FOLLOW BOREME
TAGS
<< Back to listing
10 lies you were told about Islam

10 lies you were told about Islam

(7:19) Do Muslims hate the West? Are women oppressed by Islam? What's the truth? Sources from YT page: youtu.be/kq4BFIoPCLI

Share this post

You can comment as a guest, but registering gives you added benefits

Add your comment
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (590 days ago)

This video isn't remotely controversial to anyone with half a brain and a balanced upbringing. It strikes me as stating the blindingly obvious, but I suppose to those who are used to swallowing a strict diet of right wing media it makes uncomfortable and confusing watching.

But the truth is irrelevant apparently. So bring on the onslaught of dyed-in-the-wool islamophobes, trotting out the same rhetoric from their right wing websites, faking authority or credibility. They've read the koran cover-to-cover, right? They know lots of muslims, yeah? Birmingham is a muslim only city? Duh. Face-palm stupid, but they'll never see it.

ReplyVote up (101)down (93)
Original comment

This video isn't remotely controversial to anyone with half a brain and a balanced upbringing. It strikes me as stating the blindingly obvious, but I suppose to those who are used to swallowing a strict diet of right wing media it makes uncomfortable and confusing watching.

But the truth is irrelevant apparently. So bring on the onslaught of dyed-in-the-wool islamophobes, trotting out the same rhetoric from their right wing websites, faking authority or credibility. They've read the koran cover-to-cover, right? They know lots of muslims, yeah? Birmingham is a muslim only city? Duh. Face-palm stupid, but they'll never see it.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: opalrose123 (586 days ago)

This video seems to only focus on the extreams; this is not helpful. for example muslim women do not have the rights of men, that Birmingham quote is just misplaced and it is estimated that approx. 300,000,000 muslims do not support the way the west lives.

ReplyVote up (96)down (101)
Original comment

This video seems to only focus on the extreams; this is not helpful. for example muslim women do not have the rights of men, that Birmingham quote is just misplaced and it is estimated that approx. 300,000,000 muslims do not support the way the west lives.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Clucks (589 days ago)

All the Islamophobes whining about how this video is cr@p yet not one has explained which point is actually incorrect. Funny that.

ReplyVote up (92)down (102)
Original comment

All the Islamophobes whining about how this video is cr@p yet not one has explained which point is actually incorrect. Funny that.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Jeffrey123 (590 days ago)

Who made this complete horse-s**t!

ReplyVote up (94)down (106)
Original comment

Who made this complete horse-s**t!

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (589 days ago)

Dear Jeffrey123... you ask, "who made this complete horseshit?"

well, it is a youtube video, the which of two film makers take credit at the end. But that requires you to watch and listen. Something that I know can be difficult. I'm sorry.

ReplyVote up (101)down (75)
Original comment

Dear Jeffrey123... you ask, "who made this complete horseshit?"

well, it is a youtube video, the which of two film makers take credit at the end. But that requires you to watch and listen. Something that I know can be difficult. I'm sorry.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (590 days ago)

Someone with their eyes open who isn''t terrified of those ssccccarrrry muslims?

ReplyVote up (98)down (101)
Original comment

Someone with their eyes open who isn''t terrified of those ssccccarrrry muslims?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Guest87364876 (590 days ago)

Jeffrey123 - If you want to call FACTS - "Shit", then you are refusing to learn and will remain a dumb ass all your life. CHECK YOUR FACTS before opening your mouth that is actually excreting shit!

ReplyVote up (93)down (101)
Original comment

Jeffrey123 - If you want to call FACTS - "Shit", then you are refusing to learn and will remain a dumb ass all your life. CHECK YOUR FACTS before opening your mouth that is actually excreting shit!

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
dananddiana dananddiana (590 days ago)

If you consider the crap in this video "Facts" you are the one with your eyes closed. Go and study for yourself, Read what is in the Koran and the Hadiths which is what they are all raised on. Read the hatred toward anyone who is not them in the "Holy book" that teach their children to breath by before you believe bull like this video as fact!

ReplyVote up (86)down (101)
Original comment

If you consider the crap in this video "Facts" you are the one with your eyes closed. Go and study for yourself, Read what is in the Koran and the Hadiths which is what they are all raised on. Read the hatred toward anyone who is not them in the "Holy book" that teach their children to breath by before you believe bull like this video as fact!

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (590 days ago)

We've been here before honey and you've shown your ignorance of religion on other threads. We know there is not a cat in hell's chance that you have read the koran or any hadith - and I very much doubt you even know the difference without googling it - I say that with complete confidence, so cut out the bluffing, it's laughable. And no, reading hand-picked extracts on an islamophobic website doesn't count as reading the koran.

Geez it doesn't take much for the whimpering islamophobes to crawl out from under their rocks does it?

ReplyVote up (101)down (93)
Original comment

We've been here before honey and you've shown your ignorance of religion on other threads. We know there is not a cat in hell's chance that you have read the koran or any hadith - and I very much doubt you even know the difference without googling it - I say that with complete confidence, so cut out the bluffing, it's laughable. And no, reading hand-picked extracts on an islamophobic website doesn't count as reading the koran.

Geez it doesn't take much for the whimpering islamophobes to crawl out from under their rocks does it?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
dananddiana dananddiana (590 days ago)

OK, I guess I am just bluffing and don't know a damned thing. I guess what is happening in the world is all bluff also because Islam is a peaceful religion right?.
It is not the one that is bombing innocent people throughout the world. I guess all of the hatred shown on TV and in the papers and in their holy books is all bluff also. I guess millions who say that they want us all dead just because we are not them are bluffing. I guess that the brave souls who were raised in that religion who come out and tell us the truth about what they believe and what they plan to do to us are risking their lives just to bluff!
I think when someone like you just assumes that others haven't studied a subject and learned about it in depth because they do not agree with your belief, they are fooling themselves.

I should take a leaf from your book and ignore all the violence and rhetoric coming from the Islamic faith and instead believe that videos posted on Bore me are telling the truth and are "Facts". Silly me!

ReplyVote up (89)down (101)
Original comment

OK, I guess I am just bluffing and don't know a damned thing. I guess what is happening in the world is all bluff also because Islam is a peaceful religion right?.
It is not the one that is bombing innocent people throughout the world. I guess all of the hatred shown on TV and in the papers and in their holy books is all bluff also. I guess millions who say that they want us all dead just because we are not them are bluffing. I guess that the brave souls who were raised in that religion who come out and tell us the truth about what they believe and what they plan to do to us are risking their lives just to bluff!
I think when someone like you just assumes that others haven't studied a subject and learned about it in depth because they do not agree with your belief, they are fooling themselves.

I should take a leaf from your book and ignore all the violence and rhetoric coming from the Islamic faith and instead believe that videos posted on Bore me are telling the truth and are "Facts". Silly me!

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (590 days ago)

Correct, you are the one bluffing, and yes, silly you. Don't pretend to have read stuff you haven't - that's grade school fakery and I call you out. Your opinion is based on emotion, prejudice, and rhetoric, NOT on your personal reading. You haven't studied it, you haven't read it. It's fine for you to have impulsive opinions (even xenophobic ones) but pretending they are based on and justified by things you haven't done is dishonest and you know it. Shame on you. What's your next lie? Are you widely travelled perhaps? You've met a great many muslim people maybe? Trotting out the usual ignorant cliches rather than addressing any of the numbered points in the video shows you're out of your depth, dear. Try harder, or lie better.

ReplyVote up (101)down (81)
Original comment

Correct, you are the one bluffing, and yes, silly you. Don't pretend to have read stuff you haven't - that's grade school fakery and I call you out. Your opinion is based on emotion, prejudice, and rhetoric, NOT on your personal reading. You haven't studied it, you haven't read it. It's fine for you to have impulsive opinions (even xenophobic ones) but pretending they are based on and justified by things you haven't done is dishonest and you know it. Shame on you. What's your next lie? Are you widely travelled perhaps? You've met a great many muslim people maybe? Trotting out the usual ignorant cliches rather than addressing any of the numbered points in the video shows you're out of your depth, dear. Try harder, or lie better.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: DeIgrunt (590 days ago)

I did not learn anything about Islam.

People talk shit to substantiate their standpoint all the time.

Islam is a doctrine, and you have to differentiate that from Muslims who are just people.

Islam is written down, even the traditions (Hadith). The islamic justice system clearly states that the only true law which must stand above all other laws is Sharia.

It is funny how rarely the narrator refers to the doctrine and changes things like "followers must kill" rather than go through when the koran says it is ok for muslims to kill or enslave both muslims and non-believers (Kufir).

I was hoping to learn something positive here from this film.

ReplyVote up (87)down (101)
Original comment

I did not learn anything about Islam.

People talk shit to substantiate their standpoint all the time.

Islam is a doctrine, and you have to differentiate that from Muslims who are just people.

Islam is written down, even the traditions (Hadith). The islamic justice system clearly states that the only true law which must stand above all other laws is Sharia.

It is funny how rarely the narrator refers to the doctrine and changes things like "followers must kill" rather than go through when the koran says it is ok for muslims to kill or enslave both muslims and non-believers (Kufir).

I was hoping to learn something positive here from this film.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Guestali786 (587 days ago)

You will not find this in ANY other holy book - It is direct from the Quran:

Quran CHAPTER 5:verse 32 ..........

We decreed whosoever killeth a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind, and whoso saveth the life of one , it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind.

The Prophet also forbid the killing and miss treatment of the Women, children, the elderly, the injured/disabled, the prisoners and even the warior who did not fight (for any reason).

The problem is that ignorants make their own words up, to say what is, or is NOT written in the Quran and Hadith. Unfortunately, this includes ignorant Muslims, who cannot be bothered to read the Quran! . . . . . Crazy people are found in all lands, races & people and they can be wound up to do almost anything!

ReplyVote up (101)down (91)
Original comment

You will not find this in ANY other holy book - It is direct from the Quran:

Quran CHAPTER 5:verse 32 ..........

We decreed whosoever killeth a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind, and whoso saveth the life of one , it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind.

The Prophet also forbid the killing and miss treatment of the Women, children, the elderly, the injured/disabled, the prisoners and even the warior who did not fight (for any reason).

The problem is that ignorants make their own words up, to say what is, or is NOT written in the Quran and Hadith. Unfortunately, this includes ignorant Muslims, who cannot be bothered to read the Quran! . . . . . Crazy people are found in all lands, races & people and they can be wound up to do almost anything!

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (587 days ago)

But then there is this verse: Quran (4:89) - "They wish that you should disbelieve as they disbelieve, and then you would be equal; therefore take not to yourselves friends of them, until they emigrate in the way of God; then, if they turn their backs, take them, and slay them wherever you find them; take not to yourselves any one of them as friend or helper." LINK

The problem with taking seriously any holy book is that they are all highly interpretable - so they just reinforce whatever belief you started with. E=MC2 is not interpretable. "Thou shall not kill" is.

ReplyVote up (75)down (101)
Original comment

But then there is this verse: Quran (4:89) - "They wish that you should disbelieve as they disbelieve, and then you would be equal; therefore take not to yourselves friends of them, until they emigrate in the way of God; then, if they turn their backs, take them, and slay them wherever you find them; take not to yourselves any one of them as friend or helper." LINK

The problem with taking seriously any holy book is that they are all highly interpretable - so they just reinforce whatever belief you started with. E=MC2 is not interpretable. "Thou shall not kill" is.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Guestali7861 (587 days ago)

You have quoted this from a website that is designed to make people hate Islam, They espouse lies. Therefore you will not get the truth from there!

The quote you mentioned was applicable to a people who caused anarchy, death and mischief to discredit the religion. The actual quote is this:

Quran 4:89

" . . . They wish you would disbelieve as they disbelieved so you would be alike. So do not take from among them allies until they emigrate for the cause of Allah . But if they turn away, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them and take not from among them any ally or helper . . . "

This ruling was for one particular event and applied to one set of people and this does not give open licence to kill! However,

IMPORTANTLY: You omitted the next verse: Quran 4:90:

Quran 4:90:
". . . Except for those who take refuge with a people between yourselves and whom is a treaty or those who come to you, their hearts strained at [the prospect of] fighting you or fighting their own people. And if Allah had willed, He could have given them power over you, and they would have fought you. So if they remove themselves from you and do not fight you and offer you peace, then Allah has not made for you a cause [for fighting] against them . . . ."

I am sure you had honourable intentions, but you see how easy it is to take something out of context.

ReplyVote up (101)down (93)
Original comment

You have quoted this from a website that is designed to make people hate Islam, They espouse lies. Therefore you will not get the truth from there!

The quote you mentioned was applicable to a people who caused anarchy, death and mischief to discredit the religion. The actual quote is this:

Quran 4:89

" . . . They wish you would disbelieve as they disbelieved so you would be alike. So do not take from among them allies until they emigrate for the cause of Allah . But if they turn away, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them and take not from among them any ally or helper . . . "

This ruling was for one particular event and applied to one set of people and this does not give open licence to kill! However,

IMPORTANTLY: You omitted the next verse: Quran 4:90:

Quran 4:90:
". . . Except for those who take refuge with a people between yourselves and whom is a treaty or those who come to you, their hearts strained at [the prospect of] fighting you or fighting their own people. And if Allah had willed, He could have given them power over you, and they would have fought you. So if they remove themselves from you and do not fight you and offer you peace, then Allah has not made for you a cause [for fighting] against them . . . ."

I am sure you had honourable intentions, but you see how easy it is to take something out of context.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (587 days ago)

I don't understand Quran 4:90. Can you explain it simply?

In Quran 4:89 - which particular event and which set of people did this apply to?

ReplyVote up (101)down (96)
Original comment

I don't understand Quran 4:90. Can you explain it simply?

In Quran 4:89 - which particular event and which set of people did this apply to?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Guest0934750 (587 days ago)

The story starts several verses back. It relates to idol worshippers who professed faith in God, but planned death, anarchy and mischief to cause while pretending to believe. The verses are a guidance for the Prophet Muhammad to conduct himself.

