tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6883415296937284014.post7652500708879452397..comments2024-01-08T02:16:57.647-08:00Comments on Religion, Sets, and Politics: Skepticism Is Not an Excuse for SloppinessJoshuahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00637936588223855248noreply@blogger.comBlogger44125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6883415296937284014.post-53500760189118418582009-08-27T13:03:16.524-07:002009-08-27T13:03:16.524-07:00Shalmo, it isn't that I'm refusing to add...Shalmo, it isn't that I'm refusing to address what the links say due to a lack of hearing. The simple problem is that I have no way of knowing if they are accurately representing their sourcing or not. <br /><br />The comparison to the Jesus matter isn't a good one, because one could easily point to non-apologetic sources making the claim. <br /><br />I don't know what you are referring to the in the Art Scroll, but I presume you are talking about the claim made that Muhammad's existence and the growth of Islam are a fulfillment of the prophecy that Ishmael's descendants would be constantly struggling with the world. That's not the same thing as saying that the Jews believed that Muhammad was a prophet at all. Indeed, that's already centuries after they believed that prophecy was more or less ended. <br /><br />It isn't that surprising that Muhammad would be marginally better about the nature of the world (such as knowing that it wasn't on pillars) than people a thousand years before. I don't know enough about the Koran to confirm that there are no anachronisms thrown in. (This is in fact a standard problem with dealing with apologetics. One needs to know so much about each religion separately. Being well versed in Jewish and Christian apologetics gives one little ability to deal with Muslims or Hindus or a hundred others). <br /><br />I don't think you want to make the Ramses II claim, since there are serious issues with labeling Ramses II as the relevant ruler in Exodus. Indeed, there's the not tiny issue that there's know Egyptian record of the Exodus at all. So even discussing that seriously undermines any claim that the Koran and associated texts somehow is completely consistent with modern archaeology and such. <br /><br />The Christian argument about Satan is about as self-defeating as your argument. If one bought into it one would have no way of knowing if Islam was correct or just yet another religion in God's long line of continual revelations to humanity. Of course, they both suffer the same serious flaw that the simplest explanation is simple human influence.<br /><br />Incidentally, the Bible does seem fine with the notion of God talking to groups other than the descendants of Abraham. The most obvious and prominent example is Balaam. <br /><br />Moving on, the mountain verse is again an example of a vague enough verse that it is easy to pin on it a single modern meaning. Indeed, one can easily read the above verse about a "bed" as referring to a flat earth. This is in fact not the only such verse in the Koran. <br /><br />I'm not an expert on this at all, but to just use a handful of examples, Sura 18 and Sura 71 both seem endorse flat earthism. The point here isn't necessarily that they actually are doing so, but merely that if one wants to take more or less poetic language in a hyper literal fashion then you are going to get results you don't like.<br /><br />I didn't see any indication in the website you linked to about the Ba'Hai that gave data about their growth rate. I don't see whether they are similar to scientology or not to be at all relevant. Whether a religion is nice or cult-like doesn't impact the basic argument being made: They can make the exact same claim you are making in regards to progressive revelation.<br /><br />Regarding the Banu-Hashim and Hanifs. If by Hanifs you mean non-Christian, non-Jewish monotheists in the Arabian peninsula prior to the coming of Islam (which is what I understand the term to mean), I'd really be very curious as to what secular sources discuss them as real. I've never seen any secular sources that took the claim very seriously. Now, it isn't like I've tried to find them. Labeling specific individuals as hanifs is a separate issue (if for example one wants to claim that Ishmael was a hanif in that sense there's really not much useful to talk about).<br /><br />Regarding the Banu-Hashim, the issue is not a question of existence. The question is what evidence does one have that they had a pork prohibition prior to Muhammad.Joshuahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00637936588223855248noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6883415296937284014.post-12509092157837569772009-08-26T16:33:56.423-07:002009-08-26T16:33:56.423-07:00Sorry I forgot to answer your comment about why I ...Sorry I forgot to answer your comment about why I believe in Islam. I really didn't want to go there because I loathe proselytizing.<br /><br />But anyway there are a number of different arguments, many of which cannot be reproduced online. But here is one that I believe is legitimate:<br /><br />http://www.theinimitablequran.com/uniquelitform.pdf<br /><br />Its not the only argument, but its one that I don't have to explain. The link explains it just fine.<br /><br />PS: The above is written by Hamza Tzortzies, who is a secular humanist who converted to Islam because of this argument. So at least bias is not a factor here.Shalmonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6883415296937284014.post-38113312672065131832009-08-26T16:25:33.234-07:002009-08-26T16:25:33.234-07:00Here is a good run-down of the problem of the para...Here is a good run-down of the problem of the parallels between Quran and the Bible:<br /><br />http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Sources/BBparallel.htmlShalmonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6883415296937284014.post-89923473616585214922009-08-26T16:15:43.942-07:002009-08-26T16:15:43.942-07:00"The history of Jewish proselytizing is inter..."The history of Jewish proselytizing is interesting and complicated. While it is true that the strong anti-proselytizing attitudes are post Roman, my understanding is that Jews were not by and large engaging in the same degree of systematic and enthusiatic proselytizing that Christianity and Islam did. Christianity for example considered (and in many forms still considers) proselytizing to be a primary duty of the religion."<br /><br />I WISH muslims were proselytizing as much as you think. I find its very rare, and even when it does take place its always for lapsed, liberalized muslims and not for non-muslims. This may be because unlike Christianity muslims don't believe other people are going to Hell.