sino:

If we cannot know the truth about everything, why then does it make you continue to argue when I tell you that our knowledge is limited when it comes to matters of the unseen?! Why does it then bothers you that we believe in the unseen based on the meaningful available evidences of what we can see which justifies our beliefs?

The skeptic would say you should be skeptic and not say "we cannot know the truth about everything" even if our current knowledge is limited, especially since one is talking about 'some things' and not 'everything'.

Besides, a justified belief is no more a belief but what one now knows, which is why one would hardly hear anyone say, "I believe that particular woman is my mother", or "I believe rain is falling on my head", and if anyone ever did say such things, those who hear it would say the person does not know who their mother is or whether it is raining on their head or not.

To believe a thing is to be not quite certain, and a sceptical approach should be a requirement until one knows and is certain. Until then, one ought to suspend belief and disbelieve.

C.f. Re: Why Faith Is Delusional

budaatum:

The skeptic would say you should be skeptic and not say "we cannot know the truth about everything" even if our current knowledge is limited, especially since one is talking about 'some things' and not 'everything'.

Besides, a justified belief is no more a belief but what one now knows, which is why one would hardly hear anyone say, "I believe that particular woman is my mother", or "I believe rain is falling on my head", and if anyone ever did say such things, those who hear it would say the person does not know who their mother is or whether it is raining on their head or not.

To believe a thing is to be not quite certain, and a sceptical approach should be a requirement until one knows and is certain. Until then, one ought to suspend belief and disbelieve.

C.f. Re: Why Faith Is Delusional

I get your point and and agree to a certain degree. The issue here now is to what level should one entertain this skepticism as there is the tendency that this can lead towards madness...But definitely, certainty is indeed the fruit of proper knowledge and understanding.

sino:


"Philosophical skepticism (UK spelling: scepticism; from Greek σκέψις skepsis, "inquiry" is a family of philosophical views that question the possibility of knowledge or certainty.[1][2] Philosophical skeptics are often classified into two general categories: Those who deny of possibility of all knowledge, and those who advocate for the suspension of judgement due to the inadequacy of evidence.[3] This is modeled after the differences between the Academic skeptics and the Pyrrhonian skeptics in ancient Greek philosophy."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_skepticism


You may read further in the link provided... And please do take note of the classification and types of skepticism.

What's your point here?

So for further clarifications, the robbery scenario was introduced to show that it would be quite futile to engage in your philosophical skepticism when evidences available are enough to make rational decisions or conclusions. If you would insist on being a skeptic at that point in time, you are inadvertently advocating for radical skepticism.

Didn't I said the effect of a robbery is an evidence itself? Why should anyone go to a robbery scene when it's obvious there's a robbery going on in that area? I even said the police and media people will do their job to cover the scene and give reports in details and evidence.

You keep strawmaning I don't like strawman arguments.

It is quite simple, your neighbourhood could be the next house or the first house on your street. You don't need to overthink this.

This still doesn't make sense. So where was I when the robbery was going on?

Again, you need not assume... But even at that, if I had included you had heard gunshots, would that have been enough evidence for you to conclude that it is true? Could you not be skeptical and assume it could have been bangers or something of sort and the people running were just being hysterical and not being skeptical enough to ascertain the source of the sounds they are hearing like you would?

The sound of gunshots is different from bangers. Do I look like a kid?

If people are fleeing because of a loud sound then it's something dangerous, people don't flee by hearing sounds of bangers.

The real question here is, what sort of evidences would be enough for a philosophical skeptic like yourself?! Or would the fear for your dear life make you abandon all your philosophical argumentations and flee like a 'zombie'?!

Evidence = verifiable

If I'm not mistaken, Muslims on this section have in many ways presented this while addressing so many of your questions... You may go back and read some of them.

No, tell us the logic behind faith? I would like to know the logic behind faith.

I have given a definition above pertinent to this discussion, make use of it, if you will.

If we cannot know the truth about everything, why then does it make you continue to argue when I tell you that our knowledge is limited when it comes to matters of the unseen?! Why does it then bothers you that we believe in the unseen based on the meaningful available evidences of what we can see which justifies our beliefs?

As you can see from the philosophical skepticism one of the category denied the knowledge of absolutism; we can't know everything and the other said the a subject shouldn't be judged or concluded without no sufficient evidence. They're both valid! Humans are limited and we can't know everything at least for now(if it's possible) but in the process of skepticism we gain knowledge and evidence to some subject matters.

When it's comes to matter of unseen where there's no evidence, you don't conclude or give judgement (the second type of skepticism), you has a Muslim have concluded on things that has no evidence unless if you can provide evidence to your beliefs but then how did you arrive at the conclusion there Allah, he's first cause, Muhammad rode on a flying creature etc? How did you conclude this?

Okay, first, you are an atheist, you do not believe such creatures exist. But if you claim you do, then you need to present the evidences that proved to you that this exist based on your philosophical skepticism. Now I know you cannot, and furthermore, it would be futile arguing this with you!

It's my belief, why do you need evidence? Or do you now subscribe to philosophical skepticism?

