Was Muhammad The Greatest Moral Example?

[gnostic]

paarsurrey said: ↑
Hadith did not exist in the time of Muhammad.
Hadith was born 250/300 years after Muhammad.
"The Quran doesn't say it" else please quote a source that existed in the time Muhammad was alive.
Regards

One should realize that one could not quote any-other source of Muhammad's time in support of one's assertion .
Regards

Spoken like the village i#*@#....

Nothing written relating to Islam or to Muhammad's life are deemed "reliable".

All sources about Muhammad's life, whether they be the Qur'an, hadiths, traditions, biographies and history written by Muslims, are UNRELIABLE.

The Qur'an wasn't written in Muhammad's time. Nothing was compile until almost a couple of decade later, and between those time, many of weren't in agreement.

And the Qur'an is very much an unreliable source as the Hadiths. The Qur'an is not history book, because the author is a complete idiot. It jump from subject to subject, with no references of time, hence the author is an idiot when it comes to history.

That because the idiot is Muhammad. If God actually wrote anything in the Qur'an, than the idiot would be God, but there is no evidences to support the existence of God or any angel (like Gabriel).

I think that Muhammad made everything up, to exploit people's naivety and superstitions, because none of them are too bright, and all of them are superstitious.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I think that Muhammad made everything up, to exploit people's naivety and superstitions, because none of them are too bright, and all of them are superstitious.

It's our arrogance that leads us into darkness..
So .. it's all very simple to you. Your mind is vastly superior to billions of believers who are all superstitious or deluded. I wonder who is really deluded?

 

[gnostic]

It's our arrogance that leads us into darkness..
So .. it's all very simple to you. Your mind is vastly superior to billions of believers who are all superstitious or deluded. I wonder who is really deluded?

Sorry, but during the 7th century, everyone were superstitious, and I mean EVERYONE. They will believe in anything, because it was crazy time.

So yes, the Arabs were superstitious just as everyone else in the world. The Christians were just as superstitious, they were no different in the 7tth century. Anyone who believe in deities, angels, demons or jinns were superstitious.

What do you think faith is?

Faith is trust in belief in supernatural, which include in those that I have mentioned in the above paragraph, as well as belief in magic, witchcraft, divination (including prophecy), luck (good and bad), faith and destiny, miracles, the afterlife, heaven and hell, etc.

Faith is nothing more than belief in superstition, and superstition is simply based on fear and ignorance, and in the case of religious-based superstition, wishful thinking.

Do you really think the 7th century Arabs were not superstitious?

Do you think Muslims were the exception to the rule?

Tell me, muhammad_isa.

Do you believe in jinns?

The creature smokeless fire that can shape-shift to any animal, or impersonate human. And that evil jinns, like Iblis, can influence people to do wicked things.

Do you really believe in them, even though you have never seen one?

That's what I call textbook case of superstition.

Do you believe in miracle, even though you haven't seen one? That's also call superstition.

The large tsunami that struck in the Indian Ocean some years ago I recall some Indonesians claiming that it happened because of Allah's wrath, or the work of God. That's superstition.

Not too long ago, I read in the paper that some people arrested and then stoned some sorcerers or witches. That's superstition.

If you think Muslims are not superstition, today, then think again.

Perhaps, I am deluded, but I am certainly not deluded because of any superstition.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..Do you believe in miracle, even though you haven't seen one? That's also call superstition..

Almighty God created believers and disbelievers .. He gives provision to all of His creation in a measure of that which He wills..
One day we will die, and what happens next is not in our hands (or absolute)

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Almighty God created believers and disbelievers .. He gives provision to all of His creation in a measure of that which He wills..
One day we will die, and what happens next is not in our hands (or absolute)

Why don't you answer gnostic's question?

