Topic: Islamism

[Corkboy]

Are you saying we're unable to prove that spiderman doesn't exist?

Correct. I personally don't believe he exists, but who am I to judge the faith of others?

[SP]

An editorial aside. Pasta based deities are not welcome in this topic.

[Doc Red]

Correct. I personally don't believe he exists, but who am I to judge the faith of others?

You're incorrect in claiming we can't prove spiderman doesn't exist. Because we can, the history of how his character was created has already been nicely catalogued for us. Obviously, if people still wish to believe he exists, inspite of the declarations of the character's writers/creators", they're certainly free to follow as they may.

[zero zero]

You're incorrect in claiming we can't prove spiderman doesn't exist.

How useful is this nugget of information?

[SP]

You're incorrect in claiming we can't prove spiderman doesn't exist.

You cannot prove it. You can demonstrate it is exceptionally unlikely.

[Doc Red]

How useful is this nugget of information?

It's useful because he attempted to dismiss the concept of falsification using the example of Spiderman.

[Doc Red]

You cannot prove it. You can demonstrate it is exceptionally unlikely.

You wouldn't have to go through the process of falsifying it because the general hypothesis that spiderman (i.e the comic character) exists, would have been rejected before the process would have even started.

[zero zero]

It's useful because he attempted to dismiss the concept of falsification using the example of Spiderman.

Which we all know is a work of fiction.

How useful is this information?

[The Fletcher Memorial]

You wouldn't have to go through the process of falsifying it because the general hypothesis that god (i.e the biblical character) exists, would have been rejected before the process would have even started.

[Doc Red]

The philosophical hypothesis that spiderman exists would have already been rejected before going through the stages of falsification because there already exists enough evidence to reject the hypothesis completely. Statistically speaking, the hypothesis that spiderman exists would have proven to be extremely, and I mean extremely, unlikely. However, taking into account that the philosophical hypothesis would have already been rejected, there wouldn't be a need for falsifying the hypothesis as it's already been rejected.

The general hypothesis that there exists a God provides a very strong foundation for a philosophical hypothesis, enough to provide countless ongoing debates on the subject. The statistical and emperical evidence for the hypothesis would not be as strong, and hence the stance of the scientific community in continuously researching, presenting (and falsifying) alternative hypotheses that do not include "God made everything".  However, because there is still a philosophical debate on the hypothesis that there is a God, it's simply not a case that science has proven God doesn't exist.

[Alan_X]

The philosophical hypothesis that spiderman exists would have already been rejected before going through the stages of falsification because there already exists enough evidence to reject the hypothesis completely. Statistically speaking, the hypothesis that spiderman exists would have proven to be extremely, and I mean extremely, unlikely. However, taking into account that the philosophical hypothesis would have already been rejected, there wouldn't be a need for falsifying the hypothesis as it's already been rejected.

The general hypothesis that there exists a God provides a very strong foundation for a philosophical hypothesis, enough to provide countless ongoing debates on the subject. The statistical and emperical evidence for the hypothesis would not be as strong, and hence the stance of the scientific community in continuously researching, presenting (and falsifying) alternative hypotheses that do not include "God made everything".  However, because there is still a philosophical debate on the hypothesis that there is a God, it's simply not a case that science has proven God doesn't exist.

Sorry, but which God are you referring to?

Aken, Aker, Ammit, Amunet, Anubis, Anuket, Apophis, Bast, Heget, Horus, Isis, Osiris, Ra, Set?... or maybe Baldr, Loki, Odin, Thor, Freyr?... howabout Tlaloc, Xupe-Totec, Tezcatlipoca, Quetzalcoatal or Mictlantecuhti?... maybe the inuit deities liek Agloolik, Akna, Anguta, Pinga or Qailertetang?... or Northern Territory aboriginal? Altjira the Arrente sky god who created the earth? Karora the creator...

and so on...

There are thousands, probably tens of thousands of Gods. All different and each trying to explain a complicated world to pre-scientific and pre-industrial societies

It's self-evident that for your God to be the only God (as your God claims in his book) then none of those other Gods can exist.

And what that all demonstrates is not that a supreme deity or multiple deities exist or even that there is a good philosophical case for believing that god exists, but that the need for explanation exists and in the absence of any other option (no science or rudimentary science) a human or animal-like intelligence is assumed to be required.

It's the very ubiquitous nature of religion in so many different forms that shows that it's a human construct not 'God-given'. Unless of course, you accept that The Bible and Koran are wrong.

[Doc Red]

Sorry, but which God are you referring to?