Now when it comes to Islam and the belief in the unseen, it doesn't start with a random person claiming to see something out of the physical realm without meaning and you being special and worthy to have been chosen to see the supernatural. Even in our reality, you have to be special to experience certain privileges... As already established, we do not require only physical evidences to arrive at a rational and informed conclusion to believe a matter and conclude that it is true. Of course, when the Prophet SAW narrated his supernatural journey to Jerusalem and up into the heavens by a supernatural creature in a night, during his era, some people were doubtful, not particularly about the creature, but about the travel to Jerusalem based on their experiences of travel back then and said with confidence that no man can travel to Jerusalem from Mecca, a journey of months, in a single night. But the facts here remains that God isn't restricted to what can be created and how events can happen at any point in time. And, man, who was created by God, has now invented planes that can travel from Mecca to Jerusalem in few hours and rockets that can go up into space and other planets...I have seen what man can do, I believe God created man, the universe and all that exist, why would I now doubt what God can do and how God chose to do it?!

You didn't give any reasonable response here, you just go in circles with your beliefs. A delusory response.

Tell us how you concluded Muhammad rode on a flying donkey to the sky?

If you don't have evidence then it's no different from the flying rabbit in the cosmic because they're both belief system.

I know your next move is to deny the existence of God and still claim it was an imagination or a lie, but that is irrelevant to me cos you claim to be a philosophical skeptic and what you claim is also subject to this your skepticism and the reason you are still here day and night doubting and being uncertain...

How did you know Allah exist? What makes you believe Allah exist out of other Gods in other religions?

What you are doing here is attacking Islam and Muslims day and night, making mockery of our beliefs, insulting us by equating us to Zombies and thinking you are superior because you are now an atheist. But unfortunately, thus far, you have not brought any meaningful thing to show for your enlightenment that you might want to claim other than more doubts and uncertainties.

You're just strawmaning here.

Any logical open minded person that goes through my threads will see that my threads are about the absurdity of the Muslim beliefs. Whether you find them insulting is non of my business, Muslims have done worse, i have been insulted and threaten many times, so why do you need special treatment from me?

I respect few Muslims here who are ready to discuss intellectually and not always attack the person.

sino:

I get your point and and agree to a certain degree. The issue here now is to what level should one entertain this skepticism as there is the tendency that this can lead towards madness...But definitely, certainty is indeed the fruit of proper knowledge and understanding.

Well, imagine the skeptic trying to cross a road. They look right and left, see no car coming, then look right and left again and no car's coming, so they look left and right again and no car coming, so they look.......

Yep, I agree. Madness. Which why it is written that "[url=https://classic.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+11%3A34-36&version=NIV]if ones senses are dim, the whole body woud be full of madness[/url]". The moral being, one must make sure ones senses can be trusted and that one knows how to use them properly so skeptism does not make one go mad.

tintingz:

Any logical open minded person that goes through my threads will see that my threads are about the absurdity of the Muslim beliefs.

I think I need to remember this. And that the "absurdity of the Muslim beliefs" is not necessarily Islam, which is an understanding of the Quran.

budaatum:

The skeptic would say you should be skeptic and not say "we cannot know the truth about everything" even if our current knowledge is limited, especially since one is talking about 'some things' and not 'everything'.

Besides, a justified belief is no more a belief but what one now knows, which is why one would hardly hear anyone say, "I believe that particular woman is my mother", or "I believe rain is falling on my head", and if anyone ever did say such things, those who hear it would say the person does not know who their mother is or whether it is raining on their head or not.

To believe a thing is to be not quite certain, and a sceptical approach should be a requirement until one knows and is certain. Until then, one ought to suspend belief and disbelieve.

C.f. Re: Why Faith Is Delusional

Good point.

But In skepticism it suggests we can't know everything at least for now. The idea of absolutism is a very complicated matter.

Religion have established the Idea of absolutism as everything is known(filling the gaps with god) till the very end of life while philosophical skepticism said we can't know everything at least there's isn't absolutism for now and also we shouldn't judge anything without evidence like you said.

budaatum:

I think I need to remember this. And that the "absurdity of the Muslim beliefs" is not necessarily Islam, which is an understanding of the Quran.

The "belief" is Islam.

I make sure my threads are referenced to Islamic beliefs.

tintingz:


In skepticism it suggests we can't know everything at least for now. The idea of absolutism is a very complicated matter.

Religion have established the Idea of absolutism as everything is known(filling the gaps with god) till the very end of life while philosophical skepticism said we can't know everything at least there's isn't absolutism for now.

Yes, "Religion has established the Idea of absolutism as everything is known (filling the gaps with god)", thereby promoting belief, which denotes ignorance. Religion is however not the same as picking up a book, reading it oneself, and understanding with ones own mind.

The books are so full of contradictions and absurdities that the logical thing to do is adopt skeptism so that one seeks until one finds understanding. In fact, if one reads the books without the blind ignorance of religion, as in what others have said the words in books mean, one would find the books themselves promote skeptism.

An example in the Bible is, unless one abandons all preconceived beliefs and ideologies, one would not understand things refered to as God. Therefore, whoever does not pressume to know it all shall learn more.

