...Continued

But we’ve progressed from there, so I’m not sure what the above is if not an attempt to cut this off before I really start revealing the fact that religious belief is based on nothing rational. Which would be quite a feat considering I only entered the conversation to remind you that atheism and theism are not two equally opposing views.

<<So I think we should indeed heed hypatia’s advise and stop this verbal ping-pong, red herring or not.>>

I’m happy to leave it there, but unfortunately I’m not confident that your over-sight won’t be repeated in the future.

We’ll see anyway.

Grateful,

In your quote, I suspect the author was talking about the desire for evidence specifically in regards to religious claims and said, “we use evidence as the basis for our scientific, medical and legal work” as in “all of us in general”.

But if not, then the author was wrong as atheists are individual thinkers, who may be motivated by the desire for rational discourse in regards to religious claims, but aren’t necessarily rational about other things as atheism isn’t a belief system with multiple tenets to be adhered to in a dogmatic way.

There are a few atheists here on OLO that I find to be very irrational on other topics.

<<Approaching this sort of claim from a Muslim's perspective, i have found the atheist discourse is so flawed that it is anything but motivated by the desire for rational discourse.>>

So what about requiring evidence for gods before believing in them is not rational? I don’t know that you’ll have an answer for that, but it sure does expose how irrelevant your examples are.

Continued...

...Continued

<<Here we have a claim which can be put to the test. If the claim can be refuted "beyond a reasonable doubt" then this obviously castes serious doubt over the claim that the Qur'aan is the word of God.>>

What a nice little piece of circular reasoning.

The only way disproving this would cast doubt that it is the word of god, is if you assume that it is the word of god to begin with.

I love it!

<<So here is an exercise for atheists: find evidence that indeed the Qur'aan has been corrupted, relying on serious scholarship. I have found atheists will shy away from this sort of challenge. Again so much for relying on the evidence.>>

Firstly, the onus of proof is on the believer to find evidence as is they are the ones who are making the claim. This is something that theists on OLO are reminded of continuously, so you should be aware of it by now.

Secondly, if atheists couldn’t find evidence that the Qur’an had been corrupted then that would prove nothing other than the fact that there is no evidence that the Qur’an has been corrupted.

If there is any shying away done by atheists, it would have nothing to do with a fear of what they might find, but more to do with the pointlessness of the exercise to begin with.

AJ Phillips, you write:
QUOTE
<<Here we have a claim which can be put to the test. If the claim can be refuted "beyond a reasonable doubt" then this obviously castes serious doubt over the claim that the Qur'aan is the word of God.>>

What a nice little piece of circular reasoning.

The only way disproving this would cast doubt that it is the word of god, is if you assume that it is the word of god to begin with.
UNQUOTE

Circular reasoning? Here is an example of circular reasoning:
“God exists because God exists”

Perhaps I should have been more explicit and started by stating what i thought would have been understood, namely:

"God does not make mistakes."

So if it is found that the Qur’an has been corrupted then obviously the claim that it would not be corrupted could not have been made by God. So there is no circular reasoning here.

Nor did i say that not finding the evidence would prove the existence of God. However, i did say that we know from common experience (eg the game of Chinese whispers) that it is very hard for a message to be passed on from one person to another (not to mention one generation to another over centuries) without the message becoming distorted in some way and, significantly, without leaving evidence of such.

Now unless you want to argue that the experience of Chinese whispers is an exception and not the rule, you would have to agree that the probability of the message being passed on for over 1400 years without evidence of it becoming corrupted would be very small. Surely this would count as evidence in support of God (without claiming it to be conclusive evidence).

Can you now see that this is not circular reasoning but a reasonable point?

1/2 cont...

2/2 cont..
AJ Phillips, returning to an earlier remark you made:
QUOTE
<<Approaching this sort of claim from a Muslim's perspective, i have found the atheist discourse is so flawed that it is anything but motivated by the desire for rational discourse.>>

So what about requiring evidence for gods before believing in them is not rational? I don’t know that you’ll have an answer for that, but it sure does expose how irrelevant your examples are.
UNQUOTE

It is rational to require evidence for God before believing in Him.

Yet, you describe as “irrelevant” the example of Sun’s orbit being consistent with (recent) science. Is it irrelevant that the Quran is consistent with what we know of the universe?

I'm sure if you found a passage in the the Qur’aan that stated the Sun actually orbited the earth, you would consider this to be highly relevent.

It seems you have this mindset that all evidence that does not support atheism is “irrelevant” while evidence that does support atheism is deemed “relevant”.

Your argument can be put as follows:

All evidence that God exists is irrelevant, therefore there is no evidence that God exists

Can you now see the circularity in your own reasoning?

Finally, i note you have nothing to say about my remarks about ibn Warraq or John Perkins. Is this a tacit acceptance that there are serious flaws in their respective approaches.

Pericles,
Thank you for further expanding on your reaction to Jensen’s and Pell’s reaction to the Atheist Convention (judging from the short quotes in the article linked to by Swanton, the sermons reacted to this rather than to the revelation about the scandals, although I cannot be sure, not having seen the original).

>>Where in your "original question" did you mention transcriptions, authentic or otherwise?<<
Nowhere, because I thought it was obviously implicit. If I was after unfavourable reports by Swanton and others, I would not have asked you (assuming you were more objective).

However, I repeat, I am sorry I asked, since obviously I could have found out for myself that there were no other reports to be found on the internet about the actual content of the sermons than a priori unfauvorable, even hostile, ones.

This was not necessary in the case of the Atheist Convention since AJ Philip provided me with the link to an online TV program featuring Dawkins at that Convention. So I did not have to rely on second-hand, favourable or unfavourable (in this case there were both) reports on internet before forming my own opinion (OK, not “judge” if you like).

So let me express for the third time that I am sorry I asked, and please leave it at that.

AJ Philips,
>>I’m happy to leave it there, <<
And I am happy that you are also happy to heed hypatia’s advice

>>I’m not confident that your over-sight won’t be repeated in the future.<<
If this means you do not wish me to react again to your posts, you have my promise I won't.

Weighing in on this rather late but...

Grateful -

"Yet, you describe as “irrelevant” the example of Sun’s orbit being consistent with (recent) science. Is it irrelevant that the Quran is consistent with what we know of the universe?

I'm sure if you found a passage in the the Qur’aan that stated the Sun actually orbited the earth, you would consider this to be highly relevent".

While irrelevant is arguably a little extreme, this is a long way from a proof of a god. The use of the scientific method was far from unheard of at the time the Qur'aan was written. If the Qur'aan gave Pythagoras' Theorem (for eg.) it would be staggeringly more likely that it had spread to the area from where it was discovered, rather than that it was handed to Mohammed by a god. Perhaps a little science was used to determine it? If I wrote a book now, I could include all kinds of facts taken from scientific discoveries in it - should people in 1400 years time see that as proof of everything I write in the same book?

Cont...