The most stupid misconceptions about Islam

[R00tKiT]

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

Call them whatever you want. People do use concepts dishonestly, or not take enough time to understand what they're talking about. But why go farther ? You used the word kafir the wrong way countless time, despite being thoughtful and educated, why do you think a bunch of uneducated suicide bombers will not make one of your mistakes, when interpreting the Qur'an ?
Your western secular state has a certain way to act, we have ours. Again, I'll leave at that.

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.

Actually, some objections shouldn't be given more worth than they should've. Instead, we should strongly advise people, like yourself, to further look up and understand the exact meaning of the pillars of Muslim belief.

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.

Well, if you're not dumbstruck by what the giant Kant said about a giant argument for the existence of God, I'm afraid you might be in the minority here.

[The Grand Nudger]

Tell me more about people using concepts dishonestly.

Kant rejected the teleological argument, explicitly, in the same work that you just quoted. Did someone think so little of you that they sold you on this lie before you came here to peddle it to us, or did you come up with it on your own? Why did you think that the attribution of a lie to a Great Man (or even a true comment) would add truth value or worth to the comments contained?

[R00tKiT]

Kant rejected the teleological argument, explicitly, in the same work that you just quoted.

I'm aware of that, pal. I don't recall claiming that Kant defended the teleological arguemnt. Read what I wrote, again :

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

You read that right, congratulations. Cited, not defended.

Told ya, you do misunderstand words and make stupid mistakes. The kafir concept might actually be too hard for you, just like all these uneducated suicide bombers and extremists out there.

---

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.

So, besides your expertise at evaluating teleological arguments, one so profound that you dismissed it immediately as rubbish whereas Kant needed to write elaborate refutations, you can read my thoughts too?
No, I never said Kant was in agreement with the argument, I was just responding to your "rubbish" comment on it.

---

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.

W.L. Craig does have a good updated argument. Darwinism, even if fully accepted by the theist, actually supports his case. How unlikely it is for natural selection and mutation to yield to conscious creatures ? The idea is simple : whatever the mechanism that lead to all the variety of life, it was the supreme being's plan all along.

This line of thought clearly shows that Darwin's discoveries are irrelevant to the question of whether God exists or not. And we're back to square one : whether one is genuinely prepared to accept that all the majesty one sees in the universe is the product of absolute chaos and randomness, or worse, nothingness.

[The Grand Nudger]

It wasn't respect, it was derision. He believed the common man, with his common reason, to be overawed and over-convinced by natures granduer. Literally transfixed by twinkling stars.

The problem with suicide bombers, or at least the only problem that you would ever have to tackle, isn't their relative education. It's their shared faith. Your shared justifications. It's an issue for you because they're fucking it all up for you - but they're doing so for faithful reasons entirely equivalent to your own objections to them.

Onward and upward. What do you think about people who reject your argument and your god even as they see all of the majesty and order and somethingness in the universe?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Kant rejected the teleological argument, explicitly, in the same work that you just quoted.

I'm aware of that, pal. I don't recall claiming that Kant defended the teleological arguemnt. Read what I wrote, again :

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

You read that right, congratulations. Cited, not defended.

Told ya, you do misunderstand words and make stupid mistakes. The kafir concept might actually be too hard for you, just like all these uneducated suicide bombers and extremists out there.

---

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

So, besides your expertise at evaluating teleological arguments, one so profound that you dismissed it immediately as rubbish whereas Kant needed to write elaborate refutations, you can read my thoughts too?
No, I never said Kant was in agreement with the argument, I was just responding to your "rubbish" comment on it.

---

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.

W.L. Craig does have a good updated argument. Darwinism, even if fully accepted by the theist, actually supports his case. How unlikely it is for natural selection and mutation to yield to conscious creatures ? The idea is simple : whatever the mechanism that lead to all the variety of life, it was the supreme being's plan all along.

This line of thought clearly shows that Darwin's discoveries are irrelevant to the question of whether God exists or not. And we're back to square one : whether one is genuinely prepared to accept that all the majesty one sees in the universe is the product of absolute chaos and randomness, or worse, nothingness.

When backpedaling that quickly, it’s important to use your mirrors.

