The most stupid misconceptions about Islam

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Another stupid misconception about Islam is that rubbish like this

All teleological arguments for God, or Allah, are valid. Appearance of design alone warrants belief in a deity.

is expected to be taken seriously.

Boru

[R00tKiT]

Imagine that, a magic book that advocates for and strongly decries things, sometimes the same things.  

I find that hard to imagine, frankly. Maybe you don't know the "magic book" as well as you think you do.

Now why on earth would I need that when I have you, noted islamic expert, here to explain how everyone gets it all wrong?  By all means, continue stepping on rakes.  Maybe you'll realize that it isn't people's stupid misconceptions that cause them to reject islam.  It's believers like yourself describing their own beliefs.

I know there are infinitely many other objections to Islam not cited in the thread, and I cannot possibly cover all these even in a lifetime. But this is not the issue. The real issue is whether people honestly look for answers, honestly use the right definitions of critical concepts, etc.

If you tell us, for example, that teh jews warcrimed your carpet salesman, so he had to warcrime them right back - then we can only say "Yes, exactly...and we don't think that's the way to act anymore, because we aren't seventh century warlords." 

And what then, noted philosopher and polymath, is the way to act nowadays? your way, by any chance? You think the prophet was a warlord, we don't. I think I'll leave it at that, for now.

[The Grand Nudger]

I see one failure of imagination, one instance of poisoning the well, and one invocation of moral relativism.

I doubt that you'll be able to leave anything for any amount of time, that's not in you - even if it would be better for islam if you could and it were. Which it is, and you probably should. Let people who understand what others are objecting to, in these pet instances of yours, handle those peoples objections. You're doing the opposite of that, and, fwiw, making those peoples task much harder at whatever future point they show up, if ever.

[R00tKiT]

Another stupid misconception about Islam is that rubbish like this

All teleological arguments for God, or Allah, are valid. Appearance of design alone warrants belief in a deity.

is expected to be taken seriously.

Boru

Even Kant, a reference in your western culture, cited the teleological argument with respect.

"It is the oldest [argument], the clearest, and that most in conformity with the common reason of humanity. . . . It would be utterly hopeless to attempt to rob this argument of the authority it has always enjoyed. The mind unceasingly elevated by these considerations which, although empirical, are so remarkably powerful, and continually adding to their force, will not suffer itself to be depressed by the doubts suggested by subtle speculation: it tears itself out of this state of uncertainty, the moment it casts a look upon the wondrous forms of nature, and the majesty of the universe, and rises from height to height, from condition to condition, till it has elevated itself to the supreme and unconditioned Author of all"

- Kant describing a rubbish argument

[The Grand Nudger]

I can see how a person who worships a man might imagine that others would be similarly dumbstruck by finding out that someone said a thing.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Another stupid misconception about Islam is that rubbish like this


is expected to be taken seriously.

Boru

Even Kant, a reference in your western culture, cited the teleological argument with respect.

"It is the oldest [argument], the clearest, and that most in conformity with the common reason of humanity. . . . It would be utterly hopeless to attempt to rob this argument of the authority it has always enjoyed. The mind unceasingly elevated by these considerations which, although empirical, are so remarkably powerful, and continually adding to their force, will not suffer itself to be depressed by the doubts suggested by subtle speculation: it tears itself out of this state of uncertainty, the moment it casts a look upon the wondrous forms of nature, and the majesty of the universe, and rises from height to height, from condition to condition, till it has elevated itself to the supreme and unconditioned Author of all"

- Kant describing a rubbish argument

So Kant agrees with a rubbish argument. You’ll understand if I remain unconvinced.

Boru

[The Grand Nudger]

He wasn't agreeing with it even in that tidbit, but that's just trivia, right?

[HappySkeptic]

Even Kant, a reference in your western culture, cited the teleological argument with respect.

"It is the oldest [argument], the clearest, and that most in conformity with the common reason of humanity. . . . It would be utterly hopeless to attempt to rob this argument of the authority it has always enjoyed. The mind unceasingly elevated by these considerations which, although empirical, are so remarkably powerful, and continually adding to their force, will not suffer itself to be depressed by the doubts suggested by subtle speculation: it tears itself out of this state of uncertainty, the moment it casts a look upon the wondrous forms of nature, and the majesty of the universe, and rises from height to height, from condition to condition, till it has elevated itself to the supreme and unconditioned Author of all"

- Kant describing a rubbish argument

Before Darwin, many scientists and philosophers, including Newton, thought that the complexity of life was evidence of a Deity. They were wrong.

Edit: Kant actually thought that living things were their own cause. Actually, he wasn't far off.

[The Grand Nudger]

Kant rejected the teleological argument, in fact he explains why just after Kloros bit cuts out.

Rakes...fucking..everywhere.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

He wasn't agreeing with it even in that tidbit, but that's just trivia, right?

Yes, but Khloro thinks he was, which - for purposes of discussion - is what counts.

David Hume, who on his worst day was cleverer than Kant, had this to say:

It is only when two species of objects are found to be constantly conjoined, that we can infer the one from the other . . . If experience and observation and analogy be, indeed, the only guides which we can reasonably follow in inference of this nature; both the effect and cause must bear a similarity and resemblance to other effects and causes . . . which we have found, in many instances, to be conjoined with another . . . [The proponents of the argument] always suppose the universe, an effect quite singular and unparalleled, to be the proof of a Deity, a cause no less singular and unparalleled.

Boru