Co-Director, Center for Cognitive Studies, Tufts University
Daniel C. Dennett is the Austin B. Fletcher Professor of Philosophy, and Co-Director of the Center for Cognitive Studies, at Tufts University. His most recent book was Breaking the Spell (2006). The “On Faith” panelist also is Co-founder of the Curricular Software Studio at Tufts, and has helped design museum exhibits on computers for the Smithsonian Institution, the Museum of Science in Boston, and the Computer Museum in Boston. Dennett has written over 300 scholarly articles on various aspects of the mind in scientific journals. His first book, Content and Consciousness, appeared in 1969. It was followed by Brainstorms (1978), Elbow Room (1984), The Intentional Stance (1987), Consciousness Explained (1991), Darwin's Dangerous Idea (1995), Kinds of Minds (1996), and Brainchildren: A Collection of Essays 1984-1996 (1998). He co-edited The Mind's I with Douglas Hofstadter in 1981. Dennett completed his D.Phil degree work under Gilbert Ryle at Oxford in 1965, and has lectured at Harvard University, Pittsburgh and the École Normale Supérieure in Paris. He has received two Guggenheim Fellowships, a Fulbright Fellowship, and a Fellowship at the Center for Advanced Studies in Behavioral Science. In 1987 he was elected to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. He spends most of his summers on his farm in Maine, where he harvests blueberries, hay and timber, and makes Normandy cider wine, when he is not sailing. He is also a sculptor.
Close.
Daniel C. Dennett
Co-Director, Center for Cognitive Studies, Tufts University
Daniel C. Dennett is the Austin B. Fletcher Professor of Philosophy, and Co-Director of the Center for Cognitive Studies, at Tufts University. His most recent book was Breaking the Spell (2006).
more »
Implicit in Dr. Dennett's proposal on a lesser scale is acquiescence and on a grander scale agreement with those candidates who would make religious proclamations [whether or not they really believe them on a personal level] merely for the purpose of getting elected. Dr. Dennett's approach is "turning a blind eye" for the sake and hope of a better future? The religious did not take such an approach in their achievements over the past quarter century. Part of their success stemmed from making their demands public and organizing their political pogroms. Even though I have great respect for Dr. Dennett and his accomplishments, I cannot accept his proposal in this instance.
I appreciate your continued polite civility despite our differences, although I do agree with your sentiments regarding the mix of religion and politics which generally makes a mess of both.
If you happen upon my postings elsewhere, you will discover that I take so-called Christian leaders to task.
Here's some major differences between them and me, which helps explain why I never go to church.
First of all, I do not subscribe to the doctrine of the Trinity. Secondly, one musn't confuse Jesus with the Son of God, even though they are essentially one and the same. This is like splitting frog hairs, I know.
The familial Biblical references are probably the best way for man to wrap his head around the relationships, but they are not literal. God the Father, Jesus the Son, brothers and sisters in Christ, the mother church. [You might note that there is not a single familial adjective ascribed to the Holy Spirit anywhere in the Bible.] The Father, Son and Holy Ghost are sort of like the Declaration of Independence, The Constitution of the United States, and the Spirit of Liberty. That's the best description I can give it. Two manifestations of God with a common Spirit. Also, Mary conceived by the Holy Spirit, so if the Holy Spirit were a separate entity from God, then God is maybe Jesus's uncle, not father.
The closest comparison I can get to the Trinity is water, which at certain temperatures can exist in three states concurrently: solid, liquid, and gas.
God is a Spirit. When He manifested himself as a material or finite being, He was the Son of God, who was neither created nor born, but always with God and always was God [Read the opening passage of John, if you feel so inclined]. Sort of like a bucket of sea water, which has exactly the same constitution as the sea, but is not the entire ocean by any means. Since they ebb and flow with one another, perhaps a better illustration would be a bucket of air, which isn't the entire atmosphere.
The Son of God took upon himself the mantle of flesh (which he, as the creator of all that is created, created himself) and indwelled the body of a man named Jesus. Jesus referred to himself alternately as the Son of Man and the Son of God. The Son of Man had to learn just like we do, and it wasn't until the end of his life that he came to a perfect understanding of the dichotomy. That's why Jesus said, "The things concerning me have an end." There is no end to God. Likewise proving his humanity, he begged off crucifixion three times. He was no demi-god or superman. It wasn't until after he rose from the dead and ascended to heaven that he became a whole new creature.
So, as I tried to answer to your previous question, the Son of God, God Manifest, was the actor in the Old Testament.
This is all very simplified, and does not speak to further mysteries. There are seven spirits of God, who is a Spirit, who is Holy, who is therefore a Holy Spirit.
Truth is, nobody will have a perfect understanding until he or she sees God and therefore has the mind of God.
I sometimes imagine that if I ever get there, the first thing I will say is, "Well, duh!"
Buddha's words and teachings were "Passed down by oral tradition, the Tripitaka, the collection of teachings attributed to Gautama by the Theravada, was committed to writing about 400 years later. "Scholars are increasingly reluctant to make unqualified claims about the historical facts of the Buddha's life and teachings."[3]
NT exegetes get very concerned about the validity of Jesus' words and teachings if there is only a twenty to thirty year gap between Jesus' life and what was written about them so a 400 year differential would put "buddha's" writings and teachings in a very skeptical region i.e. probably a collection of all the wisdom sayings from the geographical region since writing was introduced there.
Keep in mind that I understand data mining - anyone can cherry pick the few correct statements from the mass of incorrect or incoherent statements, so for every one incorrect statement in the Koran I would expect at least several correct statements, none of which could have been knowable at the time of authorship by non-supernatural means.
I'll need some assistance (CCNL? A. Kafir?). The only thing I know about the Koran is that it's fake.
Mr. Dennett, not so fast.
“Those of us who can afford to do so should risk offending all for whom taking offense is a habit and a fine defense against having to think.”
---------------------------------------
No offense taken here, just as you a secular humanist rejects the candidates’ hypocrisies.
I a Christian am unimpressed by their awkward advances upon my faith; while shamelessly groping for my vote.
When you say “The times will change” Is this prophetic utterance emanating from the “reality only please” secularist realm?
Yes, change is coming, yet where you foresee Christianity’s influence drying up, I see Christians wising up, in regard to lying politicians and the religious leaders whose agendas unfortunately run parallel to them.
Concerning your “engine of hypocrisy” Its mechanical components (lying politicians and too eager to believe them Christians) rob power from both legitimate Democracy and true Christianity.
As you patiently sit with arms crossed waiting for this engine to sputter to a stop be reminded, an engine requires a fuel source, and that the fuel source stands.. apart from .. the engine itself. When this “engine of hypocrisy” does shut down its fuel supply will still exist. This energy source unlike finite fossil fuels is inexhaustible or we can say ..is eternal, It is “faith” and faith will continually manifest itself in humanity whether secular humanist approve or not.
Sincerely
You and many others stuck to the limits of your awareness, no offense.
But for example mostly picking up same example like round earth mentioned one thousand year before.
All right for the sake of aurgument accepted.
But you (I mean all who do not WANT to engage in sensible reasoning) side slip corners to thousands of other ACKNOWLDGED PROVEN FACTS REVEALED, I said REVEALED, not evolved with out evidence, discovered, invented OR a mis mash of correct & incorrect information like in ALL OTHER devine books, or of hypothetical theories, WAY BEFORE HUMAN CAPACITY TO UNDERSTAND THEM OR TO HAVE A CLUE OF THEM.
You and many others stuck to the limits of there awareness, no offense.
But for example mostly picking up same example like round earth mentioned one thousand year before.
All right for the sake of aurgument accepted.
But you (I mean all who do not WANT to engage in sensible reasoning) side slip corners to thousands of other ACKNOWLDGED FACTS REVEALED, I said REVEALED, not evolved with out evidence, discovered, invented OR a mis mash of correct & incorrect information like in ALL OTHER devine books, or hypothetical theories WAY BEFORE HUMAN CAPACITY TO UNDERSTAND THEM.
You say you're hopeful for an afterlife - unless you gain control of your own mind you have no hope of control over the afterlife and any future life that you may experience. Get over your religious obsession and start working on your own fate.
Finding fault with various religions has no impact on your own destiny whatsover. You're wasting your time and even worse, wasting everyone else's time. This will come back to haunt you and don't doubt it.
Regarding Buddhism -- although you are correct that many fanciful stories arose about Siddhartha Guatama, and cultural influences later propogated many "Buddhist" dieties, his own words and teachings deal exclusively with examining the cause of human suffering, and the way to reduce suffering by understanding the workings of the mind.
Buddhism in its purist form is completely atheistic--it is essentially the science of the mind.
Finally the truth of it all. Hopefully the Presidential candidates will see the light of Reality i.e.
Once again as a counter to the milleniums of religious mumbo jumbo thumping:
1. Abraham founder/father of three major religions was probably an embellishment of the lives of three different men or a mythical character as was Moses, the "Tablet-Man" who talked to burning bushes and made much magic in Egypt.
2. Jesus, the illiterate Jewish peasant/carpenter possibly suffering from hallucinations, has been characterized anywhere from the Messiah from Nazareth to a mythical character from mythical Nazareth to a mamzer from Nazareth (Professor Bruce Chilton, in his book Rabbi Jesus). Analyses of Jesus’ life by many contemporary NT scholars (e.g. Professors Crossan, Borg and Fredriksen, On Faith panelists) via the NT and related documents have concluded that only about 30% of Jesus' sayings and ways noted in the NT were authentic. The rest being embellishments (e.g. miracles)/hallucinations made/had by the NT authors to impress various Christian, Jewish and Pagan sects.
The 30% of the NT that is "authentic Jesus" like everything in life was borrowed/plagiarized and/or improved from those who came before. In Jesus' case, it was the ways and sayings of the Babylonians, Greeks, Persians, Egyptians, Hittites, Canaanites, OT, John the Baptizer and possibly the ways and sayings of traveling Greek Cynics. http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html
For added "pizzazz", Catholic/Christian theologians divided god the singularity into three persons and invented atonement as an added guilt trip for the "pew people" to go along with this trinity of overseers. By doing so, they made god the padre into god the "filicider".
3. Mohammed, an illiterate, womanizing, lust and greed-driven, warmongering, hallucinating Arab, also had embellishing/hallucinating/plagiarizing scribal biographers who not only added "angels" and flying chariots to the koran but also a militaristic agenda to support the plundering and looting of the lands of non-believers.
This agenda continues as shown by the assassination of Bhutto, the conduct of the seven Muslim doctors in the UK, the 9/11 terrorists, the 24/7 Sunni suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers, the 24/7 Shiite suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers, the Islamic bombers of the trains in the UK and Spain, the Bali crazies, the Kenya crazies, the Pakistani “koranics”, the Palestine suicide bombers/rocketeers, the Lebanese nutcases, the Taliban nut jobs, and the Filipino “koranics”.
And who funds these acts of terror? The warmongering, Islamic, Shiite terror and torture theocracy of Iran aka the Third Axis of Evil and also the Sunni "Wannabees" of Saudi Arabia.
4. Luther, Calvin, Joe Smith, Henry VIII, Wesley et al, founders of Christian-based religions, also suffered from the belief in/hallucinations of "pretty wingy talking flying fictional thingie" visits and "prophecies" for profits analogous to the myths of Catholicism (resurrections, apparitions, ascensions and immaculate conceptions).
5. Hinduism (from an online Hindu site) - "Hinduism cannot be described as an organized religion. It is not founded by any individual. Hinduism is God centered and therefore one can call Hinduism as founded by God, because the answer to the question ‘Who is behind the eternal principles and who makes them work?’ will have to be ‘Cosmic power, Divine power, God’."
The caste/laborer system and cow worship are problems when saying a fair and rational God founded Hinduism."
6. Buddhism- "Buddhism began in India about 500 years before the birth of Christ. The people living at that time had become disillusioned with certain beliefs of Hinduism including the caste system, which had grown extremely complex. The number of outcasts (those who did not belong to any particular caste) was continuing to grow."
