Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Richard Dawkins tweeted this of New Statesman journalist Mehdi Hasan yesterday.

    "Mehdi Hasan admits to believing Muhamed flew to heaven on a winged horse. And New Statesman sees fit to print him as a serious journalist."
    I agree with Dawkins, it's an absurdity. There is no such creature as a winged horse, therefore the Quran is wrong.

    What do you think?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I agree with him, but society doesn't. There is a disconnect between religious beliefs and thought on all other areas. People can believe whatever they like about God and still gain massive popularity as an authority of knowledge or politics.

    Spoiler:
    Show
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    If Mehdi Hasan wants he's perfectly entitled to believe that one day God decided on a whim to create a winged horse to try and impress Muhammad. I don't think that did happen, but since I don't have an hard evidence either way it's not my place to say so for definite.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Since when did someone's religious beliefs affect how capable a journalist they are? :lolwut:

    If they're blatantly bias when it comes to articles concerning religion then I can see the problem, but other than that there's nothing about someone's religious views that make them any less worthy of the "journalist" title.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    I guess it's racism when it's not done to Christians?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drunk Punx)
    Since when did someone's religious beliefs affect how capable a journalist they are? :lolwut:

    If they're blatantly bias when it comes to articles concerning religion then I can see the problem, but other than that there's nothing about someone's religious views that make them any less worthy of the "journalist" title.
    Part of journalistic integrity is relying on (and citing) hard factual evidence to arrive at conclusions. I doubt Hasan would be able to cite the factual evidence which led him to the conclusion that Muhammed flew to heaven on a winged horse. Ay, there's the rub.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Aristotle believed that all atoms were made from fire, water, earth, and air. I guess Aristotle has no right to be held in such high esteem.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexandrTheGreat)
    Richard Dawkins tweeted this of New Statesman journalist Mehdi Hasan yesterday.



    I agree with Dawkins, it's an absurdity. There is no such creature as a winged horse, therefore the Quran is wrong.

    What do you think?
    It was during the 'Isr'a' and the 'mir'aj' that the Prophet of Allah (SWT) has traveled to heaven on the Buraq, the infamous house of the previous Prophets of God.

    (Original post by Tuerin)
    Part of journalistic integrity is relying on (and citing) hard factual evidence to arrive at conclusions. I doubt Hasan would be able to cite the factual evidence which led him to the conclusion that Muhammed flew to heaven on a winged horse. Ay, there's the rub.
    The final prophet of Allah has traveled to Heaven to meet Allah (the almighty, the all powerful).
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Savvy Sage)
    Aristotle believed that all atoms were made from fire, water, earth, and air. I guess Aristotle has no right to be held in such high esteem.
    Aristotle wasn't a journalist. Read more carefully.

    It was also a completely different time when factual evidence was far harder to come by. These are standards for a different time, with different technological capabilities and, as I said, applied to a profession he didn't belong in.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    Buraq takes him to the heavens, where he tours the 7 circles of heaven, and speaks with the earlier prophets such as Abrahahm (ʾIbrahim), Moses (Musa), John the Baptist (Yaḥyā ibn Zakarīyā), and Jesus (Isa).
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Type 052D)
    The final prophet of Allah has traveled to Heaven to meet Allah (the almighty, the all powerful).
    Is this supposed to be evidence?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tuerin)
    Is this supposed to be evidence?
    The evidence is the Hadith, and the greatest miracle on earth, the Holy Qur'an.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Arbolus)
    If Mehdi Hasan wants he's perfectly entitled to believe that one day God decided on a whim to create a winged horse to try and impress Muhammad. I don't think that did happen, but since I don't have an hard evidence either way it's not my place to say so for definite.
    oh come on, It's ok to call it nonsense because it clearly is.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tuerin)
    Part of journalistic integrity is relying on (and citing) hard factual evidence to arrive at conclusions. I doubt Hasan would be able to cite the factual evidence which led him to the conclusion that Muhammed flew to heaven on a winged horse. Ay, there's the rub.
    Winged horses isn't what his journalism is about though, is it?

    Even if we assume for the sake of argument that he can't cite any evidence for this winged horse thing, it doesn't somehow prove that any of the things he's written about are insufficiently substantiated. It's not exactly uncommon for people to apply different standards of evidence to their religion from everything else.


    Suppose the world operated on a principle whereby, if there's a single thing that you believe is true without being able to cite hard factual evidence to prove it beyond a certain level of doubt, then you can't be employed in any job which involves arriving at a conclusion based on evidence, how many people do you think would actually be employed today?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tuerin)
    Aristotle wasn't a journalist. Read more carefully.

    It was also a completely different time when factual evidence was far harder to come by. These are standards for a different time, with different technological capabilities and, as I said, applied to a profession he didn't belong in.
    Now that Aristotle is 'wrong', we have no need to take any of his views seriously. Aristotle has no right to be considered as a scientific thinker as he has failed to back up his thinking with substantial qualitative evidence. His theories infer too much from too little and this makes him unsuitable to make progress in Science. He must be utterly condemned by history for the mistake he made. :rolleyes:
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SnoochToTheBooch)
    oh come on, It's ok to call it nonsense because it clearly is.
    I have a forgetful memory so you must excuse me when I ask you to kindly show me the mathematical proof to why a winged horse cannot exist.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    Winged horses isn't what his journalism is about though, is it?

    Even if we assume for the sake of argument that he can't cite any evidence for this winged horse thing, it doesn't somehow prove that any of the things he's written about are insufficiently substantiated.
    The evidence, as I stated above, is in the greatest thing on earth, the Holy Qur'an...
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Savvy Sage)
    I have a forgetful memory so you must excuse me when I ask you to kindly show me the mathematical proof to why a winged horse cannot exist.
    obviously it's unfalsifiable but so are many things, flying spaghetti and all that.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    Winged horses isn't what his journalism is about though, is it?

    Even if we assume for the sake of argument that he can't cite any evidence for this winged horse thing, it doesn't somehow prove that any of the things he's written about are insufficiently substantiated. It's not exactly uncommon for people to apply different standards of evidence to their religion from everything else.
    That's the point Dawkins is making though. If someone professed a serious belief in the Loch Ness Monster or that the Holocaust never happened, then that would be an issue. But because you add the 'religion' moniker to such a belief and suddenly it's perfectly acceptable. It's a double standard.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Type 052D)
    The evidence, as I stated above, is in the greatest thing on earth, the Holy Qur'an...
    Which is naught but a man made book.
 
 
 

1,199

students online now

800,000+

Exam discussions

Find your exam discussion here

Poll
Should predicted grades be removed from the uni application process
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.