You may find it useful to read a Tafsir which will try to explain the meaning behind the verses. Here: LINK

(The words are directed to the prophet Muhammad, for this scenario.)

ReplyVote up (101)down (88)
Original comment

The story starts several verses back. It relates to idol worshippers who professed faith in God, but planned death, anarchy and mischief to cause while pretending to believe. The verses are a guidance for the Prophet Muhammad to conduct himself.

You may find it useful to read a Tafsir which will try to explain the meaning behind the verses. Here: LINK

(The words are directed to the prophet Muhammad, for this scenario.)

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (586 days ago)

I had to look up "tafsir" to find out what it means. Wikipedia says it's the Arabic word for interpretation. "A Quranic tafsir will often explain content and provide places and times, not contained in Quranic verses, as well as give the different views and opinions of scholars on the verse." LINK

Which brings me back to my original point - if a holy book is interpretable, then isn't a believer simply interpreting the book to fit the beliefs they already hold? In which case, why not be guided by more modern and relevant wisdom?

Surely if a holy book is to have any meaningful value, it should be taken literally? Otherwise there are loads of interpretations of the same book, and then people start hating each other because their interpretations are different.

ReplyVote up (101)down (93)
Original comment

I had to look up "tafsir" to find out what it means. Wikipedia says it's the Arabic word for interpretation. "A Quranic tafsir will often explain content and provide places and times, not contained in Quranic verses, as well as give the different views and opinions of scholars on the verse." LINK

Which brings me back to my original point - if a holy book is interpretable, then isn't a believer simply interpreting the book to fit the beliefs they already hold? In which case, why not be guided by more modern and relevant wisdom?

Surely if a holy book is to have any meaningful value, it should be taken literally? Otherwise there are loads of interpretations of the same book, and then people start hating each other because their interpretations are different.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Proud Agnostic (586 days ago)

There are interpretations of books ('holy' and otherwise), that are more common because over their entirety the books already have that gist; there are also interpretations handed down through families and traditions. I'm always amused that the bulk of people wanting to interpret these things in negative (or entirely literal) ways are militant atheists building straw men arguments rather than religious people themselves. As you've shown us, such interpretations work only if you're willing to extract a line not just from its chapter but usually even from its verse, and maybe mistranslate a couple of words to boot.

And as for hating each other, that's a human trait that is always going to happen. Even when you take a book literally, there are still ambiguities within language itself and when something matters so much, people argue over it. It works for atheists too, who end up hating people because their interpretation of the world itself is different. We can't avoid things just because we don't all agree.

ReplyVote up (101)down (85)
Original comment

There are interpretations of books ('holy' and otherwise), that are more common because over their entirety the books already have that gist; there are also interpretations handed down through families and traditions. I'm always amused that the bulk of people wanting to interpret these things in negative (or entirely literal) ways are militant atheists building straw men arguments rather than religious people themselves. As you've shown us, such interpretations work only if you're willing to extract a line not just from its chapter but usually even from its verse, and maybe mistranslate a couple of words to boot.

And as for hating each other, that's a human trait that is always going to happen. Even when you take a book literally, there are still ambiguities within language itself and when something matters so much, people argue over it. It works for atheists too, who end up hating people because their interpretation of the world itself is different. We can't avoid things just because we don't all agree.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Quotable (585 days ago)

Direct quotes from Richard Dawkins:

"A baboon is said to be altruistic"

"The important thing in evolution is the good of the species"

"the words male and female have no general meaning"

"Should ... lions to refrain from killing antelopes, ‘for the good of the mammals’? ... They should hunt birds or reptiles instead"

(from The Selfish Gene)

"If you don't understand how something works, never mind: just give up"

"No policeman wants to protect an atheist"

"Christians go further and actually yearn for nuclear war"

"Reason should be destroyed in all Christians"

(from The God Delusion)

ReplyVote up (101)down (90)
Original comment

Direct quotes from Richard Dawkins:

"A baboon is said to be altruistic"

"The important thing in evolution is the good of the species"

"the words male and female have no general meaning"

"Should ... lions to refrain from killing antelopes, ‘for the good of the mammals’? ... They should hunt birds or reptiles instead"

(from The Selfish Gene)

"If you don't understand how something works, never mind: just give up"

"No policeman wants to protect an atheist"

"Christians go further and actually yearn for nuclear war"

"Reason should be destroyed in all Christians"

(from The God Delusion)

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (586 days ago)

As usual you miss the point, which is: What is the point of a holy book if it can be interpreted so widely.

ReplyVote up (101)down (97)
Original comment

As usual you miss the point, which is: What is the point of a holy book if it can be interpreted so widely.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (586 days ago)

As usual, you miss my point! Any unit of language can be interpreted , from Shakespeare to the Highway code, from the Buddhist vedas to The Origin of the Species. We can never agree, so should that mean it's all meaningless, or we should all just shut up, or that no good can come from them? Of course not. We just accept the difference of opinions across the board, go with the ones that make sense to each of us in our situation and culture, and hope that on balance the majority of people interpret everything in benevolent ways - which thankfully for the large part they do.

ReplyVote up (101)down (91)
Original comment

As usual, you miss my point! Any unit of language can be interpreted , from Shakespeare to the Highway code, from the Buddhist vedas to The Origin of the Species. We can never agree, so should that mean it's all meaningless, or we should all just shut up, or that no good can come from them? Of course not. We just accept the difference of opinions across the board, go with the ones that make sense to each of us in our situation and culture, and hope that on balance the majority of people interpret everything in benevolent ways - which thankfully for the large part they do.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (584 days ago)

Holy books are a special case because they claim to be the truth.

You still didn't quite get my point. How can something that claims to be true, be wildly interpretable? I can reasonably claim 1+1=2 is true, but I can't reasonably claim 1+1='whatever number suits you', is true.

ReplyVote up (101)down (93)
Original comment

Holy books are a special case because they claim to be the truth.

You still didn't quite get my point. How can something that claims to be true, be wildly interpretable? I can reasonably claim 1+1=2 is true, but I can't reasonably claim 1+1='whatever number suits you', is true.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Proud Agnostic (584 days ago)

And you still didn't get my point. I repeat, ANY unit of language can be interpreted , and when you go back hundreds or thousands of years and look at texts written in dead languages, those interpretations multiply. Tacitus for example, has such widely varying interpretations of his works (which 'claimed to be truth' as you put it) that they are used to justify opposing political systems. The Histories of Herodotus, 'The Father of History', have been studied for over 2,000 years and there is still debate about their correct interpretation and translation. I can give you any number of examples throughout history of this kind of interpretive disagreement. Does this mean that all these sources claiming to be true are meaningless, because there is no absolute consensus? Of course not. These ancient texts are an extreme yet comparable example to holy books, but you can take any work ever written and find multiple interpretations. That's language for you.

Moreover, stating such sources "claim to be the truth" in a literal documentary way is just one interpretation in itself. We've been here before, but do the majority of religious believers think the entire Bible is literally true cover-to-cover, or rather as a whole expresses a general truth? Is the hare and the tortoise fable true if generally it's correct that being cunning can allow you to conquer a stronger opponent? And why would disagreement about what level of truth (documentary, historical, abstract) a text has affect whether it is meaningful? It's a little bizarre that you question how much meaning something has if it clearly has many different meanings.

ReplyVote up (101)down (91)
Original comment

And you still didn't get my point. I repeat, ANY unit of language can be interpreted , and when you go back hundreds or thousands of years and look at texts written in dead languages, those interpretations multiply. Tacitus for example, has such widely varying interpretations of his works (which 'claimed to be truth' as you put it) that they are used to justify opposing political systems. The Histories of Herodotus, 'The Father of History', have been studied for over 2,000 years and there is still debate about their correct interpretation and translation. I can give you any number of examples throughout history of this kind of interpretive disagreement. Does this mean that all these sources claiming to be true are meaningless, because there is no absolute consensus? Of course not. These ancient texts are an extreme yet comparable example to holy books, but you can take any work ever written and find multiple interpretations. That's language for you.

Moreover, stating such sources "claim to be the truth" in a literal documentary way is just one interpretation in itself. We've been here before, but do the majority of religious believers think the entire Bible is literally true cover-to-cover, or rather as a whole expresses a general truth? Is the hare and the tortoise fable true if generally it's correct that being cunning can allow you to conquer a stronger opponent? And why would disagreement about what level of truth (documentary, historical, abstract) a text has affect whether it is meaningful? It's a little bizarre that you question how much meaning something has if it clearly has many different meanings.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (584 days ago)

I got your point ages ago, it's just not what I was talking about.

ReplyVote up (101)down (97)
Original comment

I got your point ages ago, it's just not what I was talking about.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Proud Agnostic (584 days ago)

Well the point I was responding to was "What is the point of a holy book if it can be interpreted so widely". I pointed out that any text can be interpreted widely, so that can't affect how meaningful it is.

You then tweaked your point (as you usualy do), to add that holy books were special because they claim to be true. I then pointed out that any number of historical texts that claimed to be true are also interpreted in different ways.

It looks like you need a different reason to rant about holy texts.

ReplyVote up (101)down (95)
Original comment

Well the point I was responding to was "What is the point of a holy book if it can be interpreted so widely". I pointed out that any text can be interpreted widely, so that can't affect how meaningful it is.

You then tweaked your point (as you usualy do), to add that holy books were special because they claim to be true. I then pointed out that any number of historical texts that claimed to be true are also interpreted in different ways.

It looks like you need a different reason to rant about holy texts.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (584 days ago)

I didn't tweak my point, I was always talking about holy books. And I thought it was obvious that they claim to be the truth.

Btw, big difference between claiming to be true, and claiming to be the truth. Claiming to be the truth implies believers should act in accordance to the words in the holy book.

ReplyVote up (89)down (101)
Original comment

I didn't tweak my point, I was always talking about holy books. And I thought it was obvious that they claim to be the truth.

Btw, big difference between claiming to be true, and claiming to be the truth. Claiming to be the truth implies believers should act in accordance to the words in the holy book.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Proud Agnostic (584 days ago)

Your original point only mentioned the interpretation issue, but as I've explained, claiming to be true doesn't change the issue. The semantics of claiming to be true / the truth are a little footling. Admittedly, there are few explicit commands in historical texts, if that is the difference you're aiming at, but still they imply you should act or operate according to their truth. In fact often, (particuarly with Roman historians), there was a moral of the story; Don't act like those emperors of the 1st century, for example. You were expected to learn from the mistakes of those who came before you, and you learned about them from your interpretation of the truth offered to you by historians.

ReplyVote up (101)down (85)
Original comment

Your original point only mentioned the interpretation issue, but as I've explained, claiming to be true doesn't change the issue. The semantics of claiming to be true / the truth are a little footling. Admittedly, there are few explicit commands in historical texts, if that is the difference you're aiming at, but still they imply you should act or operate according to their truth. In fact often, (particuarly with Roman historians), there was a moral of the story; Don't act like those emperors of the 1st century, for example. You were expected to learn from the mistakes of those who came before you, and you learned about them from your interpretation of the truth offered to you by historians.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (583 days ago)

Holy books are a special case because they are supposed to be the words of god, not the words of fellow human beings. To the believer, commands or morals from god carry more weight than from other humans. That's the difference between claiming to be true (human claim), and claiming to be the truth (god's claim).

It is the believer who chooses how literal to interpret his holy book. My point is that it should be god who commands his believers what to believe, but that would mean following the scriptures as literally as possible. Most believers don't do that because even they realise how stupid they would sound.

ReplyVote up (101)down (85)
Original comment

Holy books are a special case because they are supposed to be the words of god, not the words of fellow human beings. To the believer, commands or morals from god carry more weight than from other humans. That's the difference between claiming to be true (human claim), and claiming to be the truth (god's claim).

It is the believer who chooses how literal to interpret his holy book. My point is that it should be god who commands his believers what to believe, but that would mean following the scriptures as literally as possible. Most believers don't do that because even they realise how stupid they would sound.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Proud Agnostic (583 days ago)

Great stuff. 'Holy books are meaningless because they're interpreted... I mean they're meaningless because they're interpreted and they claim to be true... I mean they're meaningless because they're interpreted, they claim to be true, and they're supposed to be the words of god.' Keep going.

"They are supposed to be the words of god" is a bit of a Walter-definition again. Of course in reality, a large proportion of religious followers believe their holy books are inspired by god rather than the exact word of god, (usually justified by suggesting only certain chosen people are capable of hearing his message directly), and indeed many parts (Christian gospels, Islamic hadith) are explicitly written by named men. Again, your take is actually only one interpretation and an odd one at that, but let's run with your idea. Say it was supposed to be god himself that literally wrote all of a holy book, and it was his commands on what to believe, and he didn't use metaphor or parables etc... Are you saying that he would be able to write it in such a way that different interpretations were just impossible? He would be able to use words that had a single, clear meaning? He would be able to write in a language that wouldn't need translating at any point in history? That isn't a limitation of god, that's a limitation of human language. You don't seem to take on board the fact that as soon as any message is communicated verbally, there is going to be room for interpretation. Even if that message is relatively clear and intended to be taken literally, and even if it was written by god himself, the nature of language and translation means there would always be different interpretations of what that literal message was. I mean even laws written within the last decade in our own language, specifically constructed to be as clear and unequivocal as possible, are open to so much interpretation that barristers spend much of their time doing just that.

I think it's honestly the weakest objection to holy books that I've ever heard.

ReplyVote up (101)down (85)
Original comment

Great stuff. 'Holy books are meaningless because they're interpreted... I mean they're meaningless because they're interpreted and they claim to be true... I mean they're meaningless because they're interpreted, they claim to be true, and they're supposed to be the words of god.' Keep going.

