Is Islam worth trying to reform? [Spirituality & Religion]
Poll - Total Votes: 27
Yes, Islam is worth trying to reform.
No, Islam is unfixable.
Islam does not need reforming.
You can only vote on one answer.
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
We live in a society today where societal values are changing. There is a disparity between law and morality. E.g. alcohol is legal but we know it is wrong for our bodies and mind but it is legal only in some countries when the earth rotates around the sun 18 times... i.e. 18 years.
What's my point?
If you're going to critique and judge an idea/belief when you have no values except that which sway from time and place, then you have nothing to stand on and its just empty criticism.
E.g. your points about apostasy and homosexual punishment.
Firstly, you're making the mistake about the issue.
I think in Islam there's a difference between public declaration versus private practice. Publicly declaring apostasy was a practice where hypocrites who wanted to harm Islam accepted Islam and then gain trust of people, then publicly reject Islam to cause turmoil or even do espionage.
Like if you wanna not follow Islam, then you have your choice just leave the place which follows Islam. Why you gotta be all public about it? So there's a context.
As for homosexuality or sex outside of marriage... the values I think Islam talks about is protection of family life. Sex outside of marriage and homosexuality are not conducive to that, and it is against homosexual practices. A person can be homosexual and practice Islam while not practicing homosexuality, in the same way that a heterosexual can practice homosexuality which is a sin in Islam.
Its about the act. Not feeling.
On top of that you go around publicly declaring it. Like if you don't undrestand a value system, how do you expect to understand why that is unacceptable? Especially when your view of acceptability does not have a basis to stand upon except societal values which always change?
By the same notion do you agree the beastality is okay? What about your children if they grew up watching beastiality porn and they started to practice it? Would you think its okay if they think its okay?
What's my point?
If you're going to critique and judge an idea/belief when you have no values except that which sway from time and place, then you have nothing to stand on and its just empty criticism.
E.g. your points about apostasy and homosexual punishment.
Firstly, you're making the mistake about the issue.
I think in Islam there's a difference between public declaration versus private practice. Publicly declaring apostasy was a practice where hypocrites who wanted to harm Islam accepted Islam and then gain trust of people, then publicly reject Islam to cause turmoil or even do espionage.
Like if you wanna not follow Islam, then you have your choice just leave the place which follows Islam. Why you gotta be all public about it? So there's a context.
As for homosexuality or sex outside of marriage... the values I think Islam talks about is protection of family life. Sex outside of marriage and homosexuality are not conducive to that, and it is against homosexual practices. A person can be homosexual and practice Islam while not practicing homosexuality, in the same way that a heterosexual can practice homosexuality which is a sin in Islam.
Its about the act. Not feeling.
On top of that you go around publicly declaring it. Like if you don't undrestand a value system, how do you expect to understand why that is unacceptable? Especially when your view of acceptability does not have a basis to stand upon except societal values which always change?
By the same notion do you agree the beastality is okay? What about your children if they grew up watching beastiality porn and they started to practice it? Would you think its okay if they think its okay?
1-25 of 27
SourPennies · 26-30, F
@GoodPasta You have a major tension in your argument. The OP isn't making a legal claim; he's making an ethical one. He is in fact stating that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality (there isn't, and your fears about family values are unfounded) and that there is also nothing wrong with not being Muslim and that no society should therefore punish those who are non-believers. Leaving a country is no easy task, and it involves abandoning the very family you claim to value. The OP is in fact saying that the moral values of Islam are wrong and dangerous.
Also, having sex with an animal is not the same as having sex with a fully cognizant adult human. Don't be silly. That's a ridiculous and weak comparison.
Also, having sex with an animal is not the same as having sex with a fully cognizant adult human. Don't be silly. That's a ridiculous and weak comparison.
BlueVeins · 22-25
@GoodPasta What you're essentially arguing is that ethical standards should not be used to judge others because they change, right? And while that might sound fun on the surface, it's tremendously disastrous in practice. By that logic, we should let any amount of horror and villainy slide just because morality is subjective. Of course an ethics argument is empty when you remove the ethics; the solution is not to remove the ethics.
@SourPennies Islamically, law and ethics are tied together.
In current society there is a disparity between law and ethics/morality.
Firslty I will state that society transitioned away from religious standard to a societal standard.
Secondly, soceital standards change over time.
Thirdly, homosexuality is legal practice in some countries, possibly where OP is.
Fourthly, homosexual acts are still considered immoral in some beliefs and cultures.
OPs argument is that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality. So you have to look at positionality here. Morality can be ever changing depending on the society if the society's method of moral laws is ever changing. I.e. it is okay now, and was not decades ago. Its a subjective viewpoint on morality, and to argue that it does not harm a society or family is not a valid point. Because there are infact societies who do view it as immoral.
Like if you want to reject other people's moral views based on your own moral views, thats hypocritical because that's exactly what you're trying to criticize.
In current society there is a disparity between law and ethics/morality.
Firslty I will state that society transitioned away from religious standard to a societal standard.
