The Holy Quran Experiment

[DrZoidberg]

Dutch guys dress a Bible up as a Quran and reads passages to people and ask them what they think. The reactions are pretty dependable. "Barbaric religion which must be destroyed" and so on. Much hilarity when they do the reveal. Good stuff.

I recommend sending it to any Christians you may know who think Islam is a more barbaric religion than Christianity because of it's teachings. There really is no difference in the lack of morals.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEnWw_lH4tQ

 

[Atheos]

Rationalization goes a loooooong way.

 

[Colonel Sanders]

That's soooo good.

The most common response is that that's the Old Testament so it doesn't count. From Matthew 5:17-18 (New Testament for anyone keeping score):

17"Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. 18"For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.

Not that we don't already know that, but it's obligatory.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Why does this not surprise me? Dumbasses who cannot recognize their own beloved Bible when excerpts are read to them depresses me. The Bible is the most sold book in America but the least actually read apparently.

 

[rousseau]

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.

 

[DrZoidberg]

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.

 

[iolo]

You need to define 'teachings'. The Old Testament is only there for the prophecies, though there are some good literary bits. The New Testament is collected up from a lot of congregational traditions, long after the events and needs to be read with common critical sense. The original Christians were Jews, and the early preaching needed to appeal to them especially, even if it meant forgetting Jesus's own words. Christianity and Islam are very different, but if you want to judge beliefs by texts that happen to get in (the hadiths, for instance) you can play games forever. If you're a fundamentalist, naturally, I have little to say to you.

 

[rousseau]

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.

Yea that's kind of what I'm saying: of course the ignorance is wide-spread because most of the time people don't actually take their religion that seriously. Is that hypocritical? Maybe. I'm just making the point that in practice religion is rarely about serious theology/philosophy, and more about social pressure, so it's not at all surprising that people would be blissfully unaware like this.

You could likely make the same experiment with a range of non-religious topics, lie to people, and get the same reactions, because at the end of the day most people don't have the time or energy to *really* understand much about what's going on. Yea the video makes a point, but I think that point, more deeply, is that religion has usually more to do with whatever flavour you're introduced to in real life, than anything about the actual philosophy and how it's evolved within the religion.

 

[DrZoidberg]

You need to define 'teachings'. The Old Testament is only there for the prophecies, though there are some good literary bits. The New Testament is collected up from a lot of congregational traditions, long after the events and needs to be read with common critical sense. The original Christians were Jews, and the early preaching needed to appeal to them especially, even if it meant forgetting Jesus's own words. Christianity and Islam are very different, but if you want to judge beliefs by texts that happen to get in (the hadiths, for instance) you can play games forever. If you're a fundamentalist, naturally, I have little to say to you.

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.

 

[Underseer]

This is similar to an experiment an Israeli did on the Old Testament/Torah.

He took stories from the Old Testament, and changed all the names to Chinese names, then asked Jews in Israel to rate them for moral content. With the Chinese names, everyone found the stories repugnant. With the original Bible names, everyone found the stories moral.

 

[Bronzeage]

Dutch guys dress a Bible up as a Quran and reads passages to people and ask them what they think. The reactions are pretty dependable. "Barbaric religion which must be destroyed" and so on. Much hilarity when they do the reveal. Good stuff.

I recommend sending it to any Christians you may know who think Islam is a more barbaric religion than Christianity because of it's teachings. There really is no difference in the lack of morals.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEnWw_lH4tQ

One of the ways to tell a person who has actually read the Bible, old or new testament, is they don't get drawn into discussions about what is or isn't in the Bible.

Most people can't tell a King James verse from a line from King Lear. Their knowledge of history is no better, for much the same reasons. They are trying to recall something they learned in elementary and high school, and distinguish that from a dozen or so movies that got it wrong.

Util someone puts them on the spot, they haven't given a thought to what's in the Bible, since their last Sunday school class.

What does "lack of morals" mean?

 

[iolo]

You need to define 'teachings'. The Old Testament is only there for the prophecies, though there are some good literary bits. The New Testament is collected up from a lot of congregational traditions, long after the events and needs to be read with common critical sense. The original Christians were Jews, and the early preaching needed to appeal to them especially, even if it meant forgetting Jesus's own words. Christianity and Islam are very different, but if you want to judge beliefs by texts that happen to get in (the hadiths, for instance) you can play games forever. If you're a fundamentalist, naturally, I have little to say to you.

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?

 

[funinspace]

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.

Yea that's kind of what I'm saying: of course the ignorance is wide-spread because most of the time people don't actually take their religion that seriously. Is that hypocritical? Maybe. I'm just making the point that in practice religion is rarely about serious theology/philosophy, and more about social pressure, so it's not at all surprising that people would be blissfully unaware like this.