"However, in Buddhism, like so many other religions, fanciful stories arose concerning events in the life of the founder, Siddhartha Gautama (fifth century B.C.):"
Archaeological discoveries have proved, beyond a doubt, his historical character, but apart from the legends we know very little about the circumstances of his life. e.g. Buddha by one legend was supposedly talking when he came out of his mother's womb.
Bottom line: There are many good ways of living but be aware of the hallucinations, embellishments, lies and myths surrounding the founders and foundations of said rules of life.
Contrary to your previous assertion that "Jesus never killed anyone", it would seem then that Jesus, as an eternally indivisible part of the Trinity, not only killed a great many people, but apparently killed some people just because he could.
While some may chalk up these apparent contradictions to the inscrutable nature of God, I see them, purely and simply, as the product of human invention. And while there's nothing wrong with inventing hypotheses in an attempt to explain the unexplained, I steadfastly object to politicians, or anyone else, using these particular untestable hypotheses to control my behavior or, in regards to the article's topic, to shape our government.
Yes, in a manner of speaking. The God spoken of in the Old Testament was actually the Son of God, who created all creation, appeared as an angel at times, came to Abraham as Melchizedek, the King of Salem, and talked with Moses in the tent of Shiloh.
The Old Testament was a time of wars and retribution, judges and prophets.
The New Testament superceded the Old and was a time of love and forgiveness.
One might think of them as the carrot and the stick.
I don't pretend to understand all of the Old Testament, nor why tribal laws held sway. I do know that even the Hebrews couldn't deal with a God who appeared as a tornado of fire, swallowed people whole in the earth, shook mountains, and visited the earth with plagues of Biblical proportion. The Old Testament laws seem archaic and one might say barbaric, but they all had spiritual meaning having nothing to do with the ostensible purpose.
One thing difficult for Christians, and perhaps impossible for everyone else, is to accept the fact that God will do what God will do. It is not for us to judge Him, but to endeavor to understand. Paul explained it as a potter creating pots for his own purposes. Some he might use for noble purposes, some for mundane purposes, and some he may destroy as he will. I think that is the greatest stumbling block for many -- to just accept that God is justified doing whatever he does by virtue of the fact that he is God.
I do understand Jesus coming in peace, starting his ministry by making 90 gallons of wine at a party, healing afflicted persons by the thousands, and making atonement between God and man that we can receive the free gift of eternal life.
One manifestation of God was awesome and frightening. Another was totally approachable and endearing. Some folks won't have it either way.
John Stephens: "Jesus never killed anyone, neither did he advocate killing anyone, nor did he sanction killing anyone. He laid down his life rather than kill and commanded his disciples to follow his example."
If Jesus was the divine Son of God, an indivisible part of the Trinity and existing from before the beginning of time; isn't he also responsible for the Great Flood, various territorial wars, wrathful cleansings and righteous annihilations attributed to the God of the Old Testament?
Okay Pagan in case you are interested the term was borrowed from Mao's little red book. The Feminist movement majored in it with such mind blowing bits of flotsam as personhole covers and Womyn's studies (their spelling not mine). The list by the way is virtually endless. And they aren't alone.
Betty we have 'pimp my ride', A sports talk guy who refers to himself as the pimp in a box because his primary job in life is actually selling advertising. That by the way is the primary job of nearly everyone in TV and Radio and increasingly in the movies. And lets not forget the leftist tool got it backwards Chelsea was selling momma to the American people not the other way around.
No I don't particularly care for the way the term is currently used but given how things are done these days pitching a major fit and suspending him is a gross over reaction. The Clinton's, of course, loved it. Leave it to those people to never miss an opportunity for some free advertising even if they have to make a mountain out of a mole hill to do it.
As a Christian, what I find passing strange is that candidates seemingly think that these avowals serve some purpose. Who are they pandering to? The so-called Christians they apparently have in mind must be some of the dumbest, most ignorant "Christians" on the planet.
All of the candidates are perfectly willing to wage war and kill anyone who opposes the American Empire. National security is the catch phrase for warmongers. "Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel."
Jesus never killed anyone, neither did he advocate killing anyone, nor did he sanction killing anyone. He laid down his life rather than kill and commanded his disciples to follow his example.
What strange beasts, these murdering, warmongering "Christians" are.
I really don't understand this country. When I was a young man on the barricades during the antiwar movement against the Vietnam War, I figured everything would change when the old fossils died off and we came of age. Nope! Same old dope.
Well, that's interesting about JJ's ...whatever you call the basis of his ravings. I'd presumed he was the only one in his religion. Maybe someone else in it can tell him to cool it on the bigoted ravings.
And, no, JJ. I'm not the same person as any other name here. Likewise, I can tell the difference between the other folks.
The sheer amount of time you spend here, JJ, really just doesn't commend whatever it is you're trying to sell.
Consider the purpose of this board, it's about interfaith and politics, not your dumping ground for incoherent cut-and-paste.
It's not the world, it's not about you, it's people trying to communicate. However important you believe what you're saying is, it's just noise.
My bad! I can't believe I mad such a stupid mistake. It's not 1 in 2^26, it's 1 in 26 factorial or approximately 1 in 403291461000000000000000000. That's even stronger proof of the nonexistence of god!
"I have a book that says that the order of the letters of the English alphabet is abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz. It also says there is no god."
Now, probability theory says that the probability of my book's alphabetical ordering being correct is 1 in 2^26, or 1 in 67,108,864. And yet it is. Astounding! With that kind of demonstrated accuracy I can reasonable conclude that the book isn't guesswork, but TRUE KNOWLEDGE, so I can reasonably conclude that it is correct about there being no god.
You ask for reason. Would you be so kind as to further defend your understanding of probability, or you assertion that there's something divine about the Koran referring to a round Earth when the Earth was known to be round for at least a thousand years prior to the Koran's compilation?
My hostility towards your post is justified by your post's dishonesty.
Protestations of religious guidance by evangelicals in pursuit of power to dictate conduct and morals is actually a denial of Jesus Christ. USING the name of Jesus as a shield to disarm opponents they damage his Gospel and advance their own creed.
Maybe John McCain will cause the end of this incomprehensible pandering to the worst elements of American religion. He will pander to the whack-os, and as with all of his pandering, it will be completely unconvincing and at odds with hours and hours of his previous statements. Interestingly, he is demonstrably the least religious of the three candidates still standing (I exclude Radical Cleric Mike Huckabee). But he will try to convince people that he is the the One True standard bearer of the Religious Right.
A few more months of that and everybody will have had enough and maybe our political discourse will be cleansed.
I know you're a fanatic and there's no reason to argue with you, but you last post is one of the most ridiculous, ignorant things I've ever read! It's wrong on every count! I especially liked the probability discussions - you obviously don't know a thing about probability, and I can say that with a certainty of 100% (not the 50% that you think it should be).
Your understanding of science is equally pathetic. You say "The Qur’an speaks about hundreds of things that were not known to men at the time of its revelation." One example you give is the round Earth. Don't you know that the ancient Egyptians knew the Earth was round? Didn't you know that the Greek scientist Eratosthenes accurately measured the circumference of the Earth in the third century BC? That's many centuries before Islam even existed. Ditto with moonlight - it's been known to be reflected light since antiquity. Haven't you ever heard of Ptolmey?
If I sound harsh it's because you should know better than to post this kind of rubbish. It is yet again another example of BAD FAITH from someone OF FAITH. You are trying to deceive people into belief. That, my friend, is evil.
Face it - you believe BECAUSE YOU BELIEVE. Pure and simple. You find it cathartic and meaningful to be a part of your religious community. If you were able to articulate the value of Islam from this perspective you would be worthy of respect. But you can't, or you won't, so you aren't.
If all this comes as a shock, if you actually believe the arguments in your post, then you are being deceived by those you trust most. Learn a little about probability and you'll soon see that you've been lied to. Learn a little about the history of science and you'll soon see that you've been lied to. Learn to think logically and you'll soon see that you;re being lied to. Open your mind, and maybe your heart will follow.
PROVING THE EXISTENCE OF ALLAH (SWT)TO AN ATHEIST
by Dr. Zakir Naik
CONGRATULATING AN ATHEIST
Normally, when I meet an atheist, the first thing I like to do is to congratulate him and say, " My special congratulations to you", because most of the people who believe in God are doing blind belief - he is a Christian, because his father is a Christian; he is a Hindu, because his father is a Hindu; the majority of the people in the world are blindly following the religion of their fathers. An atheist, on the other hand, even though he may belong to a religious family, uses his intellect to deny the existence of God; what ever concept or qualities of God he may have learnt in his religion may not seem to be logical to him.
My Muslim brothers may question me, "Zakir, why are you congratulating an atheist?" The reason that I am congratulating an atheist is because he agrees with the first part of the Shahada i.e. the Islamic Creed, ‘La ilaaha’ - meaning ‘there is no God’. So half my job is already done; now the only part left is ‘il lallah’ i.e. ‘BUT ALLAH’ which I shall do Insha Allah. With others (who are not atheists) I have to first remove from their minds the wrong concept of God they may have and then put the correct concept of one true God.
LOGICAL CONCEPT OF GOD
My first question to the atheist will be: "What is the definition of God?" For a person to say there is no God, he should know what is the meaning of God. If I hold a book and say that ‘this is a pen’, for the opposite person to say, ‘it is not a pen’, he should know what is the definition of a pen, even if he does not know nor is able to recognise or identify the object I am holding in my hand. For him to say this is not a pen, he should at least know what a pen means. Similarly for an atheist to say ‘there is no God’, he should at least know the concept of God. His concept of God would be derived from the surroundings in which he lives. The god that a large number of people worship has got human qualities - therefore he does not believe in such a god. Similarly a Muslim too does not and should not believe in such false gods.
If a non-Muslim believes that Islam is a merciless religion with something to do with terrorism; a religion which does not give rights to women; a religion which contradicts science; in his limited sense that non-Muslim is correct to reject such Islam. The problem is he has a wrong picture of Islam. Even I reject such a false picture of Islam, but at the same time, it becomes my duty as a Muslim to present the correct picture of Islam to that non-Muslim i.e. Islam is a merciful religion, it gives equal rights to the women, it is not incompatible with logic, reason and science; if I present the correct facts about Islam, that non-Muslim may Inshallah accept Islam.
Similarly the atheist rejects the false gods and the duty of every Muslim is to present the correct concept of God which he shall Insha Allah not refuse.
(You may refer to my article, ‘Concept of God in Islam’, for more details)
QUR’AN AND MODERN SCIENCE
The methods of proving the existence of God with usage of the material provided in the ‘Concept of God in Islam’ to an atheist may satisfy some but not all.
Many atheists demand a scientific proof for the existence of God. I agree that today is the age of science and technology. Let us use scientific knowledge to kill two birds with one stone, i.e. to prove the existence of God and simultaneously prove that the Qur’an is a revelation of God.
If a new object or a machine, which no one in the world has ever seen or heard of before, is shown to an atheist or any person and then a question is asked, " Who is the first person who will be able to provide details of the mechanism of this unknown object? After little bit of thinking, he will reply, ‘the creator of that object.’ Some may say ‘the producer’ while others may say ‘the manufacturer.’ What ever answer the person gives, keep it in your mind, the answer will always be either the creator, the producer, the manufacturer or some what of the same meaning, i.e. the person who has made it or created it. Don’t grapple with words, whatever answer he gives, the meaning will be same, therefore accept it.
SCIENTIFIC FACTS MENTIONED IN THE QUR’AN: for details on this subject please refer to my book, ‘THE QUR’AN AND MODERN SCIENCE – COMPATIBLE OR INCOMPATIBLE?
THEORY OF PROBABILITY
In mathematics there is a theory known as ‘Theory of Probability’. If you have two options, out of which one is right, and one is wrong, the chances that you will chose the right one is half, i.e. one out of the two will be correct. You have 50% chances of being correct. Similarly if you toss a coin the chances that your guess will be correct is 50% (1 out of 2) i.e. 1/2. If you toss a coin the second time, the chances that you will be correct in the second toss is again 50% i.e. half. But the chances that you will be correct in both the tosses is half multiplied by half (1/2 x 1/2) which is equal to 1/4 i.e. 50% of 50% which is equal to 25%. If you toss a coin the third time, chances that you will be correct all three times is (1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2) that is 1/8 or 50% of 50% of 50% that is 12½%.
