about the earth being fixed or rotating in the Qur'an full stop. Why do you read the Qur'an without clearing your head of prejudice (and look at it neutrally)?

So you start by saying you’re not arguing for a god of the gaps, and then say that’s exactly what you propose. Because we don’t know everything, we must assume god is the explanation for whatever we don’t definitively know.

I believe that Muhammed (p) came with a true message and that message is in the Qur'an. The fact that we don't have answers for the beginning does not really affect my belief. But I said we will never find out scientifically what really happened (before the big bang or in the primordial earth)

I can understand people adopting a religion to satisfy immediate social needs, like getting a basis for morality. But religion simply doesn’t add to our understanding of the material world and how it got here.

Religion, if understood correctly, should cover every sphere of our existence, whether moral or material, including science, politics, philosophy, etc.

Islam, if understood properly and studied from the core, covers every single aspect of existence. Just because you don't understand one issue, it doesn't mean it is wrong. Research a bit more my friend, with an open mind.

The way I see you falling is because your expectation that the Quran is error free in its material knowledge is unsustainable, and I doubt if you’ll allow yourself to pretend otherwise forever. I already made this point in the other thread.

You have not pointed out one clear error yet! I've already explained above the so-called errors you've pointed out; and if you look back at the other thread there are other so-called errors refuted. And I'm not being stubborn; the ayat you give don't add up to actual errors (only your interpretation or spin)

Bottle_of_Smoke

Agathon wrote: »

Why is longivity childish? It's the process of how classics and masterpiece works are based on. For example, the classics studied in school, college, and at university level. Furthermore, so-called Musical Legends such as John Lennon, Bob Dylan, Cat Stevens, the Beatles, Frank Sinatra, etc. To be really great (according to materialism) you must last in the eyes of humans (live forever, as oasis put it)! Is this not true?? Muhammed (p) has done an excellent job of it as an illiterate Arab in the middle of the desert (barbaric lands) while the educated, so-called intellectual elite of the modern era will definitely be forgotten... Why should I or any other Muslim care if Hutchins or Dawkins write their stupid views in a book?! Only fools follow them anyway.

It's childish because of the examples I gave. Which you've just ignored. This is like talking to Islam's answer to Gareth37

Galvasean

Agathon wrote: »

I've read many books on evolution. I agree with some things, but perplexed about some issues (like the beginning of the universe, etc.) like a lot of scientists.

Just taught I'd mention that the theory of evolution does not attempt to explain the beginning of the universe. That is a very common misconception.

Agathon

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

It's childish because of the examples I gave. Which you've just ignored: ... It's a childish response and argues longitivity means we should respect. How long did people think the world was flat? Sun Gods are still talked about, does it mean they're real? It's like saying Westlife are more talented than Brendan Behan because they've sold more records.

You can look at it both ways. Those things you've mentioned have been destroyed by time (and so has the Bible & hindu Scriptures for me). Westlife will not be remembered, like the Beatles or Bob Dylan, in a hundred years time? I didn't say anything about selling more records. I'm basically saying, so far the Qur'an is still perfect and will be for a very long time, increasing its followers as it goes along, whether you like it or not!!! Hitchins' book?? - only anti-theists have probably read it (same thrash as any other anti-theist's book; theological/philosophical opinions from a guy without a degree in philosophy or theology)

Agathon

Galvasean wrote: »

Just taught I'd mention that the theory of evolution does not attempt to explain the beginning of the universe. That is a very common misconception.

The theory of relativity reveals that our cosmos is not static. Edwin Hubble demonstrated in 1928 that the universe is expanding showing beyond reasonable doubt that the Universe sprang into being a finite time ago. The most common contemporary interpretation of this expansion is that this began to exist from the moment of the Big Bang some 13.7 billion years ago. OK, is this not how the theory evolution begins in it's explanation of the beginning?? And then continues to try to explain how the first life form came into existence (origin of life question)?? What school did you study evolution in?!? Forget about Hubble's experiments, there have been some experiments by some famous scientists which are still mentioned in school books, even though they're failures: Stanly Miller's famous origin of life experiment; Fox's experiments; RNA world probabilities; etc. These are what I'm talking about. Not what happened before the big bang (even though that question should also be solved)

Schuhart

Agathon wrote: »

Again you have waffled without putting any reference of where you got this information from. These are your biased views (and we don't have one source here to verify them).

In fairness, I was simply answering a poster who was asking if there was some special hostility against Buddhism. My answer was that there essentially isn’t.

Are you contesting any actual point of fact in what I say? If memory serves, the stuff about the assaults on temples came from a history of Buddhism I read a while back. The rest of the stuff – about the hostility between the followers of Mohammed and the ‘idolators’ – I would have thought was pretty mundane. I’m sure its covered in Malise Ruthven’s “Islam in the World”, and lots of other sources.