Boru

[Sal]

Let me help you help yourself.  You don't intend to demonstrate or argue that any of these things that you're "clearing up" are misconceptions - they aren't.  You want to argue that the misconception is, essentially, how anyone else thinks about anything.  Yes, ofc I'm a non person according to magic book.  Yes, ofc everyone else is going to hell.  Yes, ofc islam uses terror to silence critics.  It's not a misconception of ours that it does all of that, it's a misconception of ours, as you see it - if anyone is against it.

I think I laid out my case in enough detail for all the things you cited really being misconceptions. Besides, if Islam truly does say that everyone else goes to hell, then Islam is promoting for an unjust god, that is, a deity who will punish people for not believing in something they never even knew what it was. Muslim theology is sophisticated enough not to advocate for such a naive doctrine.

Eskimo: If I did not know about God and sin, would I go to Hell?
Priest: No, not if you did not know.
Eskimo: Then why did you tell me?

Alter the relevant nouns, and the message remains the same.

[Sal]

[...]

Again, I'll leave at that.

[...]

If you really were that consistent, that above sentence would never have been written. But, since you're not, there it is.

[R00tKiT]

It wasn't respect, it was derision.  He believed the common man, with his common reason, to be overawed and over-convinced by natures granduer.  Literally transfixed by twinkling stars.

And rightfully so. Nature still needs to come from something. The teleological arguments at least force one to acknowledge something supernatural must be there. If nature isn't eternal, then it must have come from something, non natural by definition, a "supernature".

The problem with suicide bombers, or at least the only problem that you would ever have to tackle, isn't their relative education.  It's their shared faith.  Your shared justifications.  It's an issue for you because they're fucking it all up for you - but they're doing so for faithful reasons entirely equivalent to your own objections to them.

What do you mean by shared justifications ? What I am presenting here in the thread is not justfications at all, it's Islam 101, which you're ignorant of. And as a result, you cannot draw a clear distinction between suicide bombers and the rest.

Onward and upward.  What do you think about people who reject your argument and your god even as they see all of the majesty and order and somethingness in the universe?

If they reject them on reasonable grounds, then I think no less of them than believers or Muslims. If not, they would be enemies of truth and reason.

[Pat Mustard]

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

Teleological arguments aren't evidence they're claims. And they're claims made in the absence of evidence at that.

Oh and the appeanace of design doesn't and can't prove god, because it isn't evidence of design. Plenty of random sequences can be made to look like patterns, especially if you cut away the bits that are more obviously random.

[R00tKiT]

Eskimo: If I did not know about God and sin, would I go to Hell?
Priest: No, not if you did not know.
Eskimo: Then why did you tell me?

Alter the relevant nouns, and the message remains the same.

To know about God and religion does generally give one a meaning to his life. A book I read recently, "The Denial of Death" summarizes the entire human civilization as one desperate attempt to construct a defense mechanism against our mortality. After presenting what the most significant psychologists offered as defense mechanisms, he argues that losing religion leaves humanity with obvious illusions to find meaning into. Science too doesn't serve as an immortality project, it doesn't give agreeable, absolute meaning to life. Besides, aside from the genius minority who succeeds at becoming a star in some specific research topic and immortalize their name, the rest of people can't really derive some genuine, long lasting satisfaction or sense of immortality from doing science.

Teleological arguments aren't evidence they're claims.  And they're claims made in the absence of evidence at that.

Oh and the appeanace of design doesn't and can't prove god, because it isn't evidence of design.  Plenty of random sequences can be made to look like patterns, especially if you cut away the bits that are more obviously random.

Well first of all, the evidence supporting these arguments is the very appearance of design around us. If appearance of design isn't evidence of design, then nothing can possibly be evidence of design. My computer appears to be designed, but I can't reach, by some formal syllogism, the conclusion that it is designed. I still know that design is the best explanation of what I have in front of my eyes. The same goes for the universe, we already unraveled a great deal of sophistication regarding the laws of the universe. How everything just fits together perfectly, to serve a specific purpose, like holding the matter together or keeping some mass in some specific orbit. If this doesn't point to a lawgiver, then nothing can possibly lead you to a lawgiver.

If one asks to actually "see" the lawgiver, then it's not going to be of much help, even if his wishes come true. As he would still have a way out by claiming he was bewitched or his senses are deluded. You can only follow the best explanation for the appearances that reach your senses, asking for more is downright stupid.