<br /><br />If you check muslim history mass proselytizing was rarely invoked. Most proselytizing instead was done by individual basis than group work. In Pakistan/India for example all the muslims come from single sufi masters who would go to villages and then convert the village. And they were amazing at it as well.<br /><br />Take the mongols for example. They were as bloodthirsty as a people get. It took 200,000 mongol warriors to defeat 2 million chinese soldiers as one battle estimate shows. No one could stop them as they plundered asia. Yet it took one sufi master to bring them down by converting them all to Islam.<br /><br /><br />"Regarding the Ba'Hai, I'd be curious what evidence you have that they are in a population decline. Even if there is a current decline, they started at 0 slightly over a century ago and now have millions. That's a decent growth rate."<br /><br />www.bahaiawareness.com<br /><br />The bahais are a lot like an iranian version of scientology hence Iran's actions against them are justified. You and I can discuss their origins another time.<br /><br />I wasn't aware my witch doctor comment was offensive. I apologize.shalmonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6883415296937284014.post-48075925718960278282009-08-26T16:15:32.642-07:002009-08-26T16:15:32.642-07:00"That could easily refer to all sorts of othe..."That could easily refer to all sorts of other things. In fact, the Big Band is one of the harder ones to claim it refers to since nothing in the Big Bang was ever involved in a massive split between the Earth and everything else. (Indeed, similar separation claims occur in a number of other mythologies)...." <br /><br />IT is true that the big bang repeats itself in other mythologies. There is the hindu mythology of the egg and it splitting into the universe.<br /><br />But that is not the point. the point was that Genesis gets the creation process wrong, yet the Quran does not repeat its faulty creation process. No two lights, no plants before Sun for photosynthesis, no humans created before animals contradicting the paleontological record, etc.<br /><br />I am not arguing for scientific miracles in the Quran, though indeed there might be some there. Such as:<br /><br />“Have We not made the earth as a bed, and the mountains as pegs?” (Quran 78:6-7)<br /><br />Modern earth sciences have proven that mountains have deep roots under the surface of the ground and that these roots can reach several times their elevations above the surface of the ground. So the most suitable word to describe mountains on the basis of this information is the word ‘peg,’ since most of a properly set peg is hidden under the surface of the ground. The history of science tells us that the theory of mountains having deep roots was introduced only in the latter half of the nineteenth century<br /><br />Mountains also play an important role in stabilizing the crust of the earth.[4] They hinder the shaking of the earth. God has said in the Quran:<br />“And He has set firm mountains in the earth so that it would not shake with you...” (Quran 16:15)<br /><br />Likewise, the modern theory of plate tectonics holds that mountains work as stabilizers for the earth. This knowledge about the role of mountains as stabilizers for the earth has just begun to be understood in the framework of plate tectonics since the late 1960’s. This is impossible to have been known in 7th century arabia.<br /><br />But again we are not arguing for science in the Quran. None of this is an argument for Quran in itself. I am simply showing that the Quran does not repeat the errors of the bible, which was my original intention when comparing the Quran's creation stories to the biblical ones<br /><br />there is a hadith by Imam Jaffer that states the universe began as one unit of creation and was then split into everything else.<br /><br />There is also a famous hadith used by Ayatollah Mutahari in support of evolution. But I don't have time to go looking for them <br /><br />"Regarding the Banu-Hashim, I'm not sure what evidence you have there of a prior pork prohibition but I'd be very curious to see it. Regarding the Hanifs, my impression is that it isn't even clear that secular scholars consider them to have been a historically actual group as described in a substantial was in Islamic sources (although I really know very little about this subject)."<br /><br />you REALLY need to stop making up things out of hot air. This is as blatantly false as your previous claims that the word pharaoh had not been in used in arabia.<br /><br />There is plenty of documentation for hanifs and banu-hashim predating Jewry. I have never met anyone, even a secularist, who denies them. <br /><br />there are plenty of letters from tribal chiefs of arabia some of whom were hanifs/banu-hashim. But they are in arabic and I don't think there are any copies onlineShalmonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6883415296937284014.post-79075172755197433292009-08-26T15:37:15.030-07:002009-08-26T15:37:15.030-07:00"The point is that the Christian claim being ..."The point is that the Christian claim being made suffers the exact same flaws as your claim. It isn't clear why you accept the Islamic version but not the Christian version."<br /><br />The christian claim is self-contradictory. If Satan did indeed inspire these other religions to undermine Christianity, then why can't we argue that Christianity itself is a product of Satan. If all religions are dismissed as productions of Satan, then the same standards can be applied to Christianity. Most christians do NOT use this argument anyway becase they know its nonsense.<br /><br />The muslim argument is not self-contradictory. You can't use the argument against itself, like the way I used the Satan argument against christianity.<br /><br />The muslim argument is also internally consistent and thus rational. It makes no sense that God would ignore mankind for millions of years, and only invoke monotheism with Abraham 4000 years ago, as the bible claims<br /><br />It makes more sense that God would send everyone prophets from the beginning, rather than just sticking with the middle-east, and that he would send them all the nations.All of which Islam claims. <br /><br />Its comes in parcel with the islamic doctrine of progressive revelation. That we are being lead to a common goal, from ignorance to enlightment as a species. In Islam there are 6 stages for mankind. The first stage was the "animal" stage (hint: EVOLUTION!). Right now we are in the 3rd/4th stage of our development. When we are ready spiritually and ethically then the 5th stage will begin; which is the messianic era when all the prophets who went into occultation will re-appear to bring the whole world into happy-land. And of course the 6th stage is judgement day.