Richard Dawkins: Answer My Questions Please.

[Hugo]

You are not equipped to understand the science of that as we have demonstrated on multiple threads, ironically on ones you desired willingly to participate in the very matter of statistics! 'Observation' and 'physical experiment' aren't the only means by which to falsify or 'fail to falsify' a consistent possibility. You tighten the methodology in hopes everyone is equally under-educated and shares only in the premises you bring to the table.. or else how do you prove someone has a headache by 'observation' or 'experiment' and for once in your life you should be honest enough to come with a response that doesn't deflect away from the topic. I notice when the tough questions are asked you come up empty!
Reasonable tests have been supplied, you had no desire to expend the time applying said methodology, you're confined to the two means you proposed as a possibility to provide proof!

It seem to me that you are failing here because you have a very limited concept of what might be taken as an observation of experiment. If we take the case of 'headache' then one supposes there is always a physiological cause and therefore in principle one could construct a material test to confirm it if we knew of such a test. In your case it seem you are referring to diagnoses by criteria of some sort and indeed one might confirm that a person has a headache that way. But were you make a serious mistake is that confirmation of a headache is NOT the same as knowing its cause.

You say you have reliable criteria that show the Qu'ran to be the word of God but all they can ever do is confirm you have a Qu'ran with certain supposed qualities but they CANNOT confirm its cause, that is who wrote it. I gave you another reasonable criteria that show it is NOT the word of God but of course you cannot accept it but cannot show it to be unreliable either. You cannot accept any criteria unless it props up your own preconceived notion, you want the facts to fit the preconceptions, when they don't, it is easier to ignore the facts than to change the preconceptions. Have you ever heard the famous aphorisms: If facts do not conform to theory, they must be disposed of AND Researchers should always state the opinion on which their facts are based.

 

[Grace Seeker]

The difference between these two is:

Did John actually say (or at least write) that he wrote the gospel of john?

We want proof, mister.

chain of transmissions..

records.

even bible scholars are not sure who wrote john, let alone other gospels.

the best they can do is guessing that it was john himself.

What better chain of transmission do you want than I've provided? Yes, John did tell his disciples (among them Polycarp) that he wrote the Gospel that today bears his name. Polycarp's disciples shared that information with his disciples (among them Irenaeus). And Irenaeus then wrote about these events. In Irenaeus' Epistle to Florinus he categorically declares "after the publication of the other Gospels John also wrote his, while he was dwelling in Ephesus."* How many Hadith of the Prophet have any better a chain of transmission to testify to their authenticity?

There were no doubters of his authorship until the "Age of Englightenment". Some of these same scholars (and I know that Bultman, Wrede, Schweitzer, Sanders are indeed recognized as legitimate scholars) doubt that Jesus was even a real historical person. How much credence do you really want to give to their doubts?

Among those who attest to the disciple John being the author of the Fourth Gospel we have: Polycarp, Irenaeus, Papias, Origen, Valentinius, Tertullian, and Clement of Alexandria. These folks aren't slouches just because they aren't "modern". But it would not be fair to paint it as a contrast between ancient and modern scholarship. There are also current biblical scholars who fully support Johanine authorship.

Writing about those who argue against John being the gospel's author because he presents a unique Christological view when compared to the synoptics, W.F. Albright offers some wise counsel:

One of the strangest assumptions of critical New Testament scholars and theologians is that the mind of Jesus was so limited that any apparent contrast between John and the Synoptics must be due to differences between early Christian theologians. Every great thinker and personality is going to be interpreted different by different friends and hears who will select what seems most congenial or useful out of what they have seen and heard. From Socrates to the most recent men of eminence there are innumberable examples. The Christian might a fortiori suppose the same to be true of his Master

(source: The Background of the New Testament and Its Eschatology, W.F. Albright, p. 171)

H.P.V. Nunn, another modern-day biblical scholar wonders about those so-call "thinkers" who simply dismiss Irenaeus' testimony in favor of their own concocted theories:

If the rest of the people in Asia knew perfectly well the John the Evangelist was not the Apostle and could have corrected the childish mistake of Irenaeus, had an opportunity been given them to do so, how was it that when Irenaeus, in his later life, promulgated his [supposed] unfounded statement that the Apostle wrote the Gospel everyone believed him both in the East and the West?

(source: the Authoriship of the Fourth Gospel, H.P.N. Nunn, p. 36)

So, just as you can find some scholars who doubt the disciple John to be the author of the Gospel bearing his name, there are also plenty of biblical scholars who assert that it was indeed John.