A dice has got six sides. If you throw a dice and guess any number between 1 to 6, the chances that your guess will be correct is 1/6. If you throw the dice the second time, the chances that your guess will be correct in both the throws is (1/6 x 1/6) which is equal to 1/36. If you throw the dice the third time, the chances that all your three guesses are correct is (1/6 x 1/6 x 1/6) is equal to 1/216 that is less than 0.5 %.
Let us apply this theory of probability to the Qur’an, and assume that a person has guessed all the information that is mentioned in the Qur’an which was unknown at that time. Let us discuss the probability of all the guesses being simultaneously correct.
At the time when the Qur’an was revealed, people thought the world was flat, there are several other options for the shape of the earth. It could be triangular, it could be quadrangular, pentagonal, hexagonal, heptagonal, octagonal, spherical, etc. Lets assume there are about 30 different options for the shape of the earth. The Qur’an rightly says it is spherical, if it was a guess the chances of the guess being correct is 1/30.
The light of the moon can be its own light or a reflected light. The Qur’an rightly says it is a reflected light. If it is a guess, the chances that it will be correct is 1/2 and the probability that both the guesses i.e the earth is spherical and the light of the moon is reflected light is 1/30 x 1/2 = 1/60.
Further, the Qur’an also mentions every living thing is made of water. Every living thing can be made up of either wood, stone, copper, aluminum, steel, silver, gold, oxygen, nitrogen, hydrogen, oil, water, cement, concrete, etc. The options are say about 10,000. The Qur’an rightly says that everything is made up of water. If it is a guess, the chances that it will be correct is 1/10,000 and the probability of all the three guesses i.e. the earth is spherical, light of moon is reflected light and everything is created from water being correct is 1/30 x 1/2 x 1/10,000 = 1/60,000 which is equal to about .0017%.
The Qur’an speaks about hundreds of things that were not known to men at the time of its revelation. Only in three options the result is .0017%. I leave it upto you, to work out the probability if all the hundreds of the unknown facts were guesses, the chances of all of them being correct guesses simultaneously and there being not a single wrong guess. It is beyond human capacity to make all correct guesses without a single mistake, which itself is sufficient to prove to a logical person that the origin of the Qur’an is Divine.
CREATOR IS THE AUTHOR OF THE QUR’AN
The only logical answer to the question as to who could have mentioned all these scientific facts 1400 years ago before they were discovered, is exactly the same answer initially given by the atheist or any person, to the question who will be the first person who will be able to tell the mechanism of the unknown object. It is the ‘CREATOR’, the producer, the Manufacturer of the whole universe and its contents. In the English language He is ‘God’, or more appropriate in the Arabic language, ‘ALLAH’.
QUR’AN IS A BOOK OF SIGNS AND NOT SCIENCE
Let me remind you that the Qur’an is not a book of Science, ‘S-C-I-E-N-C-E’ but a book of Signs ‘S-I-G-N-S’ i.e. a book of ayaats. The Qur’an contains more than 6,000 ayaats, i.e. ‘signs’, out of which more than a thousand speak about Science. I am not trying to prove that the Qur’an is the word of God using scientific knowledge as a yard stick because any yardstick is supposed to be more superior than what is being checked or verified. For us Muslims the Qur’an is the Furqan i.e. criteria to judge right from wrong and the ultimate yardstick which is more superior to scientific knowledge.
But for an educated man who is an atheist, scientific knowledge is the ultimate test which he believes in. We do know that science many a times takes ‘U’ turns, therefore I have restricted the examples only to scientific facts which have sufficient proof and evidence and not scientific theories based on assumptions. Using the ultimate yardstick of the atheist, I am trying to prove to him that the Qur’an is the word of God and it contains the scientific knowledge which is his yardstick which was discovered recently, while the Qur’an was revealed 1400 year ago. At the end of the discussion, we both come to the same conclusion that God though superior to science, is not incompatible with it.
SCIENCE IS ELIMINATING MODELS OF GOD BUT NOT GOD
Francis Bacon, the famous philosopher, has rightly said that a little knowledge of science makes man an atheist, but an in-depth study of science makes him a believer in God. Scientists today are eliminating models of God, but they are not eliminating God. If you translate this into Arabic, it is La illaha illal la, There is no god, (god with a small ‘g’ that is fake god) but God (with a capital ‘G’).
Surah Fussilat:
"Soon We will show them our signs in the (farthest) regions (of the earth), and in their own souls, until it becomes manifest to them that this is the Truth. Is it not enough that thy Lord doth witness all things?"
Why does Islam degrade women by keeping them behind the veil?
Answer:
The status of women in Islam is often the target of attacks in the secular media. The ‘hijaab’ or the Islamic dress is cited by many as an example of the ‘subjugation’ of women under Islamic law. Before we analyze the reasoning behind the religiously mandated ‘hijaab’, let us first study the status of women in societies before the advent of Islam
1. In the past women were degraded and used as objects of lust
The following examples from history amply illustrate the fact that the status of women in earlier civilizations was very low to the extent that they were denied basic human dignity:
Babylonian Civilization:
The women were degraded and were denied all rights under the Babylonian law. If a man murdered a woman, instead of him being punished, his wife was put to death.
Greek Civilization:
Greek Civilization is considered the most glorious of all ancient civilizations. Under this very ‘glorious’ system, women were deprived of all rights and were looked down upon. In Greek mythology, an ‘imaginary woman’ called ‘Pandora’ is the root cause of misfortune of human beings. The Greeks considered women to be subhuman and inferior to men. Though chastity of women was precious, and women were held in high esteem, the Greeks were later overwhelmed by ego and sexual perversions. Prostitution became a regular practice amongst all classes of Greek society.
Roman Civilization:
When Roman Civilization was at the zenith of its ‘glory’, a man even had the right to take the life of his wife. Prostitution and nudity were common amongst the Romans.
Egyptian Civilization:
The Egyptian considered women evil and as a sign of a devil.
Pre-Islamic Arabia:
Before Islam spread in Arabia, the Arabs looked down upon women and very often when a female child was born, she was buried alive.
2. Islam uplifted women and gave them equality and expects them to maintain their status.
Islam uplifted the status of women and granted them their just rights 1400 years ago. Islam expects women to maintain their status.
Hijaab for men
People usually only discuss ‘hijaab’ in the context of women. However, in the Glorious Qur’an, Allah (swt) first mentions ‘hijaab’ for men before ‘hijaab’ for the women. The Qur’an mentions in Surah Noor:
"Say to the believing men that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty: that will make for greater purity for them: and Allah is well acquainted with all that they do."
[Al-Qur’an 24:30]
The moment a man looks at a woman and if any brazen or unashamed thought comes to his mind, he should lower his gaze.
Hijaab for women.
The next verse of Surah Noor, says:
" And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what (must ordinarily) appear thereof; that they should draw veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands, their fathers, their husbands’ fathers, their sons..."
[Al-Qur’an 24:31]
3. Six criteria for Hijaab.
According to Qur’an and Sunnah there are basically six criteria for observing hijaab:
Extent:
The first criterion is the extent of the body that should be covered. This is different for men and women. The extent of covering obligatory on the male is to cover the body at least from the navel to the knees. For women, the extent of covering obligatory is to cover the complete body except the face and the hands upto the wrist. If they wish to, they can cover even these parts of the body. Some scholars of Islam insist that the face and the hands are part of the obligatory extent of ‘hijaab’.
All the remaining five criteria are the same for men and women.
The clothes worn should be loose and should not reveal the figure.
The clothes worn should not be transparent such that one can see through them.
The clothes worn should not be so glamorous as to attract the opposite sex.
The clothes worn should not resemble that of the opposite sex.
The clothes worn should not resemble that of the unbelievers i.e. they should not wear clothes that are specifically identities or symbols of the unbelievers’ religions.
4. Hijaab includes conduct and behaviour among other things
Complete ‘hijaab’, besides the six criteria of clothing, also includes the moral conduct, behaviour, attitude and intention of the individual. A person only fulfilling the criteria of ‘hijaab’ of the clothes is observing ‘hijaab’ in a limited sense. ‘Hijaab’ of the clothes should be accompanied by ‘hijaab’ of the eyes, ‘hijaab’ of the heart, ‘hijaab’ of thought and ‘hijaab’ of intention. It also includes the way a person walks, the way a person talks, the way he behaves, etc.
5. Hijaab prevents molestation
The reason why Hijaab is prescribed for women is mentioned in the Qur’an in the following verses of Surah Al-Ahzab:
"O Prophet! Tell thy wives and daughters, and the believing women that they should cast their outer garments over their persons (when abroad); that is most convenient, that they should be known (as such) and not molested. And Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful."
[Al-Qur’an 33:59]
The Qur’an says that Hijaab has been prescribed for the women so that they are recognized as modest women and this will also prevent them from being molested.
6. Example of twin sisters
Suppose two sisters who are twins, and who are equally beautiful, walk down the street. One of them is attired in the Islamic hijaab i.e. the complete body is covered, except for the face and the hands up to the wrists. The other sister is wearing western clothes, a mini skirt or shorts. Just around the corner there is a hooligan or ruffian who is waiting for a catch, to tease a girl. Whom will he tease? The girl wearing the Islamic Hijaab or the girl wearing the skirt or the mini? Naturally he will tease the girl wearing the skirt or the mini. Such dresses are an indirect invitation to the opposite sex for teasing and molestation. The Qur’an rightly says that hijaab prevents women from being molested.
7. Capital punishment for the rapists
Under the Islamic shariah, a man convicted of having raped a woman, is given capital punishment. Many are astonished at this ‘harsh’ sentence. Some even say that Islam is a ruthless, barbaric religion! I have asked a simple question to hundreds of non-Muslim men. Suppose, God forbid, someone rapes your wife, your mother or your sister. You are made the judge and the rapist is brought in front of you. What punishment would you give him? All of them said they would put him to death. Some went to the extent of saying they would torture him to death. To them I ask, if someone rapes your wife or your mother you want to put him to death. But if the same crime is committed on somebody else’s wife or daughter you say capital punishment is barbaric. Why should there be double standards?
8. Western society falsely claims to have uplifted women
Western talk of women’s liberalization is nothing but a disguised form of exploitation of her body, degradation of her soul, and deprivation of her honour. Western society claims to have ‘uplifted’ women. On the contrary it has actually degraded them to the status of concubines, mistresses and society butterflies who are mere tools in the hands of pleasure seekers and sex marketeers, hidden behind the colourful screen of ‘art’ and ‘culture’.
9. USA has one of the highest rates of rape
United States of America is supposed to be one of the most advanced countries of the world. It also has one of the highest rates of rape in any country in the world. According to a FBI report, in the year 1990, every day on an average 1756 cases of rape were committed in U.S.A alone. Later another report said that on an average everyday 1900 cases of rapes are committed in USA. The year was not mentioned. May be it was 1992 or 1993. May be the Americans got ‘bolder’ in the following years.
Consider a scenario where the Islamic hijaab is followed in America. Whenever a man looks at a woman and any brazen or unashamed thought comes to his mind, he lowers his gaze. Every woman wears the Islamic hijaab, that is the complete body is covered except the face and the hands upto the wrist. After this if any man commits rape he is given capital punishment. I ask you, in such a scenario, will the rate of rape in America increase, will it remain the same, or will it decrease?
10. Implementation of Islamic Shariah will reduce the rate of rapes
Naturally as soon as Islamic Shariah is implemented positive results will be inevitable. If Islamic Shariah is implemented in any part of the world, whether it is America or Europe, society will breathe easier. Hijaab does not degrade a woman but uplifts a woman and protects her modesty and chastity.
Why are most of the Muslims fundamentalists and terrorists?
