Religion v Reason

[The Cadet]

She's serious. I'm just not sure if you're serious about your views on Islam.

Islam is a harmful religion that needs to modernize or die out. It has nothing of value to offer the modern world. This doesn't mean that Taqqiya means that muslims get to lie about whatever they want to further the religion. -_-

 

[Radagast]

Catholicism (the most popular religion in the world) is riddled with dogmatic rules.

Such as?

... resurrections, walking on water, turning water into wine, etc...

There are written accounts from people who saw those things happen. How much weight you put on those accounts is up to you, but they are tangible.

I'm not trying to insult anyone by saying that, just merely stating a fact.

When you say "fact," it seems that you mean "opinion."

that doesn't change the fact that their belief in those things lack scientific backing.

Most events in history "lack scientific backing." However, historical backing is more relevant.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

There are written accounts from people who saw those things happen. How much weight you put on those accounts is up to you, but they are tangible.

How much weight should we give those accounts, given that there are so many across various religions?

 

[The Cadet]

There are written accounts from people who saw those things happen. How much weight you put on those accounts is up to you, but they are tangible.

I put absolutely no weight on them, and Nihilist Virus was kind enough to point out why:

And it's absurd to believe that aliens have visited earth.

No amount of testimony would convince me that my grandmother rose from her grave. No amount of testimony would convince me that a man ate a blue flower and then started skating around on ice plates over lava like it was the Freezeflame Galaxy. No amount of people saying so would convince me that London suddenly vanished overnight, leaving behind very little evidence of it ever having existing. It would take more than just people saying so. Why is the say-so of people in an ancient book written thousands of years ago good enough for you to accept claims like "a man rose from the dead" or "a man walked on water" or "a man turned water into wine"? And if so, are the claims of people today who assert that they were abducted by aliens, or saw bigfoot worth taking seriously without any concurrent evidence?

 

[Radagast]

I put absolutely no weight on them

OK, let's pick something less emotional: do you believe Julius Caesar existed? Do you believe he was stabbed on the 15th of March, 44 BC? Why, or why not?

 

[The Cadet]

OK, let's pick something less emotional: do you believe Julius Caesar existed? Do you believe he was stabbed on the 15th of March, 44 BC? Why, or why not?

I certainly believe Caesar existed. The historical evidence for that is overwhelming. The stabbing? I'd have to do more research, but it is certainly what I was taught on the subject - dunno how strong the actual evidence is there.

But even assuming that the evidence base was somehow comparable (it's not)... People exist. Emperors exist. Emperors are murdered. These things happen. It requires no invention of the supernatural of the paranormal. It also makes very little difference to my life, or indeed anyone else's. Those are all significant and relevant differences to, say, alien abduction or the Christ mythos.

 

[Radagast]

I certainly believe Caesar existed. The historical evidence for that is overwhelming. The stabbing? I'd have to do more research, but it is certainly what I was taught on the subject - dunno how strong the actual evidence is there.

Ah, so you do accept historical evidence. The debate, presumably, is over how much is sufficient. However, wherever that line gets drawn, the use of historical evidence does not run counter to reason.

Nevertheless I'm bowing out of this thread, because it's obviously a "lets attack Christians" thread rather than a clear-headed or polite debate.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Ah, so you do accept historical evidence. The debate, presumably, is over how much is sufficient. However, wherever that line gets drawn, the use of historical evidence does not run counter to reason.

Nevertheless I'm bowing out of this thread, because it's obviously a "lets attack Christians" thread rather than a clear-headed or polite debate.

In what way is it a "let's attack Christians" thread? The thread has covered a diverse range of topics, and it doesn't seem to be overly hostile at present.

 

[The Cadet]

Ah, so you do accept historical evidence.

Not for supernatural or bizarre claims. Caesar existed and conquered Gaul? Okay, let's talk historical evidence. Caesar conquered Gaul by calling upon the aid of Kal-El? We're going to need something a little stronger than the say-so of a historian. Wouldn't you agree? There's a fundamental difference here between claims of things that happen all the time and things that kinda... don't happen. At all. People walking on water unaided? That doesn't happen. People rising from the grave? That doesn't happen. At least, it has never been confirmed to have happened, so historical reports of it having happened, even from sterling sources, would not be good enough evidence.

The debate, presumably, is over how much is sufficient. However, wherever that line gets drawn, the use of historical evidence does not run counter to reason.

For mundane claims? Sure. But then again, I'd trust my neighbors or friends on mundane claims.

Nevertheless I'm bowing out of this thread, because it's obviously a "lets attack Christians" thread rather than a clear-headed or polite debate.

That's unfortunate, I would have liked to continue this debate.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Islam is a harmful religion that needs to modernize or die out. It has nothing of value to offer the modern world. This doesn't mean that Taqqiya means that muslims get to lie about whatever they want to further the religion. -_-

Are you trying to win a war of words and technicalities when neither of us have the first clue as to how their language works?