Considering we've been discussing Islam, the Quran, and are in an Islamism thread, the God I'm referring to is the Abrahamic God. I'm not sure what are the grounds for the philosophical case for all the other Gods you've just mentioned, or what level of debates have been underway, but that's not my jurisdiction. And even if it was, this isn't the thread for debating the case (or counter case) for all the above deities/Gods you've named.

[Twelfth Man]

Liverpool FC is my God, everyone else is a c*nt. History started in 1896, before that, only c*nts existed.

[RedRabbit]

Falsification of a scientific claim is only useful when that claim is specific.

Saying "God exists" and leaving it at that is unfalsifiable. Ergo that claim is unscientific. A hypotheses  that can't be disproven is useless.

[Mumm-Ra]

Liverpool FC is my God, everyone else is a c*nt. History started in 1896, before that, only c*nts existed.

1892 actually

[Alan_X]

Considering we've been discussing Islam, the Quran, and are in an Islamism thread, the God I'm referring to is the Abrahamic God. I'm not sure what are the grounds for the philosophical case for all the other Gods you've just mentioned, or what level of debates have been underway, but that's not my jurisdiction. And even if it was, this isn't the thread for debating the case (or counter case) for all the above deities/Gods you've named.

So just to be clear, from your point of view there is only one God and 99.9% of all the other Gods in history were not real and the millions, or billions who believed in them were all deluded?

[Twelfth Man]

1892 actually

Oops! Will I burn in LFC hell for this?

[Corkboy]

An editorial aside. Pasta based deities are not welcome in this topic.

HA! I am SHOCKED! This is a clear case of anti-pastafarianism, or pastafariphobia.

[Alan_X]

Oops! Will I burn in LFC hell for this?

No Goodison...

[Corkboy]

Getting back to Islamism, and my own specialised subject of the widespread acceptance of, let's say, unacceptable practices. I posted this quote about Female Genital Mutilation a few pages back and there was no response from any Muslims. Let's have another look.

While there is no mention of FGM in the Quran, a Hadith (saying about the life of the prophet) recounts a debate between Muhammed and Um Habibah (or Um ‘Atiyyah). This woman, known as an exciser of female slaves, was one of a group of women who had immigrated with Muhammed. Having seen her, Muhammad asked her if she kept practicing her profession. She answered affirmatively, adding: “unless it is forbidden, and you order me to stop doing it.” Muhammed replied: “Yes, it is allowed. Come closer so I can teach you: if you cut, do not overdo it, because it brings more radiance to the face, and it is more pleasant for the husband.”

Here's the source again, for any ad hominem purposes. That source has its own sources.

Surely that's wrong? Not merely an endorsement but a reasoned endorsement. "It brings more radiance to the face" and "it is more pleasant for the husband". I can only presume there is some context that can no doubt explain this. After all, we are all presumably in agreement that FGM is barbaric and disgustingly misogynistic, right? Right? So what's all this "allowed" business?

Also, did anyone spot the casual reference to female slaves? Lovely.

[Doc Red]

So just to be clear, from your point of view there is only one God and 99.9% of all the other Gods in history were not real and the millions, or billions who believed in them were all deluded?

Alan, you're very good at putting words in people's mouths. I never hinted, or otherwise implied anything that resembled your post. My previous post concerning the philosophical hypothesis of there being a God was specifically on the subject of the Abrahamic God. I'm obviously not going to discuss the case for any/all the other Gods and deities you mentioned, because quite honestly that's not in my expertise, and quite frankly, expecting me to make a defense for ALL possible Gods is ridiculous. As long as this thread includes the subject of Islam, it's understandable that I'd be discussing the concept of God as per the Abrahamic God.

Falsification of a scientific claim is only useful when that claim is specific.

Saying "God exists" and leaving it at that is unfalsifiable. Ergo that claim is unscientific. A hypotheses  that can't be disproven is useless.

"God exists" is actually a very falsifiable philosophical hypothesis. The philosophical hypothesis that "God exists" will be built on various assumptions and abductive reasoning that can be challenged and countered. Because the hypothesis is very fixed, countering the respective assumptions and abductive reasonings would enable the hypothesis to be falsified. It's only unfalsifiable if the hypothesis is not clear enough to be disproved even when it's reasonings are countered.

In all fairness, science has moved a little from Popper's theory, some incorporated it into Kuhn's paradigm (which I'm more comfortable with), nonetheless, there still needs to be a clear hypothesis (in that if the reasoning for the hypothesis can be countered, than the hypothesis can be rejected) and there obviously needs to be the framework of assumptions that build the case.