 

[paarsurrey]

Sorry, but during the 7th century, everyone were superstitious, and I mean EVERYONE. They will believe in anything, because it was crazy time.
So yes, the Arabs were superstitious just as everyone else in the world. The Christians were just as superstitious, they were no different in the 7tth century. Anyone who believe in deities, angels, demons or jinns were superstitious.
What do you think faith is?
Faith is trust in belief in supernatural, which include in those that I have mentioned in the above paragraph, as well as belief in magic, witchcraft, divination (including prophecy), luck (good and bad), faith and destiny, miracles, the afterlife, heaven and hell, etc.
Faith is nothing more than belief in superstition, and superstition is simply based on fear and ignorance, and in the case of religious-based superstition, wishful thinking.
Do you really think the 7th century Arabs were not superstitious?
Do you think Muslims were the exception to the rule?
Tell me, muhammad_isa.
Do you believe in jinns?
The creature smokeless fire that can shape-shift to any animal, or impersonate human. And that evil jinns, like Iblis, can influence people to do wicked things.
Do you really believe in them, even though you have never seen one?
That's what I call textbook case of superstition.
Do you believe in miracle, even though you haven't seen one? That's also call superstition.
The large tsunami that struck in the Indian Ocean some years ago I recall some Indonesians claiming that it happened because of Allah's wrath, or the work of God. That's superstition.
Not too long ago, I read in the paper that some people arrested and then stoned some sorcerers or witches. That's superstition.
If you think Muslims are not superstition, today, then think again.
Perhaps, I am deluded, but I am certainly not deluded because of any superstition.

"Perhaps, I am deluded, but I am certainly not deluded because of any superstition."
"Faith is nothing more than belief in superstition",(My following comments is only on what I have colored in magenta.)
Or for which there is no evidence, and Atheism/Agnosticism/Skepticism don't have an evidence/s that "G-d does not exist." Do Atheism/Agnosticism/Skepticism people have faith or they are just superstition?
Regards

 

[gnostic]

Almighty God created believers and disbelievers .. He gives provision to all of His creation in a measure of that which He wills..
One day we will die, and what happens next is not in our hands (or absolute)

I have given you my answers...and I was very specific with my answer, even including the little history lesson that EVERYONE (not just Muslims were superstitions) with no exception. I have also given you brief explanation what superstitions are, and gave you examples.

Why not have the curtesy of answering mine???

Do I have to repeat my questions?

No I won't. Just reread my reply, and trying to answer at least a couple of my questions, about do you still believe in jinns, miracles or that it is god's wrath when natural disasters happened?

BTW. This...

Almighty God created believers and disbelievers .. He gives provision to all of His creation in a measure of that which He wills..
One day we will die, and what happens next is not in our hands (or absolute)

...this whole reply is actually another example of superstition or superstitious belief.

 

[gnostic]

Or for which there is no evidence, and Atheism/Agnosticism/Skepticism don't have an evidence/s that "G-d does not exist." Do Atheism/Agnosticism/Skepticism people have faith or they are just superstition?

Actually, absence of evidences for the existence of god/gods is itself mean that there are no gods.

In science, theory are only accepted if there are evidences, not because there are no evidences.

Faith is one of belief without evidences. If there were evidences for what you believe it, then you wouldn't call it faith.

Evidences are not subjected to belief. Evidences should be independent what you believe in.

Do you have any direct evidences for God, paarsurrey?

If you have any then please, by all mean show it to us. If you are going to say Qur'an, then I would only scoff because that's not, because that simply a book someone made up, exploiting your ignorance and naivety, just like all holy scriptures do. The Qur'an is not even special or unique. No scriptures are reliable evidences; it is just a book filled with myths and superstitions. I have read a number of scriptures as well as mythological literature, and the Qur'an don't even merit as being a masterpiece.

The Iliad and the Odyssey written over a thousand years before Muhammad is better written than the Qur'an, and the Qur'an's Allah is no more believable than the gods of Olympus from these two masterpieces.

