Support NeoGAF

[Terra Firma]

I've also noticed how everyone is carefully avoiding the magic issue. A giant 600-winged invisible word-of-god-imparting archangel? The only response is feigned indignity, ad hominen attacks and walls of scripture (said walls of scripture being transcribed from the aforementioned giant 600-winged invisible word-of-god-imparting fire-and-brimstone archangel). It's like they are embarrassed. Those walls of scripture mean NOTHING when they are revealed to be the rantings of a giant-600-winged-invisible-word-of-god-imparting-archangel-seeing opportunistic warlord. Magic is make-believe.

Why is that so hard to understand? God created the universe from nothing. Creating an angel is nothing. If God can materialize atoms from nothing, if He can create consciousness and the soul, what's stopping him from creating angels, especially considering the fact that in Islam, angels do not have free will and thus man is superior to them in the sight of God?

Opportunistic? We know from the hadeeth that the Prophet PBUH was anything but opportunistic. If he had wanted, he'd have taken all virgins as his wives, resided in the best of houses, worn the best of clothes, eaten expensive kingly meals, hoarded mountains of gold, etc. but the truth is much different. Most of his wives were old or divorced women, his own house had space enough for only two people to lie down (his wife had to fold her feet up when she was sleeping so that he could perform the night prayers), there were months when he would have to survive on eating dates and drinking water only - he even milked his own goats and tended to his own torn clothes and shoes.

 

[Lamel]

I've also noticed how everyone is carefully avoiding the magic issue. A giant 600-winged invisible word-of-god-imparting archangel? The only response is feigned indignity, ad hominen attacks and walls of scripture (said walls of scripture being transcribed from the aforementioned giant 600-winged invisible word-of-god-imparting fire-and-brimstone archangel). It's like they are embarrassed. Those walls of scripture mean NOTHING when they are revealed to be the rantings of a giant-600-winged-invisible-word-of-god-imparting-archangel-seeing opportunistic warlord. Magic is make-believe.

We get it, you hate religion. To you it's magic, to others it's faith; Rusty already said that having faith requires suspension of disbelief. Let it go, you're not going to have any useful discussion with anyone by mocking them while wearing your fedora.

 

[PeteZaTheHutt]

Why is that so hard to understand? God created the universe from nothing. Creating an angel is nothing. If God can materialize atoms from nothing, if He can create consciousness and the soul, what's stopping him from creating angels, especially considering the fact that in Islam, angels do not have free will and thus man is superior to them in the sight of God?

All you've done here is moved from one fantastical figment of magic (the archangel) to an even more fantastical figment of magic (god). Invoking one type of magic to justify the existence of lesser forms of magic is still magic. And let's be clear, I'm not just picking on Islam and the Quran. I've already mentioned that ALL religions that invoke the supernatural are suspect because they rely on magic. Basing life decisions on magic is illogical and is not necessary in today's modern world where we actually understand how much of the world works. Back then, they needed magic to explain things that weren't understood. Magic is irrelevant today.

Opportunistic? We know from the hadeeth that the Prophet PBUH was anything but opportunistic. If he had wanted, he'd have taken all virgins as his wives, resided in the best of houses, worn the best of clothes, eaten expensive kingly meals, hoarded mountains of gold, etc. but the truth is much different. Most of his wives were old or divorced women, his own house had space enough for only two people to lie down (his wife had to fold her feet up when she was sleeping so that he could perform the night prayers), there were months when he would have to survive on eating dates and drinking water only - he even milked his own goats and tended to his own torn clothes and shoes.

I'm honestly not interested in what Muhammed did or didn't do. Yes, he was a real person. Yes, there were many good and moral things that he imparted to his followers. But ultimately, Islam has spiraled into a quagmire of various interpretations of what Muhammed did or didn't do and did or didn't say that has led predictably to the development of many different sects that fight amongst one another. If people would only realize that they are fighting over the words of a giant-600-winged-invisible-word-of-god-imparting-archangel-seeing warlord, they might realize how silly and futile their arguments are. Especially when you consider that none of these ancient texts are necessary in any way whatsoever in order to live a good and moral life.

 

[PeteZaTheHutt]

We get it, you hate religion. To you it's magic, to others it's faith; Rusty already said that having faith requires suspension of disbelief. Let it go, you're not going to have any useful discussion with anyone by mocking them while wearing your fedora.

I don't hate religion. What I do hate is the effect that it has on the world. To me it's magic, to others it's faith? When that faith inherently contains magic, it IS magic. When you have faith in your favourite team's quarterback that he will engineer a last-minute game-winning touchdown, that is faith. When you have faith in the words of a giant-600-winged-invisible-word-of-god-imparting-archangel-seeing warlord, you are believing in magic. As others have mentioned here, faith is not immune to criticism. Faith is fine. Belief in magic, however, is not. This is 2015. Magic is not real.