<br /><br />Hence why it all makes sense when put together as doctrine. Only a few thousands years ago most of the world was lost in polytheism, and look today because of the Ahlul-Kitab religions I have mentioned polytheism is nearly gone because of these religions. Today christianity and judaism are losing to secularism/liberalism but this was all part of the plan. Unless they are weakened Islam cannot replace them. Their purpose was only to saturate this planet with islamic ideas so their end is expected. They are basically rehab programs that have become obsolete.Shalmonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6883415296937284014.post-19852333416141899412009-08-26T15:12:47.508-07:002009-08-26T15:12:47.508-07:00"The point is that the Koran lacks so many co..."The point is that the Koran lacks so many content areas that are in the Bible that it isn't terribly surprising if that includes the (few) areas in the Bible that are unambiguously wrong."<br /><br />Sigh! Didn't I just tell you that along with Quran there is the Sunnah and two together form the basic of islamic literature <br /><br />In fact the biographies of Moses, Joseph, and so forth in the Sunnah are astronomically different than those in the bible. In fact the biographies in the Sunnah are far more detailed than what the bible and the Talmud record. Yet they are free of the historical anachronisms.<br /><br />It makes no sense from a naturalistic perspective that Mohammed arbitrarily reworked all the biblical stories. How did he know the tower of babel story was false from a scientific perspective since this is not how languages came to be? Why does he provide a different creation scenario than the Genesis one? <br /><br />When you look at Quran and Sunnah and compare to the bible; all the appropriated mythology from the babylonians (tower of babel), greeks (Samson), assyrians, egyptians, hittites, cannanites, etc. Where did Mohammed get the know how? How did he know which ones are flawed from a scientific perspective and which ones are?<br /><br />Why didn't he repeat what Samuel says about the earth resting on pillars? <br /><br />And why is it that every attempt at finding the historical teacher(s) of Mohammed have turned a negative? There wasn't even an arabic bible available for him. The first written bible came to arabia in the 12th century.<br /><br />If the Quran/Sunnah was written today you could easily say the author wrote using modern knowledge on archaeology, hydrology and other historical sciences of the 19th/20th century, because these things were only known during these times such as the Joseph's pharoah anachronism in the bible. The fact that Mohammed repeats none of the biblical errors says a lot.<br /><br />Speaking of pharoah, there is a verse in the Quran (and not in the bible) that states God would preserve the Moses pharoah's body despite him being drowned. There are no remains for the bodies of his soldiers. For about a millenium the islamophobes advocated this as a failed prophecy because we did not have the pharoah's body with us at all. Then in the 19th century Ramses II's body was discovered; prophecy fulfilled :)Shalmonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6883415296937284014.post-91374557968468388282009-08-26T14:55:52.151-07:002009-08-26T14:55:52.151-07:00About the "apologetic" websites.
A whi...About the "apologetic" websites. <br /><br />A while ago on youtube I saw videos propagating the same Christ myths. That Jesus never existed (, and that the virgin birth, 12 disciples and other aspects of christianity were copied from pagan myths. When I tried correcting the skeptics by showing them that Mithra did not have a virgin birth, nor did Dionysus, or any of the other gods and that 12 disciples is unique to Christianity, I was immediately attacked for being a christian missionary/apologist. Just like blind theists they refuse to even question the christ conspiracy theories, brushing away all answers as "apologetics"<br /><br />Sadly what you are doing here is exactly the same thing. You REFUSE to even address what those links say. And brush them off as apologetic site without even reading their content. And your argument for doing so is past experiences with Jewish/Christian websites that lie.<br /><br />It is true that christian/jewish websites have a lot of nonsense in them. I have seen pitiful attempts at trying to fish evidence for the exodus, or trying to falsify the failed prophecies on Nebudchenazzer. But the thing is a casual reading of the arguments can easily allow the reader to tell truth from falsehood, which is why none of their arguments for these things work out in the end.<br /><br />What we must do is examine the arguments and judge them for their worth.<br /><br />With the links I brought the argument is about midrash and Quran, and which copies which. The dates on those links, all of which comes from Jewish sources such as the Jewish Encyclopedia, and other secular sources, support the thesis that it was the midrash that copied the Quran not the other way round. Jewish scribes have a history of plagarizing every civilization around them whether it was the egyptians, babylonians, assyrians, greeks or whoever, so them doing the same with Islam is not surprising. From my readings it obvious that even Jews of arabia felt Mohammed was a prophet, hence we have the Arts Scroll Chumash stating that Mohammed was the fulfillment the Genesis prophecy on Ishmael. So the Jews copying muslim sources, when previously believing them in divinity is not surprising.<br /><br />Now unless you provide a counter-rebuttal to the dates provided, then you cannot concede this argument. And saying its all just apologetics will not grant you any merit here. And I am not going to repeat this a third time.Shalmonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6883415296937284014.post-23373879067813245362009-08-25T15:37:25.116-07:002009-08-25T15:37:25.116-07:00Shalmo, I didn't intend to change the subject ...Shalmo, I didn't intend to change the subject to a discussion about you. You'll have to forgive me for being occasionally obnoxious. <br /><br />The issue with the sourcing citations is that they go to apologetic websites. Such sources even when they use secular sources frequently distort the original sources or take them out of context (this is at least my experience with Christian and Jewish apologetics. I don't have any particular reason to see Islamic ones as being that different). <br /><br />Now moving on:<br />Shalmo, you seem to have missed the point I was trying to make in replying to your argument about what content was included and what content was not included in the Koran. The point is that the Koran lacks so many content areas that are in the Bible that it isn't terribly surprising if that includes the (few) areas in the Bible that are unambiguously wrong. <br /> <br />I don't know what you mean when you ask if "The principle on unfalsifiability (which you are invoking here) is itself contradictory. Can you falsify the principle of unfalsifiability?" I'm not sure what this means, but it isn't terribly relevant: The point is that the Christian claim being made suffers the exact same flaws as your claim. It isn't clear why you accept the Islamic version but not the Christian version.