"They are supposed to be the words of god" is a bit of a Walter-definition again. Of course in reality, a large proportion of religious followers believe their holy books are inspired by god rather than the exact word of god, (usually justified by suggesting only certain chosen people are capable of hearing his message directly), and indeed many parts (Christian gospels, Islamic hadith) are explicitly written by named men. Again, your take is actually only one interpretation and an odd one at that, but let's run with your idea. Say it was supposed to be god himself that literally wrote all of a holy book, and it was his commands on what to believe, and he didn't use metaphor or parables etc... Are you saying that he would be able to write it in such a way that different interpretations were just impossible? He would be able to use words that had a single, clear meaning? He would be able to write in a language that wouldn't need translating at any point in history? That isn't a limitation of god, that's a limitation of human language. You don't seem to take on board the fact that as soon as any message is communicated verbally, there is going to be room for interpretation. Even if that message is relatively clear and intended to be taken literally, and even if it was written by god himself, the nature of language and translation means there would always be different interpretations of what that literal message was. I mean even laws written within the last decade in our own language, specifically constructed to be as clear and unequivocal as possible, are open to so much interpretation that barristers spend much of their time doing just that.

I think it's honestly the weakest objection to holy books that I've ever heard.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (583 days ago)

Exactly, you've finally understood my point. Even god can't be clear so the idea that a holy book is gospel makes no sense.

I'm curious why you picked an argument with me and not with Guest0934509 who said "Allah CANNOT make a mistake". Is it because you're too PC?

ReplyVote up (101)down (82)
Original comment

Exactly, you've finally understood my point. Even god can't be clear so the idea that a holy book is gospel makes no sense.

I'm curious why you picked an argument with me and not with Guest0934509 who said "Allah CANNOT make a mistake". Is it because you're too PC?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Proud Agnostic (583 days ago)

If that's your point, then it's more ridiculous than I had thought; God, interpreted through human language, cannot avoid interpretation, therefore the gospels etc are all meaningless? How on earth does that follow, logically or rationally? I don't want to hammer the same drum when you're deaf to its beat, but as literally all human language can be interpreted, the varying interpretations cannot possibly have any effect on how meaningful any of it is. The laws (legal) that govern us are enforceable, immediate, contemporary and categorical, and yet they can still be interpreted. Meaningless? Hardly.

[As an aside, political correctness is a term high-jacked by people who yearn for days in which you could be rude, offensive, and inconsiderate to anyone you fancied. You should read into its history; it's very revealing. Ah those carefree days when you could describe all Muslims / Blacks / Jews etc etc as retards (and much worse) and make silly assumptions about their beliefs without being criticised - even in a place of work, even from a position of authority - do you remember that era? In common use, 'political correctness' is now at worst an attempt at standardised politeness which very occasionally gets it wrong, but is a small price to pay for the huge advances society has made in tackling the open racism, xenophobia and bigotry that was rife a few decades ago. That's why right-wing buffoons like Trump and the Daily Mail use this term as leverage, feeding out often fictional examples, and frankly, I am disappointed you fall for that kind of populist crap... though not altogether surprised - I've seen your attitudes to those from different cultures and I'm pretty sure I've got your mark in terms of educational and general background. So to answer what I think you're getting at, yes I am generally considerate towards people I don't know, and no I'm not racist or xenophobic, and yes, I do avoid deliberately offending people where I can. You, Trump and Murdoch et al call that "PC gone mad!!!"- the rest of us call that decency. Have a go.]

But actually, I didn't pick a fight with Guest because it's blindingly obvious that for pretty much any conception of a supreme being, such a thing wouldn't make a mistake. Besides, I admire their attitude and have no objections to their views - they're not being rubbed in my face and I don't feel your urge to proselytise. I also like to see him/her expose your basic ignorance of Islam and scripture. I think you would attempt to deny knowing exceedingly little about the religions you criticise, so it's refreshing to see you put into your place about simple specifics. To be honest, I'm pretty sure Guest and I both know your prejudice is too ingrained to be swayed by the verified first-hand knowledge of a genuine believer, and you'd always prefer to be fed by those who share your mentality and lack of knowledge, but it's still fun to watch.

ReplyVote up (101)down (78)
Original comment

If that's your point, then it's more ridiculous than I had thought; God, interpreted through human language, cannot avoid interpretation, therefore the gospels etc are all meaningless? How on earth does that follow, logically or rationally? I don't want to hammer the same drum when you're deaf to its beat, but as literally all human language can be interpreted, the varying interpretations cannot possibly have any effect on how meaningful any of it is. The laws (legal) that govern us are enforceable, immediate, contemporary and categorical, and yet they can still be interpreted. Meaningless? Hardly.

[As an aside, political correctness is a term high-jacked by people who yearn for days in which you could be rude, offensive, and inconsiderate to anyone you fancied. You should read into its history; it's very revealing. Ah those carefree days when you could describe all Muslims / Blacks / Jews etc etc as retards (and much worse) and make silly assumptions about their beliefs without being criticised - even in a place of work, even from a position of authority - do you remember that era? In common use, 'political correctness' is now at worst an attempt at standardised politeness which very occasionally gets it wrong, but is a small price to pay for the huge advances society has made in tackling the open racism, xenophobia and bigotry that was rife a few decades ago. That's why right-wing buffoons like Trump and the Daily Mail use this term as leverage, feeding out often fictional examples, and frankly, I am disappointed you fall for that kind of populist crap... though not altogether surprised - I've seen your attitudes to those from different cultures and I'm pretty sure I've got your mark in terms of educational and general background. So to answer what I think you're getting at, yes I am generally considerate towards people I don't know, and no I'm not racist or xenophobic, and yes, I do avoid deliberately offending people where I can. You, Trump and Murdoch et al call that "PC gone mad!!!"- the rest of us call that decency. Have a go.]

But actually, I didn't pick a fight with Guest because it's blindingly obvious that for pretty much any conception of a supreme being, such a thing wouldn't make a mistake. Besides, I admire their attitude and have no objections to their views - they're not being rubbed in my face and I don't feel your urge to proselytise. I also like to see him/her expose your basic ignorance of Islam and scripture. I think you would attempt to deny knowing exceedingly little about the religions you criticise, so it's refreshing to see you put into your place about simple specifics. To be honest, I'm pretty sure Guest and I both know your prejudice is too ingrained to be swayed by the verified first-hand knowledge of a genuine believer, and you'd always prefer to be fed by those who share your mentality and lack of knowledge, but it's still fun to watch.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Hitchiker (583 days ago)

It is much easier to rely on an imaginary God than to accept responsibilty for your own life and death.

ReplyVote up (101)down (89)
Original comment

It is much easier to rely on an imaginary God than to accept responsibilty for your own life and death.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (583 days ago)

It's much easier to assume there's nothing out there, than acknowledge that we know relatively very little about how the universe works. It's also easier to assume that our particular world-view is more right than anyone else's, rather than actually getting to know what others actually think.

ReplyVote up (101)down (91)
Original comment

It's much easier to assume there's nothing out there, than acknowledge that we know relatively very little about how the universe works. It's also easier to assume that our particular world-view is more right than anyone else's, rather than actually getting to know what others actually think.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (582 days ago)

"God, interpreted through human language, cannot avoid interpretation, therefore the gospels etc are all meaningless? How on earth does that follow …" It doesn't. For some reason you've latched on to the word "meaningless". Do a quick search on this page for "meaningless" and "meaningful". You'll notice that I only mentioned "meaningful" once. I said "Surely if a holy book is to have any meaningful value, it should be taken literally?" And it's a different context. I'm questioning the value of a holy book to the believer if other believers interpret it differently. I'm not talking about the content of holy books. I wish you were less sloppy. We could have finished this conversation ages ago.

I have no problem with political correctness. I said "Is it because you're TOO PC?" You can have TOO much of a good thing, which leads to the popularity of people like Trump.

ReplyVote up (101)down (100)
Original comment

"God, interpreted through human language, cannot avoid interpretation, therefore the gospels etc are all meaningless? How on earth does that follow …" It doesn't. For some reason you've latched on to the word "meaningless". Do a quick search on this page for "meaningless" and "meaningful". You'll notice that I only mentioned "meaningful" once. I said "Surely if a holy book is to have any meaningful value, it should be taken literally?" And it's a different context. I'm questioning the value of a holy book to the believer if other believers interpret it differently. I'm not talking about the content of holy books. I wish you were less sloppy. We could have finished this conversation ages ago.

I have no problem with political correctness. I said "Is it because you're TOO PC?" You can have TOO much of a good thing, which leads to the popularity of people like Trump.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Proud Agnostic (582 days ago)

Well, I wish you were less sloppy with your writing, or clearer with your thinking, or preferably both. Try to pin down your idea from the outset rather than feeling it out through the course of a conversation, as watching you tweak, dilute, and rephrase an original point is a bit tiresome. I think you also need to polish up on your synonyms and antonyms:

"Surely if a holy book is to have any meaningful value, it should be taken literally?" So you don't mention the word 'meaningless' but it implies that if you take one of the many non-literal interpretations of a holy book, it doesn't have meaningful value, ie. meaningless. I was disputing that point, along with; "What is the point of a holy book if it can be interpreted so widely." Again, you didn't use the word meaningless, but you're implying that a holy book doesn't have a point (pointless / meaningless) if it can be interpreted.

You obviously don't like me using synonyms for the words you use, or making logical inferences from what you say, so let's see if we can chart the evolution of your thought using your own quotes, so perhaps you can see my frustration:

"The problem with taking seriously any holy book is that they are all highly interpretable". (So I show you other highly interpretable texts.)

So then you add "Holy books are a special case... How can something that claims to be true, be wildly interpretable. " (So I show you things that clain to be true and are interpretable).

So next you add "Btw, big difference between claiming to be true, and claiming to be the truth" , moving the goalposts again. And when that's not cutting it, you have another stab: "Holy books are a special case because they are supposed to be the words of god" , and I have to remind you that most followers think at least a significant portion of their holy books are written by special humans. Sigh.

And now it's "I'm questioning the value of a holy book to the believer if other believers interpret it differently." Is that really all you're questioning now? The value to the believer himself? Because it's patently obvious and undeniable that these books are of tremendous value to believers, who presumably are all aware that there are different interpretations. Why don't you ask one? Or do you mean you're questioning if the books *should* have value to believers? Have another shot, go on.

ReplyVote up (101)down (99)
Original comment

Well, I wish you were less sloppy with your writing, or clearer with your thinking, or preferably both. Try to pin down your idea from the outset rather than feeling it out through the course of a conversation, as watching you tweak, dilute, and rephrase an original point is a bit tiresome. I think you also need to polish up on your synonyms and antonyms:

"Surely if a holy book is to have any meaningful value, it should be taken literally?" So you don't mention the word 'meaningless' but it implies that if you take one of the many non-literal interpretations of a holy book, it doesn't have meaningful value, ie. meaningless. I was disputing that point, along with; "What is the point of a holy book if it can be interpreted so widely." Again, you didn't use the word meaningless, but you're implying that a holy book doesn't have a point (pointless / meaningless) if it can be interpreted.

You obviously don't like me using synonyms for the words you use, or making logical inferences from what you say, so let's see if we can chart the evolution of your thought using your own quotes, so perhaps you can see my frustration:

"The problem with taking seriously any holy book is that they are all highly interpretable". (So I show you other highly interpretable texts.)

So then you add "Holy books are a special case... How can something that claims to be true, be wildly interpretable. " (So I show you things that clain to be true and are interpretable).

So next you add "Btw, big difference between claiming to be true, and claiming to be the truth" , moving the goalposts again. And when that's not cutting it, you have another stab: "Holy books are a special case because they are supposed to be the words of god" , and I have to remind you that most followers think at least a significant portion of their holy books are written by special humans. Sigh.

And now it's "I'm questioning the value of a holy book to the believer if other believers interpret it differently." Is that really all you're questioning now? The value to the believer himself? Because it's patently obvious and undeniable that these books are of tremendous value to believers, who presumably are all aware that there are different interpretations. Why don't you ask one? Or do you mean you're questioning if the books *should* have value to believers? Have another shot, go on.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (582 days ago)

I can't be bothered with this. I'm just going to reply to your points, and then that's it.

"Try to pin down your idea from the outset rather than feeling it out through the course of a conversation" I did. I started with "The problem with taking seriously any holy book is that they are all highly interpretable - so they just reinforce whatever belief you started with." And that morphed into "I'm questioning the value of a holy book to the believer if other believers interpret it differently." It's the same point, just from a different angle.

Your interpretation of what I wrote is: "Holy books are meaningless because they're interpreted... I mean they're meaningless because they're interpreted and they claim to be true... I mean they're meaningless because they're interpreted, they claim to be true, and they're supposed to be the words of god." And you are accusing me of tweaking, diluting, and rephrasing the original point? Give me a break.

"... big difference between claiming to be true, and claiming to be the truth", moving the goalposts again" No, just clarifying a point.

I did say "Holy books are a special case... How can something that claims to be true, be wildly interpretable." I should have said "... claims to be the truth, be wildly interpretable." That was sloppiness on my part. It could have saved us a whole load of words.

I'll sum up this thread. I ask, "Hey moderate Muslim friend, why do you believe your interpretation of the Quran is "the truth", when my Islamist friend next door interprets the same Quran very differently and also believes it's "the truth"? You can't both be right."

Your answer is that all texts are interpretable. Thanks for that amazing insight.

ReplyVote up (101)down (90)
Original comment

I can't be bothered with this. I'm just going to reply to your points, and then that's it.

"Try to pin down your idea from the outset rather than feeling it out through the course of a conversation" I did. I started with "The problem with taking seriously any holy book is that they are all highly interpretable - so they just reinforce whatever belief you started with." And that morphed into "I'm questioning the value of a holy book to the believer if other believers interpret it differently." It's the same point, just from a different angle.

Your interpretation of what I wrote is: "Holy books are meaningless because they're interpreted... I mean they're meaningless because they're interpreted and they claim to be true... I mean they're meaningless because they're interpreted, they claim to be true, and they're supposed to be the words of god." And you are accusing me of tweaking, diluting, and rephrasing the original point? Give me a break.

"... big difference between claiming to be true, and claiming to be the truth", moving the goalposts again" No, just clarifying a point.

