Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk Philosophy and Religion Forums

Berrin posted in 'Where's Wally' thread and made some interesting points in response to my post which stated that for me, religion should be logical.

Everything should be questioned and thus far I've found no illogicalities in Islam. My view is that God created logic and would not want us to believe in something that offends logic. This does not mean I don't believe in miracles - but rather that miracles are carried out under Divine direction, within the laws of Physics (whether we know of these laws or not yet).

But Berrin started with the point that if one is logical, one wouldn't believe in God. It is a good place to start.

Berrin - actually, believing in an external force that created the universe IS more logical than the alternative that there isn't an external force. It requires MORE faith to be an atheist, IMO, not less - WHEN one thinks about it logically.

Dawkins explains this very well - and I agree with him on this point. There IS a statistical chance than we are all here by chance and there is no God. We could be just one of an infinite number of universes where all the conditions are 'just right'. I.e. we are here because of a 1 in infinity chance of occurence, i.e. are very very very very very very...very very lucky.

Either that, or some sentient being made the universe.

(It's the old watchmaker argument - if you see a creation, you infer a creator)

Cheers,
Shafique

I was brought up as a muslim and had faith for most of my life, then somewhere after hitting 20, i started to think am I only a Muslim because I was told I was one, and believe what I believe because I was told that is what I am suppose to do.

I've always been a skeptic and almost never take anything at face value, up until that time I had read the Quran but just the Arabic text without any real understanding of it. For some reason sometime in the early part of this century I went back to it, this time trying to understand as much as I could.

It was enlightening to say the least, just the sheer amount of scientific fact stated in it was astounding. It takes different things for different people but for it was the science that galvanised my faith. Somehow I find it impossible to see an illiterate camel driver in the middle of Arabia 1600 years ago to all of a sudden have discovered all of this in the last third of his life, while the rest of the world was still struggling with basic questions. So if the science is true then I can't find any reason not to believe the rest of it aswell.

So yes, I'm on the same page aswell, and going back to the watchmaker argument, statistacaly speaking. It is impossible for all of this to be just a conicidence. Thats what the math says anyways.

Dawkins explains this very well - and I agree with him on this point. There IS a statistical chance than we are all here by chance and there is no God. We could be just one of an infinite number of universes where all the conditions are 'just right'. I.e. we are here because of a 1 in infinity chance of occurence, i.e. are very very very very very very...very very lucky.

Either that, or some sentient being made the universe.

I hope Dawkins explains it better than you because your argument is the silliest I've read in some time - but that's not surprising since religious fanatics aren't deep thinkers, despite how much they'll say they are.

Anyways, Dawkins isn't a statistician or physicist. I think he specializes on plants. But looking at the numbers, statistically it's not unusual to expect the conditions to be 'just right' somewhere if there are billions of planets. So I have to wonder why that requires so much faith when your faith is based on ignorance - you said it yourself, 'well, we don't know what the rest of the galaxy looks like, but I'm already determined that we're the only life forms in existence'.

That's not logic. You just abuse the word in long winded paragraphs thinking yourself as logical.

As for the scientific claims to the Koran, that hogwash has been dealt with and slayed before numerous times around the internet. There's nothing scientific about the Koran and what's worse, the Koran contradicts science, including a number of its so-called scientific verses.

I think it takes a special type of delusional person (something like a truther) to be hooked in the hype that their book is real because some verse kind of sounds like it could be describing the big bang if you manage to wring any straightforward reading from the text.

Actually eh - you're wrong, again. Firstly you either haven't read or understood the argument of physical conditions being 'just right'. It is not just the likelihood of our earth's conditions being 'just right' but that the universe itself has physical properties that are 'just right'. From the weight of fundamental particles to the strength of elemental forces etc - if they were a million millionth different from what they are, the universe and life would not exist in its current form.

Also, you're missing the point that I'm making - I'm not saying that it isn't possible that we are here by chance, I'm just saying that the chance is infinitely small (something Dawkins agrees with after explaining it quite well), but his argument is 'well, we're here so the conditions are right and the dice did fall in our favour'.

The watch COULD have been made by random events. But I don't have enough faith to believe that it was. I prefer to believe in the inferred view that there is a watchmaker. The universe is infinitely more complex than a watch.

BTW, as an aside, I do believe that life probably exists somewhere else in the universe. Indeed there are Islamic teachings which indicate this and that one day we'll be able to communicate with them. I haven't the refs to hand.

Your rants would have more credibility if it wasn't for the threads below this one which contain your beliefs in talking donkeys, the earth stopping spinning for a day etc just because the Bible says this took place. It is a bit rich for you to criticise me for giving scientific and logical explanations for all Quranic teachings/verses.

God clearly says some Quranic verses are metaphorical - and YOU bizarely want to take these literally (and you call me a 'truther' ) - and then you blithely give us your belief that the Quran's scientific claims are hogwash.