Secondly, soceital standards change over time.
Thirdly, homosexuality is legal practice in some countries, possibly where OP is.
Fourthly, homosexual acts are still considered immoral in some beliefs and cultures.
OPs argument is that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality. So you have to look at positionality here. Morality can be ever changing depending on the society if the society's method of moral laws is ever changing. I.e. it is okay now, and was not decades ago. Its a subjective viewpoint on morality, and to argue that it does not harm a society or family is not a valid point. Because there are infact societies who do view it as immoral.
Like if you want to reject other people's moral views based on your own moral views, thats hypocritical because that's exactly what you're trying to criticize.
SourPennies · 26-30, F
@GoodPasta Viewing something as immoral is not the same as proving it is immoral. Gay marriages last longer than straight ones in societies where divorce is legal. The conclusion would therefore be that gay people are better at building families than straight people, as they are more likely to be invested in a long-term relationship, which is also conducive to child raising, even presumably by your standard. (Your standard is also subjective, by the way. Your interpretation of your religion is not universal and there's no compelling reason to be religious.)
There is always a disparity between law and morality because as societies grow, their standards will change, environment permitting. The problem for you is that these changes tend to be positive when the society is doing well. So your interpretation of religion becomes useless for determining values because it can hold good values back.
There is always a disparity between law and morality because as societies grow, their standards will change, environment permitting. The problem for you is that these changes tend to be positive when the society is doing well. So your interpretation of religion becomes useless for determining values because it can hold good values back.
@BlueVeins [quote]What you're essentially arguing is that ethical standards should not be used to judge others because they change, right? And while that might sound fun on the surface, it's tremendously disastrous in practice. By that logic, we should let any amount of horror and villainy slide just because morality is subjective. Of course an ethics argument is empty when you remove the ethics; the solution is not to remove the ethics.[/quote]
Well there's a trend you have to see here. Islamically the ethical standards are objective (and proof of that and discussion for that is another topic). So another viewpoint comes in that is removed from religion and has a societal standard that is ever changing, and says to Islam, you need to change too becuase you're subjective... well on that point.. its basically everthing is subjective.
Then what basis does a subjective stance have to invalidate another viewpoint, when the moral viewpoint is not founded upon anything. Basically no basis. Now talking about in practice is different.
To criticize Islam by saying they should accept public approval of homosexual acts and sex outside of marriage, is basically forcing one's 'religious' viewpoint on another religion.
Islamically if you do something in private vs public there is difference.
Well there's a trend you have to see here. Islamically the ethical standards are objective (and proof of that and discussion for that is another topic). So another viewpoint comes in that is removed from religion and has a societal standard that is ever changing, and says to Islam, you need to change too becuase you're subjective... well on that point.. its basically everthing is subjective.
Then what basis does a subjective stance have to invalidate another viewpoint, when the moral viewpoint is not founded upon anything. Basically no basis. Now talking about in practice is different.
To criticize Islam by saying they should accept public approval of homosexual acts and sex outside of marriage, is basically forcing one's 'religious' viewpoint on another religion.
Islamically if you do something in private vs public there is difference.
SourPennies · 26-30, F
@GoodPasta You can observe social effects scientifically and deduce which are the best ethically by social consensus. Since ethics is a human project, it should only ever concern humans. Most humans want to be pro-social, and as such, pro-social values are what should be striven after, because human opinion is literally the only opinion that matters. By way of example, some version of "the golden rule" exists in most societies across the globe.
@SourPennies [quote]Viewing something as immoral is not the same as proving it is immoral. Gay marriages last longer than straight ones in societies where divorce is legal. The conclusion would therefore be that gay people are better at building families than straight people, as they are more likely to be invested in a long-term relationship, which is also conducive to child raising, even presumably by your standard. (Your standard is also subjective, by the way. Your interpretation of your religion is not universal and there's no compelling reason to be religious.)
There is always a disparity between law and morality because as societies grow, their standards will change, environment permitting. The problem for you is that these changes tend to be positive when the society is doing well. So your interpretation of religion becomes useless for determining values because it can hold good values back.[/quote]
Islamically, the proof for homosexual acts being immoral is the Quran. As for proving the Quran as the message of God, that is one separate discussion. But the Quran does pose a falsifiability test for those who claim that it is not the message of God. In 2/23 it states that those who claim it is manmade, then they should produce another chapter of the Quran and call witnesses to validate (nonmuslim/muslim scholars alike); but the Quran says you will never be able to do that. So if you really want to invalidate the Quran as not the message of God, then the falisfiability test is already there. The arabs at Muhammad's time couldn't do it, and they tried to kill Muhammad, and no one has yet done it either. This I know is a separate discussion point, but logically that's the defense if you want to go down the path of claiming that the Quranic viewpoint is subjective.
Now as for reasons and utilitarian arguments, yes I agree in the general sense that can be contested because that is human data and you will find anomalies and trends that are different. However, in Islam, those do not form the basis for religious rulings per se. E.g. if it is found that one husband and 5 wives are better for raising kids, then that does not become a reason for Islam to adopt the ruling that one can have 5 wives.