Is Allah any more believeable than the Greek Zeus, the Norse Thor, the Sumerian Enki and Enlil, or the Egyptian Osiris and Isis? Is Allah any more believable than the fairy godmother or the Wicked Witch (of Oz), or the genie (jinn) in Aladdin?

He is some of the images of jinns from your favorite website - Wikipedia:

If you believe these are jinns, then you might as well as believe in the Egyptian gods, which often have human bodies, but with some sorts of animal' heads. Or you might as well as believe in the Greek minotaur, who has a body of man, but head of a bull.

That's the sorts of superstitions that Muslims believe, isn't it?

And the Qur'an make believe that Solomon can control jinns, and talk to animals, like birds and ants. Silly fables are in the Qur'an, that you would think is it not just children storybook.

Tell me, paarsurrey:

Do you believe angels are made of light and have wings?​

Apparently Muhammad believe so:

Praise be to Allah, Who created (out of nothing) the heavens and the earth, Who made the angels, messengers with wings,- two, or three, or four (pairs):...

I might as well as believe in winged fairies as to believe in winged angels.

Angels are another form of superstition, just like jinns, Iblis and Allah. The Qur'an is nothing more than make-believe fairytales, but a poorly written one at that.

 

[paarsurrey]

Actually, absence of evidences for the existence of god/gods is itself mean that there are no gods.

In science, theory are only accepted if there are evidences, not because there are no evidences.

Faith is one of belief without evidences. If there were evidences for what you believe it, then you wouldn't call it faith.

Evidences are not subjected to belief. Evidences should be independent what you believe in.

Do you have any direct evidences for God, paarsurrey?

If you have any then please, by all mean show it to us. If you are going to say Qur'an, then I would only scoff because that's not, because that simply a book someone made up, exploiting your ignorance and naivety, just like all holy scriptures do. The Qur'an is not even special or unique. No scriptures are reliable evidences; it is just a book filled with myths and superstitions. I have read a number of scriptures as well as mythological literature, and the Qur'an don't even merit as being a masterpiece.

The Iliad and the Odyssey written over a thousand years before Muhammad is better written than the Qur'an, and the Qur'an's Allah is no more believable than the gods of Olympus from these two masterpieces.

Is Allah any more believeable than the Greek Zeus, the Norse Thor, the Sumerian Enki and Enlil, or the Egyptian Osiris and Isis? Is Allah any more believable than the fairy godmother or the Wicked Witch (of Oz), or the genie (jinn) in Aladdin?

He is some of the images of jinns from your favorite website - Wikipedia:

If you believe these are jinns, then you might as well as believe in the Egyptian gods, which often have human bodies, but with some sorts of animal' heads. Or you might as well as believe in the Greek minotaur, who has a body of man, but head of a bull.

That's the sorts of superstitions that Muslims believe, isn't it?

And the Qur'an make believe that Solomon can control jinns, and talk to animals, like birds and ants. Silly fables are in the Qur'an, that you would think is it not just children storybook.

Tell me, paarsurrey:

Do you believe angels are made of light and have wings?​

Apparently Muhammad believe so:



I might as well as believe in winged fairies as to believe in winged angels.

Angels are another form of superstition, just like jinns, Iblis and Allah. The Qur'an is nothing more than make-believe fairytales, but a poorly written one at that.

"In science, theory are only accepted if there are evidences, not because there are no evidences."
One is simply wrong.
Atheism or their denominations (Agnosticism, Skepticism etc) don't belong to science. Do they?Please
Just to remind one, we are in the religious forum.
Regards

 

[Kirran]

"In science, theory are only accepted if there are evidences, not because there are no evidences."
One is simply wrong.
Atheism or their denominations (Agnosticism, Skepticism etc) don't belong to science. Do they?Please
Just to remind one, we are in the religious forum.
Regards

Actually, speaking as a scientist, that is correct. Things are only accepted once proven, not accepted until they are disproven.

Atheistic ideas certainly don't "belong" to science. But scientific method can be applied in ascertaining such philosophical questions.