Answer:
This question is often hurled at Muslims, either directly or indirectly, during any discussion on religion or world affairs. Muslim stereotypes are perpetuated in every form of the media accompanied by gross misinformation about Islam and Muslims. In fact, such misinformation and false propaganda often leads to discrimination and acts of violence against Muslims. A case in point is the anti-Muslim campaign in the American media following the Oklahoma bomb blast, where the press was quick to declare a ‘Middle Eastern conspiracy’ behind the attack. The culprit was later identified as a soldier from the American Armed Forces.
Let us analyze this allegation of ‘fundamentalism’ and ‘terrorism’:
1. Definition of the word ‘fundamentalist’
A fundamentalist is a person who follows and adheres to the fundamentals of the doctrine or theory he is following. For a person to be a good doctor, he should know, follow, and practise the fundamentals of medicine. In other words, he should be a fundamentalist in the field of medicine. For a person to be a good mathematician, he should know, follow and practise the fundamentals of mathematics. He should be a fundamentalist in the field of mathematics. For a person to be a good scientist, he should know, follow and practise the fundamentals of science. He should be a fundamentalist in the field of science.
2. Not all ‘fundamentalists’ are the same
One cannot paint all fundamentalists with the same brush. One cannot categorize all fundamentalists as either good or bad. Such a categorization of any fund amentalist will depend upon the field or activity in which he is a fundamentalist. A fundamentalist robber or thief causes harm to society and is therefore undesirable. A fundamentalist doctor, on the other hand, benefits society and earns much respect.
3. I am proud to be a Muslim fundamentalist
I am a fundamentalist Muslim who, by the grace of Allah, knows, follows and strives to practise the fundamentals of Islam. A true Muslim does not shy away from being a fundamentalist. I am proud to be a fundamentalist Muslim because, I know that the fundamentals of Islam are beneficial to humanity and the whole world. There is not a single fundamental of Islam that causes harm or is against the interests of the human race as a whole. Many people harbour misconceptions about Islam and consider several teachings of Islam to be unfair or improper. This is due to insufficient and incorrect knowledge of Islam. If one critically analyzes the teachings of Islam with an open mind, one cannot escape the fact that Islam is full of benefits both at the individual and collective levels.
4. Dictionary meaning of the word ‘fundamentalist’
According to Webster’s dictionary ‘fundamentalism’ was a movement in American Protestanism that arose in the earlier part of the 20th century. It was a reaction to modernism, and stressed the infallibility of the Bible, not only in matters of faith and morals but also as a literal historical record. It stressed on belief in the Bible as the literal word of God. Thus fundamentalism was a word initially used for a group of Christians who believed that the Bible was the verbatim word of God without any errors and mistakes.
According to the Oxford dictionary ‘fundamentalism’ means ‘strict maintenance of ancient or fundamental doctrines of any religion, especially Islam’.
Today the moment a person uses the word fundamentalist he thinks of a Muslim who is a terrorist.
5. Every Muslim should be a terrorist
Every Muslim should be a terrorist. A terrorist is a person who causes terror. The moment a robber sees a policeman he is terrified. A policeman is a terrorist for the robber. Similarly every Muslim should be a terrorist for the antisocial elements of society, such as thieves, dacoits and rapists. Whenever such an anti-social element sees a Muslim, he should be terrified. It is true that the word ‘terrorist’ is generally used for a person who causes terror among the common people. But a true Muslim should only be a terrorist to selective people i.e. anti-social elements, and not to the common innocent people. In fact a Muslim should be a source of peace for innocent people.
6. Different labels given to the same individual for the same action, i.e. ‘terrorist’ and ‘patriot’
Before India achieved independence from British rule, some freedom fighters of India who did not subscribe to non-violence were labeled as terrorists by the British government. The same individuals have been lauded by Indians for the same activities and hailed as ‘patriots’. Thus two different labels have been given to the same people for the same set of actions. One is calling him a terrorist while the other is calling him a patriot. Those who believed that Britain had a right to rule over India called these people terrorists, while those who were of the view that Britain had no right to rule India called them patriots and freedom fighters.
It is therefore important that before a person is judged, he is given a fair hearing. Both sides of the argument should be heard, the situation should be analyzed, and the reason and the intention of the person should be taken into account, and then the person can be judged accordingly.
7. Islam means peace
Islam is derived from the word ‘salaam’ which means peace. It is a religion of peace whose fundamentals teach its followers to maintain and promote peace throughout the world.
Thus every Muslim should be a fundamentalist i.e. he should follow the fundamentals of the Religion of Peace: Islam. He should be a terrorist only towards the antisocial elements in order to promote peace and justice in the society.
"The habitually offended are not generally Christians in general they are secularists who seem to be offended by almost anything."
Gee, that sounds like something I've heard before... Oh yeah - it sounds like a creationist announcing that the theory of evolution is "flawed science". What next? The corresponding question to "if people are descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" ?
FTR, I generally rate Muslims as more easily offended than your garden variety Christian. And Isamic extremists certainly more so than the most rabid Christian evangelists. I don't remember any riots, for example, over Jesus cartoons. But curiously, Christians are the Protected Ones when it comes to offense in this society.
Not sure I share Dennet's optimism that this too shall pass. A precipitous population crash may have to be in the offing first.
I believe he comes across as mild only because it is so difficult to decipher the hard bigotry contained in his ramblings.
Here's more on his sham-cult:
Church of the New Song: Prison Profile
CONS was Founded by inmates at Atlanta Federal Penitentiary in Georgia. The Church of the New Song gained full status as a religion in 1974 by the Supreme Court of the United States.
According to the Associated Press, the prison group has no formal headquarters, and false notions that the gang has a base of operations in Bluffs, Illinois should not be confused with the uncongregated religion of the same name. It was founded in Atlanta Federal Penitentiary, but has since spread to Iowa State Penitentiary in Fort Madison, where it gained religious sanction by the state at about the same time the US Supreme Court recognized it as a religion.
The Church of the New Song has allegedly participated in voodoo rituals in prison, apparently tolerated by prison authorities as long as the Church respect the wishes of the prison and refain from laying curses on the warden. Their religion is based on "Eclatarianism," the belief in a pervasive, harmonizing spirit called the Eclat, an inanimate and ultimate power similar to the Christian God.
In 1997 a group of Church of the New Song inmates in Iowa, led by George Goff, led an unsuccessful appeal to a three-judge panel arguing that prison officials were discriminating against inmates who were being locked in administrative segregation without access to the food trays from a church-sponsored "Celebration of Life" banquet. Apparently, the panel discovered through several informants that the Church was simply a "sham religion that exist[ed] only in the prison context" (22 February 2005 The Des Moines Register).
Iowa state authorities were at the time seeking to strip the Church's formal status as a religion, granted to the Church in 1974. Lawyers attested that the religion was nothing but a security threat group intent on planning and preparing criminal acts, including assaults, behind prison walls. State lawyers and correctional officials filed court papers that allege the gang is primarily a white-supremacist group involved in threats, coercion, and violence, and posing a serious threat to correctional employees and other inmates. They have also alleged that the Church participates in "attempted murder, assault, drug trafficking and extortion" (2 April 2004 Associated Press)
"...never has the Democratic party been one of selfishness and division. We are individualistic..and that has been our down fall...no lock step for the Dems."
I'm glad this has been your experience in your chosen party affiliation. Either you're exceptionally lucky, or you project your own integrity and open-mindedness on an organization that may or may not deserve it. It has not been my experience at all, whether with the socialists, the democrats, or (obviously) the republicans. There is always a faction preaching party unity over personal choice or individual freedom. Which is why I stay registered in the party whose original philosophy appeals to me most, but vote for whomever I please.
Nice clear short piece by Dennett. Unfortunately I think he has it right. And those of us who believe that a secular approach is what we need in the long run have to be more vocal about our prespective if we can take the heat. I spent many years trying to be invisible on the topic of religion, but have started in the last few years to be more vocal about my atheistic philosophy - partly because my position in my workplace and in the community is secure and I don't have to worry about fallout.
Or, if you don't mind being 'offended,' GaryD, 'PC' is the imaginary 'oppression' and 'offensiveness' bigots whine about when they get politely called on being ignorant bigots. :)
*laughing to Purple.* Sure, it's a date. :) Well, not a date. A date that-s-not-a-date, maybe. :)
Little Pagan joke there.
Actually, if the Summerlands were a big Pagan festival, the garbanzo beans could potentially become a bit like torture for us carnivores. (In-joke for festival organizers: there's a *lot* of vegetarians to feed, you see. :)
And, no, we don't actually believe in particular forms of afterlife that way, not necessarily or in a unified way, ...it's both not the important part to us, (One traditional picture of what comes after or between lives is *not,* to us, the *point* of our religion, and in fact is greeted with great suspicion when used by religious leaders and politicians as a way to enforce obedience through fears and forms and expectations... we can entertain any number of notions about these things because they just aren't about fear and reward and compulsion to us in the same way...)
Me, I believe much the same as certain ancestors of mine did, and also believe it's OK to do so, even if maybe I'm surprised what it'll really look like later when relieved of this particular brain.... It's when people get deadly-serious and fearful about the fate of their personal souls that you get the social and religious oppressions Pagans seek to avoid like a rotten potato. :))
I think it's the very idea that 'Only one of these religions, if any, can be right, and the universe has to be that way for some unquestioned reason,' that not only creates corruption in religious authorities, but also many of the woes that come of blindness and abuse of power: such views put people's very sense of their souls' survival at stake on the basis they're 'Right' about something that cannot be discussed reasonably.
Who says you have to be? You can have *something,* use it well.
paganplace, OK, I can handle that. If, in the fullness of time, we end up meeting in the Summerlands, can I buy you a beer? I'll be the skinny guy with the short gray beard wandering around with a bemused look on his face and saying, "wow...didn't see that one coming."
"Betty that would be no. Rather political correctness is the peculiarly leftist concept that everyone has the right to not be offended. It is in short antithetical to free speech and common sense."
No, that's how imaginary 'Political Correctness' is defined when right-wingers (who get 'offended' on any occasion right-wing Christianity is *not* exclusively invoked and bowed to,) want to claim their being 'oppressed' when someone tells them they're being ignorant and hateful and uncivil.
Betty that would be no. Rather political correctness is the peculiarly leftist concept that everyone has the right to not be offended. It is in short antithetical to free speech and common sense.
All Comments (148)
Implicit in Dr. Dennett's proposal on a lesser scale is acquiescence and on a grander scale agreement with those candidates who would make religious proclamations [whether or not they really believe them on a personal level] merely for the purpose of getting elected. Dr. Dennett's approach is "turning a blind eye" for the sake and hope of a better future? The religious did not take such an approach in their achievements over the past quarter century. Part of their success stemmed from making their demands public and organizing their political pogroms. Even though I have great respect for Dr. Dennett and his accomplishments, I cannot accept his proposal in this instance.
February 13, 2008 4:37 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 13, 2008 16:37
NEAL:
I appreciate your continued polite civility despite our differences, although I do agree with your sentiments regarding the mix of religion and politics which generally makes a mess of both.
If you happen upon my postings elsewhere, you will discover that I take so-called Christian leaders to task.
Here's some major differences between them and me, which helps explain why I never go to church.
First of all, I do not subscribe to the doctrine of the Trinity. Secondly, one musn't confuse Jesus with the Son of God, even though they are essentially one and the same. This is like splitting frog hairs, I know.
The familial Biblical references are probably the best way for man to wrap his head around the relationships, but they are not literal. God the Father, Jesus the Son, brothers and sisters in Christ, the mother church. [You might note that there is not a single familial adjective ascribed to the Holy Spirit anywhere in the Bible.] The Father, Son and Holy Ghost are sort of like the Declaration of Independence, The Constitution of the United States, and the Spirit of Liberty. That's the best description I can give it. Two manifestations of God with a common Spirit. Also, Mary conceived by the Holy Spirit, so if the Holy Spirit were a separate entity from God, then God is maybe Jesus's uncle, not father.
The closest comparison I can get to the Trinity is water, which at certain temperatures can exist in three states concurrently: solid, liquid, and gas.
God is a Spirit. When He manifested himself as a material or finite being, He was the Son of God, who was neither created nor born, but always with God and always was God [Read the opening passage of John, if you feel so inclined]. Sort of like a bucket of sea water, which has exactly the same constitution as the sea, but is not the entire ocean by any means. Since they ebb and flow with one another, perhaps a better illustration would be a bucket of air, which isn't the entire atmosphere.