There is always a disparity between law and morality because as societies grow, their standards will change, environment permitting. The problem for you is that these changes tend to be positive when the society is doing well. So your interpretation of religion becomes useless for determining values because it can hold good values back.[/quote]
Islamically, the proof for homosexual acts being immoral is the Quran. As for proving the Quran as the message of God, that is one separate discussion. But the Quran does pose a falsifiability test for those who claim that it is not the message of God. In 2/23 it states that those who claim it is manmade, then they should produce another chapter of the Quran and call witnesses to validate (nonmuslim/muslim scholars alike); but the Quran says you will never be able to do that. So if you really want to invalidate the Quran as not the message of God, then the falisfiability test is already there. The arabs at Muhammad's time couldn't do it, and they tried to kill Muhammad, and no one has yet done it either. This I know is a separate discussion point, but logically that's the defense if you want to go down the path of claiming that the Quranic viewpoint is subjective.
Now as for reasons and utilitarian arguments, yes I agree in the general sense that can be contested because that is human data and you will find anomalies and trends that are different. However, in Islam, those do not form the basis for religious rulings per se. E.g. if it is found that one husband and 5 wives are better for raising kids, then that does not become a reason for Islam to adopt the ruling that one can have 5 wives.
@SourPennies If you look at socioal science research and cognitive psychology, or even from an epistimological standpoint, one will easily see how data gathering and finding valid and generalized results are difficult and next to impossible, especially from empirical perspective.
SourPennies · 26-30, F
@GoodPasta It isn't a separate question if Islam is the basis of your morality; in fact, at that point, the validity of your claim that the Quran is the word of God and moreover that God's opinion matters becomes incredibly relevant. The claim that the Quran is somehow unique and cannot be reproduced is a non-sequitur, at least as it relates to the claim of its validity as the word of God. It is just as likely that an incredibly unique human wrote it while high on peyote. By claiming it is unique, you can only prove that it is unique.
No, but your claim was that Islam desires to protect family values. If Islam wishes to protect family values, then God should have wrote that gays should be allowed to marry because they show a higher propensity for building and maintaining a family. In other words, either your claim that Islam has the best solution to family values (being inspired by God and whatnot) is wrong, or you think God was wrong on family values and therefore God's point of view is not worth trusting.
My utilitarian argument is in fact my opinion, but it is a suggestion for a better alternative to deciding ethics, which is a concern you brought up. Utilitarianism accounts for exceptions by saying that they are outliers and don't need as much consideration. What causes the greatest good for the greatest number by definition excludes the least good for the fewest.
No, but your claim was that Islam desires to protect family values. If Islam wishes to protect family values, then God should have wrote that gays should be allowed to marry because they show a higher propensity for building and maintaining a family. In other words, either your claim that Islam has the best solution to family values (being inspired by God and whatnot) is wrong, or you think God was wrong on family values and therefore God's point of view is not worth trusting.
My utilitarian argument is in fact my opinion, but it is a suggestion for a better alternative to deciding ethics, which is a concern you brought up. Utilitarianism accounts for exceptions by saying that they are outliers and don't need as much consideration. What causes the greatest good for the greatest number by definition excludes the least good for the fewest.
BlueVeins · 22-25
@GoodPasta [quote]Well there's a trend you have to see here. Islamically the ethical standards are objective (and proof of that and discussion for that is another topic).[/quote] So? The accuracy of Islam, itself, is [i]subjective[/i] anyway. If you assume Islam is true, then sure, those values become subjective, but making that logical leap is not objective in itself. So in the grand scheme of things, Islam's morals are still subjective, but just claim to be objective.
You make the mistake of assuming that secular morals are based in nothing, but in reality, they are based in empathy. That's why in secular societies, morality tends towards empathy over time.
You make the mistake of assuming that secular morals are based in nothing, but in reality, they are based in empathy. That's why in secular societies, morality tends towards empathy over time.
SourPennies · 26-30, F
@GoodPasta I am a social scientist, and I agree that the is/ought distinction is a valid one. I personally don't believe that there is a universal ethics, though, so it's not my business to make such a claim. I'm claiming, subjectively, that if certain practices can be shown to have benefits on society, which they can, then we ought to follow where those points lead. It has nothing to do with assuming that science is making a claim about what is actually best for society, as the idea of "best for society" will naturally change.
But an easy example is this: if vaccines produce a lessening of disease, we should, ethically-speaking, use vaccines to prevent disease, not because of what the science says, but because we generally tend to value good health (social consensus).
But an easy example is this: if vaccines produce a lessening of disease, we should, ethically-speaking, use vaccines to prevent disease, not because of what the science says, but because we generally tend to value good health (social consensus).
