Islam is fundamentally incoherent.

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Justin
 
Reply Mon 9 Mar, 2009 08:13 am
@xris,
Bonaventurian wrote:
How do you know this? Because you've tasted the grapey fermented flavor of the contents of the chalice? Because you've felt the consistency of the Host? This is to say, because you've tasted, felt, touched, smelled, and looked at these things? So what? The objects of sense perception are non-substantial. They are accidental.


Yes, I've eaten the wafer and the wine and it has not changed. The only reason I would believe it's changed is because I've allowed another man has convinced me of it. Never-the-less, the substance remains the same regardless of what I choose to believe.

Bonaventurian wrote:
The Council of Trent teaches that the substance changes, and only the accidents of bread and wine remains.

OK, so are we to believe everything everyone tells us?

Bonaventurian wrote:
The Muslim belief, on the other hand, is not even logically consistent. It's logically inconsistent. The Muslim can't say "I believe this on faith." By definition, he can't, fully understanding what these propositions imply, believe all 3 of them concurrently.


ALL RELIGIONS are inconsistent and many of their faiths are not logically consistent or possible. What we have is one blind man leading another with books of fallacies and myths. It's a rather simple thing. Muslims are no more right than Catholics.

Bonaventurian wrote:
Consistency is a bare minimum in my book. To be consistent means to be possible. My religion might be wrong (it isn't). But it can be right. The Muslim faith, on the other hand, is necessarily wrong. It can't be right.


Trust me, Catholic religion is just as wrong as Muslim religion and just as wrong as every other religion. They all divide man thus they are all wrong. There is however commonalities in each one that very well could be right but when we have blind men creating the religions, how are any of them to be perfectly right when each of them are based on division of what most of them believe to be one god? That's inconsistent.

Bonaventurian wrote:
All of these things are possible. I think you are missing the point of what I am saying. I am not arguing that Catholicism is right. I am only arguing that Catholicism is possible. Muslims, however, don't even believe in a possible system. The concurrent truth of all of their beliefs are impossible. Islam is not only wrong, but it is wrong necessarily.


Anything is possible so long as you have the power of blind faith behind it. A handful of creative leaders can convince the followers of almost anything and that's why we have so many religions today.

neapolitan wrote:
Another problem: Christianity has Jesus as The Son of God (God-Man) and Islam has Jesus as a man, they are two contradictory statement. You can have two opposing statement that can both be true one has to be true and the other has to be false.


Well, considering that there is NO 'real' evidence of the life of Christ, both could be wrong. Again we're relying on myth. There's more evidence to support Krishna than Christ. False false.

They are all wrong in my opinion. There is no religion that brings people together to work in harmony that doesn't divide and separate and kill another religion. Like followers follow the like. Like is attracted to like and if you like to believe in a religion then you have to surrender to faith and then follow. None of them are consistent... we just would like to believe they are.
 
Mr Fight the Power
 
Reply Mon 9 Mar, 2009 12:27 pm
@Bonaventurian,
Bonaventurian wrote:
That said, no, I don't think that every religion can be shown to be incoherent. Catholic Christianity is a religion I consider to be entirely consistent (incidentally, that's the religion to which I submit my intellect).


Incidentally my a**.

EDIT: Which came first, your catholicism or your rational examination of your catholicism?
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Mon 9 Mar, 2009 02:05 pm
@xris,
xris wrote:
I have sufficient knowledge about islam and catholicism to know these debates are not about sharing knowledge or advancing understanding .They are just one set of fundamentalist posturing about one set of unsubstantiated scripture against another.Ide love for it to be about sound reasoning and go beyond shadow boxing but sadly thats all that happens..