The Son of God took upon himself the mantle of flesh (which he, as the creator of all that is created, created himself) and indwelled the body of a man named Jesus. Jesus referred to himself alternately as the Son of Man and the Son of God. The Son of Man had to learn just like we do, and it wasn't until the end of his life that he came to a perfect understanding of the dichotomy. That's why Jesus said, "The things concerning me have an end." There is no end to God. Likewise proving his humanity, he begged off crucifixion three times. He was no demi-god or superman. It wasn't until after he rose from the dead and ascended to heaven that he became a whole new creature.
So, as I tried to answer to your previous question, the Son of God, God Manifest, was the actor in the Old Testament.
This is all very simplified, and does not speak to further mysteries. There are seven spirits of God, who is a Spirit, who is Holy, who is therefore a Holy Spirit.
Truth is, nobody will have a perfect understanding until he or she sees God and therefore has the mind of God.
I sometimes imagine that if I ever get there, the first thing I will say is, "Well, duh!"
February 12, 2008 4:34 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 12, 2008 04:34
B-man,
Buddha's words and teachings were "Passed down by oral tradition, the Tripitaka, the collection of teachings attributed to Gautama by the Theravada, was committed to writing about 400 years later. "Scholars are increasingly reluctant to make unqualified claims about the historical facts of the Buddha's life and teachings."[3]
NT exegetes get very concerned about the validity of Jesus' words and teachings if there is only a twenty to thirty year gap between Jesus' life and what was written about them so a 400 year differential would put "buddha's" writings and teachings in a very skeptical region i.e. probably a collection of all the wisdom sayings from the geographical region since writing was introduced there.
February 11, 2008 6:30 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 11, 2008 18:30
Anon,
The Truth sometimes hurts. It is time to give up your years of religious brainwashing. There are five step programs for this if you are interested.
February 11, 2008 5:39 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 11, 2008 17:39
Oh, and Moody,
Keep in mind that I understand data mining - anyone can cherry pick the few correct statements from the mass of incorrect or incoherent statements, so for every one incorrect statement in the Koran I would expect at least several correct statements, none of which could have been knowable at the time of authorship by non-supernatural means.
I'll need some assistance (CCNL? A. Kafir?). The only thing I know about the Koran is that it's fake.
February 11, 2008 12:43 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 11, 2008 12:43
Moody,
Like what? Give me the top five.
February 11, 2008 12:38 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 11, 2008 12:38
Mr. Dennett, not so fast.
“Those of us who can afford to do so should risk offending all for whom taking offense is a habit and a fine defense against having to think.”
---------------------------------------
No offense taken here, just as you a secular humanist rejects the candidates’ hypocrisies.
I a Christian am unimpressed by their awkward advances upon my faith; while shamelessly groping for my vote.
When you say “The times will change” Is this prophetic utterance emanating from the “reality only please” secularist realm?
Yes, change is coming, yet where you foresee Christianity’s influence drying up, I see Christians wising up, in regard to lying politicians and the religious leaders whose agendas unfortunately run parallel to them.
Concerning your “engine of hypocrisy” Its mechanical components (lying politicians and too eager to believe them Christians) rob power from both legitimate Democracy and true Christianity.
As you patiently sit with arms crossed waiting for this engine to sputter to a stop be reminded, an engine requires a fuel source, and that the fuel source stands.. apart from .. the engine itself. When this “engine of hypocrisy” does shut down its fuel supply will still exist. This energy source unlike finite fossil fuels is inexhaustible or we can say ..is eternal, It is “faith” and faith will continually manifest itself in humanity whether secular humanist approve or not.
Sincerely
February 11, 2008 8:16 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 11, 2008 08:16
Chris Everett:
You and many others stuck to the limits of your awareness, no offense.
But for example mostly picking up same example like round earth mentioned one thousand year before.
All right for the sake of aurgument accepted.
But you (I mean all who do not WANT to engage in sensible reasoning) side slip corners to thousands of other ACKNOWLDGED PROVEN FACTS REVEALED, I said REVEALED, not evolved with out evidence, discovered, invented OR a mis mash of correct & incorrect information like in ALL OTHER devine books, or of hypothetical theories, WAY BEFORE HUMAN CAPACITY TO UNDERSTAND THEM OR TO HAVE A CLUE OF THEM.
February 11, 2008 6:55 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 11, 2008 06:55
Chris Everett:
You and many others stuck to the limits of there awareness, no offense.
But for example mostly picking up same example like round earth mentioned one thousand year before.
All right for the sake of aurgument accepted.
But you (I mean all who do not WANT to engage in sensible reasoning) side slip corners to thousands of other ACKNOWLDGED FACTS REVEALED, I said REVEALED, not evolved with out evidence, discovered, invented OR a mis mash of correct & incorrect information like in ALL OTHER devine books, or hypothetical theories WAY BEFORE HUMAN CAPACITY TO UNDERSTAND THEM.
February 11, 2008 6:51 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 11, 2008 06:51
His desperate attempts to draw attention to himself above are quite hilarious, and pathetic.
February 11, 2008 12:17 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 11, 2008 00:17
CCNL -
You say you're hopeful for an afterlife - unless you gain control of your own mind you have no hope of control over the afterlife and any future life that you may experience. Get over your religious obsession and start working on your own fate.
Finding fault with various religions has no impact on your own destiny whatsover. You're wasting your time and even worse, wasting everyone else's time. This will come back to haunt you and don't doubt it.
February 10, 2008 10:44 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 10, 2008 22:44
CCNL:
Regarding Buddhism -- although you are correct that many fanciful stories arose about Siddhartha Guatama, and cultural influences later propogated many "Buddhist" dieties, his own words and teachings deal exclusively with examining the cause of human suffering, and the way to reduce suffering by understanding the workings of the mind.
Buddhism in its purist form is completely atheistic--it is essentially the science of the mind.
February 10, 2008 10:36 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 10, 2008 22:36
Finally the truth of it all. Hopefully the Presidential candidates will see the light of Reality i.e.
Once again as a counter to the milleniums of religious mumbo jumbo thumping:
1. Abraham founder/father of three major religions was probably an embellishment of the lives of three different men or a mythical character as was Moses, the "Tablet-Man" who talked to burning bushes and made much magic in Egypt.
1.5 million Conservative Jews and their rabbis have relegated Abraham to the myth pile along with most if not all the OT. http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/ConservativeTorah.htm
2. Jesus, the illiterate Jewish peasant/carpenter possibly suffering from hallucinations, has been characterized anywhere from the Messiah from Nazareth to a mythical character from mythical Nazareth to a mamzer from Nazareth (Professor Bruce Chilton, in his book Rabbi Jesus). Analyses of Jesus’ life by many contemporary NT scholars (e.g. Professors Crossan, Borg and Fredriksen, On Faith panelists) via the NT and related documents have concluded that only about 30% of Jesus' sayings and ways noted in the NT were authentic. The rest being embellishments (e.g. miracles)/hallucinations made/had by the NT authors to impress various Christian, Jewish and Pagan sects.
The 30% of the NT that is "authentic Jesus" like everything in life was borrowed/plagiarized and/or improved from those who came before. In Jesus' case, it was the ways and sayings of the Babylonians, Greeks, Persians, Egyptians, Hittites, Canaanites, OT, John the Baptizer and possibly the ways and sayings of traveling Greek Cynics. http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html
For added "pizzazz", Catholic/Christian theologians divided god the singularity into three persons and invented atonement as an added guilt trip for the "pew people" to go along with this trinity of overseers. By doing so, they made god the padre into god the "filicider".
3. Mohammed, an illiterate, womanizing, lust and greed-driven, warmongering, hallucinating Arab, also had embellishing/hallucinating/plagiarizing scribal biographers who not only added "angels" and flying chariots to the koran but also a militaristic agenda to support the plundering and looting of the lands of non-believers.
This agenda continues as shown by the assassination of Bhutto, the conduct of the seven Muslim doctors in the UK, the 9/11 terrorists, the 24/7 Sunni suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers, the 24/7 Shiite suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers, the Islamic bombers of the trains in the UK and Spain, the Bali crazies, the Kenya crazies, the Pakistani “koranics”, the Palestine suicide bombers/rocketeers, the Lebanese nutcases, the Taliban nut jobs, and the Filipino “koranics”.
And who funds these acts of terror? The warmongering, Islamic, Shiite terror and torture theocracy of Iran aka the Third Axis of Evil and also the Sunni "Wannabees" of Saudi Arabia.
4. Luther, Calvin, Joe Smith, Henry VIII, Wesley et al, founders of Christian-based religions, also suffered from the belief in/hallucinations of "pretty wingy talking flying fictional thingie" visits and "prophecies" for profits analogous to the myths of Catholicism (resurrections, apparitions, ascensions and immaculate conceptions).
5. Hinduism (from an online Hindu site) - "Hinduism cannot be described as an organized religion. It is not founded by any individual. Hinduism is God centered and therefore one can call Hinduism as founded by God, because the answer to the question ‘Who is behind the eternal principles and who makes them work?’ will have to be ‘Cosmic power, Divine power, God’."
The caste/laborer system and cow worship are problems when saying a fair and rational God founded Hinduism."
6. Buddhism- "Buddhism began in India about 500 years before the birth of Christ. The people living at that time had become disillusioned with certain beliefs of Hinduism including the caste system, which had grown extremely complex. The number of outcasts (those who did not belong to any particular caste) was continuing to grow."
"However, in Buddhism, like so many other religions, fanciful stories arose concerning events in the life of the founder, Siddhartha Gautama (fifth century B.C.):"
Archaeological discoveries have proved, beyond a doubt, his historical character, but apart from the legends we know very little about the circumstances of his life. e.g. Buddha by one legend was supposedly talking when he came out of his mother's womb.
Bottom line: There are many good ways of living but be aware of the hallucinations, embellishments, lies and myths surrounding the founders and foundations of said rules of life.
February 10, 2008 10:00 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 10, 2008 22:00
John Stephens:
Thanks for your response.
Contrary to your previous assertion that "Jesus never killed anyone", it would seem then that Jesus, as an eternally indivisible part of the Trinity, not only killed a great many people, but apparently killed some people just because he could.
While some may chalk up these apparent contradictions to the inscrutable nature of God, I see them, purely and simply, as the product of human invention. And while there's nothing wrong with inventing hypotheses in an attempt to explain the unexplained, I steadfastly object to politicians, or anyone else, using these particular untestable hypotheses to control my behavior or, in regards to the article's topic, to shape our government.
Thanks
February 10, 2008 9:05 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 10, 2008 21:05
NEAL:
Yes, in a manner of speaking. The God spoken of in the Old Testament was actually the Son of God, who created all creation, appeared as an angel at times, came to Abraham as Melchizedek, the King of Salem, and talked with Moses in the tent of Shiloh.
The Old Testament was a time of wars and retribution, judges and prophets.
The New Testament superceded the Old and was a time of love and forgiveness.
One might think of them as the carrot and the stick.
I don't pretend to understand all of the Old Testament, nor why tribal laws held sway. I do know that even the Hebrews couldn't deal with a God who appeared as a tornado of fire, swallowed people whole in the earth, shook mountains, and visited the earth with plagues of Biblical proportion. The Old Testament laws seem archaic and one might say barbaric, but they all had spiritual meaning having nothing to do with the ostensible purpose.
One thing difficult for Christians, and perhaps impossible for everyone else, is to accept the fact that God will do what God will do. It is not for us to judge Him, but to endeavor to understand. Paul explained it as a potter creating pots for his own purposes. Some he might use for noble purposes, some for mundane purposes, and some he may destroy as he will. I think that is the greatest stumbling block for many -- to just accept that God is justified doing whatever he does by virtue of the fact that he is God.
I do understand Jesus coming in peace, starting his ministry by making 90 gallons of wine at a party, healing afflicted persons by the thousands, and making atonement between God and man that we can receive the free gift of eternal life.
One manifestation of God was awesome and frightening. Another was totally approachable and endearing. Some folks won't have it either way.