@SourPennies [quote]It isn't a separate question if Islam is the basis of your morality; in fact, at that point, the validity of your claim that the Quran is the word of God and moreover that God's opinion matters becomes incredibly relevant. The claim that the Quran is somehow unique and cannot be reproduced is a non-sequitur, at least as it relates to the claim of its validity as the word of God. It is just as likely that an incredibly unique human wrote it while high on peyote. By claiming it is unique, you can only prove that it is unique.
No, but your claim was that Islam desires to protect family values. If Islam wishes to protect family values, then God should have wrote that gays should be allowed to marry because they show a higher propensity for building and maintaining a family. In other words, either your claim that Islam has the best solution to family values (being inspired by God and whatnot) is wrong, or you think God was wrong on family values and therefore God's point of view is not worth trusting.
My utilitarian argument is in fact my opinion, but it is a suggestion for a better alternative to deciding ethics, which is a concern you brought up. Utilitarianism accounts for exceptions by saying that they are outliers and don't need as much consideration. What causes the greatest good for the greatest number by definition excludes the least good for the fewest.[/quote]
Well if you want to talk about validity of the Quran... then have you looked at the data? We can talk about it, but you need to observe the data as well. Have you ever listened to the Arabic Quran first off?
I mean you can criticize something all you want, but part of the point of bringing proof to the claim about Quran being the proof of God requires conviction upon your end, which is subjective to you. And part of that subjective conviction heavily depends on the knowledge you have of the Quran and Sunnah and who your sources of knowledge have been. Have you developed a view about Islam from biased resources? Again this is a separate discussion point.
Well actually that verse 2/23 is interesting because one can easily dismantle the whole message of Islam by producing a chapter. Regardless if the Quran is objective or subjective, you brought a claim that the Quranic viewpoint is subjective. Which is a generalizatoin and I see why you would make that claim. But the Quran actually challenges you to produce your proof to your claim. In that verse 2/23.
The claim to its validity is a separate matter as I said and can be a matter of a different discussion. But if you're going to claim the Quranic viewpoint is subjective human point, then you need to meet the conditions of your claim as challenged here by the Quran:
2/23: And if you are in doubt about what We have sent down upon Our Servant [Muhammad], then produce a surah the like thereof and call upon your witnesses other than Allah, if you should be truthful.
No, but your claim was that Islam desires to protect family values. If Islam wishes to protect family values, then God should have wrote that gays should be allowed to marry because they show a higher propensity for building and maintaining a family. In other words, either your claim that Islam has the best solution to family values (being inspired by God and whatnot) is wrong, or you think God was wrong on family values and therefore God's point of view is not worth trusting.
My utilitarian argument is in fact my opinion, but it is a suggestion for a better alternative to deciding ethics, which is a concern you brought up. Utilitarianism accounts for exceptions by saying that they are outliers and don't need as much consideration. What causes the greatest good for the greatest number by definition excludes the least good for the fewest.[/quote]
Well if you want to talk about validity of the Quran... then have you looked at the data? We can talk about it, but you need to observe the data as well. Have you ever listened to the Arabic Quran first off?
I mean you can criticize something all you want, but part of the point of bringing proof to the claim about Quran being the proof of God requires conviction upon your end, which is subjective to you. And part of that subjective conviction heavily depends on the knowledge you have of the Quran and Sunnah and who your sources of knowledge have been. Have you developed a view about Islam from biased resources? Again this is a separate discussion point.
Well actually that verse 2/23 is interesting because one can easily dismantle the whole message of Islam by producing a chapter. Regardless if the Quran is objective or subjective, you brought a claim that the Quranic viewpoint is subjective. Which is a generalizatoin and I see why you would make that claim. But the Quran actually challenges you to produce your proof to your claim. In that verse 2/23.
The claim to its validity is a separate matter as I said and can be a matter of a different discussion. But if you're going to claim the Quranic viewpoint is subjective human point, then you need to meet the conditions of your claim as challenged here by the Quran:
2/23: And if you are in doubt about what We have sent down upon Our Servant [Muhammad], then produce a surah the like thereof and call upon your witnesses other than Allah, if you should be truthful.
@BlueVeins [quote]So? The accuracy of Islam, itself, is subjective anyway. If you assume Islam is true, then sure, those values become subjective, but making that logical leap is not objective in itself. So in the grand scheme of things, Islam's morals are still subjective, but just claim to be objective.
You make the mistake of assuming that secular morals are based in nothing, but in reality, they are based in empathy. That's why in secular societies, morality tends towards empathy over time.[/quote]
I guess I see the semantics on the word subjective here. Islamically the laws and morality are from God and hence one argues that God is all-wise and knows what is best for us in the grand scheme of all things, especially the unseen (God, life of hereafter etc), whereas the only observable data set is the Quran which is recorded and the historical record of Muhammad and companions.
But as I said, societal values are ever changing. But to make an objective claim that these laws are better than yours, would be coming from a subjective viewpoint that is the whole crux. So to say that Islam needs reform, is a subjective viewpoint. Like if you want to have a more balanced approach to law analysis, than at least start with the approach of seeking to undrestanding rather than seeking to critique.