Which specific scientific claim do you think is hogwash? I suspect you'll dig out a metaphor that you imagine is a scientific claim. If that's the case, then God has already informed us about this tactic and who will employ it:

It is He who has sent down to you, the Book; in it are verses precise - they are the foundation of the Book - and others unspecific. As for those in whose hearts is deviation [from truth], they will follow that of it which is unspecific, seeking discord and seeking an interpretation [suitable to them]. And no one knows its [true] interpretation except Allah . But those firm in knowledge say, "We believe in it. All [of it] is from our Lord." And no one will be reminded except those of understanding.

3.7

You say you believe in the Bible (and yet invent new religious teachings where the 'condemned' and 'damned' DON'T go to hell). You seem to just be intent on causing discord.

Say, "O People of the Scripture, do you resent us except [for the fact] that we have believed in Allah and what was revealed to us and what was revealed before and because most of you are defiantly disobedient?"

5.59


Cheers,
Shafique

LOL...once again, shameless individual comes to mind. Zonker has permanently welded that next to eh in my mind.

Someone who read the thread should have figured out I was referring to the other poster who mentioned verses from the Koran he believes are scientific. Also, the other loon poster is a truther as well, but I can understand if you get confused by these things.

We've already discussed the 'logical' verses of the Koran you're afraid to talk about - Koranic incest and home confining women guilty of 'whoredom', etc., etc.

What's interesting is that you excoriate someone for reading too much into the 'metaphorical' verses of the Koran but that's exactly what nutters like DDS do when they believe these verses contain scientific miracles - they wring out the most straight forward meaning for fanciful interpretations.

event horizon wrote:We've already discussed the 'logical' verses of the Koran you're afraid to talk about - Koranic incest and home confining women guilty of 'whoredom', etc., etc.

Wow, how biased a person can get. In all three Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) initially incest was not considered sin. Here is a writing from a Christian source:

As to incest, it was not considered a sin and was not prohibited for Adam and early man. If the race was to populate and fulfill the command of Gen. 1:28, there is little doubt that Adam’s sons and daughters had to have married their own sisters and brothers if the race was to populate the earth...

And here is a Jewish source:

Indeed, Cain and Abel had to marry their sisters, considering that there were no other women around. King David writes, "The world was built with kindness." Our sages explain that this verse is referring to G‑d's kindness in allowing Adam and Eve's children to marry their own sisters in order to populate the species.

http://www.chabad.org/library/article_c ... -marry.htm

Oh is Eh still harping on about that is he ! My word, it would merit a reply if an atheist or someone else asked, but Jesus Camp boy here, gimme a break !

Incest at worst is illegal by law and a sin by all ( I assume ) religions today, still doesnt explain talking donkeys though ! LOL

Shameless individual, of the highest order sir !

So is incest logical for shafique?

He said everything in Islam is logical for him - from wife beating (which he tells others is not violent) to permanent home confinement to a rejection of human evolution because it contradicts what his holy book tells him to believe.

Nucleus admits that Adam & Eve and their offspring committed incest to perpetuate the human race. We'll see how shafique explains this one (keeping in mind that Allah says all of humanity is descended from the original couple).

Islam's teachings on incest are completely logical. God says clearly that Muslims cannot have s.ex with sisters, mothers etc - it is very explicit. Nothing illogical there at all.

As for the historical accounts of Adam and Eve, that's a different question - but nice try eh - we already have the thread you started on the topic of Adam and Eve etc. I refer you to that and my promise to cover the topic only after you had addressed the outstanding questions you are avoiding.

Nucleus has pinned you down on what the Bible says on the subject (and what Christians and Jews say).

Now, re-read verses 3.7 and 5.59 above and review your motivations.

Islam's teachings are indeed logical. It is your beliefs in talking donkeys etc that is illogical. Indeed, you are confused generally when it comes to Biblical teachings:
philosophy-dubai/biblical-confusion-t47353.html

Cheers,
Shafique

Let's deal with one superstitious belief at a time.

Where's the logic in prohibiting menstruating Muslim women from praying (touching Koran, etc) and forcing them to sit behind everyone else if they attend services?

So, given that the Quran is clear about incest being forbidden and Nucleus has given you quotes from Bible about incest, you've now resorted to your usual tactic of bringing up topics where you've already been punked (Biblical verses saying women should not talk etc have been discussed ad nauseum, as have loon theories about Islamic treatment of women).

Just because you believe in illogical beliefs (talking donkeys) do you really have to go on a crusade to show that Muslims should follow your example? Why?

Sorry eh, re-read the Quranic verses above and explain to us what is your motivation. Is it because we have logical teachings?

After you have dealt with YOUR outstanding questions then perhaps we'll entertain your rehashing of old loon arguments.

Cheers,
Shafique

Another lie? Nucleus never provided quotes from the Bible saying early people committed incest to perpetuate the human race - though he admitted this happened according to the Koran's account, which says all humans are descended from an original couple.