I did say "Holy books are a special case... How can something that claims to be true, be wildly interpretable." I should have said "... claims to be the truth, be wildly interpretable." That was sloppiness on my part. It could have saved us a whole load of words.

I'll sum up this thread. I ask, "Hey moderate Muslim friend, why do you believe your interpretation of the Quran is "the truth", when my Islamist friend next door interprets the same Quran very differently and also believes it's "the truth"? You can't both be right."

Your answer is that all texts are interpretable. Thanks for that amazing insight.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Proud Agnostic (582 days ago)

"Why do you believe your interpretation of the Quran is "the truth", when my Islamist friend next door interprets the same Quran very differently and also believes it's "the truth"? You can't both be right."

But both believers will their have reasons and probably valid ones at that. Some texts can lead to equally valid opposing conclusions, and with no original author present we can't be sure which is true. So what? I return to the comparison of our current laws; One barrister interprets them one way, based on certain case history, and another interprets them another way, based on others. They can't both be right, and crucially this difference, this disagreement, doesn't mean that there is less meaning within the law itself. It's just that in those cases, we're lucky to have judges to make a certain decision one way or the other. With ancient texts, we just have to give it our best guess and interpret it in a way that makes sense to each of us. To go slightly off-piste and use a non-textual example, I could equally say 'Hey moderate atheist friend, why do you believe your interpretation of the world is "the truth", when my Hindu friend next door interprets the same world very differently. You can't both be right." You would both have explanations (and probably tedious ones), but the disagreement is just fine. Disagreement / interpretation is part of the diversity of humankind, whether you're interpreting text, body language, or the world we see. Just because everyone can't be right all the time doesn't mean it's all less meaningful.

I do think you have rephrased your point - or at least added clauses under pressure. Each time I made a comparison, you tried to come up with an extra clause to make it incomparable, even to the extent of rather silly semantic points. You're determined to treat religious texts differently to any other, despite there being few logical reasons to do so. Honestly, though this constant tweaking does slow things down, I see it as an acknowledgement that your original point doesn't make sense on its own. Progress is progress, even if it won't change your attitudes any time soon!

ReplyVote up (90)down (101)
Original comment

"Why do you believe your interpretation of the Quran is "the truth", when my Islamist friend next door interprets the same Quran very differently and also believes it's "the truth"? You can't both be right."

But both believers will their have reasons and probably valid ones at that. Some texts can lead to equally valid opposing conclusions, and with no original author present we can't be sure which is true. So what? I return to the comparison of our current laws; One barrister interprets them one way, based on certain case history, and another interprets them another way, based on others. They can't both be right, and crucially this difference, this disagreement, doesn't mean that there is less meaning within the law itself. It's just that in those cases, we're lucky to have judges to make a certain decision one way or the other. With ancient texts, we just have to give it our best guess and interpret it in a way that makes sense to each of us. To go slightly off-piste and use a non-textual example, I could equally say 'Hey moderate atheist friend, why do you believe your interpretation of the world is "the truth", when my Hindu friend next door interprets the same world very differently. You can't both be right." You would both have explanations (and probably tedious ones), but the disagreement is just fine. Disagreement / interpretation is part of the diversity of humankind, whether you're interpreting text, body language, or the world we see. Just because everyone can't be right all the time doesn't mean it's all less meaningful.

I do think you have rephrased your point - or at least added clauses under pressure. Each time I made a comparison, you tried to come up with an extra clause to make it incomparable, even to the extent of rather silly semantic points. You're determined to treat religious texts differently to any other, despite there being few logical reasons to do so. Honestly, though this constant tweaking does slow things down, I see it as an acknowledgement that your original point doesn't make sense on its own. Progress is progress, even if it won't change your attitudes any time soon!

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (581 days ago)

I'll sum up again. I ask, "Hey moderate Muslim friend, why do you believe your interpretation of the Quran is "the truth", when my Islamist friend next door interprets the same Quran very differently and also believes it's "the truth"? You can't both be right."

Your answer is they have their reasons. I did assume that but thanks for confirming it.

ReplyVote up (101)down (77)
Original comment

I'll sum up again. I ask, "Hey moderate Muslim friend, why do you believe your interpretation of the Quran is "the truth", when my Islamist friend next door interprets the same Quran very differently and also believes it's "the truth"? You can't both be right."

Your answer is they have their reasons. I did assume that but thanks for confirming it.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Proud Agnostic (581 days ago)

OK, so you know interpretations are an inescapable part of language, you can (probably) acknowledge that although two opposing interpretations possibly can't both be right, one definitely can be, and you know the people who hold each interpretation have reasons for thinking theirs is the right one. And yet you still seem to think that this obvious and natural interpretability logically affects the level of meaning. There's a huge leap of logic somewhere along the line. Apparently, you doubt whether or not the holy books have value to the believers themselves . I said it earlier; if you really don't know the answer to that, find a believer and ask them. Seems stupendously obvious to me.

Urgh. You've now watered down your point so far I'm not even sure it's a point at all.

ReplyVote up (101)down (99)
Original comment

OK, so you know interpretations are an inescapable part of language, you can (probably) acknowledge that although two opposing interpretations possibly can't both be right, one definitely can be, and you know the people who hold each interpretation have reasons for thinking theirs is the right one. And yet you still seem to think that this obvious and natural interpretability logically affects the level of meaning. There's a huge leap of logic somewhere along the line. Apparently, you doubt whether or not the holy books have value to the believers themselves . I said it earlier; if you really don't know the answer to that, find a believer and ask them. Seems stupendously obvious to me.

Urgh. You've now watered down your point so far I'm not even sure it's a point at all.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (581 days ago)

My point is this. There is no absolute truth. "The truth" is in the head of the beholder, and it's the result of the beholder's make-up, experiences and environment. A believer cherry picks the interpretation they like. Why would they cherry pick an interpretation they didn't like? If they didn't cherry pick it, then they were brainwashed - because they were born atheist. They can put as much value on that choice/brainwash as they want but they should realise that it's always just their unique interpretation.

Any believer who is absolutely sure that their interpretation of their holy book is "the truth", should think again. There are infinite interpretations of holy books - what are the chances of getting the right one. Pretty damn slim if you ask me.

ReplyVote up (101)down (96)
Original comment

My point is this. There is no absolute truth. "The truth" is in the head of the beholder, and it's the result of the beholder's make-up, experiences and environment. A believer cherry picks the interpretation they like. Why would they cherry pick an interpretation they didn't like? If they didn't cherry pick it, then they were brainwashed - because they were born atheist. They can put as much value on that choice/brainwash as they want but they should realise that it's always just their unique interpretation.

Any believer who is absolutely sure that their interpretation of their holy book is "the truth", should think again. There are infinite interpretations of holy books - what are the chances of getting the right one. Pretty damn slim if you ask me.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Proud Agnostic (580 days ago)

Great. An entirely new point pulled out of the bag. A multitude of interpretations does not entail that 'there is no absolute truth'. And frankly, as far as interpretations of a piece of recorded language are concerned, of course there is an absolute truth. We may not be able to definitively identify it, but these things were written with a particular interpretation in mind. Whenever language leaves the source, there is a certain message that is intended. Whether that message gets across or instead is misinterpreted and distorted is another matter, but there's still an original truth that people can try to access. People aren't fumbling in the dark and arbritarily choosing a random interpretation from an 'infinite' number, as you say. If a book says 'Love your neighbour', you might interpret that as 'Love the people who live next door to you', or maybe 'Love all fellow human beings', but it's unlikely you'll interpret that as 'Eat all polecats'. Interpretation and translation try to pinpoint the original intent by looking at the available evidence, so it's fair enough to be convinced yours is correct (unless you really have gone with your randomised method). Cherry-picking? Maybe. Is it cherry-picking to think of Lady Macbeth as a victim of insanity rather than a ruthless dominatrix? How about to interpret 'reasonable force' as breaking someone's legs or merely knocking them out? Or to see Trump as a divisive egomaniac rather than a patriotic success-story? I suppose we all 'cherry pick the interpretations we like' (yes, you too), even when there really is no objective truth, and for the most part we're all convinced we're right because if there's an interpretation we like better, we generally go for it. Yes, we should all be aware that there are other interpretations out there, but everyone has the right to feel as confident as you do about what they believe, and in some cases probably more so!

ReplyVote up (101)down (100)
Original comment

Great. An entirely new point pulled out of the bag. A multitude of interpretations does not entail that 'there is no absolute truth'. And frankly, as far as interpretations of a piece of recorded language are concerned, of course there is an absolute truth. We may not be able to definitively identify it, but these things were written with a particular interpretation in mind. Whenever language leaves the source, there is a certain message that is intended. Whether that message gets across or instead is misinterpreted and distorted is another matter, but there's still an original truth that people can try to access. People aren't fumbling in the dark and arbritarily choosing a random interpretation from an 'infinite' number, as you say. If a book says 'Love your neighbour', you might interpret that as 'Love the people who live next door to you', or maybe 'Love all fellow human beings', but it's unlikely you'll interpret that as 'Eat all polecats'. Interpretation and translation try to pinpoint the original intent by looking at the available evidence, so it's fair enough to be convinced yours is correct (unless you really have gone with your randomised method). Cherry-picking? Maybe. Is it cherry-picking to think of Lady Macbeth as a victim of insanity rather than a ruthless dominatrix? How about to interpret 'reasonable force' as breaking someone's legs or merely knocking them out? Or to see Trump as a divisive egomaniac rather than a patriotic success-story? I suppose we all 'cherry pick the interpretations we like' (yes, you too), even when there really is no objective truth, and for the most part we're all convinced we're right because if there's an interpretation we like better, we generally go for it. Yes, we should all be aware that there are other interpretations out there, but everyone has the right to feel as confident as you do about what they believe, and in some cases probably more so!

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (580 days ago)

I ask, "Hey moderate Muslim friend, why do you believe your interpretation of the Quran is "the truth", when my Islamist friend next door interprets the same Quran very differently and also believes it's "the truth"? You can't both be right."

Your answer is - all texts are interpretable, they have their reasons for what they believe, and they have the right to be as confident in their beliefs as they want. Thanks for the education. I now feel so much smarter.

ReplyVote up (90)down (101)
Original comment

I ask, "Hey moderate Muslim friend, why do you believe your interpretation of the Quran is "the truth", when my Islamist friend next door interprets the same Quran very differently and also believes it's "the truth"? You can't both be right."

Your answer is - all texts are interpretable, they have their reasons for what they believe, and they have the right to be as confident in their beliefs as they want. Thanks for the education. I now feel so much smarter.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Proud Agnostic (580 days ago)

You're keen on the sarcasm these days, I see.

"You can't both be right" does not equal "One of you can't be right".

When interpreting a written text there IS an absolute / original truth.

Multivalence of meaning cannot possibly, logically, or rationally lower the meaning or value of a text - in fact, quite the opposite - and neither can it affect the authority, or our laws would be meaningless.

So, as you accept that people have their reasons, this repeated weak rhetorical question of yours isn't so much a point, as it is a statement of simple nescience. I understand you don't happen to know their reasons - happy now? Can I have a go too? "Hey historian, why do you say Alexander the Great was born on 21st of July, when others disagree?" AHA! YEAH! That told that hypothetical historian. Right?

ReplyVote up (94)down (101)
Original comment

You're keen on the sarcasm these days, I see.

"You can't both be right" does not equal "One of you can't be right".

When interpreting a written text there IS an absolute / original truth.

Multivalence of meaning cannot possibly, logically, or rationally lower the meaning or value of a text - in fact, quite the opposite - and neither can it affect the authority, or our laws would be meaningless.

So, as you accept that people have their reasons, this repeated weak rhetorical question of yours isn't so much a point, as it is a statement of simple nescience. I understand you don't happen to know their reasons - happy now? Can I have a go too? "Hey historian, why do you say Alexander the Great was born on 21st of July, when others disagree?" AHA! YEAH! That told that hypothetical historian. Right?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (580 days ago)

WTF are you talking about?

ReplyVote up (84)down (101)
Original comment

WTF are you talking about?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Proud Agnostic (580 days ago)

Talking about you not actually having a point any more - just this bizarre rhetorical question which only states you don't know something. Quite simple really. Maybe you'd like to repeat it for me, in case I realised you didn't know, or perhaps create a brand new point and claim it was what you meant all along. Alternatively, go out there and find a real Muslim, ask them your favourite question, and actually listen to their answer. If you're careful you could even learn something. Hey, that sarcasm thing, I like it.

ReplyVote up (101)down (94)
Original comment

Talking about you not actually having a point any more - just this bizarre rhetorical question which only states you don't know something. Quite simple really. Maybe you'd like to repeat it for me, in case I realised you didn't know, or perhaps create a brand new point and claim it was what you meant all along. Alternatively, go out there and find a real Muslim, ask them your favourite question, and actually listen to their answer. If you're careful you could even learn something. Hey, that sarcasm thing, I like it.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (580 days ago)

Which one is the real Muslim, the moderate or the Islamist?

ReplyVote up (100)down (101)
Original comment

Which one is the real Muslim, the moderate or the Islamist?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Proud Agnostic (580 days ago)

You know, when I said you could create a brand new point and claim it was what you meant all along... I was joking.

But I'll bite; in answer to your brand new point, why is it one or the other? I'd say they are both types of Muslim. However, the Islamist takes a thankfully rare and unusual interpretation of his holy texts, and the moderate takes a far more common interpretation - so it would make no sense to judge all Muslims based on the actions of the former minority. I know you struggle with analogies, but which is the real climatologist; James Hansen or Richard Lindzen?

ReplyVote up (101)down (77)
Original comment

You know, when I said you could create a brand new point and claim it was what you meant all along... I was joking.