Muhammad signed a 10-year peace treaty and then broke it 2 years later. This is undisputed known historical fact. Their own prophet broke his word.

From this and the previously cited example it is evident that they are allowed to lie when under persecution or in times of war, and I'm pretty sure they're allowed to lie in times of peace if it furthers Islam. Even if I'm wrong about that last point, I'm not going to take a Muslim's word for it if he tells me that he's not allowed to lie in times of peace. There's already a precedent that allows for Muslims to lie in certain circumstances and instead of reading/studying the whole Koran I'm just going to not believe a single word a Muslim ever says to me.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

there are written accounts from people who saw those things happen. How much weight you put on those accounts is up to you, but they are tangible.

"Someone else said they saw it happen" is not tangible evidence. In fact that's nearly the opposite of tangible.

 

[The Cadet]

Are you trying to win a war of words and technicalities when neither of us have the first clue as to how their language works?

No, I'm trying to make it clear that not taking the religion at their word like this is absurd. Sunnis do not believe in Taqiyya. In fact, it's a large part of why they don't trust Shiite Muslims! But even they will tell you that Taqiyya doesn't mean what you think it means. It's an absurd catch-22: you believe their religious doctrine teaches them to lie to promote their religion; how could anything possibly convince you that that is not the case? People who aren't islamic scholars are apparently not knowledgeable of the religion... So everyone who is knowledgeable is going to lie about it? Well shoot. Good thing that provision isn't in, I dunno, other religions...

There's plenty of insane, offensive madness in Islam without starting from the assumption that these people don't believe what they claim to believe.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

No, I'm trying to make it clear that not taking the religion at their word like this is absurd. Sunnis do not believe in Taqiyya. In fact, it's a large part of why they don't trust Shiite Muslims! But even they will tell you that Taqiyya doesn't mean what you think it means. It's an absurd catch-22: you believe their religious doctrine teaches them to lie to promote their religion; how could anything possibly convince you that that is not the case? People who aren't islamic scholars are apparently not knowledgeable of the religion... So everyone who is knowledgeable is going to lie about it? Well shoot. Good thing that provision isn't in, I dunno, other religions...

There's plenty of insane, offensive madness in Islam without starting from the assumption that these people don't believe what they claim to believe.

You are not addressing the fact that Muhammad broke his own word to advance Islam. You are addressing only Taqiyya again even after I said this:

Are you trying to win a war of words and technicalities when neither of us have the first clue as to how their language works?

 

[The Cadet]

You are not addressing the fact that Muhammad broke his own word to advance Islam.

You're right, because it's utterly irrelevant.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

You're right, because it's utterly irrelevant.

1. I'm claiming that Muslims lie to advance Islam.
2. Im citing a case where the creator of Islam lied to advance Islam.
3. ???
4. My evidence is "utterly irrelevant."

 

[The Cadet]

1. I'm claiming that Muslims lie to advance Islam.
2. Im citing a case where the creator of Islam lied to advance Islam.
3. ???
4. My evidence is "utterly irrelevant."

You're pointing out a specific, singular case, and asking me to believe that this is representative of all cases. How do you even know that case exists? After all, it could very well be that Muslims are lying to you about that as well. See, this is the kind of insane rabbit-hole we fall down when we assume from the start that part of a person's religious doctrine is "I will lie under any circumstances if it benefits the religion". Why don't you apply the same to the Jews, who have the same doctrine?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

You're pointing out a specific, singular case, and asking me to believe that this is representative of all cases.

If their sacred, undepictable prophet did it, then it's perfectly fine to emulate.

How do you even know that case exists? After all, it could very well be that Muslims are lying to you about that as well.

Suppose they're lying about this. Then I don't trust them.

Suppose they're telling the truth. Then I don't trust them as they have established a precedent for lying.

Lol that was easy.

See, this is the kind of insane rabbit-hole we fall down when we assume from the start that part of a person's religious doctrine is "I will lie under any circumstances if it benefits the religion".

I don't see the insane rabbit hole.

Why don't you please answer me this. Suppose on 9/11 security had asked one of the terrorists if he was planning a hijacking. Would the terrorist:

A.) Tell the truth and get arrested

B.) Lie, then ask for forgiveness

C.) Lie, knowing that Muhammad would do it the same way

Why don't you apply the same to the Jews, who have the same doctrine?

Are you referring to how Jacob was a trickster and how Abraham told half-truths about his sister-wife?

I'm not sure if you noticed but I'm atheist. I don't put much stock in the Bible.

 

[The Cadet]

Suppose they're lying about this. Then I don't trust them.

Suppose they're telling the truth. Then I don't trust them as they have established a precedent for lying.

Lol that was easy.

And there we go. You don't trust them no matter what.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

And there we go. You don't trust them no matter what.

I never said otherwise. It would be stupid to trust a Muslim unless you somehow knew he was a moderate... but the extremists are allowed to lie and renounce their faith, so you can't know who is a moderate and who isn't. So trusting any Muslim is a liability.

BTW can't help but notice you dodged my 9/11 question.