Unfortunately, religion does what you say, to most.

tintingz:
The "belief" is Islam.

No it isn't tingz. And I must say, I detect absolutism and insufficient sceptism in your statement.

Many have various diverse and even opposing beliefs and are Muslims, but the beliefs people have are not Islam, and thinking it is is like claiming those called Lordists or those refered to as woed are Christians, when they clearly aren't.

One should not judge a book by the understanding of its readers alone. For it is very possible that the readers one judges by lack understanding, which is why the skeptic reads the book with their own open mind so as to seek its proper unpolluted meaning. If not, boko haram might seem like Islam to one. (I'm hoping you agree that it isn't.)

tintingz:
What's your point here?

Do you need a pastor or imam to interpret it to you? If not, ask specific questions about the bits you don't understand and I might be able to help you.

budaatum:

Yes, "Religion has established the Idea of absolutism as everything is known (filling the gaps with god)", thereby promoting belief, which denotes ignorance. Religion is however not the same as picking up a book, reading it oneself, and understanding with ones own mind.

The books are so full of contradictions and absurdities that the logical thing to do is adopt skeptism so that one seeks until one finds understanding. In fact, if one reads the books without the blind ignorance of religion, as in what others have said the words in books mean, one would find the books themselves promote skeptism.

An example in the Bible is, unless one abandons all preconceived beliefs and ideologies, one would not understand things refered to as God. Therefore, whoever does not pressume to know it all shall learn more.

Unfortunately, religion does what you say, to most.

I Agree to some of what you said but the Bible have issues with people that question. Even Jesus cursed the people that questioned him, same for the Pharisees that hate Jesus for questioning them because one doesn't question the Jewish scriptures. The Bible has to do with whose belief should be superior not that they want to establish a knowledge like how the Greek philosophers did by attacking and countering themselves with very logical questions.

budaatum:

Do you need a pastor or imam to interpret it to you? If not, ask specific questions about the bits you don't understand and I might be able to help you.

Unfortunately Religious people needs scholars to interpret the scriptures for them.

budaatum:

No it isn't tingz. And I must say, I detect absolutism and insufficient sceptism in your statement.

How?

Many have various diverse and even opposing beliefs and are Muslims, but the beliefs people have are not Islam, and thinking it is is like claiming those called Lordists or those refered to as woed are Christians, when they clearly aren't.

One should not judge a book by the understanding of its readers alone. For it is very possible that the readers one judges by lack understanding, which is why the skeptic reads the book with their own open mind so as to seek its proper unpolluted meaning. If not, boko haram might seem like Islam to one. (I'm hoping you agree that it isn't.)

I hope you know what "no true Scotsman" is?

You always give this argument that muslims are not practicing Islam and I've argue with you on this many times. So please which Muslims are practicing Islam? Give example of the true sect and why you think they're the true muslims?

tintingz:


Unfortunately Religious people needs scholars to interpret the scriptures for them.

Some religious people, and not all.

Some don't need the brainwashing and actually read and understand the book themselves.

tintingz:
How?
I hope you know what "no true Scotsman" is?

You love your fallacies, I see. No, I don't know what true scotsman is. Elaborate please.

You decided you knew all there was to know about the the subject and were unwilling to consider other views and opinions presented to you. That is absolutism, a lack of sceptism, and is exactly what you said religious people do - make up their minds and shut their eyes to contradictory information. It however delights me that you've taken a step backwards and reinstated your sceptism with the questions you've asked.

tintingz:
You always give this argument that muslims are not practicing Islam and I've argue with you on this many times. So please which Muslims are practicing Islam? Give example of the true sect and why you think they're the true muslims?

Not all Muslims are not practising Islam. Some actually read the book and adhere to its teachings as closely as they possibly can, but some Muslims obviously don't read or understand the Quran and don't know the practices so can only practise what they've been told is in the book. As I suggested, boko haram are Muslims, but they are not practising the Islam that most others do. Some Muslims would even go further and say boko haram are not Muslims. Or do you think the Islam that boko haram practise is a proper understanding of what's in the book?

The divide is not by sect, however. People of different sects can be practising Islam while others in the same sect might not be. In Christianity those who claim to practise but actually don't are referred to as [url=https://classic.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+7%3A21-23&version=NIV]Lordists[/url], to whom it would be said, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’

tintingz:

I Agree to some of what you said but the Bible have issues with people that question.

I really can not stand the language you use here. It sounds like the Bible has an opinion about what people do! Perhaps you mean the preachers don't like people asking questions. But I would say those preachers are ignorant and don't want people to know they are unable to answer questions so they'd rather you not ask. [url=https://bible.oremus.org/?passage=Luke+11:37%E2%80%9311:54&version=nrsv]Woe[/url], Christ said to such people, 8 times!

The Bible is a book. Reading any book is an art of questioning so as answer the question, "what is written in this book", and anyone who reads the Bible will ask the very fundamental questions, "what does what I read mean?" And if they do not ask, it will be difficult for them to acquire understanding of what they read.