February 10, 2008 7:06 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 10, 2008 19:06
John Stephens: "Jesus never killed anyone, neither did he advocate killing anyone, nor did he sanction killing anyone. He laid down his life rather than kill and commanded his disciples to follow his example."
If Jesus was the divine Son of God, an indivisible part of the Trinity and existing from before the beginning of time; isn't he also responsible for the Great Flood, various territorial wars, wrathful cleansings and righteous annihilations attributed to the God of the Old Testament?
Thanks
February 10, 2008 6:36 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 10, 2008 18:36
Okay Pagan in case you are interested the term was borrowed from Mao's little red book. The Feminist movement majored in it with such mind blowing bits of flotsam as personhole covers and Womyn's studies (their spelling not mine). The list by the way is virtually endless. And they aren't alone.
Betty we have 'pimp my ride', A sports talk guy who refers to himself as the pimp in a box because his primary job in life is actually selling advertising. That by the way is the primary job of nearly everyone in TV and Radio and increasingly in the movies. And lets not forget the leftist tool got it backwards Chelsea was selling momma to the American people not the other way around.
No I don't particularly care for the way the term is currently used but given how things are done these days pitching a major fit and suspending him is a gross over reaction. The Clinton's, of course, loved it. Leave it to those people to never miss an opportunity for some free advertising even if they have to make a mountain out of a mole hill to do it.
February 10, 2008 6:30 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 10, 2008 18:30
http://youtube.com/watch?v=JCbKv9yiLiQ
"WE are LEGiON!
We do-not FORGiVE!
We Do-Not FORGET!"
We are E*C*L*A*T*i*ON(s)!
WE are JOKTAN Eberu Race!
WE are not PELEG Eberu Race!
We are Taking Back O.U.R. inheretance!
Key: "O.U.R." means O.ne U.niversal R.eligion SYSTEM!
GO A*P*C*A*L*P*T*i*C be an E*C*L*A*T*A*R*i*ON, all ye can be, FREE! Go UPhill not DOWNhill!
February 10, 2008 5:12 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 10, 2008 17:12
Tres bon, Monsieur le Dennett.
As a Christian, what I find passing strange is that candidates seemingly think that these avowals serve some purpose. Who are they pandering to? The so-called Christians they apparently have in mind must be some of the dumbest, most ignorant "Christians" on the planet.
All of the candidates are perfectly willing to wage war and kill anyone who opposes the American Empire. National security is the catch phrase for warmongers. "Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel."
Jesus never killed anyone, neither did he advocate killing anyone, nor did he sanction killing anyone. He laid down his life rather than kill and commanded his disciples to follow his example.
What strange beasts, these murdering, warmongering "Christians" are.
I really don't understand this country. When I was a young man on the barricades during the antiwar movement against the Vietnam War, I figured everything would change when the old fossils died off and we came of age. Nope! Same old dope.
February 10, 2008 5:12 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 10, 2008 17:12
If he stops... he doesn't have to go away. :)
February 10, 2008 4:48 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 10, 2008 16:48
Paganplace:
Well said. This is not the forum for pages and pages of gibberish-filled, bigoted rants.
And no, I don't go under any other moniker than B-man either.
February 10, 2008 4:03 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 10, 2008 16:03
Well, that's interesting about JJ's ...whatever you call the basis of his ravings. I'd presumed he was the only one in his religion. Maybe someone else in it can tell him to cool it on the bigoted ravings.
And, no, JJ. I'm not the same person as any other name here. Likewise, I can tell the difference between the other folks.
The sheer amount of time you spend here, JJ, really just doesn't commend whatever it is you're trying to sell.
Consider the purpose of this board, it's about interfaith and politics, not your dumping ground for incoherent cut-and-paste.
It's not the world, it's not about you, it's people trying to communicate. However important you believe what you're saying is, it's just noise.
Take a step back.
February 10, 2008 3:40 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 10, 2008 15:40
Boring.
February 10, 2008 2:41 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 10, 2008 14:41
My bad! I can't believe I mad such a stupid mistake. It's not 1 in 2^26, it's 1 in 26 factorial or approximately 1 in 403291461000000000000000000. That's even stronger proof of the nonexistence of god!
February 10, 2008 10:44 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 10, 2008 10:44
Moody,
Your probability argument is akin to this:
"I have a book that says that the order of the letters of the English alphabet is abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz. It also says there is no god."
Now, probability theory says that the probability of my book's alphabetical ordering being correct is 1 in 2^26, or 1 in 67,108,864. And yet it is. Astounding! With that kind of demonstrated accuracy I can reasonable conclude that the book isn't guesswork, but TRUE KNOWLEDGE, so I can reasonably conclude that it is correct about there being no god.
You ask for reason. Would you be so kind as to further defend your understanding of probability, or you assertion that there's something divine about the Koran referring to a round Earth when the Earth was known to be round for at least a thousand years prior to the Koran's compilation?
My hostility towards your post is justified by your post's dishonesty.
February 10, 2008 10:34 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 10, 2008 10:34
OOOPPPss
That [above post] was meant for another web site. Thanka shame!
< ?: +)/
Vote: E*C*L*A*T*i*O*N Party 20012/13! Thanks!
February 10, 2008 10:30 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 10, 2008 10:30
Protestations of religious guidance by evangelicals in pursuit of power to dictate conduct and morals is actually a denial of Jesus Christ. USING the name of Jesus as a shield to disarm opponents they damage his Gospel and advance their own creed.
February 10, 2008 9:50 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 10, 2008 09:50
Chris Everett:
Could you be kind enough to reason rather than PERSONAL ATTACKS and bigotary.
February 10, 2008 1:37 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 10, 2008 01:37
Maybe John McCain will cause the end of this incomprehensible pandering to the worst elements of American religion. He will pander to the whack-os, and as with all of his pandering, it will be completely unconvincing and at odds with hours and hours of his previous statements. Interestingly, he is demonstrably the least religious of the three candidates still standing (I exclude Radical Cleric Mike Huckabee). But he will try to convince people that he is the the One True standard bearer of the Religious Right.
A few more months of that and everybody will have had enough and maybe our political discourse will be cleansed.
I just regained my senses. No it won't.
February 10, 2008 1:20 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 10, 2008 01:20
MOODY,
I know you're a fanatic and there's no reason to argue with you, but you last post is one of the most ridiculous, ignorant things I've ever read! It's wrong on every count! I especially liked the probability discussions - you obviously don't know a thing about probability, and I can say that with a certainty of 100% (not the 50% that you think it should be).
Your understanding of science is equally pathetic. You say "The Qur’an speaks about hundreds of things that were not known to men at the time of its revelation." One example you give is the round Earth. Don't you know that the ancient Egyptians knew the Earth was round? Didn't you know that the Greek scientist Eratosthenes accurately measured the circumference of the Earth in the third century BC? That's many centuries before Islam even existed. Ditto with moonlight - it's been known to be reflected light since antiquity. Haven't you ever heard of Ptolmey?
If I sound harsh it's because you should know better than to post this kind of rubbish. It is yet again another example of BAD FAITH from someone OF FAITH. You are trying to deceive people into belief. That, my friend, is evil.
Face it - you believe BECAUSE YOU BELIEVE. Pure and simple. You find it cathartic and meaningful to be a part of your religious community. If you were able to articulate the value of Islam from this perspective you would be worthy of respect. But you can't, or you won't, so you aren't.
If all this comes as a shock, if you actually believe the arguments in your post, then you are being deceived by those you trust most. Learn a little about probability and you'll soon see that you've been lied to. Learn a little about the history of science and you'll soon see that you've been lied to. Learn to think logically and you'll soon see that you;re being lied to. Open your mind, and maybe your heart will follow.
February 10, 2008 12:23 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 10, 2008 00:23
DOWN with OPRAH WINFREY’s ‘SECRET’-ARMY.
---
Note world: A great Conspiracy is being perpetrated onO.U.R. Holy Cosmic AMERiCA. HARK:
Oprah Winfrey & Obama , Tom Cruise & Dr. Phil are all in cahooch in their Presidential bids.
---
DOWN with ALL, EVERY & ANY "Pre-Apocalyptic Anti-Eclati-On ARMY(s) world wide now now!!!!!
Remember:
AOCALYPTIC & National MODERN MORALITY is SUPERIOR TO ANY, EVERY & ALL PRE-APOCALYPTIC National BIBLICAL MORALITY thinkers!
From Caterpillar To Butterfly , all will go!
PEACE, PAZ, SALAAM, SHOLOM....
February 9, 2008 11:50 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 9, 2008 23:50
PROVING THE EXISTENCE OF ALLAH (SWT)TO AN ATHEIST
by Dr. Zakir Naik
CONGRATULATING AN ATHEIST
Normally, when I meet an atheist, the first thing I like to do is to congratulate him and say, " My special congratulations to you", because most of the people who believe in God are doing blind belief - he is a Christian, because his father is a Christian; he is a Hindu, because his father is a Hindu; the majority of the people in the world are blindly following the religion of their fathers. An atheist, on the other hand, even though he may belong to a religious family, uses his intellect to deny the existence of God; what ever concept or qualities of God he may have learnt in his religion may not seem to be logical to him.
My Muslim brothers may question me, "Zakir, why are you congratulating an atheist?" The reason that I am congratulating an atheist is because he agrees with the first part of the Shahada i.e. the Islamic Creed, ‘La ilaaha’ - meaning ‘there is no God’. So half my job is already done; now the only part left is ‘il lallah’ i.e. ‘BUT ALLAH’ which I shall do Insha Allah. With others (who are not atheists) I have to first remove from their minds the wrong concept of God they may have and then put the correct concept of one true God.
LOGICAL CONCEPT OF GOD
My first question to the atheist will be: "What is the definition of God?" For a person to say there is no God, he should know what is the meaning of God. If I hold a book and say that ‘this is a pen’, for the opposite person to say, ‘it is not a pen’, he should know what is the definition of a pen, even if he does not know nor is able to recognise or identify the object I am holding in my hand. For him to say this is not a pen, he should at least know what a pen means. Similarly for an atheist to say ‘there is no God’, he should at least know the concept of God. His concept of God would be derived from the surroundings in which he lives. The god that a large number of people worship has got human qualities - therefore he does not believe in such a god. Similarly a Muslim too does not and should not believe in such false gods.
If a non-Muslim believes that Islam is a merciless religion with something to do with terrorism; a religion which does not give rights to women; a religion which contradicts science; in his limited sense that non-Muslim is correct to reject such Islam. The problem is he has a wrong picture of Islam. Even I reject such a false picture of Islam, but at the same time, it becomes my duty as a Muslim to present the correct picture of Islam to that non-Muslim i.e. Islam is a merciful religion, it gives equal rights to the women, it is not incompatible with logic, reason and science; if I present the correct facts about Islam, that non-Muslim may Inshallah accept Islam.
Similarly the atheist rejects the false gods and the duty of every Muslim is to present the correct concept of God which he shall Insha Allah not refuse.
(You may refer to my article, ‘Concept of God in Islam’, for more details)
QUR’AN AND MODERN SCIENCE
The methods of proving the existence of God with usage of the material provided in the ‘Concept of God in Islam’ to an atheist may satisfy some but not all.
Many atheists demand a scientific proof for the existence of God. I agree that today is the age of science and technology. Let us use scientific knowledge to kill two birds with one stone, i.e. to prove the existence of God and simultaneously prove that the Qur’an is a revelation of God.
If a new object or a machine, which no one in the world has ever seen or heard of before, is shown to an atheist or any person and then a question is asked, " Who is the first person who will be able to provide details of the mechanism of this unknown object? After little bit of thinking, he will reply, ‘the creator of that object.’ Some may say ‘the producer’ while others may say ‘the manufacturer.’ What ever answer the person gives, keep it in your mind, the answer will always be either the creator, the producer, the manufacturer or some what of the same meaning, i.e. the person who has made it or created it. Don’t grapple with words, whatever answer he gives, the meaning will be same, therefore accept it.