 

[Azih]

If you really want to discuss theology then I think I'd rather do it in a new thread.

 

[m_shortpants]

I never actually said this, but please continue to make things up if it helps your argument.

It doesn't take a genius to see that the rest of the civilized world is moving on while the Islamic world is fighting among itself and languishing in the past. This is what happens when the Islamic world is based upon the "teachings" of a giant-600-winged-invisible-word-of-god-imparting-archangel-seeing warlord. Magic is not real.

No, you said it.

Also, you said God is not needed in 2015. Last time I checked, there aren't any definitive answers as to why the universe exists, how the universe came into being, and so on and so forth. This is where faith comes into the picture for some people as they attempt to rationalize their existence.

Again, thats a discussion so far removed from the original intent of this thread that a separate one could be made for it entirely.

 

[Terra Firma]

All you've done here is moved from one fantastical figment of magic (the archangel) to an even more fantastical figment of magic (god). Invoking one type of magic to justify the existence of lesser forms of magic is still magic. And let's be clear, I'm not just picking on Islam and the Quran. I've already mentioned that ALL religions that invoke the supernatural are suspect because they rely on magic. Basing life decisions on magic is illogical and is not necessary in today's modern world where we actually understand how much of the world works. Back then, they needed magic to explain things that weren't understood. Magic is irrelevant today.

I'm honestly not interested in what Muhammed did or didn't do. Yes, he was a real person. Yes, there were many good and moral things that he imparted to his followers. But ultimately, Islam has spiraled into a quagmire of various interpretations of what Muhammed did or didn't do and did or didn't say that has led predictably to the development of many different sects that fight amongst one another. If people would only realize that they are fighting over the words of a giant-600-winged-invisible-word-of-god-imparting-archangel-seeing warlord, they might realize how silly and futile their arguments are. Especially when you consider that none of these ancient texts are necessary in any way whatsoever in order to live a good and moral life.

Ah, you're not really here for a discussion. You're just here to crap on religions. Good luck to you.

 

[Maninthemirror]

I've also noticed how everyone is carefully avoiding the magic issue. A giant 600-winged invisible word-of-god-imparting archangel? The only response is feigned indignity, ad hominen attacks and walls of scripture (said walls of scripture being transcribed from the aforementioned giant 600-winged invisible word-of-god-imparting fire-and-brimstone archangel). It's like they are embarrassed. Those walls of scripture mean NOTHING when they are revealed to be the rantings of a giant-600-winged-invisible-word-of-god-imparting-archangel-seeing opportunistic warlord. Magic is make-believe.

I don't think you watched the video i posted earlier

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mw8jil4nPLU

there is your answer. so simple. I dont think its embarassing on our end, its on your end when you get this view.

 

[Duji]

Why is that so hard to understand? God created the universe from nothing. Creating an angel is nothing. If God can materialize atoms from nothing, if He can create consciousness and the soul, what's stopping him from creating angels, especially considering the fact that in Islam, angels do not have free will and thus man is superior to them in the sight of God?

"Something that can do anything did it."

One of the laziest -- albeit logically coherent -- arguments I've ever heard.

It's the same line of thinking people of other faiths have but they use it to defend their own fantastical claims that you don't believe in. You go up to Young Earth creationists and show them how reality conflicts with their beliefs: ie how the rings on a tree prove that the Earth is old and not young. Their response? "Well God can do anything. What's stopping him from putting extra rings on trees?"

It's all an unfalsifiable mess of arguments and choosing which miracles to believe in and which not to is a completely futile endeavor. The position that leaves me with the least cognitive dissonance is a natural world devoid of supernatural intervention.

 

[Maninthemirror]

"Something that can do anything did it."

One of the laziest -- albeit logically coherent -- arguments I've ever heard.

It's the same line of thinking people of other faiths have but they use it to defend their own fantastical claims that you don't believe in. You go up to Young Earth creationists and show them how reality conflicts with their beliefs: ie how the rings on a tree prove that the Earth is old and not young. Their response? "Well God can do anything. What's stopping him from putting extra rings on trees?"

It's all an unfalsifiable mess of arguments and choosing which miracles to believe in and which not to is a completely futile endeavor. The position that leaves me with the least cognitive dissonance is a natural world devoid of supernatural intervention.