* - source: Introduction to the New Testament, Everett F. Harrison, Eerdmans Publishing, 1971, p. 219

 

[جوري]

It seem to me that you are failing here because you have a very limited concept of what might be taken as an observation of experiment.

It seems to me that the person who offers only two viable methods to falsify or fail falsify consistent possibilities is the one who has failed. You don't get to amend your meaning to include more as you fluster to explain your lack of education!

If we take the case of 'headache' then one supposes there is always a physiological cause and therefore in principle one could construct a material test to confirm it if we knew of such a test. In your case it seem you are referring to diagnoses by criteria of some sort and indeed one might confirm that a person has a headache that way. But were you make a serious mistake is that confirmation of a headache is NOT the same as knowing its cause.

Headaches aren't 'physiological' they are in fact pathological, so how about you work on that first before offering methodology?

You say you have reliable criteria that show the Qu'ran to be the word of God but all they can ever do is confirm you have a Qu'ran with certain supposed qualities but they CANNOT confirm its cause, that is who wrote it. I gave you another reasonable criteria that show it is NOT the word of God but of course you cannot accept it but cannot show it to be unreliable either. You cannot accept any criteria unless it props up your own preconceived notion, you want the facts to fit the preconceptions, when they don't, it is easier to ignore the facts than to change the preconceptions. Have you ever heard the famous aphorisms: If facts do not conform to theory, they must be disposed of AND Researchers should always state the opinion on which their facts are based.

That isn't at all what they do, if you'd follow them through and do some implementation, but I imagine that would require you to exercise some skills you haven't actually acquired, so what else are we left with pithy phrase? well obviously your all too frequent pithy phrases!

all the best

 

[جوري]

I see so a man can have up to 4 wives and have sexual relations with his slave girls

You'd feel so much better in the west to live by God's laws than find a way around them that exempts you from your duties..

http://www.tv20detroit.com/entertainment/moviesvideo/48782087.html

at least you'd give identity, inheritance and legality to the crap you do on the side, which by the very nature of man is instinctive.. or so tell us secular/atheist no religio people:
http://www.adulthoodwonderful.com/survive affairs/help_him_monogamous.htm

in fact Islam is the only religion that says to marry one if you can't be just.. let's contrast that with David's concubines upon his death bed and solely for his pleasure as per your bible.. do you have a desire to follow a religion at all or only the whimsical parts that deal with the death of god?

- you assert that this is the CORRECT way? The Qu'ran suggest that apostates shroud be killed -

The conditions for the death to apostates is clearly defined and I know you must have been offered a zillion article about it, but alas, we have no expectations that you read, treason is indeed punished by the death penalty even in the 'civilized west' have a look,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_and_Ethel_Rosenberg

and by the way so punished in your bible, do try to read it sometimes, or again, you'd prefer only the whimsical parts that deal with the death of God?

you assert this as CORRECT even if it was your own mother? The Qu'ran is littered with contradictions, every abrogated verse is one to start with. The Qu'ran contains errors and we can see because it never relates a Biblical story correctly. The Qu'ran has many unjust laws as I have shown --- do I need to go on?

We assert that Quran is correct and the unadulterated word of God, based on proofs, you have shown no contradictions, you often speak of them but haven't been able to sustain one.. further all the laws of the Quran are the laws that God intended knowing the nature of what he has created!

yeah pls do go on, for we enjoy board jesters!

all the best

 

[Insaanah]

Can't you see how illogical it all is, Mohammed is the massager of God

I suppose if you believe in a god that cries, goes to the toilet, doesn't actually know if he is god, dies for 3 days, sacrifices himself, then I guess you believe he needs a massager as well. It seems Christians will stop at nothing in their insult of God....

Can't you see how illogical all of the above is?

Peace.

 

[جوري]

I suppose if you believe in a god that cries, goes to the toilet, doesn't actually know if he is god, dies for 3 days, sacrifices himself, then I guess you believe he needs a massager as well. It seems Christians will stop at nothing in their insult of God....

Can't you see how illogical all of the above is?

Peace.

that guy is a hoot, and still no answers to the two statistics Q's on the MSR thread..if you dump enough crap on top, surely you'll drown the fundamental principles!

