The Holy Quran Experiment

[Underseer]

Ehe.... The Quran is also written long after the events and also in verse with lots of vague words used because they rhyme rather than for philosophical precision. Also, there's stuff in the Sharia that goes right against the Quran. For example. According to the Quran adultery is only a stoning offence if the guilty parties refuse to apologise. If they beg for forgiveness they are to be forgiven b? y the injured parties. The Sharia = stoning, no excuses.

And fundamentalism is just as idiotic for a Christian as a Moslem. These people can just be ignored. They're dumb asses.

I know very little about Islam, which is, I think, something I have in common with many critics - but I have known many Muslims, most of whom a clearly better people for their beliefs (though I advise you not to go on a coach trip with many Muslim men, because they are too shy to use urinals, so it all takes a long time at stops). The great thing I learned from my Christian upbringing was to avoid self-righteousness, which most American fundamentalists seem to have mislaid. I don't think we are really arguing much, are we?

Muslims who are part of a minority are very different from Muslims from Muslim-majority countries.

American Christians are like Muslims from Muslim-majority countries.

The difference isn't the content of the holy books, it's the perspective gained from being part of a minority compared to the blindness of privilege.

 

[bilby]

Agreed, there are doubtless many fundamentalists who simply let someone else do all their thinking for them. I suppose in some ways I was a bit isolated from that group, as I was a fundamentalist preacher. I guess that means I was the one doing the fundie thinking for others.

Regardless, the height of intellectual laziness is when one does exactly that -- allow someone else to tell you what to believe, and accept whatever they say uncritically. Religion is definitely a petri dish for incubating that sort of behavior, but it can happen in many other areas as well. Obviously if we had to verify everything anyone ever told us we'd make little progress.

I'm pretty sure that time varies with velocity and light is bent by a large gravitational field, but I have no way of checking this myself. I'll just take Einstein's word for it.

But given that you have no way to check it, it's probably not important whether you agree with Einstein or not - if it doesn't contradict anything that you are able to test yourself, then it seems reasonable to believe Einstein, who has no record of lying or being mistaken on the subject.

Once you get a job that requires you to take a firm stance on the question, you also put yourself in a position where testing it for yourself is more practical - and where you are also going to meet lots of other people who have tested it themselves, and can add their weight of evidence to Einstein's claim.

Compare this to fundy claims regarding the supernatural - those that can be tested turn out to be false, and those that cannot would require mechanisms that are contradicted by stuff we can test, so their claims therefore cannot be trusted.

 

[barbos]

It's pretty easy to take an air of superiority over people like this, and call them out on their ignorance, but any more I think religion has almost always been, for most people, a set of pretty guidelines dressed up in whatever society a person lives in, that they're all forced to abide by, and not something that many *really* takes seriously, especially in more recent times.

Obviously that social pressure has gotten and is still pretty shitty / dangerous in a lot of cases, but it seems to me like religion is much more of a social than serious philosophical thing. If any people who profess belief actually had the wherewithal or motivation to look logically at their own religion, rather than going down the path of least resistance of maintaining their image of belief, then they'd likely just become non-believers. But it's much easier to just keep calling yourself a Christian, continue doing whatever you want anyway, and then internally rationalizing it.

I think you're missing the point. We have plenty of people on this forum who think Christianity and Islam are fundamentally different. That the differences between the religions lie in the teachings. I think the ignorance on this matter is wide-spread.

Sometimes it's ok to feel superior. Especially if you are correct.

Who cares about teaching ? Of course it's 99% the same crap, like chimpanzee and humans who are 99% the same code.
What matters are the differences not the sameness. And difference is that islam has been political movement from the get-go. The difference is that their prophet was a murderous asshole and pedophile and you can't separate him from their religion.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I think you're missing the point. We have plenty of people on this forum who think Christianity and Islam are fundamentally different. That the differences between the religions lie in the teachings. I think the ignorance on this matter is wide-spread.

Sometimes it's ok to feel superior. Especially if you are correct.

Who cares about teaching ? Of course it's 99% the same crap, like chimpanzee and humans who are 99% the same code.
What matters are the differences not the sameness. And difference is that islam has been political movement from the get-go. The difference is that their prophet was a murderous asshole and pedophile and you can't separate him from their religion.

And Christianity wasn't a political movement from the get go? Nero didn't have Christians persecuted because he was a dick. He had them persecuted because they were a political force that threatened his power. Which is exactly what eventually happened. The differences isn't in the religion, it's simply in the context which they found themselves in. Christianity was born under the thumb of a powerful empire. So it adapted. Then it took power and became the imperial dogma of power and adapted to that. Islam was born in a time when the Byzantine empire and Persian empire had battled and ground themselves to a point where they had no power and there was a power-vacuum. Islam adapted to this. It became them imperial dogma of power.