Its not illogical to conceive that if there is a creator and he created the laws the nature and thus the world and partakes and intervenes when he deems fit through men of God (Prophets and Messengers), life and death, that it is due to a creator not nature as nature itself is a creation of God. In fact its the most rational approach which you can respectfully disagree with but you cannot call it illogical because neither of it is 'magical'.

lets give an example of an extra terrestrial planet which we can travel to and we gather elements there which are not part of our periodical table but packet oxygen and hydrogen and when heated turn into vasts amount of clean water in an instant as a catalyst. What you will witness for the first time to you will be 'magical' but it would just be a form of nature that you know not yet taking course. Just because you dont see a God who exists everywhere does not mean autormatically that there is no existence. the existence is through attributes of God through all creation and through men of God, this is the gist of most major beliefs

we know the Pythagorean Theorem we have all studied in class but there is no material proof that the man Pythagoras physically existed. only his existing attribute remains now. that doesnt rule out the possibility of him being a real person. We know the Odyssey story through Homer but there is no material proof the man Homer existed but we know of him through his work which contain his attributes. you can apply the same rationale to all creation.

 

[Terra Firma]

"Something that can do anything did it."

One of the laziest -- albeit logically coherent -- arguments I've ever heard.

It's the same line of thinking people of other faiths have but they use it to defend their own fantastical claims that you don't believe in. You go up to Young Earth creationists and show them how reality conflicts with their beliefs: ie how the rings on a tree prove that the Earth is old and not young. Their response? "Well God can do anything. What's stopping him from putting extra rings on trees?"

It's all an unfalsifiable mess of arguments and choosing which miracles to believe in and which not to is a completely futile endeavor. The position that leaves me with the least cognitive dissonance is a natural world devoid of supernatural intervention.

It all comes down to whether the source is trustworthy. I trust the Qur'an - in its preservation and authenticity. I trust the Prophet PBUH - in his truthfulness and trustworthiness. That's why I choose to believe in things that haven't been categorically and scientifically proven.

Scientifically speaking, it should be impossible for something to exist from nothing, but even science has discovered particles that come in and out of existence. It makes no rational sense for things to exist without a precursor. This rationality is what led to basic scientific principles of conservation - of mass, momentum, energy - but new advances in scientific tools and equipment have led to scientists reevaluating such basic laws that we learn in high school. Modern science is a lot less hard and unbudging than it was before things like quantum theory. Science is now a realm of probabilities rather than binary answers. Empirical scientific discoveries have been thwarting theoretical, rationality-based science for a long time.

 

[RustyNails]

I really don't care either way. It ultimately doesn't matter what you or I think about this particular point. It doesn't take a genius to see that the rest of the civilized world is moving on while the Islamic world is fighting among itself and languishing in the past. This is what happens when the Islamic world is based upon the "teachings" of a giant-600-winged-invisible-word-of-god-imparting-archangel-seeing warlord. Magic is not real.

Do you consider yourself impartial and unbiased? If so, then before making a blanket statement where you condemn Islam for impeding science, you need to account for examples that are contrary to your statement and explain. Otherwise just say that you're biased and ignorant, and we can end that discussion.

There was no question to deflect. Not sure where the feigned indignation is coming from either.

But there was a question. I asked you whether you thought hadiths are all bunj, as you seemed dismissive towards them as stuff that was "made up" after Prophet Muhammad died. As for bolded, we will get to that later.

Seriously, please calm down and keep it civil. No need for the feigned indignation. Islam is based upon the rantings of a giant-600-winged-invisible-word-of-god-imparting-archangel-seeing warlord. Not once have you actually disputed this, instead choosing to feign indignation and throw around ad hominen attacks. Do you dispute that Islam is based upon magic? Yes or no?

I'm the calm and civilized person in this discussion, dont you think? I'm not the one insulting people's beliefs and faith, and being intolerant to a civil discussion. Calling you immature is not an insult, but based upon your flippant attitude, need for derision and constant mocking of religion and all that it entails.

And you mentioned Scientology cults. How hypocritical is it of you to treat Scientologists with "derision and mocking the faith and beliefs of" Scientologists? Nuking volcanoes and thetans entering our bodies versus giant 600-winged invisible word-of-god-imparting archangels. Do you actually see a difference? Now who's being selective in their reasoning? It's all magic in the end.

Scientology does not give up its secrets to anyone. They are locked and only available if you pay them $100,000. Whereas the beliefs and books of all major religions are readily available within a click of a button. Me talking about angels and demons is known to mankind for 2000 years, and your passive aggressive responses about the arch angel just tells me this is babby's first real theological discussion.