Not many, on first reading Jesus was born by a virgin, for instance, just say, okay, since it defies what they should know about getting pregnant. Intelligent people are likely to ask, "how", or "what does that mean".

tintingz:
Even Jesus cursed the people that questioned him, same for the Pharisees that hate Jesus for questioning them because one doesn't question the Jewish scriptures. The Bible has to do with whose belief should be superior not that they want to establish a knowledge like how the Greek philosophers did by attacking and countering themselves with very logical questions.

Please show me one single verse in the Bible where Jesus cursed people for asking questions, I am not quite familiar with that.

If you go to theology school where I live, you'd need to learn Greek Philosophy so that you know the art of rhetoric. It involves asking questions, and Christianity has thrived only because questions are asked or we'd still be in the dark ages. Judaism itself is a religion of questioning, which is why modern day Israelites have developed as much as they have. By questioning, they learn and advance and evolve.

tintingz:
The Bible has to do with whose belief should be superior not that they want to establish a knowledge like how the Greek philosophers did by attacking and countering themselves with very logical questions.

The Bible has nothing to do with who's belief should be superior, and actually has bits in it that say fuq your belief! A clear example of this is where it clearly states that there is not much merit in belief because even demons believe and tremble.

www.nairaland.com/attachments/11663600_20200604102351774_jpeg_jpeg0a6707a5c919e2761327fab9920679aa

Another is my favourite Parable of the Orangutan.

budaatum:
In reply Jesus said: “A man was stuck in a river".

"A photographer stood there taking photos while an orangutan saved the man".

“Which of these do you think was a neighbor to the man stuck in a river?”

The expert in the law replied, “The one who had mercy on him.”

Jesus told him, “[url=https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+10%3A25-37&version=NIV]Go and do likewise[/url].”

www.nairaland.com/attachments/11026430_244049467975207imagem181581013078995_jpeg36831a722ecdff67f0e5698629a2a90c

In the original Parable of the Good Samaritan, the Priest and the Levite refused to help the beaten man because of their belief. It was the Pagan unbelieving Samaritan that Christ said "go and emulate". The pity is most don't question and research for answers so don't quite get that Jesus chose a pagan non-God worshipper and said "Go and do likewise".

In all honesty, only people who have not actually read the book wouldn't notice and wonder why Christ himself used questions as a teaching tool so much, yet expects one not to question, as you claim. If you truly understand the Gospels, you would find that Jesus actually requires you question or some priests will give you scorpions when you asked for bread.

I think you are stating how you've seen Christianity practised and think that is what is written in the book itself, hence your "Bible have issues with people that question", and your "Jesus cursed the people that questioned him". But as I said in my previous, one should not determine a religion by actions of the so called religious, because they might not be following what the book says. Its what I mean when I say The Muslim practise of some, like boko haram, is not Islam, just as thieves are definitely not practising Christianity even if they bow down and pray to Jesus before going off to steal.

By the fruits that people produce do we know if they worship God, and not by the crap beliefs inside their heads, so the skeptic will go check the source to determine if the religious are worshipping God the way it is written in the book, but of course the skeptic must first understand the book before judging others. Or they'll be judging ignorantly.

Below is Jesus in his own words:

"Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives; the one who seeks finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened."

"Ask", "seek", "knock", all mean question question question till you find answers.

P.s. Sorry it's long. I've cut half out so its only this long.

budaatum:

I really can not stand the language you use here. It sounds like the Bible has an opinion about what people do! Perhaps you mean the preachers don't like people asking questions. But I would say those preachers are ignorant and don't want people to know they are unable to answer questions so they'd rather you not ask. [url=https://bible.oremus.org/?passage=Luke+11:37%E2%80%9311:54&version=nrsv]Woe[/url], Christ said to such people, 8 times!

The Bible is a book. Reading any book is an art of questioning so as answer the question, "what is written in this book", and anyone who reads the Bible will ask the very fundamental questions, "what does what I read mean?" And if they do not ask, it will be difficult for them to acquire understanding of what they read.

Not many, on first reading Jesus was born by a virgin, for instance, just say, okay, since it defies what they should know about getting pregnant. Intelligent people are likely to ask, "how", or "what does that mean".

Reading the Bible shows it doesn't encourage asking questions. The Israelites ask Moses questions, Moses and Yahweh usually get angry that Yahweh punished them. The idea of the Bible is to have faith in the god and not doubt nor challenge the Prophets with questions.

Please show me one single verse in the Bible where Jesus cursed people for asking questions, I am not quite familiar with that.

"But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas". Mathew 12:39

Jesus could just show them the signs when they questioned him but he had to curse them first.

If you go to theology school where I live, you'd need to learn Greek Philosophy so that you know the art of rhetoric. It involves asking questions, and Christianity has thrived only because questions are asked or we'd still be in the dark ages. Judaism itself is a religion of questioning, which is why modern day Israelites have developed as much as they have. By questioning, they learn and advance and evolve.

No, the Abrahamic Religions are built on faiths than questioning.

The Bible has nothing to do with who's belief should be superior, and actually has bits in it that say fuq your belief! A clear example of this is where it clearly states that there is not much merit in belief because even demons believe and tremble.