But I'll bite; in answer to your brand new point, why is it one or the other? I'd say they are both types of Muslim. However, the Islamist takes a thankfully rare and unusual interpretation of his holy texts, and the moderate takes a far more common interpretation - so it would make no sense to judge all Muslims based on the actions of the former minority. I know you struggle with analogies, but which is the real climatologist; James Hansen or Richard Lindzen?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (580 days ago)

Asking which is the real Muslim is not actually a brand new point. It highlights the original point. Both believe their interpretation is the absolute truth. Both get their ideas from the same source. Both claim the other is not a real Muslim. Both can't be right, but as you said, one can be. If one is right, then the other is not a real Muslim. Yet you say they are different types of Muslim. It's so confusing.

"… so it would make no sense to judge all Muslims based on the actions of the former minority." Are we now judging an interpretation by how common it is?

Anyway, who said anything about judgement? I've just been pointing out the contradictions in a believer who believes 100% that their particular interpretation of a highly interpretable text is the absolute truth. I think you just want an argument but I'm not quite sure what about.

ReplyVote up (101)down (88)
Original comment

Asking which is the real Muslim is not actually a brand new point. It highlights the original point. Both believe their interpretation is the absolute truth. Both get their ideas from the same source. Both claim the other is not a real Muslim. Both can't be right, but as you said, one can be. If one is right, then the other is not a real Muslim. Yet you say they are different types of Muslim. It's so confusing.

"… so it would make no sense to judge all Muslims based on the actions of the former minority." Are we now judging an interpretation by how common it is?

Anyway, who said anything about judgement? I've just been pointing out the contradictions in a believer who believes 100% that their particular interpretation of a highly interpretable text is the absolute truth. I think you just want an argument but I'm not quite sure what about.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Proud Agnostic (580 days ago)

It's a new point. Your issue is now about identity of a believer rather than the value of a text to that believer. If you would nail down your point for more than two comments, then that would be what our argument is about.

Who is the real Muslim? I really don't think it is confusing. In practical terms, anyone who practises the faith of the Quran in some form is some kind of Muslim. Now if you really wanted to find out a deeper answer to your question, or know which of your neighbours to believe, then you'd need to decide on what constitutes a 'real Muslim' for you. If it's about how close their interpretation of the Quran is to the likely original meaning, then you'd need to speak to an Islamic scholar who knew the text well and had read it in the original Qurayshi. Equally, there may be some other yardstick for you. That's also fine, so long as there is still some continuity of meaning (for the sake of communication). Another analogy - if I call myself an artist, and say my neighbour doesn't count, and he says vice versa - technically one of us may be more correct according to the definition of the word. However, we can both be convinced that we are right, and we can each have our own definition (within reason). So does that mean the word 'artist' has less meaning or less value? No. It just shows there are variations on what it means. Ultimately, you can believe 100% that your particular interpretation (of anything) is the absolute truth, and still acknowledge that there are other (incorrect) interpretations. Seriously, where is the contradiction? Acknowledging the existence (and fallaciousness) or other interpretations seems to be an absolute necessity of conviction rather than a contradiction.

I'm trying, but I just really can't see your point - or any of your points. I see no contradictions (maybe you mean something else?) and I can't for the life of me see why this diversity of interpretation could possibly reduce the meaning or value to believers.

ReplyVote up (101)down (92)
Original comment

It's a new point. Your issue is now about identity of a believer rather than the value of a text to that believer. If you would nail down your point for more than two comments, then that would be what our argument is about.

Who is the real Muslim? I really don't think it is confusing. In practical terms, anyone who practises the faith of the Quran in some form is some kind of Muslim. Now if you really wanted to find out a deeper answer to your question, or know which of your neighbours to believe, then you'd need to decide on what constitutes a 'real Muslim' for you. If it's about how close their interpretation of the Quran is to the likely original meaning, then you'd need to speak to an Islamic scholar who knew the text well and had read it in the original Qurayshi. Equally, there may be some other yardstick for you. That's also fine, so long as there is still some continuity of meaning (for the sake of communication). Another analogy - if I call myself an artist, and say my neighbour doesn't count, and he says vice versa - technically one of us may be more correct according to the definition of the word. However, we can both be convinced that we are right, and we can each have our own definition (within reason). So does that mean the word 'artist' has less meaning or less value? No. It just shows there are variations on what it means. Ultimately, you can believe 100% that your particular interpretation (of anything) is the absolute truth, and still acknowledge that there are other (incorrect) interpretations. Seriously, where is the contradiction? Acknowledging the existence (and fallaciousness) or other interpretations seems to be an absolute necessity of conviction rather than a contradiction.

I'm trying, but I just really can't see your point - or any of your points. I see no contradictions (maybe you mean something else?) and I can't for the life of me see why this diversity of interpretation could possibly reduce the meaning or value to believers.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (579 days ago)

I've tried my best, if you haven't understood me by now you never will.

ReplyVote up (101)down (95)
Original comment

I've tried my best, if you haven't understood me by now you never will.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Proud Agnostic/Walt (579 days ago)

Agreed. I don't think you meant contradiction. Next time, I'll ask you to clearly define your entire point at the beginning so we can save some debating. 'Til then, my dear other half.

ReplyVote up (101)down (92)
Original comment

Agreed. I don't think you meant contradiction. Next time, I'll ask you to clearly define your entire point at the beginning so we can save some debating. 'Til then, my dear other half.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Hitchhiker (579 days ago)

walterego and proud agnostic are one and the same guy.

ReplyVote up (101)down (99)
Original comment

walterego and proud agnostic are one and the same guy.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Proud Agnostic (579 days ago)

Damn! We're busted!

ReplyVote up (101)down (89)
Original comment

Damn! We're busted!

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (579 days ago)

I sincerely hope not.

ReplyVote up (101)down (97)
Original comment

I sincerely hope not.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (582 days ago)

We should update Godwin's Law from Hitler to Trump.

ReplyVote up (95)down (101)
Original comment

We should update Godwin's Law from Hitler to Trump.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Proud Agnostic (582 days ago)

I think it's important to include Trump in a conversation about how a term like political correctness is exploited - I think you misunderstand Godwin's law.

ReplyVote up (101)down (81)
Original comment

I think it's important to include Trump in a conversation about how a term like political correctness is exploited - I think you misunderstand Godwin's law.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (582 days ago)

It was a joke, admittedly not a great one.

ReplyVote up (95)down (101)
Original comment

It was a joke, admittedly not a great one.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Hitchiker (583 days ago)

If God had something to say.

Im pretty sure He would make it quite clear.

Without the need for human interpretation.

Anything else is just made up bullshit.

So long and thanks for all the fish.

ReplyVote up (101)down (93)
Original comment

If God had something to say.

Im pretty sure He would make it quite clear.

Without the need for human interpretation.

Anything else is just made up bullshit.

So long and thanks for all the fish.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Proud Agnostic (583 days ago)

I agree... unless of course the concepts of faith or being tested were somehow integral in religions. And funnily enough...

ReplyVote up (101)down (90)
Original comment

I agree... unless of course the concepts of faith or being tested were somehow integral in religions. And funnily enough...

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Hitchiker (583 days ago)

Im of the firm belief that if God had something to say it would be clear and not need any interpretation at all.

Man wrote all the books, no one else and for no one else.

God does not need interpretation from man, to say otherwise is blasphemous.

God would never make the obvious mistakes that exist in the Koran or the Bible.

Science has already proven that Adam and Eve never existed, this makes the whole of the Bible or the Koran, which are both based on original sin (which therefore never happened) a complete lie.

The death and resurrection happened for nothing.

Morality is not based on religion and has been with us since we first decided to live peacefully together.

Deep thoughts

ReplyVote up (101)down (99)
Original comment

Im of the firm belief that if God had something to say it would be clear and not need any interpretation at all.

Man wrote all the books, no one else and for no one else.

God does not need interpretation from man, to say otherwise is blasphemous.

God would never make the obvious mistakes that exist in the Koran or the Bible.

Science has already proven that Adam and Eve never existed, this makes the whole of the Bible or the Koran, which are both based on original sin (which therefore never happened) a complete lie.

The death and resurrection happened for nothing.

Morality is not based on religion and has been with us since we first decided to live peacefully together.

Deep thoughts

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (583 days ago)

I think most religious followers would accept that the holy books are written by humans, but inspired by god. In the Bible, the gospels are even known by the name of the human that wrote them!

I think your point on Adam and Eve is fairly insignificant to all but the most literal of fundamentalists. Most Chris tians follow the life of Christ (surprise surprise), and use the Old Testament as a background. I know many Christians and I honestly can't think of any who think the story of Adam and Eve is literally historically true. After-all, there are a good number of our leading scientists (past and present) who are happy to believe in a god, so science can't disprove religion, and nor does it try.

Still, the assumptions you make are commonplace among anti-theists. I just wish there was more understanding across the board. If anti-theists took a day or two to investigate the real contemporary beliefs and attitudes of religious people, I think they'd finally pipe down. Everyone is trying to figure things out in a way that fits in with their particular prejudice and culture - and that includes atheists too.

ReplyVote up (101)down (99)
Original comment

I think most religious followers would accept that the holy books are written by humans, but inspired by god. In the Bible, the gospels are even known by the name of the human that wrote them!

I think your point on Adam and Eve is fairly insignificant to all but the most literal of fundamentalists. Most Chris tians follow the life of Christ (surprise surprise), and use the Old Testament as a background. I know many Christians and I honestly can't think of any who think the story of Adam and Eve is literally historically true. After-all, there are a good number of our leading scientists (past and present) who are happy to believe in a god, so science can't disprove religion, and nor does it try.

Still, the assumptions you make are commonplace among anti-theists. I just wish there was more understanding across the board. If anti-theists took a day or two to investigate the real contemporary beliefs and attitudes of religious people, I think they'd finally pipe down. Everyone is trying to figure things out in a way that fits in with their particular prejudice and culture - and that includes atheists too.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Hitchiker (582 days ago)

I agree but.

Jesus said "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them".

Meaning he came to uphold the teachings of the old testament.

The people who wrote the chapters of the New Testament are not who you think they are, plus the important books were left out.

Only the gospel of John claims to be written by a deciple or eye witness.

It was not written by John, no one knows who wrote it.

Paul was not a true deciple of Jesus and did not become a follower until after the crucifiction. He was an apostle and never met Jesus.

The books of Mary, and Thomas have recently been found and are dated to be the oldest books of the New Testament. They affirm the position that women held in early Christianity but the church refuses to recognize them.

Like i said if God had something to say there would be no argument about it.

ReplyVote up (101)down (99)
Original comment

I agree but.

Jesus said "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them".

Meaning he came to uphold the teachings of the old testament.

The people who wrote the chapters of the New Testament are not who you think they are, plus the important books were left out.

Only the gospel of John claims to be written by a deciple or eye witness.

It was not written by John, no one knows who wrote it.

Paul was not a true deciple of Jesus and did not become a follower until after the crucifiction. He was an apostle and never met Jesus.

The books of Mary, and Thomas have recently been found and are dated to be the oldest books of the New Testament. They affirm the position that women held in early Christianity but the church refuses to recognize them.

Like i said if God had something to say there would be no argument about it.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Proud Agnostic (582 days ago)

You raise too many points to reply in full, but briefly....

Most Christians maintain that "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law of the Prophets " refers quite explicitly to the former Rabinnic *law* rather than the entire Old Testament, and that the fulfillment was simply in the coming of a Messiah which had been predicted. It is clear the Old Testament is used by the Jesus character as a foundation and a status quo, but even a cursory reading shows that the New Testament is different in both style and content to the Old, and indeed there are other sections where Jesus openly challenges accepted parts of what was previously accepted, about divorce, revenge, enemies, etc. etc. I'd be surprised if you can find too many (indeed any) Christians that value the Old Testament as much as the New regardless of whether you think they should. It is characterised by the 'Gospel of Love' after all.

I wasn't meaning that the gospels are literally authored by people with those exact names - that's fairly arbitrary. I am merely saying that they are acknowledged by believers as being authored by men - just rather special men.

I don't think anyone believes in a god who would want to regularly come down to order us about, give us a piece of his mind, and clarify what we're supposed to be doing. In fact, the concepts of free will, faith, and the judgment of souls seem to make that an impossibility. It looks like you and Christians disbelieve in the same god.

ReplyVote up (101)down (93)
Original comment

You raise too many points to reply in full, but briefly....

Most Christians maintain that "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law of the Prophets " refers quite explicitly to the former Rabinnic *law* rather than the entire Old Testament, and that the fulfillment was simply in the coming of a Messiah which had been predicted. It is clear the Old Testament is used by the Jesus character as a foundation and a status quo, but even a cursory reading shows that the New Testament is different in both style and content to the Old, and indeed there are other sections where Jesus openly challenges accepted parts of what was previously accepted, about divorce, revenge, enemies, etc. etc. I'd be surprised if you can find too many (indeed any) Christians that value the Old Testament as much as the New regardless of whether you think they should. It is characterised by the 'Gospel of Love' after all.

I wasn't meaning that the gospels are literally authored by people with those exact names - that's fairly arbitrary. I am merely saying that they are acknowledged by believers as being authored by men - just rather special men.

I don't think anyone believes in a god who would want to regularly come down to order us about, give us a piece of his mind, and clarify what we're supposed to be doing. In fact, the concepts of free will, faith, and the judgment of souls seem to make that an impossibility. It looks like you and Christians disbelieve in the same god.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Guest093840598 (586 days ago)

In the Quran Allah repeatedly expresses himself as the most merciful. He also wants us to be like this. As you are aware of the repeated chances given to Pharaoh to repent and many many other examples exist of this mercy. But people ignore these and will either suffer here in this World or be punished in the next. It would have been far easier for them to become merciful to each other and received paradise.

The Quran is not as confusing as most people think. It is a very clear book! But it has depth far more than the immediately apparent word. Therefore, the simpleton (like me) can read it and the great scholar can read it and achieve great wisdom.

As previously mentioned. Allah challenges the reader to fault it or to write a verse equal to it. This has stood the test of time, as science has progressed (through 1400 years) and only managed to prove the Quran correct. To prove anything wrong in the book would be to prove that Allah was wrong. For a true god can NEVER be wrong, with his infinite wisdom! At best, it can be proven that a follower can be wrong - but then again, he is only human and can be mistaken.