 

[gnostic]

science, theory are only accepted if there are evidences, not because there are no evidences."
One is simply wrong.
Atheism or their denominations (Agnosticism, Skepticism etc) don't belong to science. Do they?Please
Just to remind one, we are in the religious forum

I have never said that science is atheism or atheism is science. So this is straw man.

Atheism is a subject on religion, particularly on the matter of theism, which they disagree with. Atheism has nothing to do with science, PERIOD.

What you quote from me about science, related only to the use of evidences that are empirical and verifiable. The lack of evidences don't support the existence of God.

 

[gnostic]

Actually, speaking as a scientist, that is correct. Things are only accepted once proven, not accepted until they are disproven.

As a scientist, you should know that scientists don't prove or disprove anything.

They (scientists) should be dealing with observation that will either refute or verify any presented statement. Observation, like testing or evidences. Science deal with evidences, not proof.

Proof, and words relating to proof, like "prove" or its opposite "disprove" is the language of mathematicians. Proof is the mathematical equation to be solved or mathematical representations in models.

And though, science deal with a lot of maths (equations, formulas, variables, etc), especially in physics, like theoretical physics, but even in the world of physics, empirical evidences and tests have greater importance than any mathematical equations or models (proofs).

Evidences are for science, proofs are for mathematicians. Proof and evidence are not synonymous, certainly not in the science and mathematics circles.

1. In science, the default position of any statement, be they be hypothesis or theory, is that they are FALSE. All statements, no exception, begin in this default position (FALSE).
2. If there are no evidences whatsoever that support or refute the given statement, then the statement remain in the FALSE position. If there are no evidences "for" or "against", that doesn't mean the statement is TRUE.
3. If the evidences (repeatedly) go against a statement, then the statement is FALSE, and it is REFUTED. REFUTED statement, should be discarded.
4. The only time statement is TRUE, is when the number of evidences verified or the repeated and rigorous tests support the statement.

I understand what you are saying, because people often assume that proof to be same as evidence, but you as a scientist, should know that are not the same things.

But let for a moment that I was to use your choice of words ("proven" and "disproven") as words to be used in science for "evidence" (proven) or "no evidence" (disproven), then the second part of your statement is not necessarily true (which I have highlighted bold & red):

Things are only accepted once proven, not accepted until they are disproven.

In science, refuting or ( to use your word) "disproving" a statement (or hypothesis or theory) is actually a goal in science.

The Scientific Method and the use of Peer Review, aren't just about what is true or accepted, but to show which or what statement is false, and should be discarded when the statement has been refuted or the statement has been "proven" to be FALSE.

Paarsurrey want his belief in God to be accepted, even though he and no else can show evidences to support Islamic theism.

A lack of evidence don't make what he or anyone believe about God to be true.

What paarsurrey has demonstrated is simply his faith and his belief, and belief and faith ARE NOT evidences, and they are certainly not science.

 

[Kirran]

As a scientist, you should know that scientists don't prove or disprove anything.

They (scientists) should be dealing with observation that will either refute or verify any presented statement. Observation, like testing or evidences. Science deal with evidences, not proof.

Proof, and words relating to proof, like "prove" or its opposite "disprove" is the language of mathematicians. Proof is the mathematical equation to be solved or mathematical representations in models.

And though, science deal with a lot of maths (equations, formulas, variables, etc), especially in physics, like theoretical physics, but even in the world of physics, empirical evidences and tests have greater importance than any mathematical equations or models (proofs).

Evidences are for science, proofs are for mathematicians. Proof and evidence are not synonymous, certainly not in the science and mathematics circles.