SCIENTIFIC FACTS MENTIONED IN THE QUR’AN: for details on this subject please refer to my book, ‘THE QUR’AN AND MODERN SCIENCE – COMPATIBLE OR INCOMPATIBLE?
THEORY OF PROBABILITY
In mathematics there is a theory known as ‘Theory of Probability’. If you have two options, out of which one is right, and one is wrong, the chances that you will chose the right one is half, i.e. one out of the two will be correct. You have 50% chances of being correct. Similarly if you toss a coin the chances that your guess will be correct is 50% (1 out of 2) i.e. 1/2. If you toss a coin the second time, the chances that you will be correct in the second toss is again 50% i.e. half. But the chances that you will be correct in both the tosses is half multiplied by half (1/2 x 1/2) which is equal to 1/4 i.e. 50% of 50% which is equal to 25%. If you toss a coin the third time, chances that you will be correct all three times is (1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2) that is 1/8 or 50% of 50% of 50% that is 12½%.
A dice has got six sides. If you throw a dice and guess any number between 1 to 6, the chances that your guess will be correct is 1/6. If you throw the dice the second time, the chances that your guess will be correct in both the throws is (1/6 x 1/6) which is equal to 1/36. If you throw the dice the third time, the chances that all your three guesses are correct is (1/6 x 1/6 x 1/6) is equal to 1/216 that is less than 0.5 %.
Let us apply this theory of probability to the Qur’an, and assume that a person has guessed all the information that is mentioned in the Qur’an which was unknown at that time. Let us discuss the probability of all the guesses being simultaneously correct.
At the time when the Qur’an was revealed, people thought the world was flat, there are several other options for the shape of the earth. It could be triangular, it could be quadrangular, pentagonal, hexagonal, heptagonal, octagonal, spherical, etc. Lets assume there are about 30 different options for the shape of the earth. The Qur’an rightly says it is spherical, if it was a guess the chances of the guess being correct is 1/30.
The light of the moon can be its own light or a reflected light. The Qur’an rightly says it is a reflected light. If it is a guess, the chances that it will be correct is 1/2 and the probability that both the guesses i.e the earth is spherical and the light of the moon is reflected light is 1/30 x 1/2 = 1/60.
Further, the Qur’an also mentions every living thing is made of water. Every living thing can be made up of either wood, stone, copper, aluminum, steel, silver, gold, oxygen, nitrogen, hydrogen, oil, water, cement, concrete, etc. The options are say about 10,000. The Qur’an rightly says that everything is made up of water. If it is a guess, the chances that it will be correct is 1/10,000 and the probability of all the three guesses i.e. the earth is spherical, light of moon is reflected light and everything is created from water being correct is 1/30 x 1/2 x 1/10,000 = 1/60,000 which is equal to about .0017%.
The Qur’an speaks about hundreds of things that were not known to men at the time of its revelation. Only in three options the result is .0017%. I leave it upto you, to work out the probability if all the hundreds of the unknown facts were guesses, the chances of all of them being correct guesses simultaneously and there being not a single wrong guess. It is beyond human capacity to make all correct guesses without a single mistake, which itself is sufficient to prove to a logical person that the origin of the Qur’an is Divine.
CREATOR IS THE AUTHOR OF THE QUR’AN
The only logical answer to the question as to who could have mentioned all these scientific facts 1400 years ago before they were discovered, is exactly the same answer initially given by the atheist or any person, to the question who will be the first person who will be able to tell the mechanism of the unknown object. It is the ‘CREATOR’, the producer, the Manufacturer of the whole universe and its contents. In the English language He is ‘God’, or more appropriate in the Arabic language, ‘ALLAH’.
QUR’AN IS A BOOK OF SIGNS AND NOT SCIENCE
Let me remind you that the Qur’an is not a book of Science, ‘S-C-I-E-N-C-E’ but a book of Signs ‘S-I-G-N-S’ i.e. a book of ayaats. The Qur’an contains more than 6,000 ayaats, i.e. ‘signs’, out of which more than a thousand speak about Science. I am not trying to prove that the Qur’an is the word of God using scientific knowledge as a yard stick because any yardstick is supposed to be more superior than what is being checked or verified. For us Muslims the Qur’an is the Furqan i.e. criteria to judge right from wrong and the ultimate yardstick which is more superior to scientific knowledge.
But for an educated man who is an atheist, scientific knowledge is the ultimate test which he believes in. We do know that science many a times takes ‘U’ turns, therefore I have restricted the examples only to scientific facts which have sufficient proof and evidence and not scientific theories based on assumptions. Using the ultimate yardstick of the atheist, I am trying to prove to him that the Qur’an is the word of God and it contains the scientific knowledge which is his yardstick which was discovered recently, while the Qur’an was revealed 1400 year ago. At the end of the discussion, we both come to the same conclusion that God though superior to science, is not incompatible with it.
SCIENCE IS ELIMINATING MODELS OF GOD BUT NOT GOD
Francis Bacon, the famous philosopher, has rightly said that a little knowledge of science makes man an atheist, but an in-depth study of science makes him a believer in God. Scientists today are eliminating models of God, but they are not eliminating God. If you translate this into Arabic, it is La illaha illal la, There is no god, (god with a small ‘g’ that is fake god) but God (with a capital ‘G’).
Surah Fussilat:
"Soon We will show them our signs in the (farthest) regions (of the earth), and in their own souls, until it becomes manifest to them that this is the Truth. Is it not enough that thy Lord doth witness all things?"
[Al-Quran 41:53]
All possible kind of questions asked by non muslims about Islam answered on below web site:
http://www.irf.net/irf/faqonislam/index.htm
February 9, 2008 11:36 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 9, 2008 23:36
Most Common Questions asked by Non-Muslims
HIJAAB FOR WOMEN
Question:
Why does Islam degrade women by keeping them behind the veil?
Answer:
The status of women in Islam is often the target of attacks in the secular media. The ‘hijaab’ or the Islamic dress is cited by many as an example of the ‘subjugation’ of women under Islamic law. Before we analyze the reasoning behind the religiously mandated ‘hijaab’, let us first study the status of women in societies before the advent of Islam
1. In the past women were degraded and used as objects of lust
The following examples from history amply illustrate the fact that the status of women in earlier civilizations was very low to the extent that they were denied basic human dignity:
Babylonian Civilization:
The women were degraded and were denied all rights under the Babylonian law. If a man murdered a woman, instead of him being punished, his wife was put to death.
Greek Civilization:
Greek Civilization is considered the most glorious of all ancient civilizations. Under this very ‘glorious’ system, women were deprived of all rights and were looked down upon. In Greek mythology, an ‘imaginary woman’ called ‘Pandora’ is the root cause of misfortune of human beings. The Greeks considered women to be subhuman and inferior to men. Though chastity of women was precious, and women were held in high esteem, the Greeks were later overwhelmed by ego and sexual perversions. Prostitution became a regular practice amongst all classes of Greek society.
Roman Civilization:
When Roman Civilization was at the zenith of its ‘glory’, a man even had the right to take the life of his wife. Prostitution and nudity were common amongst the Romans.
Egyptian Civilization:
The Egyptian considered women evil and as a sign of a devil.
Pre-Islamic Arabia:
Before Islam spread in Arabia, the Arabs looked down upon women and very often when a female child was born, she was buried alive.
2. Islam uplifted women and gave them equality and expects them to maintain their status.
Islam uplifted the status of women and granted them their just rights 1400 years ago. Islam expects women to maintain their status.
Hijaab for men
People usually only discuss ‘hijaab’ in the context of women. However, in the Glorious Qur’an, Allah (swt) first mentions ‘hijaab’ for men before ‘hijaab’ for the women. The Qur’an mentions in Surah Noor:
"Say to the believing men that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty: that will make for greater purity for them: and Allah is well acquainted with all that they do."
[Al-Qur’an 24:30]
The moment a man looks at a woman and if any brazen or unashamed thought comes to his mind, he should lower his gaze.
Hijaab for women.
The next verse of Surah Noor, says:
" And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what (must ordinarily) appear thereof; that they should draw veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands, their fathers, their husbands’ fathers, their sons..."
[Al-Qur’an 24:31]
3. Six criteria for Hijaab.
According to Qur’an and Sunnah there are basically six criteria for observing hijaab:
Extent:
The first criterion is the extent of the body that should be covered. This is different for men and women. The extent of covering obligatory on the male is to cover the body at least from the navel to the knees. For women, the extent of covering obligatory is to cover the complete body except the face and the hands upto the wrist. If they wish to, they can cover even these parts of the body. Some scholars of Islam insist that the face and the hands are part of the obligatory extent of ‘hijaab’.
All the remaining five criteria are the same for men and women.
The clothes worn should be loose and should not reveal the figure.
The clothes worn should not be transparent such that one can see through them.
The clothes worn should not be so glamorous as to attract the opposite sex.
The clothes worn should not resemble that of the opposite sex.
The clothes worn should not resemble that of the unbelievers i.e. they should not wear clothes that are specifically identities or symbols of the unbelievers’ religions.
4. Hijaab includes conduct and behaviour among other things
Complete ‘hijaab’, besides the six criteria of clothing, also includes the moral conduct, behaviour, attitude and intention of the individual. A person only fulfilling the criteria of ‘hijaab’ of the clothes is observing ‘hijaab’ in a limited sense. ‘Hijaab’ of the clothes should be accompanied by ‘hijaab’ of the eyes, ‘hijaab’ of the heart, ‘hijaab’ of thought and ‘hijaab’ of intention. It also includes the way a person walks, the way a person talks, the way he behaves, etc.
5. Hijaab prevents molestation
The reason why Hijaab is prescribed for women is mentioned in the Qur’an in the following verses of Surah Al-Ahzab:
"O Prophet! Tell thy wives and daughters, and the believing women that they should cast their outer garments over their persons (when abroad); that is most convenient, that they should be known (as such) and not molested. And Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful."
[Al-Qur’an 33:59]
The Qur’an says that Hijaab has been prescribed for the women so that they are recognized as modest women and this will also prevent them from being molested.
6. Example of twin sisters
Suppose two sisters who are twins, and who are equally beautiful, walk down the street. One of them is attired in the Islamic hijaab i.e. the complete body is covered, except for the face and the hands up to the wrists. The other sister is wearing western clothes, a mini skirt or shorts. Just around the corner there is a hooligan or ruffian who is waiting for a catch, to tease a girl. Whom will he tease? The girl wearing the Islamic Hijaab or the girl wearing the skirt or the mini? Naturally he will tease the girl wearing the skirt or the mini. Such dresses are an indirect invitation to the opposite sex for teasing and molestation. The Qur’an rightly says that hijaab prevents women from being molested.
7. Capital punishment for the rapists
Under the Islamic shariah, a man convicted of having raped a woman, is given capital punishment. Many are astonished at this ‘harsh’ sentence. Some even say that Islam is a ruthless, barbaric religion! I have asked a simple question to hundreds of non-Muslim men. Suppose, God forbid, someone rapes your wife, your mother or your sister. You are made the judge and the rapist is brought in front of you. What punishment would you give him? All of them said they would put him to death. Some went to the extent of saying they would torture him to death. To them I ask, if someone rapes your wife or your mother you want to put him to death. But if the same crime is committed on somebody else’s wife or daughter you say capital punishment is barbaric. Why should there be double standards?
8. Western society falsely claims to have uplifted women
Western talk of women’s liberalization is nothing but a disguised form of exploitation of her body, degradation of her soul, and deprivation of her honour. Western society claims to have ‘uplifted’ women. On the contrary it has actually degraded them to the status of concubines, mistresses and society butterflies who are mere tools in the hands of pleasure seekers and sex marketeers, hidden behind the colourful screen of ‘art’ and ‘culture’.
9. USA has one of the highest rates of rape
United States of America is supposed to be one of the most advanced countries of the world. It also has one of the highest rates of rape in any country in the world. According to a FBI report, in the year 1990, every day on an average 1756 cases of rape were committed in U.S.A alone. Later another report said that on an average everyday 1900 cases of rapes are committed in USA. The year was not mentioned. May be it was 1992 or 1993. May be the Americans got ‘bolder’ in the following years.