Are you suggesting that Islam doesn’t have a traditional strong taboo about religious images? I’ve a feel you are needlessly requesting sources for stuff that really isn’t contestable.

Agathon wrote: »

You keep repeating yourself by saying Islam was spread by the sword, very violently destroyed other beliefs (a part from the people of the book), etc., without the slightest bit of evidence from historical sources. In fact, Islam being spread by the sword or true Muslims killing of innocents or forcing people to the religion is the biggest misconception in Islam. To get an introduction on this misconception, check this link out:
http://www.jannah.org/articles/misc.html

That link is evasive. Indeed, Islam had quite civilised standards for warfare for its time. The idea that women of defeated enemies could be taken and raped is probably no different to what anyone else did, and the idea that any captive woman made pregnant had to be married is probably (in the context of the time) unusually enlightened. Yet to deny the plain fact that a Muslim empire grew by conquest is simply fantasy. Indeed, people have said that for much of its history Muslim-ruled Spain was a more tolerant regime than the Inquistion created when the Spanish managed to regain control of their country. But pretending that Muslim rule wasn’t a result of invasion is surely too much.

Agathon wrote: »

Read the actual seerah from an Islamic perspective and then read it from a historians perspective and then come to a conclusion.

But what, substantially, will be different to the very brief account that I’ve stated?

Agathon wrote: »

The Jewish leaders broke a well-known pact, to try and destroy Islam (it's like a group of terrorists turning against a government nowadays, during war!);

I’m aware that’s the usual explanation given. But can you not see that the significance of these events (and others in Mohammed’s life, like the return to Mecca) show him as engaged in political power struggles. This makes your statement that Muhammed (p) was never after worldly power or riches impossible to reconcile with the facts of his life. Indeed, is it not the case that several of Mohammed’s many marriages were for political reasons. Not strange for a political leader of his time – but impossible to reconcile with your view of him as untouched by worldly concerns.

Agathon wrote: »

'We have made the earth as a carpet for you'; you as an individual walk in a field or on a path as if it is laid out like a carpet for you. What other way can you say that??

I don’t see, taking your interpretation for a moment, how the words ‘laid out like a carpet’ adds to our understanding of the idea. What do you think its trying to say beyond ‘we made the Earth for you’.

Agathon wrote: »

It never says anything about the earth being fixed or rotating in the Qur'an full stop. Why do you read the Qur'an without clearing your head of prejudice (and look at it neutrally)?

Right back at you. You are well aware of the other verses that make it clear what we are supposed to make of this equation of the orbits of Sun and Moon. We already dealt with this in the other thread. I’m not expecting you to acknowledge the facts of the matter. I’m simply confident that any unbiased observer will agree with me as to the plain meaning of those verses.

Agathon wrote: »

The fact that we don't have answers for the beginning does not really affect my belief.

I expect that is the situation. Can I point out you are the one who originally suggested that uncertainty about the origin of the universe is a basis for theism. I’m glad we can now agree that it isn’t.

Agathon wrote: »

Religion, if understood correctly, should cover every sphere of our existence, whether moral or material, including science, politics, philosophy, etc.

Maybe in a ethical sense. But religion doesn’t explain material facts.

Agathon wrote: »

I'm not being stubborn; the ayat you give don't add up to actual errors (only your interpretation or spin)

You are being stubborn. The Quran’s geocentric conception of the universe is crystal clear, and its insistence that all living forms reproduce in pairs is wrong too. The link you provided on asexual reproduction confirms the Quran is saying there must be pairs involved in all reproduction – it just tries to pretend pairs are always involved. This simply isn’t the case. The scholars who wrote that article are simply lying to you, because the alternative is admitting the Quran is clearly wrong on a point of fact.

Agathon

Schuhart, I've seen your full video about Ken Miller's views (and I must admit he's a very nice, honest scientist who has convinced me about my misconceptions). I'd like you to watch a short video about Muhammed (p) and to study the Prophet's life without prejudice or hatred in your heart. I'm not trying to convert you here, but this may clear a small percentage of your misconception about the prophet Muhammed(p) and Islamic violence. I know it's in Arabic (with subtitles) but it's not biased...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_m9lnsZ8lXk&feature=related

Give references when you write about Muhammed (p) or Islamic violence, instead of spreading your negative views/propaganda.

Galvasean

Agathon wrote: »

The theory of relativity reveals that our cosmos is not static. Edwin Hubble demonstrated in 1928 that the universe is expanding showing beyond reasonable doubt that the Universe sprang into being a finite time ago. The most common contemporary interpretation of this expansion is that this began to exist from the moment of the Big Bang some 13.7 billion years ago. OK, is this not how the theory evolution begins in it's explanation of the beginning??

