5 ms·

> What does having texts with some degree of interpretation have to do with whether those texts are true or not? Sounds like a genetic fallacy. You are putting

• al_mandi 4y ago
  Not all texts are vague and open to interpretation. A proper religion with strong scholarly underpinnings like Islam has this issue figured out. The Quran itself calls out the issue, and Muslim scholars from the very beginning have a foundation on which to base rulings. > so when making choices about others By living in society, someone is making choices on the behalf of another regardless of whether that society is religious or secular. > Please provide evidence for this We're seeing it today. Look at the rates of depression, suicide, etc. in so called "developed first world" countries and compare them to war torn "third world" countries that are generally religious. Society is in moral and ethical decline, and it worries me how much longer this can go on before some chaotic event will take place. Without an authority, the very question of what "good" and "bad" mean becomes meaningless. I recall one atheistic head (might have been Dawkins) who claimed that rape is not good or bad, it just is a phenomenon like the spots on a cheetah. Or Kraus (and others) who said that he could not find a moral justification against incest if there is consent from both sides.
  • eis 4y ago
    > Not all texts are vague and open to interpretation. A proper religion with strong scholarly underpinnings like Islam has this issue figured out. The Quran itself calls out the issue, and Muslim scholars from the very beginning have a foundation on which to base rulings. I don't want to claim all are vague. Many are. If the foundation though is based upon an arbitrary claim of a god and unprovable claims that such god spoke to someone and gave us some rules then I cannot subscribe to that concept because any other concept with arbitrary rules is equaly valid and I wouldn't know which one to choose. And if I can't know which one to choose then that means there is no right or wrong choice, it is arbitrary. > By living in society, someone is making choices on the behalf of another regardless of whether that society is religious or secular. Correct. Some choices are sound and some not. A society needs to make a decision about each rule they impose in isolation and not based upon for example what a single person said was right or wrong. A good set of core rules for a society will naturally emerge after some time completely without religion. You can see this because completely seperated societies come up with same or similar rules but can have completely different religious believes or can be completely secular. > We're seeing it today. Look at the rates of depression, suicide, etc. in so called "developed first world" countries and compare them to war torn "third world" countries that are generally religious. Society is in moral and ethical decline, and it worries me how much longer this can go on before some chaotic event will take place. Life expectancy and quality of life has improved drastically in (not only) western countries over time while at the same time turning more secular. Thanks science! You do not need religion in order to have a well functioning society. The western countries are not perfect - there's a lot wrong with them. Like the racism in the US for example. But there is also a lot wrong with for example middle eastern countries. What's up with all the fighting between religious groups there? I neither live in the west nor the middle east btw and don't think I have a bias because I don't count myself as part of either. > Without an authority, the very question of what "good" and "bad" mean becomes meaningless. I recall one atheistic head (might have been Dawkins) who claimed that rape is not good or bad, it just is a phenomenon like the spots on a cheetah. Or Kraus (and others) who said that he could not find a moral justification against incest if there is consent from both sides. The concept of good and bad is the concept of morals. Morals can be deduced from logic and does not require religion. "We should do X because Y". The better we can explain Y, the higher the chance of someone subscribing to the logic and doing X. If Y is "because it is written in some book that some dude was told this by god" then many people might rightfully claim that they don't see the reasoning. I really really don't want to live under a religious authority that can impose arbitrary rules on me like that I have to pray five times a day and must not eat pork because I see zero logic behind that. Just to be clear: I don't want to single out Islam here but I am taking it as the example because I am argueing with you and you believe in Islam. The fact that some atheists said or did something that most people will agree is wrong does not mean all of atheists are wrong in the same way. That's the same mistake the presenter in that video made. There are good atheists and bad atheists. There are good theists and bad theists. You cannot claim from any of these that either secularism or theism is good or bad.
