The Hijab Problem

[oldbadger]

your links do not work. You also need to know the difference between a ride in reports and a ride in actual numbers. When I grew up bullying was everywhere, it was not reported as it now is. Your figures may be unfounded, but without a way to even see if your sources are correct, or even agree with you your point is mute.

You could have accessed those links easily.
You should take more notice of the news reports about internet bullying as well.

And I await your ideas about what I believe.... You made a claim.

Now, the hijab is worn in many Islamic countries, and I await your proofs that a significant percentage of women are bullied in to wearing them.
Many Islamic women just cover their heads, of course.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You could have accessed those links easily.
You should take more notice of the news reports about internet bullying as well.

And I await your ideas about what I believe.... You made a claim.

Now, the hijab is worn in many Islamic countries, and I await your proofs that a significant percentage of women are bullied in to wearing them.
Many Islamic women just cover their heads, of course.

Why is it when you fail you expect others to do your homework for you?

I supported the claim I made with working links. And "bullied" is your term. I did not need to prove that.

 

[icehorse]

Why? What do I need an announced context for? You're only avoiding the point; what is the flaw?

The context that concerns me is that today, in 2019, hundreds of millions of Muslims in the world hold the idea that the Quran is a perfect, timeless, easy to understand manual for how to live in the world. The problem with that view is that (I will reiterate from post #162), the book:

- is largely plagiarized
- is often incoherent (in other words, it's inconsistent with it's own messages)
- is misogynistic
- is homophobic
- is anti-semetic
- is supremacist
- despises non-Muslims

In 2019, those messages are HUGE flaws, if we want a peaceful world.

 

[Remté]

The context that concerns me is that today, in 2019, hundreds of millions of Muslims in the world hold the idea that the Quran is a perfect, timeless, easy to understand manual for how to live in the world. The problem with that view is that (I will reiterate from post #162), the book:

- is largely plagiarized
- is often incoherent (in other words, it's inconsistent with it's own messages)
- is misogynistic
- is homophobic
- is anti-semetic
- is supremacist
- despises non-Muslims

In 2019, those messages are HUGE flaws, if we want a peaceful world.

How do you define "perfect, timeless and easy to understand"? After all, you didn't understand and neither all Muslims do.

 

[stvdv]

No, I have not made up my mind. The problem is that you have not been able to support your beliefs with a rational argument. By the way you just made another argument by using an appeal to popularity. That is nowhere being a "proof" either. It is another logical fallacy.
Tell me, is it unreasonable to demand a rational reason?

I think it is very reasonable to ask for a rational reason. That made me think

But do you ask a reasonable question "prove that God exists", knowing that God does not exist
Would it be not much more reasonable to prove to them that God does not exist?

Should be easy to proof for us, that God does not exists, when we know, that God does not exist, I should think
Of course you could argue "that would take all the fun away to see them sweat, trying to proof that God exists"
But it would safe us a lot of time, debating this problem "Prove to me that God exists", knowing God does not exists
There might be a problem, seems kind of strange to prove that something does not exist if it does not exist

So these questions "prove that God exists" or "prove that God does not exists" seems kind of silly to me
Realizing this it is kind of silly to talk about God, is it not?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think it is very reasonable to ask for a rational reason. That made me think

But do you ask a reasonable question "prove that God exists", knowing that God does not exist
Would it be not much more reasonable to prove to them that God does not exist?

Should be easy to proof for us, that God does not exists, when we know, that God does not exist, I should think
Of course you could argue "that would take all the fun away to see them sweat, trying to proof that God exists"
But it would safe us a lot of time, debating this problem "Prove to me that God exists", knowing God does not exists

It is always incumbent on the person making a positive claim to support it. My claim is not that God does not exist, I simply do not believe in a god or gods. For example let's say a neighbor of mine claims that he saw Bigfoot. That is not enough for me to believe that Bigfoot exists. I simply do not believe that he exists. I am not claiming that he does not exist. In either case I would almost like to see evidence of either God or Bigfoot, but until rational evidence is given there is no reason to believe in either.

 

[Remté]

It is always incumbent on the person making a positive claim to support it. My claim is not that God does not exist, I simply do not believe in a god or gods. For example let's say a neighbor of mine claims that he saw Bigfoot. That is not enough for me to believe that Bigfoot exists. I simply do not believe that he exists. I am not claiming that he does not exist. In either case I would almost like to see evidence of either God or Bigfoot, but until rational evidence is given there is no reason to believe in either.

Without twisting and turning this above ^ is called not believing in God which means a person believes God does not exist.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Without twisting and turning this above ^ is called not believing in God which means a person believes God does not exist.

I will say that it is a statement that god most likely does not exist. The difference between my beliefs and that of others is that I am open to rational arguments for a god. I am not arguing against a god, but I wonder how many believers would be open to rational arguments against a god? I have heard many theists claim that no matter how much evidence was given to them they would not stop believing. That right there is an admission that their belief is irrational.

 

[stvdv]

It is always incumbent on the person making a positive claim to support it. My claim is not that God does not exist, I simply do not believe in a god or gods. For example let's say a neighbor of mine claims that he saw Bigfoot. That is not enough for me to believe that Bigfoot exists. I simply do not believe that he exists. I am not claiming that he does not exist. In either case I would almost like to see evidence of either God or Bigfoot, but until rational evidence is given there is no reason to believe in either.