As I've mentioned, there are plenty of ongoing philosophical debates/challenges on the hypothesis that "God exists" on various media and outlets, and by people far more educated, and more versed in the subject than we are. It's not as black or white as you all seem to make it out to be.

[Corkboy]

Most of that post was a classic appeal to authority.

[Alan_X]

Alan, you're very good at putting words in people's mouths. I never hinted, or otherwise implied anything that resembled your post. My previous post concerning the philosophical hypothesis of there being a God was specifically on the subject of the Abrahamic God. I'm obviously not going to discuss the case for any/all the other Gods and deities you mentioned, because quite honestly that's not in my expertise, and quite frankly, expecting me to make a defense for ALL possible Gods is ridiculous. As long as this thread includes the subject of Islam, it's understandable that I'd be discussing the concept of God as per the Abrahamic God.

He is Allah, besides whom there is no other God, the All-Knower of the unseen and the seen. Allah is the Most Benficent, the Most Merciful. He is Allah, the King, the Holy, the One, Free from all defects, the Giver of security, the Guardian, the All-Mighty, the Compeller, the Supreme. Exalted be Allah from all that they associate as partner with Him. He is Allah, the Creator, the Originator of all things, the Bestower of forms. His are the most Gracious Names. All that is in the heavens and the earth glorify Him. And He is the All-Mighty and the Wise One. [The Holy Qur'an, Surah 59:22-24]

Just sayin'...

[Alan_X]

Doc - you don't have to be an expert. You have the word of God so there is no need for you to defend the other Gods and I have no expectation that you should do so as a Muslim.

I was just asking whether you agree with the Koran that there is only one God? The bit about all other Gods not being real doesn't require any thought or expertise in that case - it's a given.

[Twelfth Man]

As I've mentioned, there are plenty of ongoing philosophical debates/challenges on the hypothesis that "God exists" on various media and outlets, and by people far more educated, and more versed in the subject than we are. It's not as black or white as you all seem to make it out to be.

Black and white? Is that not Islam in a nutshell? The epitome of a Manichean outlook. I'm versed, in the sense that, I'm alive, and can think objectively and critically for myself. For a religion that prides itself on being for the common man, you don't half need a load of experts to make sense of it. Was looking forward to your response to Alan's post about other God's, instead we got more dodging. Well I'll answer for you, my God is the only God, all your God's are false, and my lot follow the only true path. Oh how convenient that is. The subtlety of it. Bravo, bravo. I'm the best!

[Doc Red]

Doc - you don't have to be an expert. You have the word of God so there is no need for you to defend the other Gods and I have no expectation that you should do so as a Muslim.

I was just asking whether you agree with the Koran that there is only one God? The bit about all other Gods not being real doesn't require any thought or expertise in that case - it's a given.

I believe there is only one God, the Abrahamic God. And no, I do not consider anyone else that believes in their own version of a God to be deluded, and neither to I believe anyone that doesn't believe in 'a' God is deluded. Pretty much everyone makes their own choice, and probably believes that their choice is what's best for them.

[SadRed]

HA! I am SHOCKED! This is a clear case of anti-pastafarianism, or pastafariphobia.

As per one research, 97% of pasta in Tazbekistan is wasted. Tazbekistan sounds like a mosslem country, surely this must be from the Quran. Those barbarian mosslems with their unsavoury customs.

After googling furiously, I found this link - Clearly pasta wastage is encouraged in the Quran
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100723112543AA2ZY0t 

[RedRabbit]

"God exists" is actually a very falsifiable philosophical hypothesis. The philosophical hypothesis that "God exists" will be built on various assumptions and abductive reasoning that can be challenged and countered. Because the hypothesis is very fixed, countering the respective assumptions and abductive reasonings would enable the hypothesis to be falsified. It's only unfalsifiable if the hypothesis is not clear enough to be disproved even when it's reasonings are countered.

The assumptions will be different for everyone making the claim.

The rest is what I said using more words.

[SadRed]

Getting back to Islamism, and my own specialised subject of the widespread acceptance of, let's say, unacceptable practices. I posted this quote about Female Genital Mutilation a few pages back and there was no response from any Muslims. Let's have another look.

Because I provided clear evidence that it is a cultrual issue, not a religious one. Every agrees that, despite your efforts to prove otherwise. You perhaps had enough time to google and find this link, but no luck again. The hadith you mention is classified as unreliable and weak by the author himself. Better luck next time.