No it isn't. The theory of evolution does not discuss such matters.

Agathon wrote: »

And then continues to try to explain how the first life form came into existence (origin of life question)??

Evolution does not attempt to explain how the first life form came into existence. Abiogenesis (a separate theory) is worth looking up if taht is what you want to know about.

Agathon wrote: »

What school did you study evolution in?!?

I have read Darwin's origin of species book. If you have read it too you should have noticed how the book does not attempt to explain the origin of the universe or the origin of the first life form.
The theory of evolution deals with the emergence of new species from pre-existing ones.

Agathon wrote: »

Forget about Hubble's experiments, there have been some experiments by some famous scientists which are still mentioned in school books, even though they're failures: Stanly Miller's famous origin of life experiment; Fox's experiments; RNA world probabilities; etc. These are what I'm talking about.

Again, nothing to do with the theory of evolution.

Schuhart

Agathon wrote: »

OK, is this not how the theory evolution begins in it's explanation of the beginning?? And then continues to try to explain how the first life form came into existence (origin of life question)??

As Galvasean says, this is a common misconception. It came up before a while back. Put quickly, Darwin's book was "The Origin of Species" not "The Origin of Life". He wasn't trying to explain how life started. He was just trying to explain why life came in so many varieties.

Agathon

Galvasean wrote: »

No it isn't. The theory of evolution does not discuss such matters ... Again, nothing to do with the theory of evolution.

Ok, I'll admit I haven't actually read 'origin of species' (seems like more of a reference book than one you'd read from cover to cover) but the books on evolution I have read mention these matters: Dawkin's books (Climbing Mount Improbable, etc.), Evolution, a short introduction, etc. I suppose they have to touch on these issues. Have you only read Charles Darwin's book on evolution? What do you think of Dawkins' books. He seems to tie origin of life with the theory of evolution (and in fact ties every sphere of life with the theory of evolution!) But you're right, I don't think Darwin intended the theory of evolution to 'evolve' into Dawkins' theories (the top of the tree - how the first life form came about) OUR MYSTICAL ANCESTOR

Schuhart

Agathon wrote: »

I'd like you to watch a short video about Muhammed (p) and to study the Prophet's life without prejudice or hatred in your heart. I'm not trying to convert you here, but this may clear a small percentage of your misconception about the prophet Muhammed(p) and Islamic violence. I know it's in Arabic (with subtitles) but it's not biased...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_m9lnsZ8lXk&feature=related`

I've watched it but, unfortunately, I don't see much about his life in it. Mostly its a collection of quotes from past and present thinkers saying nice things about Muhammed. It doesn't actually say anything about the facts of his life.

Bear in mind, I would be capable of saying things like 'Muhammed was ahead of his time'. I actually already acknowledged that his policy on female captives was probably enlightened for his time - and I can recall reading how the Muslim side was appalled during the Crusades at how the Crusaders would kill everyone when they besieged a city, which was the normal practice in Europe at that time. I'm simply pointing out that he very clearly merged religion and politics to create a formidible power base, that was expanded by his successors.

I'm afraid that to deny these plain facts is to deny reality.

Agathon wrote: »

Give references when you write about Muhammed (p) or Islamic violence, instead of spreading your negative views/propaganda.

Well, I think I've already mentioned Malise Ruthven's book several times. Its a scholarly account by a mainstream academic. I've read several other books about Islam, but I don't think I've said anything here that would be so obscure as to not be in Ruthven's book. That said, I don't recall him saying anything about the conquests in India, so as I said that may be from a history of Buddhism that I read.

But are you actually contesting any point of fact? Are you actually saying the Muslim conquests never happened, or are you just saying that, as conquerers go, Muslims were far nicer to the folk they invaded?

Galvasean

Agathon wrote: »

Ok, I'll admit I haven't actually read 'origin of species' (seems like more of a reference book than one you'd read from cover to cover)

I'd recommend it, even if only to clarify what evolutionary theory is and is not about.

Agathon wrote: »

but the books on evolution I have read mention these matters: Dawkin's books (Climbing Mount Improbable, etc.), Evolution, a short introduction, etc. I suppose they have to touch on these issues.

I haven't read either of those books. I should hope they mention the point that evolution is a separate theory from the other ideas.

Agathon wrote: »

Have you only read Charles Darwin's book on evolution?

I have also read:
Almost Like A Whale by Steve Jones - an update of the Origin of Species - might be worth a look. However it is a bit technical and perhaps overly long.
Why Do Elephants Have Big Ears? by Chris Lavers - This is a good book for giving explanations about certain questions about evolution, such as the one in the title.
Darwin's Gift To Science And Religion by Francisco J. Ayala - I would strongly recommend this one to you if you wish to continue looking into evolutionary theory. It outlines how evolution is not at odds with religion and how the two can co-exist.