Now, I'd like to know what's logical about what I asked you above - prohibiting menstruating women from praying because they're ritually unclean (according to the Koran) is logical to you.

Book of Leviticus Chapter 15, verses 19-31

Sigh - eh now has to deny yet another Biblical verse!

But let's give the guy a small break - he's struggling to come up with a logical explanation for believing in talking donkeys!

Cheers,
Shafique

So you don't want to explain what you find logical in preventing menstruating women from praying because the Koran says they're impure?

So you don't want to explain the talking donkeys OR the very harsh treatment of menstruating women as mentioned in the Bible ?

I don't think even Bozo was so shameless or a glutton for such punishment. Even after taking a drubbing on everything you choose to open your pie hole on, you still still come back for more ! Even the bats have left the belfry !

There's no prohibition in Christianity from allowing women to pray or recite verses from the Bible while they are on their periods.

I would believe it to be illogical and backwards if there were, wouldn't you agree?

Eh - why don't you address the Biblical teachings directly?

You're effectively saying that Christians ignore these verses in the Bible. If so, please let us know when God changed His mind - and what led these Christians to this belief. (Or alternatively explain whether you believe these verses aren't the word of God, or whether they are illogical to you.).


Then explain why you don't ignore the Biblical verses about talking donkeys.

This thread is about logic, after all. We've already seen you're confused about a number of Biblical verses:
philosophy-dubai/biblical-confusion-t47353.html

Shouldn't you clear up your own confusion before trying to argue that Muslims should share your illogical interpretations?

Cheers,
Shafique

Eh - why don't you address the Biblical teachings directly?

What's the title of this thread again?

You're effectively saying that Christians ignore these verses in the Bible. If so, please let us know when God changed His mind

Please point out where women are prohibited from praying/reciting verses of the Bible.

Duh.

So you're effectively saying you're speaking out of your rear end again and showcasing your stupidity.

Nothing new under the sun there.

You brought up the issue of menstruating women.

What is your logic for ignoring what God says in the Bible about these women? When did God change His mind, according to Christians?

Simple questions about your logic.

(We understand your desire to NOT address your Biblical confusion and wish to somehow argue Muslims should be as illogical as you, but be fair - we're not THAT stupid)

Cheers,
Shafique

When did God change His mind, according to Christians?

About what? That they shouldn't enter the tent of Moses if they're menstruating?

Go ahead and remind them about that then.

Here we're discussing the Islamic belief that menstruating Muslim women are a) prohibited from touching the Koran, b) praying and c) reciting passages from the Koran.

I'm waiting for your logical explanation regarding this Islamic belief.

Yes, when did God change His mind that menstruating women were unclean and should be segregated for 7 days - according to the Bible.

Give us your logic behind your view, or confirm that you believe God hasn't changed His mind and that you do believe Leviticus 15:

19: And if a woman have an issue, and her issue in her flesh be blood, she shall be put apart seven days: and whosoever toucheth her shall be unclean until the even.
20: And every thing that she lieth upon in her separation shall be unclean: every thing also that she sitteth upon shall be unclean.
21: And whosoever toucheth her bed shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even.
22: And whosoever toucheth any thing that she sat upon shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even.

Do you have to wash yourself if you touch anything a mensturating woman has sat on?

Please explain your logic - as you brought up menstruating women in this thread.

Cheers,
Shafique

That they're prohibited from the tent of Moses? Been there, discussed that.

Now, why are menstruating women prohibited from praying and reciting verses of the Koran in Islam.

I hope you're not attempting a 'what-aboutery' to justify your illogical beliefs.

Do you have a different version of the Bible from everyone else?

I simply asked whether you consider yourself unclean if you touch a chair that a menstrating woman has used. (And how would you know?)

If not, when did God change His mind and say that Lev 15.22 above does not apply to you?

I am very interested in your logic. (I'm a bit puzzled about what the tent of Moses has to do with this Biblical verse - we'll just file that away as another rogue belief of yours).

Cheers,
Shafique

I don't believe menstruating women should be prohibited from praying/reciting verses from their holy book.

I consider that illogical.

Hope that helps.

Now, what's your opinion on prohibiting menstruating women from praying/reciting verses from a holy book?

Why are you avoiding the Bible again?

You brought up menstruating women, so it is logical to look at the earlier scripture to see what God says about Mensturating women. Do you, or do you not, consider yourself unclean if you touch a chair?

Now, to me THAT is illogical. Is it to you?

Cheers,
Shafique

Now, to me THAT is illogical. Is it to you?

What about prohibiting a woman from praying/reciting Koranic verses?

We'll come to your fantasies later eh.

First, let's just clear up your logic about God's words in the Bible concerning menstruating women. Do you still believe you are unclean if you touch a chair?

If not, when did God change His mind?

Cheers,
Shafique

Why do you want to avoid - in your own thread - answering whether you think prohibiting women during menstruation from praying and reciting the Koran is logical?

It's a simple yes or no.

Yes for yes. No for no.