Jump to content


Veteran Member
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


.InshAllah. last won the day on June 17 2014

.InshAllah. had the most liked content!


About .InshAllah.

  • Rank
  • Birthday 05/02/2005

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Previous Fields

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

5,990 profile views
  1. Depressing thought about Religion

    @Tango Yes. From what I understand of the Quran, the absolute minimum is belief in God, afterlife, and doing good deeds: 2:62 - Surely those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the Christians, and the Sabians, whoever believes in God and the Last day and does good, they shall have their reward from their Lord, and there is no fear for them, nor shall they grieve Perhaps a vague belief in some kind of power beyond nature qualifies as belief in God. And perhaps a vague belief that justice will be eventually done qualifies as belief in akhira. If so, then many people who call themselves atheists would also qualify as they wouldnt actually be atheists. Beyond this, if you reject specific doctrines because you didnt know about them, then you arent blameworthy. 3:106 - On the day when (some) faces shall turn white and (some) faces shall turn black; then as to those whose faces turn black: Did you disbelieve after your believing? Taste therefore the chastisement because you disbelieved. ^ Disbelief after knowing the truth 3:86 - How shall Allah guide a people who disbelieved after their believing and (after) they had borne witness that the Messenger was true and clear arguments had come to them; and Allah does not guide the unjust people. ^ They knew the Messenger was the truth and they were given clear arguments but rejected them 27:14 - And they rejected those Signs in iniquity and arrogance, though their souls were convinced thereof: so see what was the end of those who acted corruptly! ^ Their souls were convinced of the Truth by they rejected. 17:15 - Who receiveth guidance, receiveth it for his own benefit: who goeth astray doth so to his own loss: No bearer of burdens can bear the burden of another: nor would We visit with Our Wrath until We had sent an messenger Being sent a Messenger is a pre-requisite to being punished, i.e. being given the Truth
  2. Depressing thought about Religion

    Its not enough to not follow the path God has set out - you have to reject the path whilst knowing that its the Truth.
  3. Two quick comments. He says its difficult to define life. Well its difficult to define a lot of things, including science (look up the demarcation problem)... therefore science doesnt exist? He says there's no clear cut off the separates life from non-life. For the sake of argument, lets grant this is true. Why does there have to be a clear cut off? Theres no clear cut-off that separates the colour red from the colour orange, or a table from a pile of logs, or even a good argument from a bad argument: Is a good argument one that 51% plausible, or 60% plausible, or 90% plausible. If its 51% plausible, why not 50.9% etc. Therefore there are no arguments, and the argument he gave doesnt exist?
  4. Regarding OCD in religious people.

    Salam brother, The Imams talked about obsessive behaviours in religious acts. I recommend you read this : https://www.al-islam.org/forty-hadith-an-exposition-second-edition-imam-khomeini/twenty-fifth-hadith-satanic-insinuation
  5. Aquinas on Usury - Part One

    Salam Jebreil, Please continue, I am enjoying your posts. In answer to your question, the lender may charge to compensate himself for the risk he is taking when lending. Or he may charge to compensate himself for the opportunity he is giving another person, to buy a house, start a business etc. Or to compensate himself for the temporary loss of purchasing power, e.g. if I give you £1000, then that's £1000 less that I can spend, until you pay me back. I give these as possible justifications a lender may give, but am not endorsing them as good justifications.
  6. Richard Dawkins is a joke. Some article here directly and indirectly relevant https://godandphilosophy.wordpress.com/proving-god/
  7. Je Suis Charlie...

    Charlie Hebdo beheads Theresa May and mocks London Bridge terror victims The latest issue of Charlie Hebdo shows a decapitated Theresa May carrying her own head. Captioned ‘English multiculturalism,’ the prime minister proclaims ‘Too much is too much’ in what seems a reference to her ‘Enough is enough’ speech. The ‘horrific’ magazine also mocks the victims of the London Bridge terror attacks, with many readers saying the satirical publication went too far with both drawings and their message. ‘Slimming advice from Isis,’ the caption reads alongside a picture of people running with Big Ben in the background, one of them still carrying his pint of beer. Read more: http://metro.co.uk/2017/06/09/charlie-hebdo-beheads-theresa-may-and-mocks-london-bridge-terror-victims-6696745/#ixzz4jvg5CMeM
  8. The Legacy of Islamic Philosophy

    I'll let you have the last word No not yet!
  9. The Legacy of Islamic Philosophy

    This is true, but to conclude from this that every rational belief requires an argument is invalid. Just because a subset of beliefs require an argument, it doesnt mean that all beliefs require an argument.
  10. The Legacy of Islamic Philosophy

    I also have a degree in Philosophy (not that it matters) and there is no question that you've got this wrong. Earlier in the thread I mentioned one of the leading internalist theories of justification (roughly: x is justified in believing p if it seems to x that p is true). But you dont have to be an internalist to reject the above claim. Plantinga is an externalist for example. Having said that, I didnt just appeal to authority but gave arguments why the claim cant be true. There are a lot of famous theories of justification. Can you quote one that endorses the above claim?
  11. The Legacy of Islamic Philosophy

    This is completely false. You need to look into the literature on rationality and justification. In fact, I dont think any philosopher has ever argued for P. At the very least, the majority of contemporary philosophers would reject P
  12. The Legacy of Islamic Philosophy

    I agree they are not the same. Both cases require everyone to believe or accept a premise to make it rational in the absence of argument, but (1) in practice there is never absolute agreement as there will always be people who deny any given belief no matter how obvious, (2) there are possible worlds in which 'acceptable' is crazy like the Sun example I gave, and (3) there is no argument that everything needs argument apart from the above 2 categories, and this is neither acceptable nor self evident, and so is self refuting. To elaborate on number (3) - in order to avoid an infinite regress of justifying arguments, you said we can stop at those beliefs that are 'acceptable' or 'self evident'. Lets call this claim P. P : Every rational claim requires an argument, unless it is obvious to all or acceptable to all. P is absolute - it applies to all claims. But P is itself a claim. So in order for P to be rational, it either has to be based on an argument, or be obvious to all or acceptable to all. But there is no argument that I have seen for P, and it certainly isnt self evident or acceptable to all. (Plantinga in the paper I gave makes a similar move from what I remember). This means that P is not a rational claim.
  13. The Legacy of Islamic Philosophy

    I was replying to what you said about 'acceptable' and 'self evident' beliefs that are rational despite not being based on argument. You said they are so because theyre accepted by everyone. This makes consensus of people very relevant on the account you gave. I dont believe that consensus of people is what makes something rational
  14. The Legacy of Islamic Philosophy

    Soroush you might find this useful http://www.andrewmbailey.com/ap/Belief_in_God_Properly_Basic.pdf Is Belief in God Proprley Basic by Alvin Plantinga Its one of the first things I read on the subject about 7-8 years ago