The whole idea of the Bible is to make the Jewish god Yahweh the superior deity, read the Bible it is all about the superiority of believing in Yahweh's doctrine same for the Qur'an.

www.nairaland.com/attachments/11663600_20200604102351774_jpeg_jpeg0a6707a5c919e2761327fab9920679aa

Another is my favourite Parable of the Orangutan.



In the original Parable of the Good Samaritan, the Priest and the Levite refused to help the beaten man because of their belief. It was the Pagan unbelieving Samaritan that Christ said "go and emulate". The pity is most don't question and research for answers so don't quite get that Jesus chose a pagan non-God worshipper and said "Go and do likewise".

In all honesty, only people who have not actually read the book wouldn't notice and wonder why Christ himself used questions as a teaching tool so much, yet expects one not to question, as you claim. If you truly understand the Gospels, you would find that Jesus actually requires you question or some priests will give you scorpions when you asked for bread.

I think you are stating how you've seen Christianity practised and think that is what is written in the book itself, hence your "Bible have issues with people that question", and your "Jesus cursed the people that questioned him". But as I said in my previous, one should not determine a religion by actions of the so called religious, because they might not be following what the book says. Its what I mean when I say The Muslim practise of some, like boko haram, is not Islam, just as thieves are definitely not practising Christianity even if they bow down and pray to Jesus before going off to steal.

By the fruits that people produce do we know if they worship God, and not by the crap beliefs inside their heads, so the skeptic will go check the source to determine if the religious are worshipping God the way it is written in the book, but of course the skeptic must first understand the book before judging others. Or they'll be judging ignorantly.

Below is Jesus in his own words:

"Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives; the one who seeks finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened."

"Ask", "seek", "knock", all mean question question question till you find answers.

P.s. Sorry it's long. I've cut half out so its only this long.

That Bible context was talking about prayers, read the following verses.

budaatum:

You love your fallacies, I see. No, I don't know what true scotsman is. Elaborate please.

There's a belief that Muslims follow but when it doesn't suit you, you said "they're not true Muslims nor following the Islamic beliefs" even when you're shown references to that effect. That's no true Scotsman.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

You decided you knew all there was to know about the the subject and were unwilling to consider other views and opinions presented to you. That is absolutism, a lack of sceptism, and is exactly what you said religious people do - make up their minds and shut their eyes to contradictory information. It however delights me that you've taken a step backwards and reinstated your sceptism with the questions you've asked.

Can you point out examples from my posts regarding this?

Not all Muslims are not practising Islam. Some actually read the book and adhere to its teachings as closely as they possibly can, but some Muslims obviously don't read or understand the Quran and don't know the practices so can only practise what they've been told is in the book. As I suggested, boko haram are Muslims, but they are not practising the Islam that most others do. Some Muslims would even go further and say boko haram are not Muslims. Or do you think the Islam that boko haram practise is a proper understanding of what's in the book?

The divide is not by sect, however. People of different sects can be practising Islam while others in the same sect might not be. In Christianity those who claim to practise but actually don't are referred to as [url=https://classic.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+7%3A21-23&version=NIV]Lordists[/url], to whom it would be said, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’

Again you're committing no true Scotsman fallacy. Why do you think Boko Haram are not actually practicing true Islam? How do you tell who is practicing the true Islam?

budaatum:

Some religious people, and not all.

Some don't need the brainwashing and actually read and understand the book themselves.

In almost every religious texts there are school of thoughts where scholars interpret the scriptures. Most Religious people if not all are brought up in a particular school of thoughts.

budaatum:

Well, imagine the skeptic trying to cross a road. They look right and left, see no car coming, then look right and left again and no car's coming, so they look left and right again and no car coming, so they look.......

Yep, I agree. Madness. Which why it is written that "[url=https://classic.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+11%3A34-36&version=NIV]if ones senses are dim, the whole body woud be full of madness[/url]". The moral being, one must make sure ones senses can be trusted and that one knows how to use them properly so skeptism does not make one go mad.

Very apt Buda. The proper use of our senses when in doubt should not lead towards madness, but unfortunately, we can't shy away from people who misuse these senses and in so doing become mad literally or exhibit some forms of madness. I call it self- inflicted madness. Thus, there is classifications of skepticism or philosophical skepticism and I usually make reference to the kind of skepticism which is futile in my submissions...And also mentioned that there are indeed fundamental knowledge that should not be in doubt when we really use our senses properly , and God being one of such.

My first post on this thread points to the teachings of Islam with regards to critical thinking and deep reflections on issues of God and creation. The Qur'an presents a rational argument for God by asking fundamental questions which continuous philosophical skepticism can't provide answers for with certainty. A good example of this is the verse that follows :

"Or were they created by nothing, or were they the creators [of themselves]?

Or did they create the heavens and the earth? Rather, they are not certain.

Or have they the depositories [containing the provision] of your Lord? Or are they the controllers [of them]?" (Qur'an 52:35-37)

So I find it utterly ridiculous that tintingz and his likes keep claiming that Islam is zombeism... And when they demand philosophical proofs for what is an a priori knowledge (like cause and effect) or demand empirical evidence for what is beyond the observable and reproducible in the physical world, I can't help but see the manifestations of radical skepticism and sometimes madness.

tintingz:
What's your point here?