<br /><br />Regarding the quoted verse:<br />""Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit of creation), before we clove them asunder?" That could easily refer to all sorts of other things. In fact, the Big Band is one of the harder ones to claim it refers to since nothing in the Big Bang was ever involved in a massive split between the Earth and everything else. (Indeed, similar separation claims occur in a number of other mythologies). If I wanted to use just one other example of how to interpret the verse, one could read that verse just as well as describing the split of the gravitational force from the other forces or something similar to that. In that case, I'm even being restrictive by taking an example that's actually part of the hypothesized actual origin of the universe. <br /><br />Regarding the Banu-Hashim, I'm not sure what evidence you have there of a prior pork prohibition but I'd be very curious to see it.<br /><br />Regarding the Hanifs, my impression is that it isn't even clear that secular scholars consider them to have been a historically actual group as described in a substantial was in Islamic sources (although I really know very little about this subject). <br /><br />Regarding the wording issue for the Egyptian monarch, if that's correct that's very interesting. I'll have to look into that in more detail. <br /><br />The history of Jewish proselytizing is interesting and complicated. While it is true that the strong anti-proselytizing attitudes are post Roman, my understanding is that Jews were not by and large engaging in the same degree of systematic and enthusiatic proselytizing that Christianity and Islam did. Christianity for example considered (and in many forms still considers) proselytizing to be a primary duty of the religion. <br /><br />Regarding the Ba'Hai, I'd be curious what evidence you have that they are in a population decline. Even if there is a current decline, they started at 0 slightly over a century ago and now have millions. That's a decent growth rate.<br /><br />Regarding "witch doctors" - The basic issue there is that the term is considered to be derogatory by many people who practice indigenous faiths and in any event is a terrible lumping of many different shamanistic practices together. It really isn't a useful descriptor. <br /><br />You seem to be correct incidentally that Jr brought up Islam before you did.<br /><br />And I didn't say I wanted a more lively blog, I made a joking remark about getting insulted in general at other blogs (so um yeah, if you feel a need to start a new blog, feel free to insult me there. It might make me feel noticed. Or something like that). <br />Although I certainly don't mind lively conversation. I've at least found this to be quite interesting.Joshuahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00637936588223855248noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6883415296937284014.post-91718387639833865982009-08-24T10:03:10.544-07:002009-08-24T10:03:10.544-07:00"I'm incidentally amused that although yo..."I'm incidentally amused that although you seem to frequently complain about the average person's knowledge of Islam, you seem to have appalling degrees of understanding of other religions when you talk about "the witch doctors in South America." "<br /><br />Its true I get annoyed at the nonsense I see on the Jewish blogs I visit. I do occassionally interfere to let them know how wrong they. But I have come to the conclusion that correcting their misconceptions is impossible, given that they take any argument hand and foot which they can use against my religion, irrelevant of the truth behind the argument. Its even funnier when you see these same jews run to christian missionaries for all that stuff. Can you imagine what the outcome would be if I went to neo-nazi websites to learn about Jews and Judaism? The hypocrasy comes when they go to these websites, but then refuse to even give a glance to muslim websites which have refuted this accusations time and time again. <br /><br />Oh and are you honestly telling me there are no witch doctors in South America? If so then google will solve that dilmena for you<br /><br />"And while we're on the subject of amusement, I'm also amused by your last comment where you state that you didn't want to discuss these issues but wanted to remain talking about "secular" subjects. Of course, your comment was about where Jehovah and Elohim came from, and you also were the first person in this comments thread to bring up anything related to Islam. So, um ye"<br /><br />WHATEVER!<br /><br />PS: As I said Jr was the first person to bring up Islam, I simply replied to his statements<br /><br />PPS: You said you wanted more lively discussions on your blog, well why complain when that's exactly what you are getting here?Shalmonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6883415296937284014.post-59539530140209934472009-08-24T09:55:17.787-07:002009-08-24T09:55:17.787-07:00"You are aware of a single scientific theory ..."You are aware of a single scientific theory that describes the early universe and you conclude that the verse in question is talking about that, neglecting the hundred other possible ways to read that verse."<br /><br />how else are we supposed to read the verse? All classical commentaries read the verse as describing the origins of the universe so you are totally wrong about there being other possible ways to read this verse<br /><br />I'm assuming you see the first and second chapters of Genesis as descriptions of the origin of the universe, no? then why the special pleadings with the Quran doing the same?<br /><br />"Your example with the use of "Pharaoh" is an interesting one, but one can easily give a thousand simple explanations, including the fact that the title Pharaoh had not been in use for some time by the time the Koran was written. Do you really think they'd then use an obsolete term rather than the helpful synonym."