So the differences don't matter a damn. They both ended up being a vehicle to grab political power.

 

[barbos]

Who cares about teaching ? Of course it's 99% the same crap, like chimpanzee and humans who are 99% the same code.
What matters are the differences not the sameness. And difference is that islam has been political movement from the get-go. The difference is that their prophet was a murderous asshole and pedophile and you can't separate him from their religion.

And Christianity wasn't a political movement from the get go? Nero didn't have Christians persecuted because he was a dick. He had them persecuted because they were a political force that threatened his power. Which is exactly what eventually happened. The differences isn't in the religion, it's simply in the context which they found themselves in. Christianity was born under the thumb of a powerful empire. So it adapted. Then it took power and became the imperial dogma of power and adapted to that. Islam was born in a time when the Byzantine empire and Persian empire had battled and ground themselves to a point where they had no power and there was a power-vacuum. Islam adapted to this. It became them imperial dogma of power.

So the differences don't matter a damn. They both ended up being a vehicle to grab political power.

First of all, Nero was a dick. Second of, when Christians murder people they don't really have such a good excuse compared to muslims where their fucking prophet was murdering people left and right in the name of religion.

 

[Bronzeage]

And Christianity wasn't a political movement from the get go? Nero didn't have Christians persecuted because he was a dick. He had them persecuted because they were a political force that threatened his power. Which is exactly what eventually happened. The differences isn't in the religion, it's simply in the context which they found themselves in. Christianity was born under the thumb of a powerful empire. So it adapted. Then it took power and became the imperial dogma of power and adapted to that. Islam was born in a time when the Byzantine empire and Persian empire had battled and ground themselves to a point where they had no power and there was a power-vacuum. Islam adapted to this. It became them imperial dogma of power.

So the differences don't matter a damn. They both ended up being a vehicle to grab political power.

First of all, Nero was a dick. Second of, when Christians murder people they don't really have such a good excuse compared to muslims where their fucking prophet was murdering people left and right in the name of religion.

Nero is a good example of what happens when the people who murdered you, get to write your life story.

 

[Atheos]

Agreed, there are doubtless many fundamentalists who simply let someone else do all their thinking for them. I suppose in some ways I was a bit isolated from that group, as I was a fundamentalist preacher. I guess that means I was the one doing the fundie thinking for others.

Regardless, the height of intellectual laziness is when one does exactly that -- allow someone else to tell you what to believe, and accept whatever they say uncritically. Religion is definitely a petri dish for incubating that sort of behavior, but it can happen in many other areas as well. Obviously if we had to verify everything anyone ever told us we'd make little progress.

I'm pretty sure that time varies with velocity and light is bent by a large gravitational field, but I have no way of checking this myself. I'll just take Einstein's word for it.

Exactly. You're "pretty sure." You're willing to take Einstein's word for it. If it turned out (which it didn't) that he was wrong you'd be just fine letting go of that tentatively held belief. That's exactly my point. You don't accept it uncritically.

Einstein's thought experiments of the early 1900's were subject to peer review and verification through rigorous experimentation. For every successful Einstein theory there are thousands of crackpot theories that died under the same processes. Turns out there's not an ether, demons aren't the cause of influenza or seizures and sublimation isn't how flies miraculously appear on rotting meat.

A rational person living in 1915 without the means to verify Einstein's theories would be well served to reserve belief in said theories for the same reasons they would be well served to reserve belief in other theories. A rational person living today in the shadow of Atomic Bombs, rocket science, satellite technology and the Hubble Telescope has no excuse for doubting the advancements which have resulted from understanding and applying principles based on Einsteins thought experiments.

There is a huge difference between uncritical acceptance and tentative acceptance. Respect for an individual making a statement translates to credibility for what they say. But it is irrational to simply accept everything someone says just because they are who they are.

 

[ideologyhunter]

In the 50's (or early 60's), a man on the street experiment was done, reading portions of the Bill of Rights to Americans -- many of whom shied away like they were hearing Communist ideas.

 

[DrZoidberg]

And Christianity wasn't a political movement from the get go? Nero didn't have Christians persecuted because he was a dick. He had them persecuted because they were a political force that threatened his power. Which is exactly what eventually happened. The differences isn't in the religion, it's simply in the context which they found themselves in. Christianity was born under the thumb of a powerful empire. So it adapted. Then it took power and became the imperial dogma of power and adapted to that. Islam was born in a time when the Byzantine empire and Persian empire had battled and ground themselves to a point where they had no power and there was a power-vacuum. Islam adapted to this. It became them imperial dogma of power.