Didn't I said the effect of a robbery is an evidence itself? Why should anyone go to a robbery scene when it's obvious there's a robbery going on in that area? I even said the police and media people will do their job to cover the scene and give reports in details and evidence.

You keep strawmaning I don't like strawman arguments.

This still doesn't make sense. So where was I when the robbery was going on?

The sound of gunshots is different from bangers. Do I look like a kid?

If people are fleeing because of a loud sound then it's something dangerous, people don't flee by hearing sounds of bangers.

Evidence = verifiable

No, tell us the logic behind faith? I would like to know the logic behind faith.

As you can see from the philosophical skepticism one of the category denied the knowledge of absolutism; we can't know everything and the other said the a subject shouldn't be judged or concluded without no sufficient evidence. They're both valid! Humans are limited and we can't know everything at least for now(if it's possible) but in the process of skepticism we gain knowledge and evidence to some subject matters.

When it's comes to matter of unseen where there's no evidence, you don't conclude or give judgement (the second type of skepticism), you has a Muslim have concluded on things that has no evidence unless if you can provide evidence to your beliefs but then how did you arrive at the conclusion there Allah, he's first cause, Muhammad rode on a flying creature etc? How did you conclude this?

It's my belief, why do you need evidence? Or do you now subscribe to philosophical skepticism?

You didn't give any reasonable response here, you just go in circles with your beliefs. A delusory response.

Tell us how you concluded Muhammad rode on a flying donkey to the sky?

If you don't have evidence then it's no different from the flying rabbit in the cosmic because they're both belief system.

How did you know Allah exist? What makes you believe Allah exist out of other Gods in other religions?



You're just strawmaning here.

Any logical open minded person that goes through my threads will see that my threads are about the absurdity of the Muslim beliefs. Whether you find them insulting is non of my business, Muslims have done worse, i have been insulted and threaten many times, so why do you need special treatment from me?

I respect few Muslims here who are ready to discuss intellectually and not always attack the person.

You made a simple thing become something you are finding difficult to comprehend...I wouldn't go further explaining this simple scenario to you again.

But I would address an aspect, you said "effect of robbery is an evidence of a robbery". I do agree with this, but the question is did you verify the robbery yourself before you conclude that there was a robbery going on? Did you not rely on the available evidences of the effects of the robbery to come to this conclusion?

Now when it comes to the existence of God, the evidence is the universe and all that it contains including you and me. All these are effects of a cause which is undeniable. Why this cause is God and not your flying rabbit, is the available evidences of our intellect, we are intelligent beings, what would cause such intelligence would be far more intelligent than us, would be beyond descriptions of his creation and would communicate with us in a way, and thus revelations... This revelation must be meaningful, a guide to understanding purpose of all that exist and not just some accidental mumbo jumbo.

This meaningful and purposeful existence lies in the heart of every one of us, we always seek meaning and purpose, and when such is lost, we are disturbed...

The funny thing about you is that you were once a Muslim, and all these claims of absurdity were what you laboured to correct and explain the true position of Islam. There is nothing intellectual about claims that are false like what you have claimed on this thread about Islam being zombiesm.

tintingz:

Again you're committing no true Scotsman fallacy. Why do you think Boko Haram are not actually practicing true Islam? How do you tell who is practicing the true Islam?

Do you know what the reverse of no true scotsman is? Its when one uncritically lumps all sorts under the same banner. I'll call it the true scotsman fallacy.

By simply reading the book, tingz, one will find nothing in it to support what boko haram do, and only a prejudiced person wouldn't see the fact that most Muslims abhor boko haram.

sino:

So I find it utterly ridiculous that tintingz and his likes keep claiming that Islam is zombeism...

I feel they watch the worst practitioners of the religion, which is where the ex-Muslims here get their doctrine from and claim that's the religion, without understanding the zombified version they were given and rightly rebel against is not what many understand from reading the Quran. They have been programmed to see what they see, and even when they rebel, they still only see what they are told. I'll call them the zombies and watch tintingz completely miss the point that refuting that fact is his scotsman fallacy with him sticking absolutely to his preconceived notion with an inability to apply skeptism to his already made up mind.

The zombeism they claim is due to Islam is universally distributed in Nigeria, they'd find if they looked carefully. Almost all Nigerians bow down and worship their own religious book or preacher or imam or big man in their neighbourhood, all of which they dare not question, but rather than use skeptism to help them dig out a reason for this zombeism, tingz et al have made up their mind to blame it on the cure without really knowing that's what they do, and that, despite that same book being the beginning of their own eyes opening slightly.

Zombeism they speak of is the result of little information. The first and only book most people read is a holy book, which they are told came down from heaven and therefore must worship despite very limited understanding. I'm discussing with one in the Christian section who thinks he's smart despite his ignorant zombeism shinning through in almost every word he writes. You'd see on that thread how and what I am claiming opened Adam and Eve's eyes and freed them from zombeism. Unfortunately, tintingz is unknowingly claiming such people's misunderstanding is the books fault instead of the individuals ignorance and lack of understanding, and nothing one says will make either of them, despite being on opposite ends, skeptical to their strongly held preconceived beliefs.