ReplyVote up (101)down (98)
Original comment

In the Quran Allah repeatedly expresses himself as the most merciful. He also wants us to be like this. As you are aware of the repeated chances given to Pharaoh to repent and many many other examples exist of this mercy. But people ignore these and will either suffer here in this World or be punished in the next. It would have been far easier for them to become merciful to each other and received paradise.

The Quran is not as confusing as most people think. It is a very clear book! But it has depth far more than the immediately apparent word. Therefore, the simpleton (like me) can read it and the great scholar can read it and achieve great wisdom.

As previously mentioned. Allah challenges the reader to fault it or to write a verse equal to it. This has stood the test of time, as science has progressed (through 1400 years) and only managed to prove the Quran correct. To prove anything wrong in the book would be to prove that Allah was wrong. For a true god can NEVER be wrong, with his infinite wisdom! At best, it can be proven that a follower can be wrong - but then again, he is only human and can be mistaken.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (586 days ago)

My point is that it doesn't matter what the Quran says because people will interpret it differently. However clear you think the Quran is, an Islamist interprets it very differently to you.

"Allah challenges the reader to fault it or to write a verse equal to it." Really? I might have a go. What is the prize?

ReplyVote up (101)down (95)
Original comment

My point is that it doesn't matter what the Quran says because people will interpret it differently. However clear you think the Quran is, an Islamist interprets it very differently to you.

"Allah challenges the reader to fault it or to write a verse equal to it." Really? I might have a go. What is the prize?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Guest0934509 (586 days ago)

It is simple - Allah CANNOT make a mistake. If a mistake can be proven - then this is not a book from Allah! The prize is that ALL muslims will leave the Quran if it can be proven to be false!

ReplyVote up (101)down (99)
Original comment

It is simple - Allah CANNOT make a mistake. If a mistake can be proven - then this is not a book from Allah! The prize is that ALL muslims will leave the Quran if it can be proven to be false!

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Hitchiker (582 days ago)

It has been proven to be false already.

From the koran:

it says that the sun runs on to a resting place for it--it does not

it says the earth is flat---it isnt.

And hath made the moon a light therein, and made the sun a lamp?

The moon does not emit light.

The hour drew nigh and the moon did rend asunder-- the moon was never rendered asunder.

He draweth the night as a veil o'er the day---- the night is not a veil.

Allah is He Who created seven Firmaments and of the earth a similar number------there are nine planets.

See ye not how Allah has created the seven heavens one above another.---- the universe has billions of galaxys.

We created the heavens and the earth and all between them in Six Days

The earth is 4.5billion years old and was not created.

He it is Who created for you all that is in the earth. Then turned He to the heaven. The earth is only 4.5 billion years old and there are stars and planets that are billions of years older than that.

When the sun (with its spacious light) is folded up----- the sun is an orb and cannot be folded up

See they not what is before them and behind them, of the sky and the earth? If We wished, We could cause the earth to swallow them up, or cause a piece of the sky to fall upon them. Verily in this is a Sign for every devotee that turns to Allah----- a piece of the sky cannot fall on you.

The Day when We shall roll up the heavens as a recorder rolleth up a written scroll.---- The heavens cannot be rolled up since they are a limitless expance.

We created man from sounding clay, from mud molded into shape--- we were not created at all never mind from mud.

a women is created from a rib---just not true.

He is created from a drop emitted- Proceeding from between the backbone and the ribs, ---semen does not come from there.

There are too many mistakes in the koran to mention here.

So since ive proved mistakes in the Koran I assume you will be leaving the religion.

Oh wait thats right they will kill you if you leave.

good luck

ReplyVote up (101)down (93)
Original comment

It has been proven to be false already.

From the koran:

it says that the sun runs on to a resting place for it--it does not

it says the earth is flat---it isnt.

And hath made the moon a light therein, and made the sun a lamp?

The moon does not emit light.

The hour drew nigh and the moon did rend asunder-- the moon was never rendered asunder.

He draweth the night as a veil o'er the day---- the night is not a veil.

Allah is He Who created seven Firmaments and of the earth a similar number------there are nine planets.

See ye not how Allah has created the seven heavens one above another.---- the universe has billions of galaxys.

We created the heavens and the earth and all between them in Six Days

The earth is 4.5billion years old and was not created.

He it is Who created for you all that is in the earth. Then turned He to the heaven. The earth is only 4.5 billion years old and there are stars and planets that are billions of years older than that.

When the sun (with its spacious light) is folded up----- the sun is an orb and cannot be folded up

See they not what is before them and behind them, of the sky and the earth? If We wished, We could cause the earth to swallow them up, or cause a piece of the sky to fall upon them. Verily in this is a Sign for every devotee that turns to Allah----- a piece of the sky cannot fall on you.

The Day when We shall roll up the heavens as a recorder rolleth up a written scroll.---- The heavens cannot be rolled up since they are a limitless expance.

We created man from sounding clay, from mud molded into shape--- we were not created at all never mind from mud.

a women is created from a rib---just not true.

He is created from a drop emitted- Proceeding from between the backbone and the ribs, ---semen does not come from there.

There are too many mistakes in the koran to mention here.

So since ive proved mistakes in the Koran I assume you will be leaving the religion.

Oh wait thats right they will kill you if you leave.

good luck

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (582 days ago)

Good old wiki-islam.

Here's a thought, maybe believers don't follow religions for scientific knowledge, perhaps - maybe - possibly - it provides something else.

'Deep thoughts'.

ReplyVote up (101)down (91)
Original comment

Good old wiki-islam.

Here's a thought, maybe believers don't follow religions for scientific knowledge, perhaps - maybe - possibly - it provides something else.

'Deep thoughts'.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Hitchhiker (581 days ago)

Deep Thoughts man.

ReplyVote up (101)down (98)
Original comment

Deep Thoughts man.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Sand Person (581 days ago)

Nice. You added to the lies told about Islam.

"It says that the sun runs on to a resting place for it--it does not" - unless of course the resting point is the final destination of the sun, either at the end of its life as a star or at the judgment day.

"It says the earth is flat---it isnt." - No it doesn't. It says the earth is spread out like a carpet, and uses the Arabic دحاها dahaha which is usually used for spherical things. How's your Arabic?

"And hath made the moon a light therein, and made the sun a lamp? The moon does not emit light." The 'therein' is about the moon within the heaven, not a light within the moon. Basic grammar.

"The hour drew nigh and the moon did rend asunder-- the moon was never rendered asunder." Read the whole sura. It's about the signs of impending judgement day, so no it hasn't happened yet.

"He draweth the night as a veil o'er the day---- the night is not a veil." Metaphor is now taught in primary schools, catch up.

"Allah is He Who created seven Firmaments and of the earth a similar number------there are nine planets." Firmaments is not the same as planet. The 7 firmaments are described as different parts of heaven.

"See ye not how Allah has created the seven heavens one above another.---- the universe has billions of galaxys." Firmaments is not the same as galaxies, see above.

"When the sun (with its spacious light) is folded up----- the sun is an orb and cannot be folded up" Google 'metaphor' again. The sun will end.

"The Day when We shall roll up the heavens as a recorder rolleth up a written scroll.---- The heavens cannot be rolled up since they are a limitless expance." 'Metaphor' again, and as for 'limitless expance'? Is that a scientific term?

"A women is created from a rib---just not true." You said these were from the Qu'Ran. Check your sources, this is from a hadith. Do you know the difference?

"He is created from a drop emitted- Proceeding from between the backbone and the ribs, ---semen does not come from there." Bad guess, it's not about semen. 'He is created from an emitted fluid that issued from between the sulb and the tara’ib. (86:5-7)'. Sulb is the back, and the word ‘tarai’b&rsqu o;is actually referring to the female. It is saying that life comes from a unity between male and female, and physiologically from tissues between the back and the ribcage.

If you get your opinions from anti-Islamic sites you can expect to get things wrong. If you want to understand something, don't just read soundbites picked for you by people wanting to force their opinion, but read entire suras. It is clear you know very little of Islam. Why not listen to people who know the Qu'Ran, who speak Arabic and educate yourself, rather than swallowing the propaganda from people that can't even understand the source directly. Otherwise you repeat their mistakes and it makes you look ignorant. You wouldn't want that would you?

ReplyVote up (99)down (101)
Original comment

Nice. You added to the lies told about Islam.

"It says that the sun runs on to a resting place for it--it does not" - unless of course the resting point is the final destination of the sun, either at the end of its life as a star or at the judgment day.

"It says the earth is flat---it isnt." - No it doesn't. It says the earth is spread out like a carpet, and uses the Arabic دحاها dahaha which is usually used for spherical things. How's your Arabic?

"And hath made the moon a light therein, and made the sun a lamp? The moon does not emit light." The 'therein' is about the moon within the heaven, not a light within the moon. Basic grammar.

"The hour drew nigh and the moon did rend asunder-- the moon was never rendered asunder." Read the whole sura. It's about the signs of impending judgement day, so no it hasn't happened yet.

"He draweth the night as a veil o'er the day---- the night is not a veil." Metaphor is now taught in primary schools, catch up.

"Allah is He Who created seven Firmaments and of the earth a similar number------there are nine planets." Firmaments is not the same as planet. The 7 firmaments are described as different parts of heaven.

"See ye not how Allah has created the seven heavens one above another.---- the universe has billions of galaxys." Firmaments is not the same as galaxies, see above.

"When the sun (with its spacious light) is folded up----- the sun is an orb and cannot be folded up" Google 'metaphor' again. The sun will end.

"The Day when We shall roll up the heavens as a recorder rolleth up a written scroll.---- The heavens cannot be rolled up since they are a limitless expance." 'Metaphor' again, and as for 'limitless expance'? Is that a scientific term?

"A women is created from a rib---just not true." You said these were from the Qu'Ran. Check your sources, this is from a hadith. Do you know the difference?

"He is created from a drop emitted- Proceeding from between the backbone and the ribs, ---semen does not come from there." Bad guess, it's not about semen. 'He is created from an emitted fluid that issued from between the sulb and the tara’ib. (86:5-7)'. Sulb is the back, and the word ‘tarai’b&rsqu o;is actually referring to the female. It is saying that life comes from a unity between male and female, and physiologically from tissues between the back and the ribcage.

If you get your opinions from anti-Islamic sites you can expect to get things wrong. If you want to understand something, don't just read soundbites picked for you by people wanting to force their opinion, but read entire suras. It is clear you know very little of Islam. Why not listen to people who know the Qu'Ran, who speak Arabic and educate yourself, rather than swallowing the propaganda from people that can't even understand the source directly. Otherwise you repeat their mistakes and it makes you look ignorant. You wouldn't want that would you?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Hitchhiker (580 days ago)

Because I know you will lie to spread the word of Islam.

I know that there are whole countries that are barbaric who practice islam.

I know something in the interpretation of islam leads people to do horrible things.

I know that all religion is used to control people as a political tool.

I just put Islam in my little bag of bs where i keep Judaism, Christianity, and Hindu etc.

Religion may make you feel good about yourself but science cured polio.

ReplyVote up (89)down (101)
Original comment

Because I know you will lie to spread the word of Islam.

I know that there are whole countries that are barbaric who practice islam.

I know something in the interpretation of islam leads people to do horrible things.

I know that all religion is used to control people as a political tool.

I just put Islam in my little bag of bs where i keep Judaism, Christianity, and Hindu etc.

Religion may make you feel good about yourself but science cured polio.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (584 days ago)

"It is simple - Allah CANNOT make a mistake." But you can make mistakes, so maybe you are mistaken, and Allah CAN make mistakes.

Anyway, what do you mean by "mistake"?

If there's nothing in the fossil record to show there was a Great Flood as described in the Quran - is that a mistake?

What if I could prove that a winged horse could not fly because it would be too heavy without hollow bones like birds have - is that a mistake? And that's without the extra weight of Muhammad on its back.

What about the question of an angel talking to Muhammad in a cave - there were no witnesses and we know that it is not uncommon for people to wildly hallucinate. So was it a mistake for Allah to rely on an angel to reveal his wisdom verbally to a single person? Would it not have been better for Allah to show up in person and address thousands of people at many public meetings? Like what Donald Trump is doing very successfully.

Was it a mistake to allow the final text of Quran to be so widely interpretable that it would be misunderstood or abused by some people? Shouldn't it have been edited to sound a bit more like lawyer speak?

Isn't it a mistake for Allah not to update the Quran for the modern world to include diverse new areas such as genetic engeneering, the internet, and dark matter? Without doing that, Allah will find it very difficult to recruit many people from the scientific community, which is crucial for credibility.

If Allah never makes mistakes, then how come he can't persuade more people that Islam is the true path? 1.5 billion Muslims is a lot, but it still leaves 5.5 billion unpersuaded.

ReplyVote up (98)down (101)
Original comment

"It is simple - Allah CANNOT make a mistake." But you can make mistakes, so maybe you are mistaken, and Allah CAN make mistakes.

Anyway, what do you mean by "mistake"?

If there's nothing in the fossil record to show there was a Great Flood as described in the Quran - is that a mistake?

What if I could prove that a winged horse could not fly because it would be too heavy without hollow bones like birds have - is that a mistake? And that's without the extra weight of Muhammad on its back.

What about the question of an angel talking to Muhammad in a cave - there were no witnesses and we know that it is not uncommon for people to wildly hallucinate. So was it a mistake for Allah to rely on an angel to reveal his wisdom verbally to a single person? Would it not have been better for Allah to show up in person and address thousands of people at many public meetings? Like what Donald Trump is doing very successfully.

Was it a mistake to allow the final text of Quran to be so widely interpretable that it would be misunderstood or abused by some people? Shouldn't it have been edited to sound a bit more like lawyer speak?

Isn't it a mistake for Allah not to update the Quran for the modern world to include diverse new areas such as genetic engeneering, the internet, and dark matter? Without doing that, Allah will find it very difficult to recruit many people from the scientific community, which is crucial for credibility.