So the differences don't matter a damn. They both ended up being a vehicle to grab political power.

First of all, Nero was a dick. Second of, when Christians murder people they don't really have such a good excuse compared to muslims where their fucking prophet was murdering people left and right in the name of religion.

So your argument is that when Christians use the Bible to justify killing people left and right they aren't reading their holy book properly, while Muslims doing the same are? History isn't being your friend right now.

 

[barbos]

First of all, Nero was a dick. Second of, when Christians murder people they don't really have such a good excuse compared to muslims where their fucking prophet was murdering people left and right in the name of religion.

Nero is a good example of what happens when the people who murdered you, get to write your life story.

OK, Nero was not a dick. On the other hand, they all were dicks.

 

[barbos]

First of all, Nero was a dick. Second of, when Christians murder people they don't really have such a good excuse compared to muslims where their fucking prophet was murdering people left and right in the name of religion.

So your argument is that when Christians use the Bible to justify killing people left and right they aren't reading their holy book properly, while Muslims doing the same are? History isn't being your friend right now.

My argument is that Prophet Mohamed can be compared to Hitler who won in WW2 and lived happily ever after, and Jesus can be compared to Hitler who died in 1930 or something.

 

[DrZoidberg]

So your argument is that when Christians use the Bible to justify killing people left and right they aren't reading their holy book properly, while Muslims doing the same are? History isn't being your friend right now.

My argument is that Prophet Mohamed can be compared to Hitler who won in WW2 and lived happily ever after, and Jesus can be compared to Hitler who died in 1930 or something.

I have no idea what this means. Do you mean that the characteristics of Jesus made up character are less moral than those of Mohammed? Also a mostly made up character.

Looking at history it doesn't seem like either Christians nor Muslims give a damn. They seem about as enthusiastic about killing as the next person

 

[Bronzeage]

Who cares about teaching ? Of course it's 99% the same crap, like chimpanzee and humans who are 99% the same code.
What matters are the differences not the sameness. And difference is that islam has been political movement from the get-go. The difference is that their prophet was a murderous asshole and pedophile and you can't separate him from their religion.

And Christianity wasn't a political movement from the get go? Nero didn't have Christians persecuted because he was a dick. He had them persecuted because they were a political force that threatened his power. Which is exactly what eventually happened. The differences isn't in the religion, it's simply in the context which they found themselves in. Christianity was born under the thumb of a powerful empire. So it adapted. Then it took power and became the imperial dogma of power and adapted to that. Islam was born in a time when the Byzantine empire and Persian empire had battled and ground themselves to a point where they had no power and there was a power-vacuum. Islam adapted to this. It became them imperial dogma of power.

So the differences don't matter a damn. They both ended up being a vehicle to grab political power.

The Christians were not a political movement. The Roman government was a religious power. When the Emperor becomes a God, any who do not recognise his Godness are not only heretics, but also traitors to their nation.

The persecution of the Christians was a simple demonstration of political power against descension. The Christians were not the only groups given this treatment. Appeals to religious piety was a common tactic for Roman politicians, which meant a return to temple sacrifices and all the sacred rites of whatever god was in charge of that neighborhood. Any monotheistic group was an easy target when a Roman Senator wanted to stir up that old time religion, for his own purposes.

 

[DrZoidberg]

And Christianity wasn't a political movement from the get go? Nero didn't have Christians persecuted because he was a dick. He had them persecuted because they were a political force that threatened his power. Which is exactly what eventually happened. The differences isn't in the religion, it's simply in the context which they found themselves in. Christianity was born under the thumb of a powerful empire. So it adapted. Then it took power and became the imperial dogma of power and adapted to that. Islam was born in a time when the Byzantine empire and Persian empire had battled and ground themselves to a point where they had no power and there was a power-vacuum. Islam adapted to this. It became them imperial dogma of power.

So the differences don't matter a damn. They both ended up being a vehicle to grab political power.

The Christians were not a political movement. The Roman government was a religious power. When the Emperor becomes a God, any who do not recognise his Godness are not only heretics, but also traitors to their nation.

The persecution of the Christians was a simple demonstration of political power against descension. The Christians were not the only groups given this treatment. Appeals to religious piety was a common tactic for Roman politicians, which meant a return to temple sacrifices and all the sacred rites of whatever god was in charge of that neighborhood. Any monotheistic group was an easy target when a Roman Senator wanted to stir up that old time religion, for his own purposes.