Those who will make zombies of our people will make sure those people have as little access to as few sources of information as possible. It's why there's not enough books, no libraries, no electricity, ill-treated teachers and bad schools, and instead a multitude of religious institutions willing to zombify people and get those people to tithe for the privilege. We see the result as the inability of many Nigerians to think and reason for themselves and create employment for the millions of ill-educated unemployable youths graduating annually from our third world universities.

Skeptism, the questioning of knowledge, will make people understand why it is written that, humans must not read only one book or they will become malnourished.

The solution is to increase sceptism by providing people with the access to more information and the opportunity to reason with one another as we do on Nairaland. Even when we do not agree with one another, only the zombies will resist considering and questioning what they've heard or read which is why I do this.

tintingz:

In almost every religious texts there are school of thoughts where scholars interpret the scriptures. Most Religious people if not all are brought up in a particular school of thoughts.

I agree. With both statements.

Do you agree that some "religious scholars" are not scholars at all, but ignorant idiots who twist scripture to their own selfish ends?

Would you agree that the version of the religion formed by such ignorant idiots is a corrupt form of what might actually be understood by religious scholars?

Basically, would you call [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Yusuf_%28Boko_Haram%29?wprov=sfla1]Mohammed Yusuf (29 January 1970 – 30 July 2009)[/url] a religious scholar or an ignorant student who failed to understand what he was taught?

sino:


You made a simple thing become something you are finding difficult to comprehend...I wouldn't go further explaining this simple scenario to you again.

But I would address an aspect, you said "effect of robbery is an evidence of a robbery". I do agree with this, but the question is did you verify the robbery yourself before you conclude that there was a robbery going on? Did you not rely on the available evidences of the effects of the robbery to come to this conclusion?

Now when it comes to the existence of God, the evidence is the universe and all that it contains including you and me. All these are effects of a cause which is undeniable. Why this cause is God and not your flying rabbit, is the available evidences of our intellect, we are intelligent beings, what would cause such intelligence would be far more intelligent than us, would be beyond descriptions of his creation and would communicate with us in a way, and thus revelations... This revelation must be meaningful, a guide to understanding purpose of all that exist and not just some accidental mumbo jumbo.

This meaningful and purposeful existence lies in the heart of every one of us, we always seek meaning and purpose, and when such is lost, we are disturbed...

The funny thing about you is that you were once a Muslim, and all these claims of absurdity were what you laboured to correct and explain the true position of Islam. There is nothing intellectual about claims that are false like what you have claimed on this thread about Islam being zombiesm.

The effect of a robbery link to the robbery, the fossils link to dinosaurs existence, there's an evidential link between the two and connect them, the effect of our DNA and environments link to evolution, what's evidential link that connect this universe to Allah? How does my existence suddenly prove there's a god(Allah)? Why not Aliens, cosmic flying rabbits causing the universe?

budaatum:

I feel they watch the worst practitioners of the religion, which is where the ex-Muslims here get their doctrine from and claim that's the religion, without understanding the zombified version they were given and rightly rebel against is not what many understand from reading the Quran. They have been programmed to see what they see, and even when they rebel, they still only see what they are told. I'll call them the zombies and watch tintingz completely miss the point that refuting that fact is his scotsman fallacy with him sticking absolutely to his preconceived notion with an inability to apply skeptism to his already made up mind.

Have you ever been a Muslim even for many years to project Ex-muslims criticism on Islam? Yes there are Ex-muslims that says things isn't in Islam just to bad mouth the Religion and there are Ex-muslims that uses the Islamic doctrines to criticize the Religion.

Do you go through my threads, can you point out one single thing that isn't part of Islamic doctrines? I will be waiting.

You keep saying what you have no idea of.

The zombeism they claim is due to Islam is universally distributed in Nigeria, they'd find if they looked carefully. Almost all Nigerians bow down and worship their own religious book or preacher or imam or big man in their neighbourhood, all of which they dare not question, but rather than use skeptism to help them dig out a reason for this zombeism, tingz et al have made up their mind to blame it on the cure without really knowing that's what they do, and that, despite that same book being the beginning of their own eyes opening slightly.

What do i do?

Zombeism they speak of is the result of little information. The first and only book most people read is a holy book, which they are told came down from heaven and therefore must worship despite very limited understanding. I'm discussing with one in the Christian section who thinks he's smart despite his ignorant zombeism shinning through in almost every word he writes. You'd see on that thread how and what I am claiming opened Adam and Eve's eyes and freed them from zombeism. Unfortunately, tintingz is unknowingly claiming such people's misunderstanding is the books fault instead of the individuals ignorance and lack of understanding, and nothing one says will make either of them, despite being on opposite ends, skeptical to their strongly held preconceived beliefs.

Those who will make zombies of our people will make sure those people have as little access to as few sources of information as possible. It's why there's not enough books, no libraries, no electricity, ill-treated teachers and bad schools, and instead a multitude of religious institutions willing to zombify people and get those people to tithe for the privilege. We see the result as the inability of many Nigerians to think and reason for themselves and create employment for the millions of ill-educated unemployable youths graduating annually from our third world universities.