And "People know about all of the stuff in every major religion. It's just a fucking wikipedia link away!" It's also just a coherent logical thought away. And I'd trust wikipedia before I'd trust the "teachings" of a giant-600-winged-invisible-word-of-god-imparting-archangel-seeing-opportunistic warlord.

Another deflection. You're not responding to anything other than saying religion is dumb. The wikipedia link has lot of things for you to learn, maybe drop by the strawman arguments page. As for the bolded, if you dont care what I have to say then why are you even engaging? Its obvious that you are not here to discuss anyyhing but just wanted to take a shit on the beliefs and faith of people. We got it. OKAY. Is there anything else you would like to say, now that you have established your intense hate for the beliefs and faith of people? Maybe go back to explaining us why you think Hadiths are nonsense and made up? That was a good discussion point. In the face of evidence to the contrary though you quickly pivoted back to talking about archangel with 600 wings in a childish and silly attempt to save face. Just save us the agony.

 

[PeteZaTheHutt]

No, you said it.

I never said it was exclusively caused by Islam, but it certainly is largely caused by Islam.

Ah, you're not really here for a discussion. You're just here to crap on religions. Good luck to you.

Interesting that you are unable to come up with an actual rebuttal (ie- a discussion) to what I've brought up. Instead you resort to the usual feigned indignity which is a common pattern in these religious threads. Why not discuss the magical aspects of religion? Why won't you admit that magic is not real?

I don't think you watched the video i posted earlier

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mw8jil4nPLU

there is your answer. so simple. I dont think its embarassing on our end, its on your end when you get this view.

So you linked to the opinion of a fallible human being? This is an interpretation. It means nothing. Also, it doesn't address the fact that magic is involved.

lets give an example of an extra terrestrial planet which we can travel to and we gather elements there which are not part of our periodical table but packet oxygen and hydrogen and when heated turn into vasts amount of clean water in an instant as a catalyst. What you will witness for the first time to you will be 'magical' but it would just be a form of nature that you know not yet taking course. Just because you dont see a God who exists everywhere does not mean autormatically that there is no existence. the existence is through attributes of God through all creation and through men of God, this is the gist of most major beliefs

Exactly! What we currently cannot explain about our world and universe seems magical to you, thus you attribute it to a magical god. All of these things that cannot currently be explained and seem like god-did-it magic is just a form of nature. I'm not sure how you insist on applying this logic to one situation and not the other. It's right there in front of your face.

It all comes down to whether the source is trustworthy. I trust the Qur'an - in its preservation and authenticity. I trust the Prophet PBUH - in his truthfulness and trustworthiness.

Do you believe that a giant 600-winged invisible archangel told Muhammed what to write down?

 

[Maninthemirror]

So you linked to the opinion of a fallible human being? This is an interpretation. It means nothing. Also, it doesn't address the fact that magic is involved.

Exactly! What we currently cannot explain about our world and universe seems magical to you, thus you attribute it to a magical god. All of these things that cannot currently be explained and seem like god-did-it magic is just a form of nature. I'm not sure how you insist on applying this logic to one situation and not the other. It's right there in front of your face.

This is an interpretation yes, yet you only cling on to the interpretation you use as 'magical' as opposed to rational. people would consider if there is a need of an argument if you will even consider or accept a valid interpretation and reject impractical ones. You are a believer in the literal view as the only view that you can cling on to, consider the more rational view too. If people consider the literal view, it is to their own peril, you dont need to be an enabler of their view.

You can surely label it magical but you cannot deny with proof that God doesn't exist in this case. to you its Magic, sure, but to believers its the creator who created all laws of nature and thus this world. The books of religion do explain that the world was created by a creator which includes everything in it. And yes you can explain the creation of the world itself, look at how science approaches the big bang and how the world as we know it came to be, that is how to the world was created but what initiated it, who covers it everywhere is God, this is the essence of believe, you believe that there is nothingness before us and after us, its just a different way of approaching how the universe works. You believe in chance, I believe in God giving us the chance to prove ourselves. No one needs to get worked up about its its a differing approach of the universe and who created it. Your view is it did by itself and religious view is that God created it, the only ones who get mad about differing opinions are those who have inner insecurities concerning their own view. If you have the confidence in your view then no one needs to get worked up about different approaches of life.

 

[Terra Firma]

I never said it was exclusively caused by Islam, but it certainly is largely caused by Islam.

Interesting that you are unable to come up with an actual rebuttal (ie- a discussion) to what I've brought up. Instead you resort to the usual feigned indignity which is a common pattern in these religious threads. Why not discuss the magical aspects of religion? Why won't you admit that magic is not real?

So you linked to the opinion of a fallible human being? This is an interpretation. It means nothing. Also, it doesn't address the fact that magic is involved.