That's not how it worked. The Roman empire had a complicated system of allegiences. They had something called the Pax Dei. The peace of the Gods. Which meant that everybody had to show up for everybody else's religious celebrations. This was obligatory and punishable by death if you didn't show up. It was enforced religious tolerance if you like. Roman Paganism was very complicated. Christianity on the other hand was simple. They had a very effective power structure and were well organised. They also refused to join in the other religions celebrations. Saint Nicholas got sainted because he snuck out at night and burned pagan temples. This was back in the day when Christianity was banned. It was a little well organised and disciplined private army right under the nose of the emperor. They were dangerous. That was why they were persecuted. That was the only reason.

And since it's the winners who write history the early Christians are now little misunderstood innocent flowers bursting with virtue. They did a lot of killing in the name of Christ. Loads. Not that Christians stopped after it became officially recognised in Rome.

 

[funinspace]

So your argument is that when Christians use the Bible to justify killing people left and right they aren't reading their holy book properly, while Muslims doing the same are? History isn't being your friend right now.

My argument is that Prophet Mohamed can be compared to Hitler who won in WW2 and lived happily ever after, and Jesus can be compared to Hitler who died in 1930 or something.

One problem with this line of reasoning is that Christianity doesn't have just one prophet. Joshua was commanded to commit genocide, and the women were booty...

13“When the LORD your God gives it into your hand, you shall strike all the men in it with the edge of the sword. 14“Only the women and the children and the animals and all that is in the city, all its spoil, you shall take as booty for yourself; and you shall use the spoil of your enemies which the LORD your God has given you. 15“Thus you shall do to all the cities that are very far from you, which are not of the cities of these nations nearby. 16“Only in the cities of these peoples that the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, you shall not leave alive anything that breathes. 17“But you shall utterly destroy them, the Hittite and the Amorite, the Canaanite and the Perizzite, the Hivite and the Jebusite, as the LORD your God has commanded you,

Never mind Yahweh tormenting the Egyptians within their fables. And Jesus is purportedly quoted as saying essentially that he believes the Torah. And today we have a few Christian preacher that advocate that being gay should be a capital crime.

 

[J842P]

My argument is that Prophet Mohamed can be compared to Hitler who won in WW2 and lived happily ever after, and Jesus can be compared to Hitler who died in 1930 or something.

One problem with this line of reasoning is that Christianity doesn't have just one prophet. Joshua was commanded to commit genocide, and the women were booty...

13“When the LORD your God gives it into your hand, you shall strike all the men in it with the edge of the sword. 14“Only the women and the children and the animals and all that is in the city, all its spoil, you shall take as booty for yourself; and you shall use the spoil of your enemies which the LORD your God has given you. 15“Thus you shall do to all the cities that are very far from you, which are not of the cities of these nations nearby. 16“Only in the cities of these peoples that the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, you shall not leave alive anything that breathes. 17“But you shall utterly destroy them, the Hittite and the Amorite, the Canaanite and the Perizzite, the Hivite and the Jebusite, as the LORD your God has commanded you,

Never mind Yahweh tormenting the Egyptians within their fables. And Jesus is purportedly quoted as saying essentially that he believes the Torah. And today we have a few Christian preacher that advocate that being gay should be a capital crime.

Islam doesn't have just one prophet either, Mohammed is merely the last prophet. All Islamic sects accept Jesus as a prophet of Allah.

 

[barbos]

And Mohammed was all about killing infidels, he spent 90% of time doing that.

 

[DrZoidberg]

And Mohammed was all about killing infidels, he spent 90% of time doing that.

Have you even read the Quran? You can look shit up. You are aware of this?

 

[Barbarian]

And Mohammed was all about killing infidels, he spent 90% of time doing that.

Have you even read the Quran? You can look shit up. You are aware of this?

What does the Qur'an have to do with any of this? The story of Muhammad consolidating his power in a series of wars is not preserved in the Qur'an; it's part of the tradition. And yes, tradition says he kept waging war against those fellow Arabs and Jews who did not yet accept his status as a prophet. He calls them infidels. The Qur'an is mostly just exhortations, all presented as quotations from Allah himself, although some do incite to violence.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Have you even read the Quran? You can look shit up. You are aware of this?

What does the Qur'an have to do with any of this? The story of Muhammad consolidating his power in a series of wars is not preserved in the Qur'an; it's part of the tradition. And yes, tradition says he kept waging war against those fellow Arabs and Jews who did not yet accept his status as a prophet. He calls them infidels. The Qur'an is mostly just exhortations, all presented as quotations from Allah himself, although some do incite to violence.

So how do you explain all the Christian empires? There's no shortage of Christian kings trying to make themselves emperor of Europe. And when the pope didn't cooperate they'd put a puppet pope on S:t Peter's throne. Or just invent some new variant of Christianity. I fail to see any difference at all?

I think you and Barbos are connecting imaginary dots.