 

[Hugo]

You'd feel so much better in the west to live by God's laws than find a way around them that exempts you from your duties..
http://www.tv20detroit.com/entertainment/moviesvideo/48782087.html at least you'd give identity, inheritance and legality to the crap you do on the side, which by the very nature of man is instinctive.. or so tell us secular/atheist no religio people: http://www.adulthoodwonderful.com/survive affairs/help_him_monogamous.htm

How can having 4 wives be good and fair. For a start there are not enough women to go round and secondly it is absolutely obvious this law ONLY benefits (if that is the right word for such a degrading practice) those who are wealthy. If I go to a Christian wedding I see two people standing before God and a congregation making exactly the same vows to each other some of which are binding in law and some between them and God and they do it 'till death us do part'. If I look at Islamic wedding all I see is a contract and when I look at it I find there is a space for 4 names - now how can that be just and what can any woman who feels any value in herself think of that as a way to start? The distinguish Tunisian Lawyer Professor Mohamed Charfi described it as a shameful practice in these words: A [muslim] husband demands unfailing fidelity from his wife, any breach of this being punishable with death by stoning. But his own infidelity with one or other co-spouses [or slaves girls] is considered legitimate. In short, the man has jealous feelings that must be scrupulously respected, a heart that must never be wounded, an honour that must on no account be damaged. The woman is supposed to have NONE of these things.

Biblically as far as I can recall, there is not a single instance of multiple wives that had a good outcome and always there was trouble - my shock is that ANYONE especially a woman would regard the practice as just.

 

[جوري]

How can having 4 wives be good and fair.

If you can't be good and fair then certainly don't have four wives.. having four wives, many would argue is better than having mistresses and ba stard children!

For a start there are not enough women to go round and secondly it it absolutely obvious this law ONLY benefits (if that is the right word for such a degrading practice) those who are wealthy.

Again, you purposefully misconstrue an allowance for an injunction. Certainly there are times when women outnumber the men and instead of prostitution, being an honored wife is better ( I reference you of course to the current situation in Iraq) thanks to your ilk!

If I go to a Christian wedding I see two people standing before God and a congregation making exactly the same vows to each other some of which are binging in law and some between then and God and they do it 'till death us do part'.

And? a man can go screw on the side? which in fact they do as statistics have shown!

If I look at Islamic wedding all I see is a contract and when I look at it I find there is a space for 4 names

have you ever been to an Islamic wedding?

- now how can that be just and what can any woman who feels any value in herself thing of that as a way to start?

How do you measure value? if you have two children do you value one less?

The distinguish Tunisian Lawyer Professor Mohamed Charfi described it as a shameful practice in these words: A [muslim] husband demands unfailing fidelity from his wife, any breach of this being punishable with death by stoning. But his own infidelity with one or other co-spouses [or slaves girls] is considered legitimate. In short, the man has jealous feelings that must be scrupulously respected, a heart that must never be wounded, an honour that must on no account be damaged. The woman is supposed to have NONE of these things.

Charfi's words are inconsequential as they draw much from emotionality rather than factuality. Indeed many abuse the system, however Islam also made an allowance of divorce and mo'akhar to the woman's choosing if she feels she entered unjustly into a relationship, and again, NOT AN INJUNCTION BUT AN ALLOWANCE!

Biblically as far as I can recall, there is not a single instance of multiple wives that had a good outcome and always there was trouble - my shock is that ANYONE especially a woman would regard the practice as just.

Well what can I say, your bible is fraught with nonsense, why do you follow it or think it is god inspired is beyond me but to each his own I suppose!

all the best

 

[Hugo]

I suppose if you believe in a god that cries, goes to the toilet, doesn't actually know if he is god, dies for 3 days, sacrifices himself, then I guess you believe he needs a massager as well. It seems Christians will stop at nothing in their insult of God.... Can't you see how illogical all of the above is?

I take this as an admission that you regard both Christianity and Islam As ILLOGICAL?

By the way do you believe in the story about someone having their heart removed and washed with snow?

 

[جوري]

I take this as an admission that you regard both Christianity and Islam As ILLOGICAL?

Where in Islam does it mention that men are gods for Islam to be equated with Christianity as illogical?

 

[Hugo]

that guy is a hoot, and still no answers to the two statistics Q's on the MSR thread..if you dump enough crap on top, surely you'll drown the fundamental principles!

Well if you want to check this allegation out go to the Medical Student Review thread and check it out. There are two questions there at post 115 and the person who set them as far as I know never offered any answer or relevant statistics - go and find out who that person was and then check what they did and what I did to help those who looked at those questions

 

[جوري]

By the way do you believe in the story about someone having their heart removed and washed with snow?