Have you ever listened to the message of the Quran in arabic? Where did you learn about Islamic laws? Because all your past knowledge does bias your understanding.
Secondly, are you living in a western society which promotes individuality whereas eastern soceities tend to favour community over individualism? This is an important question to ask because one's framework and positionality can be biased towards analysis from individual rights and not soceital rights.
You make the mistake of assuming that secular morals are based in nothing, but in reality, they are based in empathy. That's why in secular societies, morality tends towards empathy over time.[/quote]
I guess I see the semantics on the word subjective here. Islamically the laws and morality are from God and hence one argues that God is all-wise and knows what is best for us in the grand scheme of all things, especially the unseen (God, life of hereafter etc), whereas the only observable data set is the Quran which is recorded and the historical record of Muhammad and companions.
But as I said, societal values are ever changing. But to make an objective claim that these laws are better than yours, would be coming from a subjective viewpoint that is the whole crux. So to say that Islam needs reform, is a subjective viewpoint. Like if you want to have a more balanced approach to law analysis, than at least start with the approach of seeking to undrestanding rather than seeking to critique.
Have you ever listened to the message of the Quran in arabic? Where did you learn about Islamic laws? Because all your past knowledge does bias your understanding.
Secondly, are you living in a western society which promotes individuality whereas eastern soceities tend to favour community over individualism? This is an important question to ask because one's framework and positionality can be biased towards analysis from individual rights and not soceital rights.
BlueVeins · 22-25
@GoodPasta I know a good bit about Islam, but being a productive human involves interacting as well as learning. There's little utility to gaining knowledge if you're not going to put it to use, after all! 🙃 Anyway, there's nothing wrong with advocating a subjective viewpoint towards people who disagree -- in fact, you're doing it [i]right now![/i] Here's some more subjective opinions:
-Cancer should be treated and/or cured.
-Communism is ineffectual.
-Raping children is wrong.
-Being stabbed is unpleasant.
My point is, in order to accomplish anything, you have to act on your opinions, and at times, even enforce those opinions to those who don't like them. A child molestor's insistence that molesting children is OK does not absolve one of the moral responsibility to prevent him/her from molesting children. What I'm talking about is the same situation, except instead of a child molestor, it's a faction of conservative religious folks, and instead of molesting children, they're slaughtering apostates and stuff.
-Cancer should be treated and/or cured.
-Communism is ineffectual.
-Raping children is wrong.
-Being stabbed is unpleasant.
My point is, in order to accomplish anything, you have to act on your opinions, and at times, even enforce those opinions to those who don't like them. A child molestor's insistence that molesting children is OK does not absolve one of the moral responsibility to prevent him/her from molesting children. What I'm talking about is the same situation, except instead of a child molestor, it's a faction of conservative religious folks, and instead of molesting children, they're slaughtering apostates and stuff.
SourPennies · 26-30, F
@GoodPasta No, I actually read the Quran with an open mind because I simply enjoy reading religious texts. I read it in English (the Marmaduke translation, which is regarded by many Islamic scholars to be the most accurate translation), and so you may think my opinion doesn't matter, but then you have to contend with the various apostates who have read/heard it in Arabic and reject it. Reading it in Arabic doesn't seem to produce the effect you were hoping for.
Citing the text as proof of its claims is not valid. I could, if I so chose, draw a squiggly line on a sheet of paper, claim it was written by God, claim that unless you can read the language of the squiggly in its original form then you cannot contest it, further claim that nobody could produce a squiggly so beautiful and unique, and have just as much claim to authority as the Quran. I'm not saying this to be mean, either. I know *you* believe it. The burden is on you to prove its validity *objectively*. Producing the book does not validate it. Producing God himself would, since the claim is that God wrote it, remember.
And it is not a separate matter whatsoever if your claim is that the Quran is the best, least subjective view from which to dictate morality. Its subjectivity is the very question under discussion.
Also, respond to the point about family values. I will not allow you to dodge it.
Citing the text as proof of its claims is not valid. I could, if I so chose, draw a squiggly line on a sheet of paper, claim it was written by God, claim that unless you can read the language of the squiggly in its original form then you cannot contest it, further claim that nobody could produce a squiggly so beautiful and unique, and have just as much claim to authority as the Quran. I'm not saying this to be mean, either. I know *you* believe it. The burden is on you to prove its validity *objectively*. Producing the book does not validate it. Producing God himself would, since the claim is that God wrote it, remember.
And it is not a separate matter whatsoever if your claim is that the Quran is the best, least subjective view from which to dictate morality. Its subjectivity is the very question under discussion.
Also, respond to the point about family values. I will not allow you to dodge it.
@BlueVeins [quote]I know a good bit about Islam, but being a productive human involves interacting as well as learning. There's little utility to gaining knowledge if you're not going to put it to use, after all! 🙃 Anyway, there's nothing wrong with advocating a subjective viewpoint towards people who disagree -- in fact, you're doing it right now! Here's some more subjective opinions:
-Cancer should be treated and/or cured.
-Communism is ineffectual.
-Raping children is wrong.