I will repeat some info:

In CDI [Côte d'Ivoire], the prevalence is 80 percent among Muslims, 40 percent among those with no religion and 15 percent among Protestants, and in Sudan the prevalence is highest among Muslim women ... In Kenya, by contrast, prevalence is highest among Catholics and Protestants compared with other religious groups ... Thus, there is no unequivocal link between religion and prevalence.
Obermeyer, Carla Makhlouf. "Female Genital Surgeries: The Known, the Unknown, and the Unknowable", Medical Anthropology Quarterly, 13(1), March 1999 (pp. 79–106), p. 88 .

Because it is prevalant in Egypt, statement by Grand Mufti of Egypt: "excision is a practice totally banned by Islam because of the compelling evidence of the extensive damage it causes to women's bodies and minds."

Surely lets not believe him, random websites on the internet are clearly a more reliable source of information, information I have no clue about.

I know this will not be enough for you ofcourse, but carry on, I will pop in once a while to refute things when I have the time 

[XabiAlonsosBeard]

Anybody see the Channel 4 documentary just then on Boko Harum?

It was quite disturbing!

[Corkboy]

The hadith you mention is classified as unreliable and weak by the author himself. Better luck next time.

Right. So, (from the same source)...

Four law schools differ

The data from Iraq and preliminary reports from other parts of the Middle East and Asia point to a relationship between the practice and specific law schools within Sunni Islam. The four main law schools – Shafai’i, Hanbali, Maliki and Hanafi – have been dominant in different areas of the Middle East. They differ in their interpretations of the teachings and provisions of Islamic law and guidance. Whereas the Hanafis do not regard female circumcision as “sunnah”, the practice is recommended on religious grounds by the Maliki and Hanbali law schools and is considered obligatory by the Shafai’i school. Though not without internal dissent, the Shafai’i position is clearly expressed: “Circumcision is obligatory upon men and women according to us.” In Indonesia for example – where information about the presence of practice has long been available but by and large ignored or dismissed – this is the dominant law school. Shafai’i is also the dominant school in the Hejaz region of Saudi Arabia, in Yemen, Syria, the Palestinian territories, Jordan and Kurdistan.

So, is that garbage, like the hadith I quoted or is it true and they are all wrong or what's going on there at all?

[jooneyisdagod]

I believe there is only one God, the Abrahamic God. And no, I do not consider anyone else that believes in their own version of a God to be deluded, and neither to I believe anyone that doesn't believe in 'a' God is deluded. Pretty much everyone makes their own choice, and probably believes that their choice is what's best for them.

If you do believe that, then you cannot simultaneously say that the claim God exists cannot be falsified and therefore he exists because as Corkboy used the example of Spiderman, every thing that can exist does exist and this includes every God you don't believe in.

[Alan_X]

I believe there is only one God, the Abrahamic God. And no, I do not consider anyone else that believes in their own version of a God to be deluded, and neither to I believe anyone that doesn't believe in 'a' God is deluded. Pretty much everyone makes their own choice, and probably believes that their choice is what's best for them

Which is what I'd expect from you. That is clearly not what the Koran has to say on the matter but like many modern educated people your basic human decency and tolerance over-rides the text.

People don't choose their religion. Their religion is governed by the society they grow up in. If you had been born into a Hindu family in a Hindu country then the chances of you being a Muslim and believing in an Abrahmic God would be close to zero. Deep down you must understand that.

Islamists don't accept that. They aren't distorting the Koran - they are taking it at face value.

[The Fletcher Memorial]

People don't choose their religion. Their religion is governed by the society they grow up in. If you had been born into a Hindu family in a Hindu country then the chances of you being a Muslim and believing in an Abrahmic God would be close to zero. Deep down you must understand that.

Islamists don't accept that. They aren't distorting the Koran - they are taking it at face value.

Very powerful stuff and perfectly put.

[Doc Red]

Which is what I'd expect from you. That is clearly not what the Koran has to say on the matter but like many modern educated people your basic human decency and tolerance over-rides the text.

Islamists don't accept that. They aren't distorting the Koran - they are taking it at face value.

That is what Islam has to say on the matter. The Quran doesn't state "believe in only One God, or else face war, ridicule etc". The stance in the Quran as it pertains to dealing with those of another set of beliefs is "you have yours and I have mine". The only mention in the Quran that contains verses about fighting nonbelievers is only when a Muslim society is persecuted specifically because of their religion. I don't know why you keep trying to present the Quran as a book that preaches intolerance against those with other religions. And yes, on the basis that the Quran doesn't declare that Muslims should kill all others that believe in different deities, the Islamic scholars, and the general Muslim populace considers the Islamists as distorting the Quran.

People don't choose their religion. Their religion is governed by the society they grow up in. If you had been born into a Hindu family in a Hindu country then the chances of you being a Muslim and believing in an Abrahmic God would be close to zero. Deep down you must understand that.

