Thread: no virgins 4 u

It's still at the utmost best a load of primitive silly thinking.

^ This coming from a person who openly states that God is responsible for natural phenomena like lightening. Talk about primitive thinking.

Originally Posted by Xei

It's still at the utmost best a load of primitive silly thinking.

Well, that appraisal comes nowhere close to adequacy in my book. There's only about a thousand other things that can be said about it. I guess I'm just glad that your perspective is good enough for you as it is.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

^ This coming from a person who openly states that God is responsible for natural phenomena like lightening. Talk about primitive thinking.

Originally Posted by IndieAnthias

Well, that appraisal comes nowhere close to adequacy in my book. There's only about a thousand other things that can be said about it. I guess I'm just glad that your perspective is good enough for you as it is.

I didn't choose my perspective to suit my ends, I chose it because on reflection it's obviously the truth.

Originally Posted by Xei

I didn't choose my perspective to suit my ends, I chose it because on reflection it's obviously the truth.

....and see no need for any further reflection. Have your reflections considered the points raised in the OP (particularly what I said about the red herring)? How am I supposed to care about anything you say when you're so and dismissive of my ideas?


Or to take a different approach... What's your opinion on social science, as compared to hard science? Does it deserve to be labeled science at all?

I wasn't trying to be smug, I was just saying that if something were harmless, that wouldn't make it any more correct. Not that I think the Koran can be meaningfully called 'harmless' anyway. And not that I particularly care.

I'm not that interested in social science or what it's labelled as. It's a science as far as it meets the criteria of scientific endeavour. More generally as long as it strives to meet the criteria of rationality, I'm fine with it.

Originally Posted by Xei

I wasn't trying to be smug, I was just saying that if something were harmless, that wouldn't make it any more correct. Not that I think the Koran can be meaningfully called 'harmless' anyway. And not that I particularly care.

'Correctness' is really beside the point. Until a cultural construct drives it's adherents to extinction, it carries some form of legitimacy. As for harmlessness, I don't think Islam is altogether harmless either. But to address harm, it helps to sort out the misconceptions and red herrings.

Originally Posted by Xei

I'm not that interested in social science or what it's labelled as. It's a science as far as it meets the criteria of scientific endeavour. More generally as long as it strives to meet the criteria of rationality, I'm fine with it.

I guess I was going off on a tangent with that question. Social science is my interest and I've run across a fair amount of legitimate criticism of it, from being unscientific to being politically driven. If it's just not your thing, understandable.

Originally Posted by IndieAnthias

'Correctness' is really beside the point.

Is it? How so?

I'm quite sure most readings of a holy text rely on it's being correct, particularly when it claims truth.

If I make claim A, of course it matters if I'm correct or not. The fact that people adhere to a given cultural construct has nothing to do with it's correctness.


It seems to me you and Xei are talking about different things, also social science is totally irrelevant to this thread or discussion.

Originally Posted by Carôusoul

Is it? How so?

Let me be more specific... it's beside my point.

Lots of secular/atheistic sociologists, anthropologists, psychologists, etc. study religion, and not because they suspect it may be right after all.