-Being stabbed is unpleasant.
My point is, in order to accomplish anything, you have to act on your opinions, and at times, even enforce those opinions to those who don't like them. A child molestor's insistence that molesting children is OK does not absolve one of the moral responsibility to prevent him/her from molesting children. What I'm talking about is the same situation, except instead of a child molestor, it's a faction of conservative religious folks, and instead of molesting children, they're slaughtering apostates and stuff.[/quote]
i dont know what its like living in a country as an adult, but i think that publicly apostating is different from privately leaving it. Because when you do it publicly you are basically asking it for it to be acceptable, but you can easily just leave the country privately and not believe.
-Cancer should be treated and/or cured.
-Communism is ineffectual.
-Raping children is wrong.
-Being stabbed is unpleasant.
My point is, in order to accomplish anything, you have to act on your opinions, and at times, even enforce those opinions to those who don't like them. A child molestor's insistence that molesting children is OK does not absolve one of the moral responsibility to prevent him/her from molesting children. What I'm talking about is the same situation, except instead of a child molestor, it's a faction of conservative religious folks, and instead of molesting children, they're slaughtering apostates and stuff.[/quote]
i dont know what its like living in a country as an adult, but i think that publicly apostating is different from privately leaving it. Because when you do it publicly you are basically asking it for it to be acceptable, but you can easily just leave the country privately and not believe.
@SourPennies [quote]No, I actually read the Quran with an open mind because I simply enjoy reading religious texts. I read it in English (the Marmaduke translation, which is regarded by many Islamic scholars to be the most accurate translation), and so you may think my opinion doesn't matter, but then you have to contend with the various apostates who have read/heard it in Arabic and reject it. Reading it in Arabic doesn't seem to produce the effect you were hoping for.
Citing the text as proof of its claims is not valid. I could, if I so chose, draw a squiggly line on a sheet of paper, claim it was written by God, claim that unless you can read the language of the squiggly in its original form then you cannot contest it, further claim that nobody could produce a squiggly so beautiful and unique, and have just as much claim to authority as the Quran. I'm not saying this to be mean, either. I know *you* believe it. The burden is on you to prove its validity *objectively*. Producing the book does not validate it. Producing God himself would, since the claim is that God wrote it, remember.
And it is not a separate matter whatsoever if your claim is that the Quran is the best, least subjective view from which to dictate morality. Its subjectivity is the very question under discussion.
Also, respond to the point about family values. I will not allow you to dodge it.[/quote]
I didn't say read it in arabic, but rather listen to it in arabic.
Secondly, I didn't cite the text as proof of its claim I just said that that is a separate discussion. Thirdly, the Quran is claiming it is the message of God, not myself - I"m just narrating. And it provides a sensical, coherent and eloquent discourse on life and rights and fundanmentally human issues by providing guidance and makes prophecies which historically are validated... and it challenges those who claim that its manmade to produce another chapter if they think its manmade. So please do not belittle the falsifiability test with talking about squiggly lines etc. My belief in it or reject of the Quran has very little to do with the Quranic claim. I could be someone who has not even heard of Islam and that makes little difference to the claim because I can still present the Quranic verse to you and say, if you think the Quran is false, then produce a chapter like it, as how it challenges you in verse 2/23.
You keep pulling the card up about burden of proof, but you're dealing with a text, and if you did read it, then I ask you, on what basis do you reject that it is not the word of God?
Acutally on that note, you have not read the Quran, but a tranlsation of the Quran. That's why I asked you have you ever listened to the Quran in arabic.
Citing the text as proof of its claims is not valid. I could, if I so chose, draw a squiggly line on a sheet of paper, claim it was written by God, claim that unless you can read the language of the squiggly in its original form then you cannot contest it, further claim that nobody could produce a squiggly so beautiful and unique, and have just as much claim to authority as the Quran. I'm not saying this to be mean, either. I know *you* believe it. The burden is on you to prove its validity *objectively*. Producing the book does not validate it. Producing God himself would, since the claim is that God wrote it, remember.
And it is not a separate matter whatsoever if your claim is that the Quran is the best, least subjective view from which to dictate morality. Its subjectivity is the very question under discussion.
Also, respond to the point about family values. I will not allow you to dodge it.[/quote]
I didn't say read it in arabic, but rather listen to it in arabic.
Secondly, I didn't cite the text as proof of its claim I just said that that is a separate discussion. Thirdly, the Quran is claiming it is the message of God, not myself - I"m just narrating. And it provides a sensical, coherent and eloquent discourse on life and rights and fundanmentally human issues by providing guidance and makes prophecies which historically are validated... and it challenges those who claim that its manmade to produce another chapter if they think its manmade. So please do not belittle the falsifiability test with talking about squiggly lines etc. My belief in it or reject of the Quran has very little to do with the Quranic claim. I could be someone who has not even heard of Islam and that makes little difference to the claim because I can still present the Quranic verse to you and say, if you think the Quran is false, then produce a chapter like it, as how it challenges you in verse 2/23.