<br /><br />Wow. You are SO WRONG> The arabs very much reffered to egyptians kings as pharoah (arabic: firawn). <br /><br />And this is straw-man because the argument was that the pharoah of Joseph was referred to as "malik" where as the pharaoh of Moses was referred to as "firawn". And we did not know about the anachronism in the bible until we rediscovered heiroglyphics in the 19th century. Yet the Quran gets its right and the bible gets it wrong, which further adds a hole into the bible being the source for the Quran.<br /><br />"Your response about Christianity and the Satan claim misses the fundamental point:<br />You've each created inherently unfalsifiable explanations for why your religion's similarity to pre-existing religion somehow isn't a demonstration of influence from those religions.<br />The fact that you raise actual problems with their theology is besides the point."<br /><br />The principle on unfalsifiability (which you are invoking here) is itself contradictory. Can you falsify the principle of unfalsifiability? Yes./NO.<br /><br />I addressed that those other religions coming from Satan isn't a doctrine in the bible at all, its just a modern polemic against criticism. I gave an explanation why such a doctrine can similarly be applied to Christianity itself<br /><br />The Quran on the other hand already in it has an explanation for similarities with these other religions. So its not a later polemic created to silence critics. And unlike the christian explanation of Satanic influence, the explanation I am offering is self-consistent rather than self-contradictory.<br /><br />"Your three paragraphs about the purpose of Judaism, Christianity and other religions is again unfalsifiable. It moreover, ignores the primary reason why Islam and Christianity have been so successful at spreading while Judaism has not. There's no magical divine plot needed to explain this. Christianity and Islam both proselytize. They in fact do so heavily. Not surprisingly, this leads to them both spreading pretty effectively." <br /><br />I have absolutely no idea how this in any way refutes what I said about these religions and the purpose behind them.<br /><br />You are wrong about Jewish proselytizing. Jews used to do it heavily as well, they stopped after the roman exile scenario. Read robert goldenberg for more info on that<br /><br />"And the argument you use moreover has the unfortunate effect of working for groups you wouldn't be so fond of. The Ba'hai for example can claim that Islam is spreading for them by the same logic."<br /><br />Yeah but the bahais are shrinking cult, where as Islam is growing heavily in Europe and North America because it draws heavily from people from a Christian background who are already familiar with the ideas of ethical monotheism. Same thing happened in Zorastrian Iran, even though muslims hardly proselytized them, the population just switched religions willingly.Shalmonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6883415296937284014.post-89971112883654496742009-08-24T09:36:55.482-07:002009-08-24T09:36:55.482-07:00when character assasination starts, I usually take...when character assasination starts, I usually take that as my cue to no longer continue the discussion. Ironic you accuse my of changing topics, when you yourself have changed this discussion from religion into an outline of my "flaws". touche!<br /><br />You previously asked me to provide sources for my claims on midrash/Quran, and I did just that. What's the problem?<br /><br />About the restriction of pork and a non-jewish group having it, try the Banu-Hashim or the Hanifs, both whom predate Jewry<br /><br />"Now, most of what you've put here seems to be frankly irrelevant.<br />I don't think anyone here was claiming that Mohammed either plagiarized or had a specific teacher here, so why you link to apologetics in your point 1 discussing that isn't clear to me."<br /><br />Actually I was replying to Jr's claims about Islam and the usual copy-cat theories he brought up. He was the one who started the discussion on Islam, not me. Would you have preferred I not correct his allegations?<br /><br />"Most of the rest of what repeat here is tiresome apologetics. I'm not completely sure what you are trying to do here. It seems like you are trying to make some sort<br />of argument for the divine inspiration of the Koran. Please be explicit. The "I'm just asking questions" routine is annoying and disingenuous when it is done by 9/11 Truthers, Apollo Moon Hoax proponents and a hundred other groups. If you are going to insist<br />on mucking up the comments threads with apologetica, please state explicitly what point you are trying to make."<br /><br />Who said I was trying to prove anything? I was simply replying to questions you asked, as well as the copy-cat theories brought forth. <br /><br />And a word about "apologetics". Well I don't subscribe to the terminology. You asked questions and I gave you answers, which you are now hushing away by saying its all just apologetics. That word is what people use to hush up arguments they cannot rebuttal.<br /><br />"The argument that the Koran does not include incorrect Biblical material is on its surface an interesting one. Like all apologetic arguments, it falls flat when examined in any detail.<br />The vast majority of narrative material in the Bible is not included in the Koran. So the fact that you can point to specific material that happens to be wrong that isn't included doesn't show anything at all."<br /><br />This is an argument biult on a negative, not effective at all. Why does the Quran NOT include that material? And under who's authority did Mohammed know what to remove and what to keep, and how did he get it right?<br /><br />You see if the Quran had the nonsense of Genesis, such as its theories on the origins of different races or the flawed stages of creation, you indeed would be using this argument against Quran. But instead it doesn't have that material. And that's the point. How did he know what is right and what is wrong?<br /><br />Also consider that along with the Quran there is the volumes upon volumes of data known as the Sunnah which adds to the stories in the Quran, but the biographies of Moses, etc are very different than what you have in the bible. Yet they do not include the anachronisms of the bible, for instance they don't state the world is 6000 years old.