Skeptism, the questioning of knowledge, will make people understand why it is written that, humans must not read only one book or they will become malnourished.

The solution is to increase sceptism by providing people with the access to more information and the opportunity to reason with one another as we do on Nairaland. Even when we do not agree with one another, only the zombies will resist considering and questioning what they've heard or read which is why I do this.

Let me ask you, Allah commands men to beat their disobedient wives, was that from my interpretation or from the scripture?

Let's see how you reason.

budaatum:

Do you know what the reverse of no true scotsman is? Its when one uncritically lumps all sorts under the same banner. I'll call it the true scotsman fallacy.

By simply reading the book, tingz, one will find nothing in it to support what boko haram do, and only a prejudiced person wouldn't see the fact that most Muslims abhor boko haram.

Ok, the part the book said "fight unbelievers till they believe"(Quran 9:29, 9:5) isn't in support of what they do?

It's not about who abhor or not, it's about the belief they can justify their actions with, if Islam is so peaceful that there isn't anything to justify terrorism actions with, the Religion won't be the face of terrorism. Atleast terrorism won't be so existing in the religion for this long, terrorism will always continue as long as the justifications is found in the book reasons reformation is needed.

Jainism is so anti-violence and peaceful that they walk with brooms to avoid killing insects!

tintingz:

Let me ask you, Allah commands men to beat their disobedient wives, was that from my interpretation or from the scripture?

Let's see how you reason.

We have done this many times, but though it is obvious, you just can not accept it, I think now because your service to skeptism is of the lip.

Allah did not command anyone to beat their disobedient wives! The truth is you read in a book written 100s of years ago supposedly by an illiterate trader that an angel came from heaven and told him to write what you read today.

Skeptism should make you wonder if an angel truly came, and if it came from Allah, to begin with. That same skeptism should make you wonder if there is merit in beating your wife. And simply using your own eyes would make you wonder why so many Muslims seem to be disobeying their Almighty Most Wise Allah because most Muslims do not beat their wives.

"Allah did not command". It is zombies who read a book and say such a thing, and I think you would say you are not a zombie, so why do you use zombie expressions, tingz? I wonder! Is it because, without realising, you are actually a zombie?

Please know that aside from what one reads literally, and what it means (interpretation), their is understanding too, as in what it motivates one to do, and it is that understanding that is of Allah, and not mere words in some supposedly holy book.

tintingz:
Ok, the part the book said "fight unbelievers till they believe"(Quran 9:29, 9:5) isn't in support of what they do?

If I'm a stupid lazy zombie, I might have thought so, but if I wasnt a stupid lazy zombie and bothered to read the book, I would have found that there are many verses in the same book that tell me Islam is not by compulsion, and that seeming contradiction alone ought to make me think a little bit since it must seem as if I can't follow both, what seems to be, instructions.

The Quran is a book, tingz, and not any one single verse. Zombies quote verses in justification, while enlightened people will take the entire book with all its beautiful contradictions, as a whole.

Thinking and reason and understanding those contradictions is what makes people grow, while ignorantly just believing a verse is just plain stupidity.

tintingz:

It's not about who abhor or not, it's about the belief they can justify their actions with, if Islam is so peaceful that there isn't anything to justify terrorism actions with, the Religion won't be the face of terrorism.

No tingz! The ignorant beliefs I cook up in my head can never be accepted by intelligent brain users like you who dominate the world, because my stupid ignorant beliefs do not dictate reality.

It's like using Call of Duty to justify a killing spree. All I have to say is "I believe God made Call of Duty" so its ok for me to shoot hundreds of people on a busy street on a Sunday Afternoon.
Please tell me how justified you think I'd be.

budaatum:

No tingz! The ignorant beliefs I cook up in my head can never be accepted by intelligent brain users like you who dominate the world, because my stupid ignorant beliefs do not dictate reality.

It's like using Call of Duty to justify a killing spree. All I have to say is "I believe God made Call of Duty" so its ok for me to shoot hundreds of people on a busy street on a Sunday Afternoon.
Please tell me how justified you think I'd be.

Does god or any supreme being have anything to do with Call of Duty? You're not even comprehending the subject here.

If Call of Duty is a belief system where the god commands it adherents to kill then they can justify their killings with it e.g book of CoD 1:45 "Go out and kill everyone that hold no phones" in this case the adherents can justify their killings with this command. It's a belief they hold to high esteem. God commands are perfect to them.

tintingz:


Does god or any supreme being have anything to do with Call of Duty? You're not even comprehending the subject here.

If Call of Duty is a belief system where the god commands it adherents to kill then they can justify their killings with it e.g book of CoD 1:45 "Go out and kill everyone that hold no phones" in this case the adherents can justify their killings with this command. It's a belief they hold to high esteem. God commands are perfect to them.

Tintingz! Can I justify wife beating or killing unbelievers to intelligent you because of a belief that God has something to do with the Quran?

Would you accept such a stupid ignorant justification from me if you were a judge?