You keep pulling the card up about burden of proof, but you're dealing with a text, and if you did read it, then I ask you, on what basis do you reject that it is not the word of God?
Acutally on that note, you have not read the Quran, but a tranlsation of the Quran. That's why I asked you have you ever listened to the Quran in arabic.
BlueVeins · 22-25
@GoodPasta If you apostate without anyone knowing about it and leave in silence, then of course you will not be jailed for it because your country is unaware. However, the countries and peoples in question tend to arrest/kill even those who are found to be apostates by happenstance. Besides, displacing someone just for changing their beliefs -- separating families in the process -- isn't alright.
SourPennies · 26-30, F
@GoodPasta 1. If I can't understand Arabic, what use would it be listening to it?
2. Okay, then the text is wrong when it claims to be the word of God, a) because texts can't make claims for themselves an b) because it provides no evidence for God's existence and therefore no validity for his authority. For reasons I've already stated, the Quran's uniqueness does not validate the claim of a God existing. A sensible God wouldn't make the criterion the uniqueness of the book; he would say, "When you need proof of me, I will literally appear in physical form in front of you and I won't just leave you with a book that people seem to interpret in several contradictory ways."
3. See above.
2. Okay, then the text is wrong when it claims to be the word of God, a) because texts can't make claims for themselves an b) because it provides no evidence for God's existence and therefore no validity for his authority. For reasons I've already stated, the Quran's uniqueness does not validate the claim of a God existing. A sensible God wouldn't make the criterion the uniqueness of the book; he would say, "When you need proof of me, I will literally appear in physical form in front of you and I won't just leave you with a book that people seem to interpret in several contradictory ways."
3. See above.
@BlueVeins if its a muslim governement and one does not believe in that government and chooses to disbelieve in islam, but benefits of living under rulership of that government than that is kind of hypocritical. Like if you disbelieve or believe that is your choice, but if you disbelieve then you can stop benefiting from other peoples money and polietly live elsewhere. One can start a family elsewhere, the world is vast. But to go on and publicly do it is different. Because now it also propagates an agenda
BlueVeins · 22-25
@GoodPasta [quote]if its a muslim governement and one does not believe in that government and chooses to disbelieve in islam, but benefits of living under rulership of that government than that is kind of hypocritical[/quote] That's not hypocritical. If you go to work every day, pay your damn taxes, avoid harming others, why shouldn't you benefit from the protection of your government? And perhaps more importantly, what about the gap between a government refusing services and actively hunting you down and killing you?
You can't leave if you've been arrested and/or killed before you could escape. And propogating an agenda is not evil in itself, nor should it be illegal. Tons of countries have no laws against propogating an agenda, and by most relevant accounts, they're stronger for it.
You can't leave if you've been arrested and/or killed before you could escape. And propogating an agenda is not evil in itself, nor should it be illegal. Tons of countries have no laws against propogating an agenda, and by most relevant accounts, they're stronger for it.
@SourPennies [quote]1. If I can't understand Arabic, what use would it be listening to it?
2. Okay, then the text is wrong when it claims to be the word of God, a) because texts can't make claims for themselves an b) because it provides no evidence for God's existence and therefore no validity for his authority. For reasons I've already stated, the Quran's uniqueness does not validate the claim of a God existing. A sensible God wouldn't make the criterion the uniqueness of the book; he would say, "When you need proof of me, I will literally appear in physical form in front of you and I won't just leave you with a book that people seem to interpret in several contradictory ways."
3. See above.[/quote]
1. You should listen to it and observe yourself and then see if it makes a difference. If you are asking me to convince you, when you can experience yourself, then your methodology of seeking knowledge is needs to change. Unless you were merely asking rhetorically and didnt even want to listen to it. But anyways I will partly answer it for you. The Quran was revealed in Arabic, not english. Even though you cannot understand arabic, you can listen to it. It claims to be the word of God in Arabic.
2. Something can be self-evident. b) actually there are many rational arguments provided.
1) 52:33-36
a) Or do they say, "He has made it up"? Rather, they do not believe. Then let them produce a statement like it, if they should be truthful.
b) Or were they created by nothing, or were they the creators [of themselves]? Or did they create the heavens and the earth? Rather, they are not certain.
And in many places in the Quran God claims onwership and creation over the universe.
Like if you're going to approach it from a science persepective.. Firstly science does not permit teleological explanations. Secondly, the Quran critiques the uncertainty and the assumptions that we base our current undrsantding of the unvierse from science which again uses the occam's razor. And rational rebuttal to all the creation of the universe is highlihgted in verse section b above. All models that we have are foudned upon assumptions and that's why e.g. we make those assumptions because it has implications on even simple questions like how did something immaterial like consciousness come from material? Well we can't answer that because we made assumptions about the universe from the scientific method which is limited.