You could likely make the same experiment with a range of non-religious topics, lie to people, and get the same reactions, because at the end of the day most people don't have the time or energy to *really* understand much about what's going on. Yea the video makes a point, but I think that point, more deeply, is that religion has usually more to do with whatever flavour you're introduced to in real life, than anything about the actual philosophy and how it's evolved within the religion.

Yep, I think it is a great demonstration of ignorance and the willingness of humans to feel the need to express opinions even though they may even know they are ignorant.

Another great demonstration of ignorance at work with dihydrogen monoxide:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dihydrogen_monoxide_hoax#Public_efforts_involving_the_DHMO_hoax

In 1997, Nathan Zohner, a 14-year-old student at Eagle Rock Junior High School in Idaho Falls, Idaho, gathered 43 votes to ban the chemical, out of 50 people surveyed among his classmates. Zohner received the first prize at Greater Idaho Falls Science Fair for analysis of the results of his survey.

 

[braces_for_impact]

I'd like to see an American version of this experiment, although I'm pretty sure it would turn out much the same. Long ago most religions convinced many societies that religion = morality . Many people take this for granted without any knowledge or even cursory thought about where our ethics and morality comes from. This is the problem that must be overcome, and it is, albeit slowly.

What I find interesting is that from what I can tell, the average person seems to think that it's the other people that need religion to guide their morality, and that they themselves are a good person and are doing just fine with little to none of it. At least, that's the conclusion I've drawn as to why people would think it's a necessary component for good behavior but never seem to read the book themselves. They just assume it's just good stuff in there. In reality, there's very little good in there, and an awful lot that is so easily used to excuse hate, especially when religion is given the deference it is granted in our society.

 

[Atheos]

Dutch guys dress a Bible up as a Quran and reads passages to people and ask them what they think. The reactions are pretty dependable. "Barbaric religion which must be destroyed" and so on. Much hilarity when they do the reveal. Good stuff.

I recommend sending it to any Christians you may know who think Islam is a more barbaric religion than Christianity because of it's teachings. There really is no difference in the lack of morals.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEnWw_lH4tQ

One of the ways to tell a person who has actually read the Bible, old or new testament, is they don't get drawn into discussions about what is or isn't in the Bible.

Most people can't tell a King James verse from a line from King Lear. Their knowledge of history is no better, for much the same reasons. They are trying to recall something they learned in elementary and high school, and distinguish that from a dozen or so movies that got it wrong.

Util someone puts them on the spot, they haven't given a thought to what's in the Bible, since their last Sunday school class.

What does "lack of morals" mean?

It's highly doubtful this experiment was done using a King James bible, but I don't disagree with your points. On the other hand, there are pockets of people who read the bible fastidiously. I came from such a background. We knew what was in the Bible and still believed it. All of it and without apology. I was a fundamentalist and quite proud to be one. Being a fundamentalist does not equate to being an idiot any more than being a new-age woo follower does. I'd encourage those of you with little to no tolerance for such people to understand that, but I'm not into being pushy anymore, so believe what you want. (Not talking directly to you about that last bit Bronzeage, that comment was meant more for those who spoke disparagingly about fundies earlier).

The rationalization for a fundamentalist is fairly simple: If it seems horrible it's your fault for not understanding the big "god" picture. God has a right to do what he does, he's righteous in all things and we're not in a position to judge him.

The people in this video are very different from the average bible-belt fundie one is likely to meet. They might not be more likely to recognize OT passages like this, but they certainly wouldn't smile and be wow'd after the reveal. The rationalizations about "context" would start flowing immediately.

 

[TSwizzle]

How utterly tedious and predictable. I'd like to see these two navel gazing nitwits go into a muslim enclave and pull a similar stunt. But they would never do that for it is much safer to to stay within the confines of bashing away at christianity than do anything really controversial. Has their youtube reached 1m views yet ? I suspect DrZ accounts for about half of any views so far.

 

[Bronzeage]

One of the ways to tell a person who has actually read the Bible, old or new testament, is they don't get drawn into discussions about what is or isn't in the Bible.

Most people can't tell a King James verse from a line from King Lear. Their knowledge of history is no better, for much the same reasons. They are trying to recall something they learned in elementary and high school, and distinguish that from a dozen or so movies that got it wrong.

Util someone puts them on the spot, they haven't given a thought to what's in the Bible, since their last Sunday school class.

What does "lack of morals" mean?

It's highly doubtful this experiment was done using a King James bible, but I don't disagree with your points. On the other hand, there are pockets of people who read the bible fastidiously. I came from such a background. We knew what was in the Bible and still believed it. All of it and without apology. I was a fundamentalist and quite proud to be one. Being a fundamentalist does not equate to being an idiot any more than being a new-age woo follower does. I'd encourage those of you with little to no tolerance for such people to understand that, but I'm not into being pushy anymore, so believe what you want. (Not talking directly to you about that last bit Bronzeage, that comment was meant more for those who spoke disparagingly about fundies earlier).