<br /><br />And if you are going to subscribe to the copy-cat conspiracy theories, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate this discrepancy. If the Quran was a human constuct it would repeat those historical anachronisms and scientific errors, yet is does not.Shalmonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6883415296937284014.post-62530099803566497392009-08-23T09:13:41.944-07:002009-08-23T09:13:41.944-07:00I'm incidentally amused that although you seem...I'm incidentally amused that although you seem to frequently complain about the average person's knowledge of Islam, you seem to have appalling degrees of understanding of other religions when you talk about "the witch doctors in South America." <br /><br />And while we're on the subject of amusement, I'm also amused by your last comment where you state that you didn't want to discuss these issues but wanted to remain talking about "secular" subjects. Of course, your comment was about where Jehovah and Elohim came from, and you also were the first person in this comments thread to bring up anything related to Islam. So, um yeah...Joshuahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00637936588223855248noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6883415296937284014.post-38084976810217601512009-08-23T09:13:29.032-07:002009-08-23T09:13:29.032-07:00Lisa and JR. Thanks yes, those are very good examp...Lisa and JR. Thanks yes, those are very good examples. Although honestly I'm not either surprised or disturbed by Zeitgeist having problems. The point about further issues with Randi is far more annoying.<br /><br />Shalmo, your ability to bring topics of conversation off-topic is amazing. It is almost impressive<br />enough to be evidence of divine creation.<br /><br />Adding to the list of things needing good citations, we'll now add the claim that a prohibition on pork consumption was around in other extant groups prior to Judaism (if anything, I'm pretty sure the reverse is true with most other Middle Eastern tribal groups being fine with pork consumption). Certainly in the case of circumcision, other groups did practice it in the Middle East (although some such as the Philistines notably did not), but I'd be curious what evidence there is that anyone around 600 C.E. or so was practicing circumcision in the area that was not a Jewish or Christian group.<br /><br />Now, most of what you've put here seems to be frankly irrelevant.<br />I don't think anyone here was claiming that Mohammed either plagiarized or had a specific teacher here, so why you link to apologetics in your point 1 discussing that isn't clear to me.<br /><br />Most of the rest of what repeat here is tiresome apologetics. I'm not completely sure what you are trying to do here. It seems like you are trying to make some sort<br />of argument for the divine inspiration of the Koran. Please be explicit. The "I'm just asking questions" routine is annoying and disingenuous when it is done by 9/11 Truthers, Apollo Moon Hoax proponents and a hundred other groups. If you are going to insist<br />on mucking up the comments threads with apologetica, please state explicitly what point you are trying to make. <br /><br />The argument that the Koran does not include incorrect Biblical material is on its surface an interesting one. Like all apologetic arguments, it falls flat when examined in any detail.<br />The vast majority of narrative material in the Bible is not included in the Koran. So the fact that you can point to specific material that happens to be wrong that isn't included doesn't show anything at all.<br /><br />Your verse which you claim is about the Big Bang is another form of standard apologetic argument.<br />I almost wish there were a name for this sort of argument. I think I'd call it the "argument from<br />insufficient imagination." You are aware of a single scientific theory that describes the early <br />universe and you conclude that the verse in question is talking about that, neglecting the hundred other possible ways to read that verse.<br /><br />Your example with the use of "Pharaoh" is an interesting one, but one can easily give a thousand simple explanations, including the fact that the title Pharaoh had not been in use for some time by the time the Koran was written. Do you really think they'd then use an obsolete term rather than the helpful synonym.<br /><br /><br />Your response about Christianity and the Satan claim misses the fundamental point:<br />You've each created inherently unfalsifiable explanations for why your religion's similarity to pre-existing religion somehow isn't a demonstration of influence from those religions.<br />The fact that you raise actual problems with their theology is besides the point.<br />(There's a temptation to argue for the reasonableness of their belief but I lack both the time and the interest for that particular form of intellectual game at the moment).<br /><br />Your three paragraphs about the purpose of Judaism, Christianity and other religions is again unfalsifiable. It moreover, ignores the primary reason why Islam and Christianity have been so successful at spreading while Judaism has not. There's no magical divine plot needed to explain this. Christianity and Islam both proselytize. They in fact do so heavily. Not surprisingly, this leads to them both spreading pretty effectively. And the argument you use moreover has the unfortunate effect of working for groups you wouldn't be so fond of. The Ba'hai for example can claim that Islam is spreading for them by the same logic.Joshuahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00637936588223855248noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6883415296937284014.post-52536770113067720102009-08-21T09:55:28.115-07:002009-08-21T09:55:28.115-07:004. Please don't think I am here to "sprea...4. Please don't think I am here to "spread the faith" so to speak. <br /><br />I would have preferred all our conversations remained completely secular on topic. But since you brought up these issues, I should tell you straight away that these topics have been discussed to death by muslims already. So I doubt you can bring any argument we have not already considered in this regard.Shalmonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6883415296937284014.post-119517478923852342009-08-21T09:51:50.243-07:002009-08-21T09:51:50.243-07:003. Perhaps I should have provided an explanation.