Consider a scenario where the Islamic hijaab is followed in America. Whenever a man looks at a woman and any brazen or unashamed thought comes to his mind, he lowers his gaze. Every woman wears the Islamic hijaab, that is the complete body is covered except the face and the hands upto the wrist. After this if any man commits rape he is given capital punishment. I ask you, in such a scenario, will the rate of rape in America increase, will it remain the same, or will it decrease?
10. Implementation of Islamic Shariah will reduce the rate of rapes
Naturally as soon as Islamic Shariah is implemented positive results will be inevitable. If Islamic Shariah is implemented in any part of the world, whether it is America or Europe, society will breathe easier. Hijaab does not degrade a woman but uplifts a woman and protects her modesty and chastity.
All possible kind of questions asked by non muslims about Islam answered on below web site:
http://www.irf.net/irf/faqonislam/index.htm
February 9, 2008 11:35 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 9, 2008 23:35
Most Common Questions asked by Non-Muslims
MUSLIMS ARE FUNDAMENTALISTS AND TERRORISTS
Question:
Why are most of the Muslims fundamentalists and terrorists?
Answer:
This question is often hurled at Muslims, either directly or indirectly, during any discussion on religion or world affairs. Muslim stereotypes are perpetuated in every form of the media accompanied by gross misinformation about Islam and Muslims. In fact, such misinformation and false propaganda often leads to discrimination and acts of violence against Muslims. A case in point is the anti-Muslim campaign in the American media following the Oklahoma bomb blast, where the press was quick to declare a ‘Middle Eastern conspiracy’ behind the attack. The culprit was later identified as a soldier from the American Armed Forces.
Let us analyze this allegation of ‘fundamentalism’ and ‘terrorism’:
1. Definition of the word ‘fundamentalist’
A fundamentalist is a person who follows and adheres to the fundamentals of the doctrine or theory he is following. For a person to be a good doctor, he should know, follow, and practise the fundamentals of medicine. In other words, he should be a fundamentalist in the field of medicine. For a person to be a good mathematician, he should know, follow and practise the fundamentals of mathematics. He should be a fundamentalist in the field of mathematics. For a person to be a good scientist, he should know, follow and practise the fundamentals of science. He should be a fundamentalist in the field of science.
2. Not all ‘fundamentalists’ are the same
One cannot paint all fundamentalists with the same brush. One cannot categorize all fundamentalists as either good or bad. Such a categorization of any fund amentalist will depend upon the field or activity in which he is a fundamentalist. A fundamentalist robber or thief causes harm to society and is therefore undesirable. A fundamentalist doctor, on the other hand, benefits society and earns much respect.
3. I am proud to be a Muslim fundamentalist
I am a fundamentalist Muslim who, by the grace of Allah, knows, follows and strives to practise the fundamentals of Islam. A true Muslim does not shy away from being a fundamentalist. I am proud to be a fundamentalist Muslim because, I know that the fundamentals of Islam are beneficial to humanity and the whole world. There is not a single fundamental of Islam that causes harm or is against the interests of the human race as a whole. Many people harbour misconceptions about Islam and consider several teachings of Islam to be unfair or improper. This is due to insufficient and incorrect knowledge of Islam. If one critically analyzes the teachings of Islam with an open mind, one cannot escape the fact that Islam is full of benefits both at the individual and collective levels.
4. Dictionary meaning of the word ‘fundamentalist’
According to Webster’s dictionary ‘fundamentalism’ was a movement in American Protestanism that arose in the earlier part of the 20th century. It was a reaction to modernism, and stressed the infallibility of the Bible, not only in matters of faith and morals but also as a literal historical record. It stressed on belief in the Bible as the literal word of God. Thus fundamentalism was a word initially used for a group of Christians who believed that the Bible was the verbatim word of God without any errors and mistakes.
According to the Oxford dictionary ‘fundamentalism’ means ‘strict maintenance of ancient or fundamental doctrines of any religion, especially Islam’.
Today the moment a person uses the word fundamentalist he thinks of a Muslim who is a terrorist.
5. Every Muslim should be a terrorist
Every Muslim should be a terrorist. A terrorist is a person who causes terror. The moment a robber sees a policeman he is terrified. A policeman is a terrorist for the robber. Similarly every Muslim should be a terrorist for the antisocial elements of society, such as thieves, dacoits and rapists. Whenever such an anti-social element sees a Muslim, he should be terrified. It is true that the word ‘terrorist’ is generally used for a person who causes terror among the common people. But a true Muslim should only be a terrorist to selective people i.e. anti-social elements, and not to the common innocent people. In fact a Muslim should be a source of peace for innocent people.
6. Different labels given to the same individual for the same action, i.e. ‘terrorist’ and ‘patriot’
Before India achieved independence from British rule, some freedom fighters of India who did not subscribe to non-violence were labeled as terrorists by the British government. The same individuals have been lauded by Indians for the same activities and hailed as ‘patriots’. Thus two different labels have been given to the same people for the same set of actions. One is calling him a terrorist while the other is calling him a patriot. Those who believed that Britain had a right to rule over India called these people terrorists, while those who were of the view that Britain had no right to rule India called them patriots and freedom fighters.
It is therefore important that before a person is judged, he is given a fair hearing. Both sides of the argument should be heard, the situation should be analyzed, and the reason and the intention of the person should be taken into account, and then the person can be judged accordingly.
7. Islam means peace
Islam is derived from the word ‘salaam’ which means peace. It is a religion of peace whose fundamentals teach its followers to maintain and promote peace throughout the world.
Thus every Muslim should be a fundamentalist i.e. he should follow the fundamentals of the Religion of Peace: Islam. He should be a terrorist only towards the antisocial elements in order to promote peace and justice in the society.
All possible kind of questions asked by non muslims about Islam answered on below web site:
http://www.irf.net/irf/faqonislam/index.htm
February 9, 2008 11:34 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 9, 2008 23:34
"The habitually offended are not generally Christians in general they are secularists who seem to be offended by almost anything."
Gee, that sounds like something I've heard before... Oh yeah - it sounds like a creationist announcing that the theory of evolution is "flawed science". What next? The corresponding question to "if people are descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" ?
FTR, I generally rate Muslims as more easily offended than your garden variety Christian. And Isamic extremists certainly more so than the most rabid Christian evangelists. I don't remember any riots, for example, over Jesus cartoons. But curiously, Christians are the Protected Ones when it comes to offense in this society.
Not sure I share Dennet's optimism that this too shall pass. A precipitous population crash may have to be in the offing first.
February 9, 2008 8:37 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 9, 2008 20:37
I believe he comes across as mild only because it is so difficult to decipher the hard bigotry contained in his ramblings.
Here's more on his sham-cult:
Church of the New Song: Prison Profile
CONS was Founded by inmates at Atlanta Federal Penitentiary in Georgia. The Church of the New Song gained full status as a religion in 1974 by the Supreme Court of the United States.
According to the Associated Press, the prison group has no formal headquarters, and false notions that the gang has a base of operations in Bluffs, Illinois should not be confused with the uncongregated religion of the same name. It was founded in Atlanta Federal Penitentiary, but has since spread to Iowa State Penitentiary in Fort Madison, where it gained religious sanction by the state at about the same time the US Supreme Court recognized it as a religion.
The Church of the New Song has allegedly participated in voodoo rituals in prison, apparently tolerated by prison authorities as long as the Church respect the wishes of the prison and refain from laying curses on the warden. Their religion is based on "Eclatarianism," the belief in a pervasive, harmonizing spirit called the Eclat, an inanimate and ultimate power similar to the Christian God.
In 1997 a group of Church of the New Song inmates in Iowa, led by George Goff, led an unsuccessful appeal to a three-judge panel arguing that prison officials were discriminating against inmates who were being locked in administrative segregation without access to the food trays from a church-sponsored "Celebration of Life" banquet. Apparently, the panel discovered through several informants that the Church was simply a "sham religion that exist[ed] only in the prison context" (22 February 2005 The Des Moines Register).
Iowa state authorities were at the time seeking to strip the Church's formal status as a religion, granted to the Church in 1974. Lawyers attested that the religion was nothing but a security threat group intent on planning and preparing criminal acts, including assaults, behind prison walls. State lawyers and correctional officials filed court papers that allege the gang is primarily a white-supremacist group involved in threats, coercion, and violence, and posing a serious threat to correctional employees and other inmates. They have also alleged that the Church participates in "attempted murder, assault, drug trafficking and extortion" (2 April 2004 Associated Press)
February 9, 2008 8:01 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 9, 2008 20:01
Terra, this amused me.
"...never has the Democratic party been one of selfishness and division. We are individualistic..and that has been our down fall...no lock step for the Dems."
I'm glad this has been your experience in your chosen party affiliation. Either you're exceptionally lucky, or you project your own integrity and open-mindedness on an organization that may or may not deserve it. It has not been my experience at all, whether with the socialists, the democrats, or (obviously) the republicans. There is always a faction preaching party unity over personal choice or individual freedom. Which is why I stay registered in the party whose original philosophy appeals to me most, but vote for whomever I please.
February 9, 2008 6:35 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 9, 2008 18:35
Nice clear short piece by Dennett. Unfortunately I think he has it right. And those of us who believe that a secular approach is what we need in the long run have to be more vocal about our prespective if we can take the heat. I spent many years trying to be invisible on the topic of religion, but have started in the last few years to be more vocal about my atheistic philosophy - partly because my position in my workplace and in the community is secure and I don't have to worry about fallout.
February 9, 2008 6:11 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 9, 2008 18:11
Or, if you don't mind being 'offended,' GaryD, 'PC' is the imaginary 'oppression' and 'offensiveness' bigots whine about when they get politely called on being ignorant bigots. :)
*laughing to Purple.* Sure, it's a date. :) Well, not a date. A date that-s-not-a-date, maybe. :)
Little Pagan joke there.
Actually, if the Summerlands were a big Pagan festival, the garbanzo beans could potentially become a bit like torture for us carnivores. (In-joke for festival organizers: there's a *lot* of vegetarians to feed, you see. :)
And, no, we don't actually believe in particular forms of afterlife that way, not necessarily or in a unified way, ...it's both not the important part to us, (One traditional picture of what comes after or between lives is *not,* to us, the *point* of our religion, and in fact is greeted with great suspicion when used by religious leaders and politicians as a way to enforce obedience through fears and forms and expectations... we can entertain any number of notions about these things because they just aren't about fear and reward and compulsion to us in the same way...)
Me, I believe much the same as certain ancestors of mine did, and also believe it's OK to do so, even if maybe I'm surprised what it'll really look like later when relieved of this particular brain.... It's when people get deadly-serious and fearful about the fate of their personal souls that you get the social and religious oppressions Pagans seek to avoid like a rotten potato. :))
I think it's the very idea that 'Only one of these religions, if any, can be right, and the universe has to be that way for some unquestioned reason,' that not only creates corruption in religious authorities, but also many of the woes that come of blindness and abuse of power: such views put people's very sense of their souls' survival at stake on the basis they're 'Right' about something that cannot be discussed reasonably.
Who says you have to be? You can have *something,* use it well.
February 9, 2008 4:19 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 9, 2008 16:19
paganplace, OK, I can handle that. If, in the fullness of time, we end up meeting in the Summerlands, can I buy you a beer? I'll be the skinny guy with the short gray beard wandering around with a bemused look on his face and saying, "wow...didn't see that one coming."
February 9, 2008 3:58 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 9, 2008 15:58
GaryD:
"Betty that would be no. Rather political correctness is the peculiarly leftist concept that everyone has the right to not be offended. It is in short antithetical to free speech and common sense."
No, that's how imaginary 'Political Correctness' is defined when right-wingers (who get 'offended' on any occasion right-wing Christianity is *not* exclusively invoked and bowed to,) want to claim their being 'oppressed' when someone tells them they're being ignorant and hateful and uncivil.
:)
February 9, 2008 3:57 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 9, 2008 15:57
Betty that would be no. Rather political correctness is the peculiarly leftist concept that everyone has the right to not be offended. It is in short antithetical to free speech and common sense.
February 9, 2008 3:31 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 9, 2008 15:31