The rationalization for a fundamentalist is fairly simple: If it seems horrible it's your fault for not understanding the big "god" picture. God has a right to do what he does, he's righteous in all things and we're not in a position to judge him.

The people in this video are very different from the average bible-belt fundie one is likely to meet. They might not be more likely to recognize OT passages like this, but they certainly wouldn't smile and be wow'd after the reveal. The rationalizations about "context" would start flowing immediately.

Fundamentalist does not equate to Biblically educated. I know many fundamentalists who have little concern for what is written in the more obscure parts of the Bible. They listen to the weekly Scripture reading and are satisfied until next Sunday. Most Sunday school and church Bible study does not spend a lot of time on alternative interpretations and potential conflicts found in Scripture. This gives a mean spirited person such as me, a lot of fun at their expense.

I can't count how many times I have pointed out that shellfish, such as crawfish, shrimp, and oysters are forbidden by Leviticus. That's a big deal in Louisiana. Most of them don't recall the verses from New Testament Peter, where he declares the dietary restrictions to no longer apply to the Christian community. For those who do mention Peter, it's an opening to talk about "editing" or revising Scripture to meet modern needs. That's when the fun really starts.

For the great majority of nominative Christians, they recognize the familiar verses and nothing more. Slip "The thing we call a rose would smell just as sweet if we called it by any other name," into a page of verses from Proverbs and I doubt 1 in 10 people would spot the ringer.

 

[Atheos]

It's highly doubtful this experiment was done using a King James bible, but I don't disagree with your points. On the other hand, there are pockets of people who read the bible fastidiously. I came from such a background. We knew what was in the Bible and still believed it. All of it and without apology. I was a fundamentalist and quite proud to be one. Being a fundamentalist does not equate to being an idiot any more than being a new-age woo follower does. I'd encourage those of you with little to no tolerance for such people to understand that, but I'm not into being pushy anymore, so believe what you want. (Not talking directly to you about that last bit Bronzeage, that comment was meant more for those who spoke disparagingly about fundies earlier).

The rationalization for a fundamentalist is fairly simple: If it seems horrible it's your fault for not understanding the big "god" picture. God has a right to do what he does, he's righteous in all things and we're not in a position to judge him.

The people in this video are very different from the average bible-belt fundie one is likely to meet. They might not be more likely to recognize OT passages like this, but they certainly wouldn't smile and be wow'd after the reveal. The rationalizations about "context" would start flowing immediately.

Fundamentalist does not equate to Biblically educated. I know many fundamentalists who have little concern for what is written in the more obscure parts of the Bible. They listen to the weekly Scripture reading and are satisfied until next Sunday. Most Sunday school and church Bible study does not spend a lot of time on alternative interpretations and potential conflicts found in Scripture. This gives a mean spirited person such as me, a lot of fun at their expense.

I can't count how many times I have pointed out that shellfish, such as crawfish, shrimp, and oysters are forbidden by Leviticus. That's a big deal in Louisiana. Most of them don't recall the verses from New Testament Peter, where he declares the dietary restrictions to no longer apply to the Christian community. For those who do mention Peter, it's an opening to talk about "editing" or revising Scripture to meet modern needs. That's when the fun really starts.

For the great majority of nominative Christians, they recognize the familiar verses and nothing more. Slip "The thing we call a rose would smell just as sweet if we called it by any other name," into a page of verses from Proverbs and I doubt 1 in 10 people would spot the ringer.

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.

 

[Bronzeage]

Fundamentalist does not equate to Biblically educated. I know many fundamentalists who have little concern for what is written in the more obscure parts of the Bible. They listen to the weekly Scripture reading and are satisfied until next Sunday. Most Sunday school and church Bible study does not spend a lot of time on alternative interpretations and potential conflicts found in Scripture. This gives a mean spirited person such as me, a lot of fun at their expense.

I can't count how many times I have pointed out that shellfish, such as crawfish, shrimp, and oysters are forbidden by Leviticus. That's a big deal in Louisiana. Most of them don't recall the verses from New Testament Peter, where he declares the dietary restrictions to no longer apply to the Christian community. For those who do mention Peter, it's an opening to talk about "editing" or revising Scripture to meet modern needs. That's when the fun really starts.

For the great majority of nominative Christians, they recognize the familiar verses and nothing more. Slip "The thing we call a rose would smell just as sweet if we called it by any other name," into a page of verses from Proverbs and I doubt 1 in 10 people would spot the ringer.

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.

 

[Playball40]

How utterly tedious and predictable. I'd like to see these two navel gazing nitwits go into a muslim enclave and pull a similar stunt. But they would never do that for it is much safer to to stay within the confines of bashing away at christianity than do anything really controversial. Has their youtube reached 1m views yet ? I suspect DrZ accounts for about half of any views so far.

Attack the messenger much?