If Allah never makes mistakes, then how come he can't persuade more people that Islam is the true path? 1.5 billion Muslims is a lot, but it still leaves 5.5 billion unpersuaded.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Hitchiker (582 days ago)

The Koran is not from God.

It was written by a Christian girl in a cave and dictated by mohammed.

There are many obvious mistakes in it concerning science and it has been proven wrong many times by the scientific community.

You will write or say anything to defend the Koran because thats what it teaches. To lie, to cheat, to steal, or do anything possible to spread the word of Islam. This is the absolute truth.

Mohammed was an illiterate wanna be who spread his message through murder,rape and terror. Whole parts of the Koran are directly stolen from the old and new testaments.

I refuse to believe that any 2000 year old book written by sand people who were illiterate and new nothing of the modern world, holds any significance in 2015.

You are a liar spreading lies just like every other religious nut.

ReplyVote up (97)down (101)
Original comment

The Koran is not from God.

It was written by a Christian girl in a cave and dictated by mohammed.

There are many obvious mistakes in it concerning science and it has been proven wrong many times by the scientific community.

You will write or say anything to defend the Koran because thats what it teaches. To lie, to cheat, to steal, or do anything possible to spread the word of Islam. This is the absolute truth.

Mohammed was an illiterate wanna be who spread his message through murder,rape and terror. Whole parts of the Koran are directly stolen from the old and new testaments.

I refuse to believe that any 2000 year old book written by sand people who were illiterate and new nothing of the modern world, holds any significance in 2015.

You are a liar spreading lies just like every other religious nut.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Proud Agnostic (582 days ago)

Thanks for your opinions. You let your colours show with your 'sand people' comment.

If the Quran explicitly orders its followers to lie, cheat, and steal, then I wonder why the vast majority of Muslims live lawful and peaceful lives.

Well jechill, I can see you're not going to be convinced with reason, or education, and that your bias is deeper-rooted than that. I can see exactly where your opinions come from and it's not a nice place.

ReplyVote up (91)down (101)
Original comment

Thanks for your opinions. You let your colours show with your 'sand people' comment.

If the Quran explicitly orders its followers to lie, cheat, and steal, then I wonder why the vast majority of Muslims live lawful and peaceful lives.

Well jechill, I can see you're not going to be convinced with reason, or education, and that your bias is deeper-rooted than that. I can see exactly where your opinions come from and it's not a nice place.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Hitchhiker (581 days ago)

This is true and ive defended Muslims many times.

Im saying the roots of both religions are based in the middle east.Where there is lots of sand. Sure Lebanon used to have great forests. If Jesus was a carpenter Id like to know where they got their wood from.

My ancestors were celt but you don't see me raising monoliths to the star gods do you?

Nope all people are equal in my opinion.

ReplyVote up (90)down (101)
Original comment

This is true and ive defended Muslims many times.

Im saying the roots of both religions are based in the middle east.Where there is lots of sand. Sure Lebanon used to have great forests. If Jesus was a carpenter Id like to know where they got their wood from.

My ancestors were celt but you don't see me raising monoliths to the star gods do you?

Nope all people are equal in my opinion.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Proud Agnostic (581 days ago)

Uh! Sorry fella, you showed your cards way too early to try and bluff now. You've defended Muslims. OK.

Yup I'm sure there was no wood in the middle-east. All sand isn't it, over there?

And yes, you're probably a racially pure Celt ("dirt people" perhaps?), Entirely indigenous I expect... well except of course for those dashes of French and German ancestry, the Nordic influences, the Mediterranean links, and before that Indo-Europeans, and before that, Nubian and North-African "sand people". In your defence, most of them were probably racist and fearful of other cultures too, so you've definitely inherited something. Good on you. They'd be proud.

ReplyVote up (101)down (85)
Original comment

Uh! Sorry fella, you showed your cards way too early to try and bluff now. You've defended Muslims. OK.

Yup I'm sure there was no wood in the middle-east. All sand isn't it, over there?

And yes, you're probably a racially pure Celt ("dirt people" perhaps?), Entirely indigenous I expect... well except of course for those dashes of French and German ancestry, the Nordic influences, the Mediterranean links, and before that Indo-Europeans, and before that, Nubian and North-African "sand people". In your defence, most of them were probably racist and fearful of other cultures too, so you've definitely inherited something. Good on you. They'd be proud.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Hitchhiker (580 days ago)

Lmao

good one!

ReplyVote up (101)down (89)
Original comment

Lmao

good one!

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Proud Agnostic (580 days ago)

Oh dear. It appears that I've confused you.

Having mixed ancestry would really rock your little boat wouldn't it?

ReplyVote up (101)down (90)
Original comment

Oh dear. It appears that I've confused you.

Having mixed ancestry would really rock your little boat wouldn't it?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Hitchhiker (580 days ago)

I don't care.

I only go back as far as Ireland ;before that I dont know.

If you go back far enough, you will end up somewhere in Africa.

ReplyVote up (101)down (94)
Original comment

I don't care.

I only go back as far as Ireland ;before that I dont know.

If you go back far enough, you will end up somewhere in Africa.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Hitchhiker (580 days ago)

What does race have to do with religion?

Tests have proven that some Jews and Palesinians share a common ancestry.

You can't be racist against a religion.

ReplyVote up (93)down (101)
Original comment

What does race have to do with religion?

Tests have proven that some Jews and Palesinians share a common ancestry.

You can't be racist against a religion.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Proud Agnostic (580 days ago)

Religion and race have a lot to do with each other.

Firstly and most obviously, it's convenient that most Arabs are Muslim, so if you don't like Arabs just complain about Muslims and no one can accuse you of racism. Or can they?

Bad news for you: Islamophobia is a form of cultural racism. Oxford Dictionary: Race, "1.2A, group of people sharing the same culture, history, language, etc." Sorry.

Besides, terms like 'sand people' (which to be fair I think you've actually toned down from its original form), has nothing about religion - it's a slur on anyone in the middle-east as you pointed out yourself. Like I said, you blew it by using that so early in the conversation.

At the end of the day, you may want me to call your prejudice by one name or another. Ooh maybe it's xenophobia... maybe just Islamophobia... maybe it's generic bigotry... or perhaps it's good ole-fashioned racism. Doesn't particularly matter what word we use - we can see what it is and it's not pretty.

ReplyVote up (101)down (74)
Original comment

Religion and race have a lot to do with each other.

Firstly and most obviously, it's convenient that most Arabs are Muslim, so if you don't like Arabs just complain about Muslims and no one can accuse you of racism. Or can they?

Bad news for you: Islamophobia is a form of cultural racism. Oxford Dictionary: Race, "1.2A, group of people sharing the same culture, history, language, etc." Sorry.

Besides, terms like 'sand people' (which to be fair I think you've actually toned down from its original form), has nothing about religion - it's a slur on anyone in the middle-east as you pointed out yourself. Like I said, you blew it by using that so early in the conversation.

At the end of the day, you may want me to call your prejudice by one name or another. Ooh maybe it's xenophobia... maybe just Islamophobia... maybe it's generic bigotry... or perhaps it's good ole-fashioned racism. Doesn't particularly matter what word we use - we can see what it is and it's not pretty.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Hitchhiker (579 days ago)

lmao

Your a funny guy.

Religion and race are not the same at all.

You could have a black, asian,catholic dude.

You could have a white, freckley, red headed, muslim.

Ive seen some Kurds who look just as white as me.

Islam is not a race any more than Being Catholic is.

ReplyVote up (101)down (92)
Original comment

lmao

Your a funny guy.

Religion and race are not the same at all.

You could have a black, asian,catholic dude.

You could have a white, freckley, red headed, muslim.

Ive seen some Kurds who look just as white as me.

Islam is not a race any more than Being Catholic is.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Proud Walterego (579 days ago)

Wow jechill. It's as if you didn't read my comment at all.

Correct, religion and race are not the exact same. I didn't say they were. But there is significant overlap.

I think you need to contact the Oxford Dictionary, because those fools seem to think race can include culture, which obviously can include religion. Explain to them that they've got it all wrong. 'lmao'

You have shown you are willing to slur entire people according to the part of the world they originate from - that's not anti-religion, that's basic racism.

ReplyVote up (98)down (101)
Original comment

Wow jechill. It's as if you didn't read my comment at all.

Correct, religion and race are not the exact same. I didn't say they were. But there is significant overlap.

I think you need to contact the Oxford Dictionary, because those fools seem to think race can include culture, which obviously can include religion. Explain to them that they've got it all wrong. 'lmao'

You have shown you are willing to slur entire people according to the part of the world they originate from - that's not anti-religion, that's basic racism.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Hitchiker (579 days ago)

Whatever.

Religion is cultural. ?

ReplyVote up (98)down (101)
Original comment

Whatever.

Religion is cultural. ?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (579 days ago)

Mind blowing isn't it!

ReplyVote up (100)down (101)
Original comment

Mind blowing isn't it!

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Hitchiker (579 days ago)

ya also a complete lie.

Religion only reflects culture in that some states make religion official.

Such as the official religion of saudi arabia is islam, to teach anything else is against the law. Therefor it is not something the people choose but a religion that is forced upon them. Hardly cultural more like midevil.

Even denying religion in this coutry is a crime.

Englands official religion would have to be Anglicanism , if thats a word.

Saying anything against this religion would there for be racist?

I don't think so.

ReplyVote up (91)down (101)
Original comment

ya also a complete lie.

Religion only reflects culture in that some states make religion official.

Such as the official religion of saudi arabia is islam, to teach anything else is against the law. Therefor it is not something the people choose but a religion that is forced upon them. Hardly cultural more like midevil.

Even denying religion in this coutry is a crime.

Englands official religion would have to be Anglicanism , if thats a word.

Saying anything against this religion would there for be racist?

I don't think so.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (579 days ago)
Latest comment:

"Religion only reflects culture in that some states make religion official."

Crumbs. Well if you're not already aware of the centuries-old interplay between religion and culture - how religion borrows from native cultures, or how culture is affected by religion - then there's just way too much history, human geography and religious education for me to clue you up on. Some say it's a bad thing, some that it's good - but few other than you would deny that very definite and obvious link.

Ultimately, you have an issue with where these people come from - and that includes their culture and their religion - so I think the term racist is fair comment. Going back to your examples, if you were to meet an ostensibly Muslim man with full beard, Arabic complexion, wearing a kuffi, or a " white, freckley, red headed, muslim", then I know who would get a better deal from you, deny it if you will.

And as I said, if you believe shared culture really has nothing to do with race, then I suggest you campaign for a change in usage or contact dictionaries directly to get that meaning changed.

I'm afraid I've always suspected that attitudes such as yours, with your 'sand people' comment, usually develop from ignorance and a rather partial schooling, let's say. With that in mind, I believe there is nothing that I could explain to you in the course of a thread that could possibly inform your opinions, so I'm out. Good luck with those opinions of yours.

ReplyVote up (101)down (97)
Original comment
Latest comment:

"Religion only reflects culture in that some states make religion official."

Crumbs. Well if you're not already aware of the centuries-old interplay between religion and culture - how religion borrows from native cultures, or how culture is affected by religion - then there's just way too much history, human geography and religious education for me to clue you up on. Some say it's a bad thing, some that it's good - but few other than you would deny that very definite and obvious link.

Ultimately, you have an issue with where these people come from - and that includes their culture and their religion - so I think the term racist is fair comment. Going back to your examples, if you were to meet an ostensibly Muslim man with full beard, Arabic complexion, wearing a kuffi, or a " white, freckley, red headed, muslim", then I know who would get a better deal from you, deny it if you will.

And as I said, if you believe shared culture really has nothing to do with race, then I suggest you campaign for a change in usage or contact dictionaries directly to get that meaning changed.

I'm afraid I've always suspected that attitudes such as yours, with your 'sand people' comment, usually develop from ignorance and a rather partial schooling, let's say. With that in mind, I believe there is nothing that I could explain to you in the course of a thread that could possibly inform your opinions, so I'm out. Good luck with those opinions of yours.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (587 days ago)

Take your educated views elsewhere, Muslim! What would you know about Islam? Who are you to challenge our ill-informed ignorance?

ReplyVote up (100)down (101)
Original comment

Take your educated views elsewhere, Muslim! What would you know about Islam? Who are you to challenge our ill-informed ignorance?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (587 days ago)

Interesting stuff. Sure there are different interpretations, but doesn't it tell you something that the overwhelming majority of people who are wish to translate / interpret the koran in negative ways are not Muslims at all, but rather are Islamophobes and zealous militant atheists. Go figure.

ReplyVote up (101)down (100)
Original comment

Interesting stuff. Sure there are different interpretations, but doesn't it tell you something that the overwhelming majority of people who are wish to translate / interpret the koran in negative ways are not Muslims at all, but rather are Islamophobes and zealous militant atheists. Go figure.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Guest98374958 (587 days ago)

It is for this reason that the Quran MUST be read in Arabic. We are all aware of the phrase; "Lost in translation". It is so easy to make an honest mistake and I am sure it is just as easy to make a deliberate mistake.

It is for this reason that the Quran starts with theses verses: LINK

The Quran is a guidance for those who wish to believe and a warning for those who disbelieve, and there are disbelievers amongst those who call themselves "believers"!

Call me a 'conspiracy theorist', but I think that Zionist have got us all to hate Jews as usurpers, to think of Christian priests as paedophiles and Muslims as terrorists. This has generally been a Century of war on all Abrahamic religions. Believe what you wish, but leave a legacy of benefiting the World you will one day leave upon your death. For even the baby who dies after one breath will leave its mark on those it leaves behind. What are you going to leave?

ReplyVote up (95)down (101)
Original comment

It is for this reason that the Quran MUST be read in Arabic. We are all aware of the phrase; "Lost in translation". It is so easy to make an honest mistake and I am sure it is just as easy to make a deliberate mistake.