Except that neither Catholics nor Muslims are necessarily fundamentalists.
 
xris
 
Reply Mon 9 Mar, 2009 02:23 pm
@Didymos Thomas,
Didymos Thomas wrote:
Except that neither Catholics nor Muslims are necessarily fundamentalists.
Oh but they are by their very admission. If they fail to abide by their scriptures they can no longer be who they say they are...this is why the church and islam has so many facets..Deny the holy trinity the virgin birth oppose the decree on contraception..deny stoning for adultery or jihad..They are all major principles that for us kaffs spell fundamentalism..
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Mon 9 Mar, 2009 02:27 pm
@xris,
xris wrote:
Oh but they are by their very admission. If they fail to abide by their scriptures they can no longer be who they say they are...this is why the church and islam has so many facets..Deny the holy trinity the virgin birth oppose the decree on contraception..deny stoning for adultery or jihad..They are all major principles that for us kaffs spell fundamentalism..


Some Muslims and Catholics are fundamentalists: my claim was that Muslims and Catholics are not necessarily fundamentalists.

Accepting the Trinity, Virgin Birth and the Church's view on contraception is not necessarily to accept fundamentalism.

Stoning for adultery is fundamentalist, but not all Muslims agree with such a notion. As for jihad, the word simply means "struggle for God", it does not mean "let's go slaughter as many infidels as possible". The former interpretation is Muslim, the later is Islamic fundamentalism.
 
xris
 
Reply Mon 9 Mar, 2009 02:36 pm
@Didymos Thomas,
Didymos Thomas wrote:
Some Muslims and Catholics are fundamentalists: my claim was that Muslims and Catholics are not necessarily fundamentalists.

Accepting the Trinity, Virgin Birth and the Church's view on contraception is not necessarily to accept fundamentalism.

Stoning for adultery is fundamentalist, but not all Muslims agree with such a notion. As for jihad, the word simply means "struggle for God", it does not mean "let's go slaughter as many infidels as possible". The former interpretation is Muslim, the later is Islamic fundamentalism.
It comes down to me deciding your a fundamentalists not you..if you believe in contraception not matter what the consequences and your interpretation is fundamentally secured by scriptures i have no other alternative but to say you are..There are five jihads and one is conversion by the sword and this is fundamental to islamic scriptures,its not an allowance it is a demand.
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Mon 9 Mar, 2009 02:49 pm
@xris,
Then perhaps you do not understand what "fundamentalism" means when used in religious contexts. Fundamentalism, while having other aspects, is essentially the notion that scripture is inerrant (without any error or contradiction) and that every word of scripture is revealed by God to the authors and, therefore, that every word is perfectly true.

Catholics do not typically accept this:
Fundamentalism

Using the term fundamentalism to describe Islam is more problematic because the term fundamentalist originated as a descriptor for emerging Christian theologies in the 1800's. Some Muslims say that Islam should embrace the label fundamentalism because, in it's loosest sense, this simply means strict adherence to the tenets of one's faith: which means the suicide bomber is not an Islamic fundamentalist because the suicide bomber does not adhere to the peaceful nature of Islam.

On the other hand, we can adapt the term from Christian use to use in describing Islam: this would mean that an Islamic fundamentalist sees no contradiction in the Koran; notice, though, that this is impossible as the Koran is filled with contradictions because the revelation to Muhammad progresses. Early in the Koran one thing is said, and later that saying is contradicted by further explanation of some notion. It's a tricky book like that.

But the point is, if we adopt the theological term fundamentalism from Christianity and apply it to Islam we have to accept the conclusion that not all Muslims are fundamentalists. If we use the term fundamentalism in its loosest sense to describe Islam, we have to bear in mind that Islamic fundamentalism under this understanding of the term is vastly different from Christian fundamentalism.
 
xris
 
Reply Mon 9 Mar, 2009 03:05 pm
@Didymos Thomas,
Suicide bombers go against their scriptures ,the koran does not make that permissable.I have an image of those who go against logic, believe their scriptures beyond their natural intentions.No one can say we should expand islam by violence but thats what the koran demands, so if you are muslim you must perform this jihad, it is fundamental.The same for contraception if you are catholic it is a sin , it is fundamental to its creed.Break from the scriptures and you are infidel or something other than RC.A muslim who denies Jihad is not muslim a catholic that denies the trinity is not catholic..
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Mon 9 Mar, 2009 03:17 pm
@xris,
xris wrote:
Suicide bombers go against their scriptures ,the koran does not make that permissable.