    • al_mandi 4y ago
      > If the foundation though is based upon an arbitrary claim of a god and unprovable claims that such god spoke to someone and gave us some rules then I cannot subscribe to that concept because any other concept with arbitrary rules is equaly valid and I wouldn't know which one to choose. And if I can't know which one to choose then that means there is no right or wrong choice, it is arbitrary. Which is why you evaluate those claims and see what evidence they bring forth. We have a lot of proof and evidence in Islam. Some are listed on www.provingislam.com > Life expectancy and quality of life has improved drastically in (not only) western countries over time while at the same time turning more secular. Correlation vs causation. > Thanks science False dichotomy. No one is saying science isn't useful. As a matter of fact, many of today's foundational sciences and discoveries go back to the Islamic Golden Age. Great Muslim scholars like Al-Khararizmy (the word "algorithm" is a direct derivative of his name), Algebra (the science of Al-Jabr, an Arabic word), and many many more were because Islam pushed those people to seek knowledge and learn about the world around them. Many of those scholars saw studying and exploring the world around them as signs of God. This is something established in the Quran and Hadith. > What's up with all the fighting between religious groups there? Maybe the colonizing West that engaged in dirty divide and conquer tactics has something to do with it? Or maybe the fact that the US lied about WMD's to invade Iraq and they got away with it with no consequences, while leaving millions of Iraqis between dead and maimed and homeless. Same with Afghanistan. The amount of destruction caused to Muslim lands by the West is orders of magnitude more than any internal conflicts. And it's not like the West is some bastion of peace either, today Russia and Ukraine are fighting aren't they? > The fact that some atheists said or did something that most people will agree is wrong does not mean all of atheists are wrong in the same way. So tell me why are they wrong to say that rape is just a phenomenon or that incest is ok. On what basis, from a strictly atheistic materialistic world view are you going to make an opposite claim?
      • eis 4y ago
        > Which is why you evaluate those claims and see what evidence they bring forth. We have a lot of proof and evidence in Islam. Some are listed on www.provingislam.com Please bring a single proof of god here in your own words. I have already wasted one hour on that video which didn't lead anywhere. > Correlation vs causation. You might want to try apply that to your original claim that the western civilizations are declining because they are so secular. > False dichotomy. No one is saying science isn't useful. As a matter of fact, many of today's foundational sciences and discoveries go back to the Islamic Golden Age. Great Muslim scholars like Al-Khararizmy (the word "algorithm" is a direct derivative of his name), Algebra (the science of Al-Jabr, an Arabic word), and many many more were because Islam pushed those people to seek knowledge and learn about the world around them. Many of those scholars saw studying and exploring the world around them as signs of God. This is something established in the Quran and Hadith. Any many go back to christians, jews or even predate our mainstream religions. During many times throughout history not claiming to be part of a belief system would net you severe repercussions. Maybe Islam encouraged seeking knowledge. Pretty sure it also persecuted people who seeked knowledge that Islam didn't like. > Maybe the colonizing West that engaged in dirty divide and conquer tactics has something to do with it? Or maybe that happened already before all the western influence? I am also not claiming the west being good. I'm saying both sides are doing shit. I'm no fan of the wars that the US waged in Iraq, Afghanistan etc. That one side is doing something bad does not make the bad things that the other side is doing OK. The point is any fighting is bad. > So tell me why are they wrong to say that rape is just a phenomenon or that incest is ok. On what basis, from a strictly atheistic materialistic world view are you going to make an opposite claim? That's super trivial. I'd argue rape being just a phenomenon is wrong because accepting it as such has bad repercussions on our society. Rape leaves the victim traumatized and less productive in society. Society has to expend resources to help the victim. As for incest: anyone with a bit of knowledge how reproduction and genetics work can see that inbreeding increases the chance of genetic defects. The whole point why evolution came up with the concept of sexes is to mix genes from different pools to avoid this problem. Genetic defects again hurt a society.
  • 0134340 4y ago
    >A proper religion with strong scholarly underpinnings like Islam has this issue figured out. Wow, I'm surprised you went there. To this day many denominations of Islam are still killing each other over the "correct" interpretation. You call out developed worlds as if they're immoral yet the most religious countries [0] also have a big overlap in having the most militant conflict [1]. Oh but they're happy, right? I wouldn't think so. Many of the least religious countries, such as the Scandinavian countries, often rank higher on happiness as well. Also in the developed world we can criticize our own countries more, generally, and so we have lots of free press that loves to prop up the negatives. Are Islamic countries generally free to criticize themselves so easily? Sorry to speak negatively of those countries but you invite such generalizations when you make such generalizations. 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity#/media/File:Importance_of_Religion_in_the_World_(Gallup_Poll_2008-2009).svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity#/media/File:Import... 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ongoing_armed_conflicts#/media/File:Ongoing_conflicts_around_the_world.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ongoing_armed_conflict...
    • al_mandi 4y ago
      > To this day many denominations of Islam are still killing each other over the "correct" interpretation. Yet, those denominations you speak of are minorities, and some are even supported by factions like the CIA to continue civil unrest, because it's in the interest of the West. > also have a big overlap in having the most militant conflict I'm who's surprised you went there. It's as if the last 100 years of history didn't mean much? The vast majority of those countries have been occupied and colonized by the West, and I'd argue that they continue to be to this day. > Are Islamic countries generally free to criticize themselves so easily? You can look up Islamic history to see to what high degree of responsibility those in charge were held. Read up on Omar ibn AlKhattab for example.