...3. Perhaps I should have provided an explanation.<br /><br />The christian explanation that these other religions come from Satan is not a rational theological explanation because for one the bible never said such a thing. It also does not provide a rational revelation. If anything countering Christianity comes from Satan, then how is an average believer supposed to know if indeed Christianity itself does not come from Satan. You have to establish a common paradigm with which to judge the true religion, arguably this would be reason and logic, as opposed to emotion<br /><br />Now about these other religions. Yes muslims believe God sent revelations to all nations, just not muslims. So if indeed there were no similarities (such as ethical monotheism) then arguably this claim of Islam would fail. And this claim that God sent to every nation a prophet is indeed in the Quran.<br /><br />From an islamic perspective religions such as Christianity, Judaism, Zorastrianism and so forth also have a reasonable purpose for existing. They are here to saturate this planet with ideas familiar to Islam in order to allow a global transition to islamic ideals to take place. These ideas include things like monotheism, belief in angels, heaven/hell, Judgement Day, linear time as opposed to cyclical time, etc. Take the pagans of Europe. Arguably the absolute monotheism of Islam would have been impossible for them to accept at the time, hence Christianity was there (itself a mix between monotheism and paganism) to slowly "wean" the people to a more monotheistic outlook. Jesus was after all himself just a remake of the dieing/resurrecting god scenario they were used to. Or take Zorastrianism in Iran. It was there to "wean" the people to ethical monotheism.<br /><br />It seems to have worked. Zorastrian Iran is now composed of mostly muslims, since the people converted. What about Christian Europe? Isn't it slowly becoming islamicized? And it is usually people from these religions that convert to Islam because they see the "familiar territory" in it. What about India? Its slowly transitioning to Christianity, as are the witch doctors in South America. Again all part of the big plan:)<br /><br />And arguably this may be why Judaism is now in decline. Because with a religion like Christianity "weaning" the pagans to a more monotheistic outlook for our religion, and doing a spectacular job the world over, Judaism has just become obsolete for its intended purpose. The same explanation can be offered for why Zorastrianism is also in decline, since now the persians are mostly muslims.Shalmonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6883415296937284014.post-43683887546306214122009-08-21T09:30:07.364-07:002009-08-21T09:30:07.364-07:00I didn't want to go here, but ok.
1. People h...I didn't want to go here, but ok.<br /><br />1. People have been making conspriacy theories about the "sources" of the Quran for over a millenium. So far all archaeological sciences have turned a negative on who the so-called teacher of Mohammed was. (http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Sources/) People who bring these accusations fail to realize that muslims have been reading their books as well, and its foolish to think that you can bring a charge of plagarism of which they themselves have not considered<br /><br />2. Why does the Quran not copy the errors of the Bible? Genesis states that creation happened in seperate days, and the process such as light existing without a sun, plants coming before there is a Sun to provide photosynthesis, man being created before animals contradicting the paleontological record, etc. Certainly 1400 years ago the sciences which revealed these problems were not available. Yet unlike the bible, the Quran states creation happened at once at a Big Bang no less:<br /><br />[21:30] "Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit of creation), before we clove them asunder? We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?"<br /><br />How did Mohammed know which parts of the bible were true and which were false when these sciences came to us at the 19th century? this is just one of countless examples, quite many others exist in the Sunnah which we can discuss<br /><br />What about the historical anachronisms in the Bible? I'm certain you have read Naftali's huge letter detailing many of the evidences in the Torah that show not only ignorance of the contemporary history those accounts speak on, but show these books were written many many centuries after the supposed events. Why did Mohammed not copy these anachronims as well?<br /><br />For example. "According to modern linguist research the word "Pharaoh". was used by the writers of the Old Testament and has since become a widely adopted title for all the kings of Egypt. However, the Egyptians did not call their ruler "Pharaoh" until the 18th Dynasty (c. 1552 - 1295 BC) in the New Kingdom Period. In the language of the hieroglyphs, "Pharaoh" was first used to refer to the king during the reign of Amenhophis IV (c. 1352 - 1338 BC). We know that such a designation was correct in the time of Moses but the use of the word Pharaoh in the story of Joseph is an anachronism, as under the rule of the Hyksos there was no "Pharaoh." Similarly, the events related in Genesis 12 concerning Abraham (c. 2000-1700 BCE) could not have occurred in a time when the sovereign of Egypt was called Pharaoh, and this exposes yet another anachronism. In several chapters of Genesis we find the same error frequently recurring – some ninety-six times in total. What is clear is that the biblical writers composed their texts under the influences of the knowledge of their time, when the king of Egypt was usually designated as "Pharaoh". <br /><br />The situation is entirely different in the Qur'an. As is the case with the Bible, reference to the sovereign of ancient Egypt is found throughout various chapters of the Qur'an. A careful study of the minutiae of each narrative reveals some compelling differences. With regard to the Egyptian king who was a contemporary of Joseph, the Qur'an uses the title "King" (Arabic, Malik); he is never once addressed as Pharaoh. As for the king who ruled during the time of Moses, the Qur'an repeatedly calls him Pharaoh (Arabic, Fir'awn).<br /><br />These facts that we have mentioned were unknown at the time of the Qur'anic Revelation. The only source of knowledge of the religious past were the Bible-based stories in circulation. From the time of the Old Testament to the Qur'an, the only document mankind possessed on these ancient stories was the Bible itself. Furthermore, the knowledge of the old Egyptian hieroglyphs had been totally forgotten until they were finally deciphered in the 19th century CE." (http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Contrad/External/josephdetail.html)<br /><br />There are countless more examples of this as wellShalmonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6883415296937284014.post-49582907246526479402009-08-21T08:55:59.163-07:002009-08-21T08:55:59.163-07:00Shalmo, the point regarding Christianity and claim...Shalmo, the point regarding Christianity and claims about Satan was that other religions also have theological explanations for similarities. Odd that members of each religion see the other religions' explanations as clear attempts at post hoc rationalizations.Joshuahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00637936588223855248noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6883415296937284014.post-79077989874531235922009-08-20T16:45:21.117-07:002009-08-20T16:45:21.117-07:00Jr even Richard Carrier support Nazareth existing ...Jr even Richard Carrier support Nazareth existing during Jesus' timeShalmonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6883415296937284014.post-81547699444477960672009-08-20T16:42:06.385-07:002009-08-20T16:42:06.385-07:00Joshua I am not sure what christians believing cer...Joshua I am not sure what christians believing certain religions coming from Satan has to do with anything we are discussing.