Fundamentalism In Islam

From the article:
Quote:
an "Islamic Fundamentalist" is not a terrorist as the media would have you believe, but a Muslim steadfast in his devotion to Allah


The article here takes Islamic fundamentalism in the lose sense I spoke of in the previous post; that is, for this author, Islamic fundamentalism is not the Islamic equivalent of Christian Fundamentalism, the later being a technical term in Christian theology.

xris wrote:
No one can say we should expand islam by violence but thats what the koran demands, so if you are muslim you must perform this jihad, it is fundamental.


Jihad is a religious fundamental, but to say that expanding Islam by violence is prescribed by the Koran is terribly misleading. Violent Jihad is supposed to be reserved for defending Muslims against oppression and not an aggressive expansion technique. Remember, jihad means struggle for God, and not necessarily violent struggle. Mostly, jihad refers to a personal struggle on behalf of God, a struggle to better one's self as a servant of God by being peaceful, ect, and bettering one's community by charity and kindness.

xris wrote:
The same for contraception if you are catholic it is a sin , it is fundamental to its creed.


But accepting the Church's teaching on contraception does not necessarily make someone a Christian fundamentalist. It's beside the point. We have to remember that Christian Fundamentalism is a technical term in Christian theology. Christian Fundamentalism is not the same as the fundamentals of Christian faith.

xris wrote:
Break from the scriptures and you are infidel or something other than RC.A


Depend on what you mean by break from scripture. If you mean deny some portion of scripture, then yes. But a Catholic need not believe in Biblical inerrancy, which is something a Christian Fundamentalist must accept, by definition.

xris wrote:
muslim who denies Jihad is not muslim a catholic that denies the trinity is not catholic..


Yes, but accepting jihad as a Muslim and accepting the Trinity as a Christian does not make that Muslim or that Christian a Fundamentalist (in the technical sense).
 
xris
 
Reply Tue 10 Mar, 2009 04:15 am
@Didymos Thomas,
the koran never advocates suicide but does jihad by the sword, till the world accepts islam or submits to muslim rule.It is a sunni duty but not shia.I am not misrepresenting Islam it is fact you cant deny.
My fundamentalist, is a believer who will agree with scritures even though it goes against their logical moralty.I cant see anyone from a logical perspective opposing contraceptives or supporting Jihad but it is a necessity of their faith.If they disagree they are not of that faith.The pope is a fundamentalist so is ever sunni imam.
 
Bostonian phil
 
Reply Tue 10 Mar, 2009 06:34 am
@Bonaventurian,
Bonaventurian wrote:

1. Muslims believe that God is one both in substance and in hypostasis (person).

2. Muslims believe that God is perfect. This is to say, no greater God can be conceived.

3. It is apparent both to the Muslim and to me from the creation of this, the best possible world, that God desires to express His Goodness.* Further, even if it were not empirically obvious, it should nonetheless be obvious to the Reason (see Plato's Timaeus).

Muslims may believe this but it doesn't mean that it's inherent in Islam itself. First, God is not some abstract idea that people come up with by demanding that he be the greatest conceivable thing. God is that being described in their scripture. Being perfect does not mean that nothing greater can be conceived since those are different concepts. Something being perfect means that it corresponds to an ideal flawlessly. Since God sets His ideals then He must be perfect by definition. But that doesn't mean that we can't imagine greater ideals by creating our own set of ideals and requiring God to fit them.

God acting with goodness does not imply that the consequences of his actions will be what he desires. He chose to creat Man with freewill. That means that Man can act in opposition to God's desires. God has shown regret at what he has done.
 
josh0335
 
Reply Tue 10 Mar, 2009 12:10 pm
@Bonaventurian,
Quote:
Yet, the Muslims (and I suppose the Jew) say that God expresses His Goodness only in the creation of the world (from 1 and 3). Either, therefore, no greater expression of God's Goodness is conceivable, or Islam becomes incoherent.