The story of having ones heart purified isn't a basic tenet of Islam, nor is ones salvation contingent upon believing, understanding or even being made aware of it. The piece concerned with salvation in Islam revolve around the five pillars of which the first three are the most important.. Now, let's contrast that with the piece one needs to believe in christianity to attain salvation, a group of theologians can't decipher it, and the more they dwell on it the more nonsensical it becomes.. If God wanted 'his religion' to be accessible to all, would he make the fundamental tenet that should salvage the masses such an absurdity?

certainly something to ponder while brushing your teeth tonight!

all the best

 

[جوري]

Well if you want to check this allegation out go to the Medical Student Review thread and check it out. There are two questions there at post 115 and the person who set them as far as I know never offered any answer or relevant statistics - go and find out who that person was and then check what they did and what I did to help those who looked at those questions

The post was meant for you to demonstrate your skills applying knowledge acquired to real life questions that students face, and it actually relevant to the topic because they are actually in keeping with well 'the medical student review' given they came straight out of a medical statistics book. Anyone can copy pages from books and stick them on a forum, your job was in fact to break it down so it is neither daunting, nor banal but easily accessible to those who find the topic a challenge!

 

[Grace Seeker]

If God wanted 'his religion' to be accessible to all, would he make the fundamental tenet that should salvage the masses such an absurdity?

People seem to like to ask questions about why God didn't do this or do that. Yes, there are things I too wonder about,. But I suspect that we will find most of our questions to be nonsensical. For instance, one might ask, if God wanted "his religion" to be accessible to all, why would he give his final word in a language spoken by only a few? And for that matter, why did he wait till the time of Muhammad to guard his word, rather than guarding the original edition?

 

[Hugo]

The post was meant for you to demonstrate your skills applying knowledge acquired to real life questions that students face, and it actually relevant to the topic because they are actually in keeping with well 'the medical student review' given they came straight out of a medical statistics book. Anyone can copy pages from books and stick them on a forum, your job was in fact to break it down so it is neither daunting, nor banal but easily accessible to those who find the topic a challenge!

Well I again ASK anyone who cares to read my posts in the Medical Student Review and see if what was written there is just pages from a text book. If you look you will see that I almost NEVER do that but often state the reference and if I can I add a web ref to a reliable source since not everyone will have immediate access to any book I suggest. You might also care to look through the rest of the thread and see what others do and then you can come to an honest conclusion.

 

[Hugo]

The story of having ones heart purified isn't a basic tenet of Islam, nor is ones salvation contingent upon believing, understanding or even being made aware of it.

Yes I understood that but what I want to know is do you take it a a literal event in history?

 

[جوري]

Yes I understood that but what I want to know is do you take it a a literal event bin history?

I believe everything in Islam in totality not just the parts I can prove!
have you not read the Quran, second chapter you'd not needed to have gone far in your reading to have a definition of what a Muslim is:

الم {1}
[SIZE=-1][Pickthal 2:1] Alif. Lam. Mim.
ذَٰلِكَ الْكِتَابُ لَا رَيْبَ ۛ فِيهِ ۛ هُدًى لِلْمُتَّقِينَ {2}
[SIZE=-1][Pickthal 2:2] This is the Scripture whereof there is no doubt, a guidance unto those who ward off (evil).[/SIZE]
الَّذِينَ يُؤْمِنُونَ بِالْغَيْبِ وَيُقِيمُونَ الصَّلَاةَ وَمِمَّا رَزَقْنَاهُمْ يُنْفِقُونَ {3}
[SIZE=-1][Pickthal 2:3] Who believe in the Unseen, and establish worship, and spend of that We have bestowed upon them;[/SIZE]
وَالَّذِينَ يُؤْمِنُونَ بِمَا أُنْزِلَ إِلَيْكَ وَمَا أُنْزِلَ مِنْ قَبْلِكَ وَبِالْآخِرَةِ هُمْ يُوقِنُونَ {4}
[SIZE=-1][Pickthal 2:4] And who believe in that which is revealed unto thee (Muhammad) and that which was revealed before thee, and are certain of the Hereafter.[/SIZE]
أُولَٰئِكَ عَلَىٰ هُدًى مِنْ رَبِّهِمْ ۖ وَأُولَٰئِكَ هُمُ الْمُفْلِحُونَ {5}
[SIZE=-1][Pickthal 2:5] These depend on guidance from their Lord. These are the successful.[/SIZE]


all the best[/SIZE]

 

[Hugo]

I believe everything in Islam in totality not just the parts I can prove! have you not read the Quran, second chapter you'd not needed to have gone far in your reading to have a definition of what a Muslim is:

Pickthal 2:1 Alif. Lam. Mim. This is the Scripture whereof there is no doubt, a guidance unto those who ward off (evil). Who believe in the Unseen, and establish worship, and spend of that We have bestowed upon them; And who believe in that which is revealed unto thee (Muhammad) and that which was revealed before thee, and are certain of the Hereafter. These depend on guidance from their Lord. These are the successful.