1. In science, the default position of any statement, be they be hypothesis or theory, is that they are FALSE. All statements, no exception, begin in this default position (FALSE).
2. If there are no evidences whatsoever that support or refute the given statement, then the statement remain in the FALSE position. If there are no evidences "for" or "against", that doesn't mean the statement is TRUE.
3. If the evidences (repeatedly) go against a statement, then the statement is FALSE, and it is REFUTED. REFUTED statement, should be discarded.
4. The only time statement is TRUE, is when the number of evidences verified or the repeated and rigorous tests support the statement.

I understand what you are saying, because people often assume that proof to be same as evidence, but you as a scientist, should know that are not the same things.

But let for a moment that I was to use your choice of words ("proven" and "disproven") as words to be used in science for "evidence" (proven) or "no evidence" (disproven), then the second part of your statement is not necessarily true (which I have highlighted bold & red):


In science, refuting or ( to use your word) "disproving" a statement (or hypothesis or theory) is actually a goal in science.

The Scientific Method and the use of Peer Review, aren't just about what is true or accepted, but to show which or what statement is false, and should be discarded when the statement has been refuted or the statement has been "proven" to be FALSE.

Paarsurrey want his belief in God to be accepted, even though he and no else can show evidences to support Islamic theism.

A lack of evidence don't make what he or anyone believe about God to be true.

What paarsurrey has demonstrated is simply his faith and his belief, and belief and faith ARE NOT evidences, and they are certainly not science.

Fair enough. I was certainly simplifying the language to adapt to what was said previously. But I will happily concede that what you've said is more precise.

As the second part, what I meant was that 'TRUE' isn't the default position.

 

[gnostic]

As the second part, what I meant was that 'TRUE' isn't the default position.

ok

 

[paarsurrey]

As a scientist, you should know that scientists don't prove or disprove anything.
They (scientists) should be dealing with observation that will either refute or verify any presented statement. Observation, like testing or evidences. Science deal with evidences, not proof.
Proof, and words relating to proof, like "prove" or its opposite "disprove" is the language of mathematicians. Proof is the mathematical equation to be solved or mathematical representations in models.
And though, science deal with a lot of maths (equations, formulas, variables, etc), especially in physics, like theoretical physics, but even in the world of physics, empirical evidences and tests have greater importance than any mathematical equations or models (proofs).
Evidences are for science, proofs are for mathematicians. Proof and evidence are not synonymous, certainly not in the science and mathematics circles.

1. In science, the default position of any statement, be they be hypothesis or theory, is that they are FALSE. All statements, no exception, begin in this default position (FALSE).
2. If there are no evidences whatsoever that support or refute the given statement, then the statement remain in the FALSE position. If there are no evidences "for" or "against", that doesn't mean the statement is TRUE.
3. If the evidences (repeatedly) go against a statement, then the statement is FALSE, and it is REFUTED. REFUTED statement, should be discarded.
4. The only time statement is TRUE, is when the number of evidences verified or the repeated and rigorous tests support the statement.

I understand what you are saying, because people often assume that proof to be same as evidence, but you as a scientist, should know that are not the same things.
But let for a moment that I was to use your choice of words ("proven" and "disproven") as words to be used in science for "evidence" (proven) or "no evidence" (disproven), then the second part of your statement is not necessarily true (which I have highlighted bold & red):
In science, refuting or ( to use your word) "disproving" a statement (or hypothesis or theory) is actually a goal in science.
The Scientific Method and the use of Peer Review, aren't just about what is true or accepted, but to show which or what statement is false, and should be discarded when the statement has been refuted or the statement has been "proven" to be FALSE.
Paarsurrey want his belief in God to be accepted, even though he and no else can show evidences to support Islamic theism.
A lack of evidence don't make what he or anyone believe about God to be true.
What paarsurrey has demonstrated is simply his faith and his belief, and belief and faith ARE NOT evidences, and they are certainly not science.

I never said that religion is in subordination to science. I always say that religion and science are in different domains, they don't necessarily contradict one another. Science deals the material and physical domains, religion deals in moral and spiritual domains.
The science deals the temporary, religion deals the lasting truth.
Science deals the relative, religion deals the absolute truth.
Science did not create any word or any iota/atom in the universe, it only borrowed words and symbols or integers without which it would have been mute and have been incapacitated to do anything.
Science has never supported Atheism/Agnosticism/Skeptcism. Has it?