<br /><br />About the pork thing, again this prohibition was around long before Judaism came along, as was circumcision and many other things.<br /><br />Again so what? If you believe this is because God sent other revelations, or as the Quran says a prophet to each nation, then how can borrowing be substituted when the theology already has an explanation for there are similarities. A more pressing question is if borrowing did occur, why did Mohammed not copy the errors in the bible as well. But that is so off topic. But you are gonna have to justify your naturalistic presuppositions. <br /><br />About the midrash and the Quran here are a few good articles with secular sources:<br /><br />http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Sources/BByalkut.html<br /><br />http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Sources/BBnumb.html<br /><br />http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Sources/BBrabbah.html<br /><br />http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Sources/BBsheba.html<br /><br />http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Contrad/External/haman.html<br /><br />also be sure to check out this page:<br /><br />http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Sources/Shalmonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6883415296937284014.post-41861963469810590752009-08-20T13:59:36.566-07:002009-08-20T13:59:36.566-07:00I found the following video http://www.youtube.com...I found the following video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSzQC1zKesU&feature=PlayList&p=FDE8925734E2FC4B&index=8 with Randi where he endorses the claim that Nazareth didn't exist when Jesus was born. This is a dubious claim in itself though not impossible. <br /><br />But what is really sloppy is something he says in the beginning. He speaks about the account in John 1 of Jesus being born in Nazreth. <br /><br />There are no less than 2 errors here. First of all, the Gospel of John does not contain a birth account. (Though he concededly has him described as Jesus from Nazareth.)Secondly the Gospels that have a birth account have him born in Bethelehem and only living in Nazareth. (As 95% of the population would know.)<br /><br />Religious studies and Biblical scholarship are two areas where some skeptics become decidedly pseudo-scientific. Claims should be treated with skepticism even if they happen to go against a religion.Jrnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6883415296937284014.post-58051798360987951552009-08-20T10:59:29.370-07:002009-08-20T10:59:29.370-07:00Shalmo,
Some Christians claim that similarities be...Shalmo,<br />Some Christians claim that similarities between Christianity and earlier religions is due to Satan deliberately making false religions similar to the one true religion. <br /><br />I'd also be incidentally curious what citations/evidence you have that the influence of Midrashim and Koranic stories was so one way. Certainly many midrashim drew from pre-existing sources (most noticeably Greek sources. The bed of Procrustes being lifted out and placed in Sodom being the most obvious example). But the claim made seems unlikely. <br /><br />Some major aspects of Islam came from Judaism. The pork prohibition is the most obvious example.Joshuahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00637936588223855248noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6883415296937284014.post-85130723431374317482009-08-20T09:27:44.822-07:002009-08-20T09:27:44.822-07:00Jr most religions are biult this way. They take fr...Jr most religions are biult this way. They take from previous mythologies and then rework them to make their own.<br /><br />About the hands things, actually that's a metaphor in the Quran. Kinda like when you say the hands of the law, you don't mean the law literally has arms<br /><br />Go to part of the Quran that says "vision comprehends him not", and the first ayat that says "there is nothing like him" which they take literally as saying nothing in creation matches God. <br /><br />About what u said about Islam, well its doubtful because critical scholarship has shown that Jews took from muslims quite a lot. For instance all midrash that we used to believe were the source for the Quran have now in fact been proven to be post-Muhammed inventions from the 10th century. Besides Judaism has been ever changing kinda like Zorastrianism, so its not easy to claim influence went one way.<br /><br />If you ask a muslim they will just state that these previous religions are remnants of previous revelations by God to previous prophets, hence explaining the similarities between the religions.Shalmonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6883415296937284014.post-62476355440888744712009-08-20T05:14:10.489-07:002009-08-20T05:14:10.489-07:00And of course, if there is any religion that borro...And of course, if there is any religion that borrowed heavily from others it is Islam. I mean it is clearly mostly a rip-off of Judaism with some elements of Christian mythology and modified to include Muhammed as a prophet.Jrnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6883415296937284014.post-55661590537720741722009-08-19T11:39:57.329-07:002009-08-19T11:39:57.329-07:00"he replaced the Jewish god with the God of M..."he replaced the Jewish god with the God of Muhammed"<br /><br />Allow me to be very dubious about that statement. The god of Muhammed was anthropomorphic sometimes as well, with him having hands in the Quran. <br /><br />And it is not like a remote god without human attributes was entirely unprecendented in Jewish thought. Consider the P source in the 5 books of Moses or the Deuternomistic history. <br /><br />I would also like to modify a previous statement. Obviously Christianity borrowed heavily from Judaism. I meant the reference only to pagan religions.Jrnoreply@blogger.com