What does this mean?
 
evangelion
 
Reply Tue 17 Mar, 2009 12:42 pm
@Bonaventurian,
Bonaventurian;52559 wrote:

That isn't how I formulated it. I said:

1. God is one in substance in hypostasis and in substance.
2. God is perfect (no greater God can be conceived).
3. God desires to communicate His Goodness, and this is clear from the creation of this, the best possible world.

The contradiction lies in what must be deduced from 2 and 3. Read the entire OP.

muslims do believe that God is the only God and he is perfect so 1)and 2) are true but for 3) it is balantly false the universe that we live in is not the best possible world that would be paradise yet this world is perfect and fashioned in a balanced way ( any alternance to any physical constant would lead to chaos) and it is not the only world that God created


im a muslim but i dont consider my self a theoligist i can do my best to calrify some cofusion you have about Islam
 
hammersklavier
 
Reply Tue 17 Mar, 2009 02:56 pm
@Bonaventurian,
Hey Bona, these same tenets are also tenets of Christianity: the paradox of hypostatic perfection would seem to render these religions all unstable. The fact of the matter is that most Christians seem to personify God in much the same way as do Jews, Muslims, and Mormons. The only answer to maintain Semitic coherence would be to necessarily deny one of these precepts, and the only precept I choose to deny is God's hypostacy (i.e., if He be perfect then he cannot be material). AFAIK Sufis do this too. I also think that the Christian Kingdom of God is too a post-hypostatic (that is, monistic) ideal of divinity.

Recall Spinoza and Blake both touched upon and understood the idea of monism.

And also recall there is no one true faith, but that all faiths are reflections of a one Truth.
 
doc phil
 
Reply Mon 30 Mar, 2009 09:56 am
@Bonaventurian,
Bonaventurian wrote:



These 3 things a given, it is evident that the Muslim faith is incoherent. This is to say, their beliefs result in a contradiction. Since their beliefs result in a contradiction, it is evident that either the Muslim faith as a whole is right (but this one belief or those several beliefs are wrong), or the entire faith is wrong. In this case, the former cannot be the case, since the beliefs in question which result in the contradiction are either obvious (as is the case in 2 and 3) or central to the Muslim faith (as is the case with 1). Therefore, if I can demonstrate that the beliefs result in a contradiction, it must be admitted that the Muslim faith as a whole is an error.



Many, many assumptions and tangental reasoning my friend.

Not only are the three precepts not central to Islam, but perhaps are contrary to the actual Quran. I wonder if you've actually read it?

Faith is not an error; it is not based on a series of linear statements, one giving power to the next. If it were, it would probably result in the spiral of decaying logic the quote you used seems to suffer. Of course, there is use in such a quote, and there is use in many other ramblings, but it does not confer the essential qualities of Islam - faith, modesty, fairness,.

However, whilst Islam is the attempt to generate the sense of goodness, it also caters for those that fail to achieve it. So, whilst logic may not reveal the sentiment of Islam, logic applied to the Quran does lead to the regulation of those who fail to achieve the sentiment. There are laws.

You may perceive that if you are a muslim you are entitled to marry more than one women. This is only your perception, and, in all fairness, probably an ignorant one. Muslim men can only marry one woman. But you probably want to believe there is such inequality in Islam, because that is your conditioning. And, think for a second, if it were such an illogical, unfair, religion, then would it not be suffiecient to present quotes from it and teach it freely, would we not repel it if it were so distasteful.

I do not believe one has to follow religion of any sorts to continue on after life, I do not believe that peace can only be attained through religion; I have met muslims who are a disgrace not just to muslims but to mankind, and I have met christians, athiests and so on, that are examples to humanity, and vice versa. Just be sure your perception is based on your own views, not those who are trying to perpetuate another kind of dogma.

Peace

ps much ignorance throughout this thread...quite dissappointing from a group of free-thinkers!
 