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Proof, and words relating to proof, like "prove" or its opposite "disprove" is the language of mathematicians. Proof is the mathematical equation to be solved or mathematical representations in models.

One is simply wrong, it is a general word used in everyday language not invented by Mathematics or Science:

proof (n.)
early 13c., preove "evidence to establish the fact of (something)," from Anglo-French preove, Old French prueve "proof, test, experience" (13c., Modern French preuve), from Late Latin proba "a proof," a back-formation from Latin probare "to prove" (see prove). "The devocalization of v to f ensued upon the loss of final e; cf. the relation of v and f in believe, belief, relieve, relief, behove, behoof, etc. [OED].

Meaning "act of proving" is early 14c. Meaning "act of testing or making trial of anything" is from late 14c., from influence of prove. Meaning "standard of strength of distilled liquor" is from 1705. In photography from 1855. Typographical sense of "trial impression to test type" is from c. 1600. Numismatic sense of "coin struck to test a die" is from 1762; now mostly in reference to coins struck from highly polished dies, mainly for collectors.

Adjectival sense (proof against) is recorded from 1590s, from the noun in expressions such as proof of (mid-15c.), hence extended senses involving "tested power" in compounds such as fireproof (1630s), waterproof (1725), foolproof (1902), etc. Shakespeare has shame-proof. Expression the proof is in the pudding (1915) is a curious perversion of earlier proof of the pudding is in the eating (1708), with proof in the sense "quality of proving good or turning out well" (17c.); perhaps an advertiser's condensed form of the original.
proof (v.)
1834, "to test," from proof (n.). From 1950 as short for proofread (v.). Related: Proofed; proofing.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=proof

prove (v.)
late 12c., pruven, proven "to try, test; evaluate; demonstrate," from Old French prover, pruver "show; convince; put to the test" (11c., Modern Frenchprouver), from Latin probare "to make good; esteem, represent as good; make credible, show, demonstrate; test, inspect; judge by trial" (source also of Spanish probar, Italian probare), from probus "worthy, good, upright, virtuous," from PIE *pro-bhwo- "being in front," from *pro-, extended form of root*per- (1) "forward, through" (see per), + root *bhu- "to be" (cognates: Latin fui "I have been," futurus "about to be;" Old English beon "to be;" see be). Related: Proved; proven; proving.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=prove

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Was Muhammad The Greatest Moral Example?

Sure Muhammad was and that is one aspect why G-d gave him the title Seal of Prophets. Under Muhammad this moral distinction morals of other prophets/messengers of G-d are ascertained to be true.
Regards

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

I disagree. Sex is healthy and imo a blessing, not something bad.

So rape is a blessing? Context does not matter?

 

[Rival]

So rape is a blessing? Context does not matter?

You need to read that conversation again and stop mincing my words. We were not talking about rape at this point but prophets having wives. This comment is unjust.

 

[paarsurrey]

#107
paarsurrey said: ↑
Was Muhammad The Greatest Moral Example?

What are the morals and how morals are related to natural instincts of man? A list of moral should be provided .
Will somebody reflect on it? Please

I find a list:
4. Doing One’s Civic Duty

morphesium said: ↑

For every virtue you type - there are numerous verses in Koran that stand against it. It supports terrorism, paedophilia, torturing, etc. Only a man with low morale and crippled rational thinking power would consider koran as a source for guidance. They can never believe that there is a far better morally advanced world out there.

Please try your luck on the above "4. Doing One’s Civic Duty[" and provide a single, repeat a single verse, repeat a single verse of Quran that is against being honest, truthful and trustworthy, and or against doing one's civic duty.
Also @Rival friend and @matthew_/!/ friend

Regards