Interesting post and I link it to another of yours where you speak about the pillars of Islam as being central. So is it enough to just take the pillars or do you have to accept everything? I can understand one holding on to the Qu'ran but personally I could never accept the hadith as anything more than background. The idea of prophets being perfect and infallible in everything they said or did is to me a recipe for oppressions because it destroys any critical thinking because we hear so often about cruel and unjust punishments toward anybody, including Muslims who differ.

I might cite the following Matthew 22:35-42 (NIV) and as you can see the focus is on God not the messenger and then outward into how we live our live.

35. One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: 36 "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" 37 Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbour as yourself.' 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

Is There a similar injunction in the Qu'ran?

 

[Hugo]

Why should the last Book of God contain new facts? It's a book of guidance, not a science book.

But I can equally say 'why not' since all the guidance has been given already?

Your hypothesis should be: the last Word of God is unchangeable, because being the last word, it should be impossible to alter it or else it would be useless and another book would be necessary. Since the Quraan hasn't been changed over 1400 years, and can not be changed ever, it proves that it is the last Word of God. And God says: We have, without doubt, sent down the Message, and We will assuredly guard it. The Quraan, Chapter 15 (Al-Hijr) Verse 9.

WHY should this be my hypothesis, why is mine any less valid that this one. If your hypothesis is true then ANY book that remains unchained must be from God, you cannot have special rules just for the Qu'ran. Logically I cannot see how you can show it to be unchained anyway for it was given orally to the prophet according to Islam so there is no record. [offensive comment removed]

Other hypothoses can be: the book of God will guide people to the correct way, The book of God will contain a practical law system, the book of God will not contain any contradictions, the book of God will not contain errors, the Book of God will not contain any cruel or unjust laws, the Book of God will be for all people, the Last Book of God can be equally applicable in all places and times - it will not go out of date. all these are true regarding the Quraan.

But cannot you see that all these end up amounting to opinions. Consider your claim that the Qu'ran is for all time then clearly that CANNOT be shown to be true because we do not know what we and others will know tomorrow. If we consider your claim that there are no contradiction or errors then I am unclear how you will show that and indeed there are dozens of books and website that list errors and contradictions in the Qu'ran - you may not agree of course but others will have an entirely different view.

The trouble with criteria is that they more often than not are designed to show what we want to see. So if I have a criteria that shows high poetical structure then that is all it shows it cannot show cause, how the structure got there, who wrote it and any suggestion it is from God is no more than speculation and you can believe it or not, its a matter of faith.

Consider, one often hears that the Qu'ran is untranslatable. So what if I suggest one criteria that it is from God that it must be easily translatable. Why would God send his last message in a language that cannot be translated thereby forcing the whole world to learn 6th century Arabic - why?

 

[جوري]

Interesting post and I link it to another of yours where you speak about the pillars of Islam as being central. So is it enough to just take the pillars or do you have to accept everything? I can understand one holding on to the Qu'ran but personally I could never accept the hadith as anything more than background. The idea of prophets being perfect and infallible in everything they said or did is to me a recipe for oppressions because it destroys any critical thinking because we hear so often about cruel and unjust punishments toward anybody, including Muslims who differ.

The prophet once was met by a Bedouin who wasn't learned, and the Bedouin was seeking the prophet's advise on what he has to do to get to heaven, and the prophet PBUH told him to keep those basic tenets-- it is important in Islam to address people to the level of education, to speak to them and not above them. we can't for instance all be doctors and engineers, and scientists, but those who aren't those things should not be exempt from privilege simply because they know less. In this case the privilege is paradise.. by the way that bit about the Bedouin is a hadith though I can't cite it, imagine if we didn't have the sunnah how we'd carry out perfect Islamic law, a book makes the most sense when taught by a capable teacher, they don't merely drop from heaven upon the people!...
The only thing that destroys critical thinking are people like you.. for where is the critical thought in accepting a mangod, as opposed to Islam, where we are asked to ponder everything in creation which will ultimately lead to in depth analysis of all subjects, since all was explored by Islam, politics, economics, social structure, inventions, inheritance, mathematics, yes even fractals were inspired by Muslims...

I might cite the following Matthew 22:35-42 (NIV) and as you can see the focus is on God not the messenger and then outward into how we live our live.

was Jesus a prophet or a god? I recall grace seeker mentioning him to be both, I do believe you concentrate on him more than plenty. The prophet of Islam was our teacher not our god, so we reach god by learning the proper way of doing so rather than being astray like Christians and worshiping the messenger instead of pondering the message!


all the best