It's interesting, whenever an atheists chooses to reject what their parents might have raised them up believing, we consider it as choice. But if a person doesn't choose to reject the religion their parents follow, we consider it as a case of them not choosing. In which case, are implying that atheists are the only people that have truly chosen their stance.

[scared_person]

.......I don't know why you keep trying to present the Quran as a book that preaches intolerance against those with other religions........

Perhaps because there is a group of lunatics rampaging through Iraq comitting atrocities against those of other religions and citing the Quran as their inspiration and justification?

[RedRabbit]

"Persecuted" is a wholly ambiguous word. It may not explicitly state that Muslim's are allowed to kill anyone who is not Muslim but it leaves it wide open to be interpreted that way - as evidenced by people who do. This strikes me as odd seeing as it's meant to be the word of God.

Not to jump all over Alan's parade or anything, but I can't see where he implied atheists choose to be atheists. He just said religious people don't choose theirs.

Religion is something which a child is exposed to much earlier than that child is able to engage in critical thinking. Sometimes it sticks and sometimes it doesn't, possibly due to the make-up of the individual involved, possibly due to the levels to which the child is exposed. But, if you believe that your "choice" of religion is equivalent to the "choice" an atheist has made then what we would see is a random pattern of religions scattered throughout the world, but instead what we see are things like "Christian Nations" and "Muslim Blocs" and theocracies and Buddist (etc.) parents having Buddist (etc.) children.

I think you know that what Alan was saying wasn't that all religious people don't choose their particular religion, but that a large majority of the time that choice isn't available to them and it's easier to be part of an Us crowd than a Them crowd, particularly when the book (any one, doesn't matter) categorically states, repeatedly, that there is an "Us" and "Them".

Religion is a social construct, it would odd to say the least that your "choice" wasn't influenced massively by the society you were raised in. The same can't really be said for atheism which is a much more individual "choice" (although obviously not wholly, but that also falls under the religion construct to a large extent).

[Doc Red]

Perhaps because there is a group of lunatics rampaging through Iraq comitting atrocities against those of other religions and citing the Quran as their inspiration and justification?

So even though the Quran doesn't justify the atrocities currently being commited in the Middle East, we should claim that it does justify the atrocities because a "bunch of lunatics" make that claim? Should we not question the motives and general knowledge of the "lunatics" before we start to ignore the fact that the Quran doesn't justify their actions?

[Corkboy]

Right. So, (from the same source)...

Four law schools differ

The data from Iraq and preliminary reports from other parts of the Middle East and Asia point to a relationship between the practice and specific law schools within Sunni Islam. The four main law schools – Shafai’i, Hanbali, Maliki and Hanafi – have been dominant in different areas of the Middle East. They differ in their interpretations of the teachings and provisions of Islamic law and guidance. Whereas the Hanafis do not regard female circumcision as “sunnah”, the practice is recommended on religious grounds by the Maliki and Hanbali law schools and is considered obligatory by the Shafai’i school. Though not without internal dissent, the Shafai’i position is clearly expressed: “Circumcision is obligatory upon men and women according to us.” In Indonesia for example – where information about the presence of practice has long been available but by and large ignored or dismissed – this is the dominant law school. Shafai’i is also the dominant school in the Hejaz region of Saudi Arabia, in Yemen, Syria, the Palestinian territories, Jordan and Kurdistan.

So, is that garbage, like the hadith I quoted or is it true and they are all wrong or what's going on there at all?

Anyone?

[Alan_X]

So even though the Quran doesn't justify the atrocities currently being commited in the Middle East, we should claim that it does justify the atrocities because a "bunch of lunatics" make that claim? Should we not question the motives and general knowledge of the "lunatics" before we start to ignore the fact that the Quran doesn't justify their actions?

The Quran is a text that contains verses that can be used to justify those atrocities without amendment. You may claim that they are taken out of context but if a book contains any reference to striking the necks of disbelievers, it's nit-picking to argue about the original context or 'true' meaning. (Chapter 8:12)

I said earlier that moderate muslims find it hard to wholeheartedly condemn ISIS and other terror attacks because the sensible thing to do would be to excise all that nonsense from the Quran and just leave the bits about being good.

You are in that same bind because you cannot do that. Instead you are forced to provide alternative readings or focus on other factors to excuse their behaviour.  The problem with the 'lunatics' in this case is that their cause is Islam and their aim is to create an Islamic State (the clue is in the name), all justified by radical Islamic scholars referring to the Koran.

It should be a matter of record, and straightforward to demonstrate the bits they are adding or changing to justify their actions if that is what they are doing.