Agathon wrote: »

What do you think of Dawkins' books. He seems to tie origin of life with the theory of evolution (and in fact ties every sphere of life with the theory of evolution!)

By Dawkins I have only read The God Delusion. I found myself to agree with nearly everything in the book (as an atheist). Although as with all such books it comes across as being very one-sided and biased.
I saw Dawkins' recent TV program about evolution and was a bit disappointed how he portrayed evolution as a substitute for God, when that is not necessarily the case.

Agathon wrote: »

OUR MYSTICAL ANCESTOR

Which one do you refer to may I ask?

Agathon

Schuhart wrote: »

...I'm simply pointing out that he very clearly merged religion and politics to create a formidible power base, that was expanded by his successors. I'm afraid that to deny these plain facts is to deny reality.Well, I think I've already mentioned Malise Ruthven's book several times. Its a scholarly account by a mainstream academic.

I have to definitely read that book now! You're a good salesperson!!

I've read several other books about Islam, but I don't think I've said anything here that would be so obscure as to not be in Ruthven's book. That said, I don't recall him saying anything about the conquests in India, so as I said that may be from a history of Buddhism that I read.

What other Islamic books have you read?

But are you actually contesting any point of fact? Are you actually saying the Muslim conquests never happened, or are you just saying that, as conquerers go, Muslims were far nicer to the folk they invaded?

No, I'm speaking about the prophet (p). He came as a Mercy, and what happened after he died (p) is debatable. I believe, that Muhammed (p) never ordered the killing of innocents, never destroyed temples, never hit his wives, never forced anybody into the religion, etc. He was the best example to his people. And if his people didn't follow his example that's not his fault. I'll look through the reference you have given me and discuss again some time in the future.

You are being stubborn. The Quran’s geocentric conception of the universe is crystal clear, and its insistence that all living forms reproduce in pairs is wrong too. The link you provided on asexual reproduction confirms the Quran is saying there must be pairs involved in all reproduction – it just tries to pretend pairs are always involved. This simply isn’t the case. The scholars who wrote that article are simply lying to you, because the alternative is admitting the Quran is clearly wrong on a point of fact.

How is the Quran's geocentric conception crystal clear? I have never noticed it before (and study & recite the Qur'an at least once a year in Arabic & English).

The Qur'an does not even mention 'pairs involved in reproduction' It merely states: '...And everything was created in pairs' (surah 51, ayah 49) or 'We created you in pairs' (surah 78, ayah 8). This could mean everything in the universe has it's opposite/polarity, etc.; Nothing to do with the link you quoted, which mentions a female shark?! There's male and female sharks!!

Agathon

Galvasean wrote: »

Which one do you refer to may I ask?

The main one? The first one that sprang into existence from nothing (or something, or whatever?) The very top of the tree. Or was there many trees?

Galvasean

Agathon wrote: »

The main one? The first one that sprang into existence from nothing (or something, or whatever?) The very top of the tree. Or was there many trees?

Oh right. I suppose that creature would be considered the bottom of the tree of life. a simple, single celled organism most likely.

Schuhart

Agathon wrote: »

I have to definitely read that book now! You're a good salesperson!!

I hope it doesn’t disappoint.

Agathon wrote: »

What other Islamic books have you read?

I’d have to check the library shelf to get titles. I remember one by Bernard Lewis and another by Andrew Wheatcroft called “Infidels” basically about wars between Christianity and Islam. (not to mention the Quran for Dummies one, which is actually perfectly fine apart from his howler over the Sun’s orbit). But Malise Ruthven’s was the best – he doesn’t come across as having any bias. I think he is trying to simply describe the religion and its history.

Agathon wrote: »

How is the Quran's geocentric conception crystal clear? I have never noticed it before (and study & recite the Qur'an at least once a year in Arabic & English).

I’ve done no more than browsed through the Penguin translation. Yet it seems to me pretty clear that the stuff about the Sun not passing out the Moon and going to a resting place basically mean geocentric. There’s nothing strange about that, as there was no particular reason to think otherwise at the time.

Can I suggest we both could probably list the passages concerned. You could very likely list a few more that I don’t know about.

Agathon wrote: »

The Qur'an does not even mention 'pairs involved in reproduction' It merely states: '...And everything was created in pairs' (surah 51, ayah 49) or 'We created you in pairs' (surah 78, ayah 8). This could mean everything in the universe has it's opposite/polarity, etc.; Nothing to do with the link you quoted, which mentions a female shark?! There's male and female sharks!!

Indeed, except the link you provided seems to accept the essential concept – its simply seeking to avoid the fact that stuff reproduces alone.

You’ll understand, the shark is just one example exceptional for its species. There are organisms that simply reproduce alone.

And then, of course, we also have hermaphrodites.