It is for this reason that the Quran starts with theses verses: LINK

The Quran is a guidance for those who wish to believe and a warning for those who disbelieve, and there are disbelievers amongst those who call themselves "believers"!

Call me a 'conspiracy theorist', but I think that Zionist have got us all to hate Jews as usurpers, to think of Christian priests as paedophiles and Muslims as terrorists. This has generally been a Century of war on all Abrahamic religions. Believe what you wish, but leave a legacy of benefiting the World you will one day leave upon your death. For even the baby who dies after one breath will leave its mark on those it leaves behind. What are you going to leave?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (587 days ago)

" E=MC2 is not interpretable". A slightly naive statement from someone who evidently misunderstands science as much as he misunderstands religion. E =MC2 has several interpretations, most famously whether the equation means that mass and energy are actually one and the same - a synonymous property of physical entities, (an interpretation that therefore deduces that one is never actually converted into the other), or whether they are two distinct properties. It may seem pedantic but science is full of this kind of interpretation. Sorry to rain on your parade.

ReplyVote up (101)down (100)
Original comment

" E=MC2 is not interpretable". A slightly naive statement from someone who evidently misunderstands science as much as he misunderstands religion. E =MC2 has several interpretations, most famously whether the equation means that mass and energy are actually one and the same - a synonymous property of physical entities, (an interpretation that therefore deduces that one is never actually converted into the other), or whether they are two distinct properties. It may seem pedantic but science is full of this kind of interpretation. Sorry to rain on your parade.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (586 days ago)

Yes it is pedantic, in the same way as pulling someone up for saying "the force of gravity".

ReplyVote up (97)down (101)
Original comment

Yes it is pedantic, in the same way as pulling someone up for saying "the force of gravity".

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: breadcrumbs (586 days ago)

Sorry I don't think this is pedantic at all. Mass is the same as energy? Thats a big and important concept.

ReplyVote up (101)down (99)
Original comment

Sorry I don't think this is pedantic at all. Mass is the same as energy? Thats a big and important concept.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (586 days ago)

It is pedantic in the context of this conversation. In the same way that if in a casual conversation about Mars, I said "the force of gravity", and you picked me up on that saying that gravity is not a force, you'd be correct but it is pedantic.

ReplyVote up (93)down (101)
Original comment

It is pedantic in the context of this conversation. In the same way that if in a casual conversation about Mars, I said "the force of gravity", and you picked me up on that saying that gravity is not a force, you'd be correct but it is pedantic.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (586 days ago)

Sorry, I thought the context was your suggestion that holy texts are meaningless because there are multiple interpretations, whereas scientific principles / theories do not have multiple interpretations. I was pointing out that a lot of science is definitely open to interpretation, and the very example you gave shows this. I concede it was just a careless choice on your part as there are more incontrovertible points you could have chosen, but perhaps it's a good indicator of your level of scientific understanding.

ReplyVote up (98)down (101)
Original comment

Sorry, I thought the context was your suggestion that holy texts are meaningless because there are multiple interpretations, whereas scientific principles / theories do not have multiple interpretations. I was pointing out that a lot of science is definitely open to interpretation, and the very example you gave shows this. I concede it was just a careless choice on your part as there are more incontrovertible points you could have chosen, but perhaps it's a good indicator of your level of scientific understanding.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (584 days ago)

I was comparing the interpretability of a verse from a holy book with a mathematical equation. E=MC2 is probably the best known equation after 1+1=2.

ReplyVote up (92)down (101)
Original comment

I was comparing the interpretability of a verse from a holy book with a mathematical equation. E=MC2 is probably the best known equation after 1+1=2.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Proud Agnostic (584 days ago)

Yes, so as I thought, just a rather naive choice. Pure mathematics doesn't usually get interpreted because it's tautologous and self-referential. However, as soon as you include algebra, (and certainly once you stray into scientific equations as you did), it gets interpreted all over the shop, including with E=MC2. That's no criticism - it's just a fact of language.

Interestingly, even with plain maths, as soon as you start to translate it into words interpretation plays a big role: Is a billion a million million, or a thousand million? The interpretation of that mathematical term varies according to whether it's before or after 1975 and the country it's used in. Claims to be true? Check. Meaningless? Hardly.

ReplyVote up (101)down (85)
Original comment

Yes, so as I thought, just a rather naive choice. Pure mathematics doesn't usually get interpreted because it's tautologous and self-referential. However, as soon as you include algebra, (and certainly once you stray into scientific equations as you did), it gets interpreted all over the shop, including with E=MC2. That's no criticism - it's just a fact of language.

Interestingly, even with plain maths, as soon as you start to translate it into words interpretation plays a big role: Is a billion a million million, or a thousand million? The interpretation of that mathematical term varies according to whether it's before or after 1975 and the country it's used in. Claims to be true? Check. Meaningless? Hardly.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (584 days ago)

Exactly. Pedantic in the context of this thread, or at least how it started.

ReplyVote up (101)down (92)
Original comment

Exactly. Pedantic in the context of this thread, or at least how it started.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Proud Agnostic (584 days ago)

"I was comparing the interpretability of a verse from a holy book with a mathematical equation ", and I showed you that by any stretch, both can be and are interpreted in different ways. Pedantic, or outright falsification of a strange claim? I guess it depends on your interpretation.

ReplyVote up (101)down (79)
Original comment

"I was comparing the interpretability of a verse from a holy book with a mathematical equation ", and I showed you that by any stretch, both can be and are interpreted in different ways. Pedantic, or outright falsification of a strange claim? I guess it depends on your interpretation.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (584 days ago)

You have to scroll back further to get the context. It started with me saying "The problem with taking seriously any holy book is that they are all highly interpretable ..."

As far as I'm aware, the Quran doesn't say, interpret these words as you wish. It is believers who choose what level of creative interpretation they employ. And since believers widely disagree, it makes a mockery of the claim that the Quran is the truth - whatever that even means.

ReplyVote up (101)down (91)
Original comment

You have to scroll back further to get the context. It started with me saying "The problem with taking seriously any holy book is that they are all highly interpretable ..."

As far as I'm aware, the Quran doesn't say, interpret these words as you wish. It is believers who choose what level of creative interpretation they employ. And since believers widely disagree, it makes a mockery of the claim that the Quran is the truth - whatever that even means.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Proud Agnostic (584 days ago)

No, that's the same point that I was refuting. I have given you examples of texts that you are supposed to take seriously, that claim to be true, and that are highly interpretable, but are nevertheless acknowledged to be hugely important and meaningful. Herodotus et al didn't say 'interpret these words as you wish' either, it's just a given, and again, historians and laymen interpret those texts with whatever creativity they choose. Still, the general claim about this ancient sources is that they convey the truth. Each interpretation is convinced of its own veracity.

ReplyVote up (101)down (88)
Original comment

No, that's the same point that I was refuting. I have given you examples of texts that you are supposed to take seriously, that claim to be true, and that are highly interpretable, but are nevertheless acknowledged to be hugely important and meaningful. Herodotus et al didn't say 'interpret these words as you wish' either, it's just a given, and again, historians and laymen interpret those texts with whatever creativity they choose. Still, the general claim about this ancient sources is that they convey the truth. Each interpretation is convinced of its own veracity.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (586 days ago)

Well then, science is pedantic and necessarily so. Just a bad example you gave.

ReplyVote up (97)down (101)
Original comment

Well then, science is pedantic and necessarily so. Just a bad example you gave.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (587 days ago)

See, a perfect example of the issue at stake: Those that hate Islam choose to only inform themselves by others that also openly hate Islam, and it becomes a bit of a human centipede. They never once pick up the so-called holy books themselves, nor speak directly to the people following this way of life; they lose all critical thinking and follow those willing to feed them their own prejudice back to them. I mean seriously, if you cite sources such as 'thereligionofpeace.c om' and still think you're objective or well-informed, then there's a big problem.

I have honestly yet to meet an Islamophobe who is truly informed on Islam, or the way it is practised by the overwhelming majority of Muslims worldwide, and somehow I doubt Boreme will be the right place either.

ReplyVote up (98)down (101)
Original comment

See, a perfect example of the issue at stake: Those that hate Islam choose to only inform themselves by others that also openly hate Islam, and it becomes a bit of a human centipede. They never once pick up the so-called holy books themselves, nor speak directly to the people following this way of life; they lose all critical thinking and follow those willing to feed them their own prejudice back to them. I mean seriously, if you cite sources such as 'thereligionofpeace.c om' and still think you're objective or well-informed, then there's a big problem.

I have honestly yet to meet an Islamophobe who is truly informed on Islam, or the way it is practised by the overwhelming majority of Muslims worldwide, and somehow I doubt Boreme will be the right place either.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (586 days ago)

I heard that the penalty for apostasy was death, so I wanted to check for myself and find the verse or verses that that idea came from.

Are you saying verse 4:89 in the Quran is not: "They wish that you should disbelieve as they disbelieve, and then you would be equal; therefore take not to yourselves friends of them, until they emigrate in the way of God; then, if they turn their backs, take them, and slay them wherever you find them; take not to yourselves any one of them as friend or helper."

ReplyVote up (92)down (101)
Original comment

I heard that the penalty for apostasy was death, so I wanted to check for myself and find the verse or verses that that idea came from.

Are you saying verse 4:89 in the Quran is not: "They wish that you should disbelieve as they disbelieve, and then you would be equal; therefore take not to yourselves friends of them, until they emigrate in the way of God; then, if they turn their backs, take them, and slay them wherever you find them; take not to yourselves any one of them as friend or helper."

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest91236 (586 days ago)

This verse (4:89) is not about apostacy.These were hypocrits that feigned belief and wanted to cause anarchy. For this reason they were allowed to be forgiven (4:90) if they amended their ways. Apsotate is one who truly believes and then rejects the faith.

ReplyVote up (93)down (101)
Original comment

This verse (4:89) is not about apostacy.These were hypocrits that feigned belief and wanted to cause anarchy. For this reason they were allowed to be forgiven (4:90) if they amended their ways. Apsotate is one who truly believes and then rejects the faith.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (586 days ago)

Who were these hypocrites who feigned belief, and did they amend their ways? How were they supposed to amend their ways - by becoming true believers, or just stop causing anarchy? Did they get a fair trial?

What is the point of those verses? What is the wisdom that I'm supposed to gain, and how do I apply that wisdom considering the European Convention on Human Rights prohibits the death penalty?

ReplyVote up (96)down (101)
Original comment

Who were these hypocrites who feigned belief, and did they amend their ways? How were they supposed to amend their ways - by becoming true believers, or just stop causing anarchy? Did they get a fair trial?

What is the point of those verses? What is the wisdom that I'm supposed to gain, and how do I apply that wisdom considering the European Convention on Human Rights prohibits the death penalty?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Guest948095 (586 days ago)

The hypocrites, some left and others stayed. Some time later the ones who left decided to attack the Muslims with their armies. The ones who stayed were invited to accept Islam. Some ignorants say that they are invited by the sword. this is not true and only happened in Christianity. If you threaten anyone with a sword they will just feign belief and you will have greater problems later. you cannot fool god!

With regards to today's Human Rights treaties, banning the death penalty;

There are millions of people and 100's of thousands of them are languishing in jails, in solitary confinement for decades. many of them would love the death penalty which is instantaneous. In Muslim countries where a shariah law system (of sorts) applies, you will find far less homicide and theft that could require the removal of the head or hand. (if blood money is not paid.) It is also very hypocritical of the countries who designed Human Rights laws and are then allied with armies that rain fire from remote locations, without seeing the face of their enemy and kill million upon millions of innocent people in each country. They also have the audacity to call those killed as evil or terrorists. Human rights laws are a farce and only apply to brown people or the enemies of the Zionist Jews. You do not see those who ordered the killing of these millions in the Haig on human rights abuses.

God, does not make a mistake and his laws are universal and will last at all times. If people walk away from Gods laws (Like many Muslims) then they will run into greater problems in their designer made laws!

ReplyVote up (90)down (101)
Original comment

The hypocrites, some left and others stayed. Some time later the ones who left decided to attack the Muslims with their armies. The ones who stayed were invited to accept Islam. Some ignorants say that they are invited by the sword. this is not true and only happened in Christianity. If you threaten anyone with a sword they will just feign belief and you will have greater problems later. you cannot fool god!

With regards to today's Human Rights treaties, banning the death penalty;

There are millions of people and 100's of thousands of them are languishing in jails, in solitary confinement for decades. many of them would love the death penalty which is instantaneous. In Muslim countries where a shariah law system (of sorts) applies, you will find far less homicide and theft that could require the removal of the head or hand. (if blood money is not paid.) It is also very hypocritical of the countries who designed Human Rights laws and are then allied with armies that rain fire from remote locations, without seeing the face of their enemy and kill million upon millions of innocent people in each country. They also have the audacity to call those killed as evil or terrorists. Human rights laws are a farce and only apply to brown people or the enemies of the Zionist Jews. You do not see those who ordered the killing of these millions in the Haig on human rights abuses.

God, does not make a mistake and his laws are universal and will last at all times. If people walk away from Gods laws (Like many Muslims) then they will run into greater problems in their designer made laws!

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (590 days ago)

"I was hoping to learn something positive here from this film." ("I was hoping that this film would reinforce my narrow-minded prejudice rather than challenge it with objectively verifiable facts").

ReplyVote up (100)down (101)
Original comment

"I was hoping to learn something positive here from this film." ("I was hoping that this film would reinforce my narrow-minded prejudice rather than challenge it with objectively verifiable facts").

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
RELATED POSTS
Live footage compilation from Mexico's devastating 7.1 earthquake
Live footage compilation from Mexico's devastating 7.1 earthquake
10 times Richard Feynman blew our minds
10 times Richard Feynman blew our minds
60-year-old life hacks put to the test
60-year-old life hacks put to the test
10 reasons North Korean's believe Kim Jong-un is a god
10 reasons North Korean's believe Kim Jong-un is a god
9 memes from Trump's first 200 days in office
9 memes from Trump's first 200 days in office