(December 9, 2012 at 1:13 pm)Al-Fatihah Wrote: Response: No argument was ever presented. Rather, a simple question as to why does Muhammad receive negative views, despite the Qur'an and sunnah showing differently.

Maybe I was getting ahead of you here but discussions of Muhammad's character are not relevant to the truth of Islam's claims. If you're just discussing what a great man he was, I'll leave you to it so long as you grant my point that such an evaluation of his character does nothing to promote any assertion as to the truth of Islam.

Quote:Response: But being bias to accepting the truth is not illogical.

Confirmation bias isn't about accepting what's proven to be true. It's starting with the conclusion and looking for reasons to believe it.

This cartoon helps underscore the difference in starting with the conclusion (confirmation bias) vs. starting with the evidence and letting that determine the conclusion:

(December 9, 2012 at 1:20 pm)popeyespappy Wrote:

(December 9, 2012 at 12:41 pm)Al-Fatihah Wrote: Response: Nothing wrong with being bias, as long as it does not conflict with logic.

Really? Let’s test your hypothesis shall we?

All adults that have sex with children are pedophiles.
Muhammad had sex with a child.
Muhammad was a pedophile.

Response:

A pedophile is one who has sex with children.

A child is one who has not reached puberty.

Muhammad had sex with someone who was mature and reached maturity.

Muhammad is not a pedophile.

(December 9, 2012 at 1:21 pm)Al-Fatihah Wrote:

(December 9, 2012 at 1:20 pm)Dee Dee Ramone Wrote: The truth is that Muhammed is just another wanker seen by others as a prophet, while there is not even a god at all.

Response: The Qur'an and sunnah shows evidence to the contrary.

Not evidence, only fairytales.

(December 9, 2012 at 12:38 pm)Al-Fatihah Wrote: Response: I agree that the violent reaction to the drawing of cartoons is very much wrong and uncalled for. However, the reaction is not prescribed in the Qur'an or Sunnah, thus it has nothing to do with Muhammad's character.

This is a thinly veiled No True Scotsman argument. You ask why non-muslims have such a poor opinion of Muhammad. We are inundated with examples on an almost daily basis of Muhammad's most fervent followers acting in a manner that betrays a depraved immorality. You want to dismiss this by saying it's not what was really taught while ignoring that some are teaching it today in Muhammad's name.

(December 9, 2012 at 1:22 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: Maybe I was getting ahead of you here but discussions of Muhammad's character are not relevant to the truth of Islam's claims. If you're just discussing what a great man he was, I'll leave you to it so long as you grant my point that such an evaluation of his character does nothing to promote any assertion as to the truth of Islam.

Response: Character and truth does go hand in hand, for if a person's character is truthful, then they are credible their evidence.

(December 9, 2012 at 1:22 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: Confirmation bias isn't about accepting what's proven to be true. It's starting with the conclusion and looking for reasons to believe it.

This cartoon helps underscore the difference in starting with the conclusion (confirmation bias) vs. starting with the evidence and letting that determine the conclusion:

Response: I never disputed the meaning of confirmation bias. I simply stated that there is nothing wrong with being bias, as long as it does not conflict with logic.

---

(December 9, 2012 at 1:24 pm)Dee Dee Ramone Wrote:

(December 9, 2012 at 1:21 pm)Al-Fatihah Wrote: Response: The Qur'an and sunnah shows evidence to the contrary.

Not evidence, only fairytales.

Response: Likewise.

---

(December 9, 2012 at 1:26 pm)cato123 Wrote: This is a thinly veiled No True Scotsman argument. You ask why non-muslims have such a poor opinion of Muhammad. We are inundated with examples on an almost daily basis of Muhammad's most fervent followers acting in a manner that betrays a depraved immorality. You want to dismiss this by saying it's not what was really taught while ignoring that some are teaching it today in Muhammad's name.

Response: If the act is not taught in islam, then it is appropriately dismissed, and demonstrates that it has nothing to do with Muhammad's character or islam.

(December 9, 2012 at 1:29 pm)Al-Fatihah Wrote: Response: I never disputed the meaning of confirmation bias. I simply stated that there is nothing wrong with being bias, as long as it does not conflict with logic.

Yet confirmation bias is a logical fallacy, so by its very definition it does conflict with logic.

(December 9, 2012 at 1:29 pm)Al-Fatihah Wrote: Response: If the act is not taught in islam, then it is appropriately dismissed, and demonstrates that it has nothing to do with Muhammad's character or islam.

You're missing the point. Why should anyone take the teachings of Muhammad seriously if those that profess the faith do not?

So, someone jumps in this forum as the bearer of absolute truth™

I never saw that before

(December 9, 2012 at 1:29 pm)Al-Fatihah Wrote: Response: Character and truth does go hand in hand, for if a person's character is truthful, then they are credible their evidence.

Not at all.

Sir Issac Newton was a horrible character you'd never want to have over for dinner. He was kind of crazy too, believing in nutty things like alchemy.

And he made great contributions to our understanding of Physics.

And that's all science cares about. Science ignores questions of someone's character and disregards any crazy ideas to focus on what can be demonstrated to be true.

Character is irrelevant to what is or isn't true.

(December 9, 2012 at 1:24 pm)Al-Fatihah Wrote:

(December 9, 2012 at 1:20 pm)popeyespappy Wrote: Really? Let’s test your hypothesis shall we?

All adults that have sex with children are pedophiles.
Muhammad had sex with a child.
Muhammad was a pedophile.

Response:

A pedophile is one who has sex with children.

A child is one who has not reached puberty.

Muhammad had sex with someone who was mature and reached maturity.

Muhammad is not a pedophile.

According to your hypothesis bias is OK if it is logical. I began with the assumption that Mohammad was a pedophile. I found evidence by way definitions of terms that 1) a pedophile is an adult that has sex with children. 2) a child is a person under 14 years of age. I also have evidence that Aisha was 9 years old when her marriage to Mohammad was consummated.

Quote:Pedophile: An adult who is sexually attracted to a child or children.

Quote:Child: 1) a person's natural offspring. 2) a person 14 years and under.

Quote:Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) narrated that the Prophet (may the blessing and peace of Allah be upon him) married her when she was six years old, and he consummated her in marriage when she was nine years old.

According to you my bias is acceptable if I use logic. Based on my evidence the logic for my statement was was both valid and sound. Therefore I can reject any contradictory evidence you might present.

You can't have it both ways. either your statement that bias is OK if it is logical is wrong. Or Mohammad was a pedophile. Take your pick.