Yes that is true. This is how I also felt always. But still I have a feeling it should be easy to prove that "God does not exist". On the other hand if it were easy, those really smart debaters like Aristotle etc. would have figured that out already, and we would not still having these debates nowadays, I guess. Maybe this is just like those Koans that can't get solved "rationally", because it's based on "non rationality".

 

[icehorse]

How do you define "perfect, timeless and easy to understand"? After all, you didn't understand and neither all Muslims do.

Well I haven't accepted that you know any better than I do

That said, I don't care what the scholars think. I care what hundreds of millions of day to day Muslims think. I care that something like 800 million Muslims think theocracy is a good idea.

 

[Willamena]

Yes that is true. This is how I also felt always. But still I have a feeling it should be easy to prove that "God does not exist". On the other hand if it were easy, those really smart debaters like Aristotle etc. would have figured that out already, and we would not still having these debates nowadays, I guess. Maybe this is just like those Koans that can't get solved "rationally", because it's based on "non rationality".

It's not necessary to prove that [insert absurd statement here]. It's only incumbent upon us to not allow absurdities.

 

[stvdv]

It's not necessary to prove that [insert absurd statement here]. It's only incumbent upon us to not allow absurdities.

Thanks, you phrased this nicely.

 

[Remté]

That said, I don't care what the scholars think.

I believe that, but that doesn't make your view too valuable. If you can't debate or you don't even know what the scholars think then clearly you don't understand well enough.

 

[icehorse]

I believe that, but that doesn't make your view too valuable. If you can't debate or you don't even know what the scholars think then clearly you don't understand well enough.

I disagree. If I know what huge populations of Muslims think, that's all that matters from my perspective. There is nothing wrong with scholarly debates, I'm just not very interested in them. I'm interested in a peaceful world and modern human rights.

What I can add, is that I always like to look at scripture from a cognitive science perspective. In other words, how will a bit of scripture impact a normal reader's brain? Scholars tend not to have this perspective.

 

[Remté]

I disagree. If I know what huge populations of Muslims think,

Very much doubt it.

There is nothing wrong with scholarly debates, I'm just not very interested in them.

Because you have no understanding of the topic.

I'm interested in a peaceful world and modern human rights.

Yes. You leave the scholars behind. It's not like they make a difference.

What I can add, is that I always like to look at scripture from a cognitive science perspective. In other words, how will a bit of scripture impact a normal reader's brain? Scholars tend not to have this perspective.

I'm sure you are well aquinted with how scholars look at scriptures... but do give an example if you wish.

 

[stvdv]

Without twisting and turning this above ^ is called not believing in God which means a person believes God does not exist.

The phrase "Not believing in God" simply means "not giving it any thought" to me. I did not give it any thought for decades. I did not "believe", nor did I not "not believe". I rather skip the step "believing". I like to experience and then I know. That makes more sense to me.

Easy to understand, suppose someone lives on an island and never heard about God or believing. So he is "not believing in God", that is true. But it does not mean "he believes God does not exist"

 

[Remté]

The phrase "Not believing in God" simply means "not giving it any thought" to me. I did not give it any thought for decades. I did not "believe", nor did I not "not believe". I rather skip the step "believing". I like to experience and then I know. That makes more sense to me.

Easy to understand, suppose someone lives on an island and never heard about God or believing. So he is "not believing in God", that is true. But it does not mean "he believes God does not exist"

That can be found out^ they might not have the word God in his vocabularly, but if someone is able to communicate with them they can describe such a thing to them and ask whether they believe in it or not.

 

[icehorse]

Very much doubt it.
Because you have no understanding of the topic.
Yes. You leave the scholars behind. It's not like they make a difference.
I'm sure you are well aquinted with how scholars look at scriptures... but do give an example if you wish.

I'm not sure why your knickers are in a twist here? I have no issue with debates and conversations that religious scholars like to have. But unless they apply to what's happening in the world today, I tend not to be interested in those debates.

What I can debate is how a casual reading of scripture impacts human brains from a cognitive science perspective. I can debate how attending meetings at mosques or going to a madrasa impacts brains. AND I can debate and discuss how common beliefs held by hundreds of millions of Muslims correspond (or don't), with what the scripture says.

It's just two different discussions, that's all.

 

[Remté]

I'm not sure why your knickers are in a twist here? I have no issue with debates and conversations that religious scholars like to have. But unless they apply to what's happening in the world today, I tend not to be interested in those debates.

What I can debate is how a casual reading of scripture impacts human brains from a cognitive science perspective. I can debate how attending meetings at mosques or going to a madrasa impacts brains. AND I can debate and discuss how common beliefs held by hundreds of millions of Muslims correspond (or don't), with what the scripture says.

It's just two different discussions, that's all.

Reading does have an impact on the brain on a way, but what kind in this case do you think? Going to school is supposed to impact the brain.

Well why don't you debate? Why don't you go into any details on the problems you see in the Quran?

 

[icehorse]

Well why don't you debate? Why don't you go into any details on the problems you see in the Quran?

I've provided you a list of problems I see with the Quran. I've provided that list twice. I'll just pick a few items from the list:

I think the Quran promotes misogynistic and homophobic attitudes. In 2019, I find those to be huge flaws. IS that not enough detail for you?

(notice that this is now the 3rd time I've mentioned these two specific issues (among others))