Exactly! What we currently cannot explain about our world and universe seems magical to you, thus you attribute it to a magical god. All of these things that cannot currently be explained and seem like god-did-it magic is just a form of nature. I'm not sure how you insist on applying this logic to one situation and not the other. It's right there in front of your face.

Do you believe that a giant 600-winged invisible archangel told Muhammed what to write down?

Is "feigned indignation" your phrase of the day or something?

And yes, you're not here for a discussion when you're stuck on the idea that people can believe things that are not scientifically proven and can't seem to move past it. You're only here to laugh and scoff, that is why you keep bringing up the description of the angel Gabriel. If people can believe in an omnipotent being - God - what is so remarkable about believing in angels? And if you scoff at the idea of a god, then what exactly are you here to discuss?

And yes, I believe that the archangel Gabriel recited the Qur'an to the Prophet Muhammad PBUH who then relayed it to his companions.

 

[PeteZaTheHutt]

But there was a question. I asked you whether you thought hadiths are all bunj, as you seemed dismissive towards them as stuff that was "made up" after Prophet Muhammad died. As for bolded, we will get to that later.

Errr, I'm still not seeing any such question directed at me. I think you're getting me mixed up with another poster.

Just for kicks though, I'll answer. I believe that the hadiths are what they are. Muhammed said things and they were written down and discussed. I'm not going to dispute that. In that sense, they are not "bunj" (awesome word btw!). What I will dispute is the importance and legitimacy that is given to these hadiths considering that the man who spoke these words also conversed with a giant 600-winged invisible word-of-god imparting archangel. If somebody claimed the same things today, they would be rightly laughed at and dismissed as a lunatic. Why is Muhammed given a pass?

Anyway, I'll answer the other stuff later. I'm going to play ARK: Survival Evolved with my daughter right now...

 

[RustyNails]

Errr, I'm still not seeing any such question directed at me. I think you're getting me mixed up with another poster.

Just for kicks though, I'll answer. I believe that the hadiths are what they are. Muhammed said things and they were written down and discussed. I'm not going to dispute that. In that sense, they are not "bunj" (awesome word btw!). What I will dispute is the importance and legitimacy that is given to these hadiths considering that the man who spoke these words also conversed with a giant 600-winged invisible word-of-god imparting archangel. If somebody claimed the same things today, they would be rightly laughed at and dismissed as a lunatic. Why is Muhammed given a pass?

Anyway, I'll answer the other stuff later. I'm going to play ARK: Survival Evolved with my daughter right now...

Before I respond, I meant to say Bunk. Are you really that immature, making fun of a typo?

 

[Duji]

It all comes down to whether the source is trustworthy. I trust the Qur'an - in its preservation and authenticity. I trust the Prophet PBUH - in his truthfulness and trustworthiness. That's why I choose to believe in things that haven't been categorically and scientifically proven.

Scientifically speaking, it should be impossible for something to exist from nothing, but even science has discovered particles that come in and out of existence. It makes no rational sense for things to exist without a precursor. This rationality is what led to basic scientific principles of conservation - of mass, momentum, energy - but new advances in scientific tools and equipment have led to scientists reevaluating such basic laws that we learn in high school. Modern science is a lot less hard and unbudging than it was before things like quantum theory. Science is now a realm of probabilities rather than binary answers. Empirical scientific discoveries have been thwarting theoretical, rationality-based science for a long time.

Supernatural concepts are beyond our realm of understanding. By choosing which miracles to believe in and which not to, I would be essentially claiming to know more than I possibly could. Our understanding of the natural world is incomplete as is... Let's figure that out first before we can start positing supernatural explanations for things, no? In pretty much every case, supernatural explanations are posited due to there being a hole in our understanding of nature. Eg in Muhammad's time they thought magicians/illusionists were actually using sorcery due to their ignorance of how magic tricks work -- they couldn't possibly conceive of natural explanations.

Muslims believe the (apparent) linguistic excellence in the Quran could not have come from nature (ie a man) and therefore it must have supernatural origins. How could anyone possibly know that? Since there is no checklist or agreed upon set of criteria, we only have our own minds to determine whether something is supernatural, and as I said, I am unable to do that. But even if I were, I read the Quran and see nothing in it that couldn't come from men of the 7th century.

And on top of that, the Quran expects me to believe that the Most Beneficent, Most Merciful being makes exceptions for owning people as property. Now I have no idea what an All-Kind being would look like, but I'm willing to bet that he wouldn't approve of slavery.

 

[Cyan]

Way far afield here, time to close up. Note that we do expect people to generally be more civil than the last few pages of this thread.