2. Okay, then the text is wrong when it claims to be the word of God, a) because texts can't make claims for themselves an b) because it provides no evidence for God's existence and therefore no validity for his authority. For reasons I've already stated, the Quran's uniqueness does not validate the claim of a God existing. A sensible God wouldn't make the criterion the uniqueness of the book; he would say, "When you need proof of me, I will literally appear in physical form in front of you and I won't just leave you with a book that people seem to interpret in several contradictory ways."
3. See above.[/quote]
1. You should listen to it and observe yourself and then see if it makes a difference. If you are asking me to convince you, when you can experience yourself, then your methodology of seeking knowledge is needs to change. Unless you were merely asking rhetorically and didnt even want to listen to it. But anyways I will partly answer it for you. The Quran was revealed in Arabic, not english. Even though you cannot understand arabic, you can listen to it. It claims to be the word of God in Arabic.
2. Something can be self-evident. b) actually there are many rational arguments provided.
1) 52:33-36
a) Or do they say, "He has made it up"? Rather, they do not believe. Then let them produce a statement like it, if they should be truthful.
b) Or were they created by nothing, or were they the creators [of themselves]? Or did they create the heavens and the earth? Rather, they are not certain.
And in many places in the Quran God claims onwership and creation over the universe.
Like if you're going to approach it from a science persepective.. Firstly science does not permit teleological explanations. Secondly, the Quran critiques the uncertainty and the assumptions that we base our current undrsantding of the unvierse from science which again uses the occam's razor. And rational rebuttal to all the creation of the universe is highlihgted in verse section b above. All models that we have are foudned upon assumptions and that's why e.g. we make those assumptions because it has implications on even simple questions like how did something immaterial like consciousness come from material? Well we can't answer that because we made assumptions about the universe from the scientific method which is limited.
@BlueVeins [quote]That's not hypocritical. If you go to work every day, pay your damn taxes, avoid harming others, why shouldn't you benefit from the protection of your government? And perhaps more importantly, what about the gap between a government refusing services and actively hunting you down and killing you?
You can't leave if you've been arrested and/or killed before you could escape. And propogating an agenda is not evil in itself, nor should it be illegal. Tons of countries have no laws against propogating an agenda, and by most relevant accounts, they're stronger for it.[/quote]
because tax rules for those who believe and do not believe but still want protection differ. muslims pay zakat nonmuslims pay jizya... so basically thats hypocrisy to gain the benefits of muslim rulership but not fulfilling the obligations.
like why would you be fulfiling muslim obligations if you do not believe in it?
You can't leave if you've been arrested and/or killed before you could escape. And propogating an agenda is not evil in itself, nor should it be illegal. Tons of countries have no laws against propogating an agenda, and by most relevant accounts, they're stronger for it.[/quote]
because tax rules for those who believe and do not believe but still want protection differ. muslims pay zakat nonmuslims pay jizya... so basically thats hypocrisy to gain the benefits of muslim rulership but not fulfilling the obligations.
like why would you be fulfiling muslim obligations if you do not believe in it?
SourPennies · 26-30, F
@GoodPasta You still haven’t answered the question about family values.
It is very convenient when a book says that the burden of proof is on the reader to prove it false, especially when no evidence for its claims otherwise exists. And again, a lot of books do this. Yours has no special privilege here.
If it can’t be proven scientifically, that is in fact a problem for its claims to undersality. You’re saying an authority should be derived from a text which refuses universal validation.
I have heard parts of it being recited because it sounds neat, but it sounds neat in the same way that any language I can’t speak sounds neat when it’s being recited poetically. That doesn’t prove the existence of God either.
Also, do not presume my good humour in this argument. I do not care if I offend you by making your views seem ridiculous with my comparative examples. Mark me, you and I did not start on good terms. You began by comparing gay people to bestialists, which I find gravely offensive. My civility in this argument is a privilege based on no reciprocation.
Finally, the debate of consciousness is a philosophical one, not a scientific one. That people are “conscious” is observable. I subscribe to William James’ view, which is that consciousness is not an entity at all and merely describes physical processes in an unhelpful, pseudoscientific manner. All that exists is material and there is nothing else whatever.
It is very convenient when a book says that the burden of proof is on the reader to prove it false, especially when no evidence for its claims otherwise exists. And again, a lot of books do this. Yours has no special privilege here.
If it can’t be proven scientifically, that is in fact a problem for its claims to undersality. You’re saying an authority should be derived from a text which refuses universal validation.
I have heard parts of it being recited because it sounds neat, but it sounds neat in the same way that any language I can’t speak sounds neat when it’s being recited poetically. That doesn’t prove the existence of God either.
Also, do not presume my good humour in this argument. I do not care if I offend you by making your views seem ridiculous with my comparative examples. Mark me, you and I did not start on good terms. You began by comparing gay people to bestialists, which I find gravely offensive. My civility in this argument is a privilege based on no reciprocation.
Finally, the debate of consciousness is a philosophical one, not a scientific one. That people are “conscious” is observable. I subscribe to William James’ view, which is that consciousness is not an entity at all and merely describes physical processes in an unhelpful, pseudoscientific manner. All that exists is material and there is nothing else whatever.
1-25 of 27