Justin
 
Reply Mon 30 Mar, 2009 10:58 am
@doc phil,
Doc, some good points made and wanted to respond to a couple of them.

doc wrote:
You may perceive that if you are a muslim you are entitled to marry more than one women. This is only your perception, and, in all fairness, probably an ignorant one.

Is it only the perception that, that perception is an ignorant one? Man's perception of who he is and his place in the world is an ignorant one all together.

Point is, they are all based on our perception of them which is seeded, nurtured and developed and ultimately manifested to create our limitations in life... which is indeed only my perception.

doc wrote:
I do not believe one has to follow religion of any sorts to continue on after life, I do not believe that peace can only be attained through religion; I have met muslims who are a disgrace not just to muslims but to mankind, and I have met christians, athiests and so on, that are examples to humanity, and vice versa. Just be sure your perception is based on your own views, not those who are trying to perpetuate another kind of dogma.


Amen to that brother!

It's not like all these wonderful religions are working together to raise all of humanity, they all divide and divided by them we are. My random thought on perception moved to blog.

doc wrote:
ps much ignorance throughout this thread...quite disappointing from a group of free-thinkers!


Ignorance is humankind's middle name. Free thinkers or not humans are ignorant but evolving towards less ignorance meanwhile there are no two exactly alike.
 
doc phil
 
Reply Mon 30 Mar, 2009 11:26 am
@Justin,
By such rationale Justin, the most worthwhile endevour for anyone aspiring to contribute to humanity is PR???

There is truth. Perception or one's view can be based on truth or it can be based on things distant to it.

There are many religious people who are trying to bring peace and unity. The flaw is often the attempt at conversion. Even still, I think far more good is done by those spouting religius doctrine than those regurgitating theories of being.

Peace
 
salima
 
Reply Mon 18 May, 2009 07:29 pm
@evangelion,
yes there is some ignorance in this discussion, but i found a lot of tolerance, objectivity, respect, genuine reasoning...much more free thinking than i have been exposed to in daily life. ignorance can be corrected, and if this forum can do a little of that it is a great achievement. thanks for being here!
 
ahmedjbh
 
Reply Sun 6 Sep, 2009 04:15 pm
@Bonaventurian,
Bonaventurian;52559 wrote:


That isn't how I formulated it. I said:

1. God is one in substance in hypostasis and in substance.
2. God is perfect (no greater God can be conceived).
3. God desires to communicate His Goodness, and this is clear from the creation of this, the best possible world.

The contradiction lies in what must be deduced from 2 and 3. Read the entire OP.


There are several problems with your argument my friend.

Firstly you assume that "best possible world" correlates to your understanding of that. I think generally all people that believe in God, accept that this universe is EXACTLY as God intended, and therefore perfect for its PURPOSE. That means that there maybe challenges, and easy times , some people have money, some dont, some people have children, some dont etc.

The fact that disease and natural disasters etc exist do not mean God is not All merciful etc.

For God to be injust, it would mean that He created someone defective, or in a situation that he could not possibly succeed AND then punishing him for that.

It is my opinion, and I would probably assume most God believing people, that God will judge us according to our ability and knowledge.
 
xris
 
Reply Mon 7 Sep, 2009 03:35 am
@ahmedjbh,
ahmedjbh;88534 wrote:
There are several problems with your argument my friend.

Firstly you assume that "best possible world" correlates to your understanding of that. I think generally all people that believe in God, accept that this universe is EXACTLY as God intended, and therefore perfect for its PURPOSE. That means that there maybe challenges, and easy times , some people have money, some dont, some people have children, some dont etc.

The fact that disease and natural disasters etc exist do not mean God is not All merciful etc.

For God to be injust, it would mean that He created someone defective, or in a situation that he could not possibly succeed AND then punishing him for that.

It is my opinion, and I would probably assume most God believing people, that God will judge us according to our ability and knowledge.
You are making assumptions that are not born out by scriptures.
No where does it judge by a mans imperfections, we are all treated equally.
Why should a god judge his imperfect creation? If he wants perfection then create perfection, we can only perform to the standards he designed.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/16/2024 at 11:59:47