Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
What's the story with these ads on Slashdot? Check out our new blog post to find out. ×

Comment Re: Well, that's embarrassing (Score 1) 613

I accept the possibility of what you're saying, however I think you're being pretty presumptuous about my internal state, given that you don't know me at all.

Since the early days of Islam, our senior scholars have held that unquestioning belief is not belief. Growing up in a multi-religious environment, I questioned whether or not my religion was the right one, or even if religion at all was valid, from an early age. I concluded from a fairly lengthy process, that Islam was the correct religion. I've conversed with scholars of most major religions on this, including ardent atheists. Ironically, atheists tend to be the least willing to challenge their assumptions, and simply rest on the old "religion is based on blind faith" cudgel. As far as Islam goes, nothing could be further from the truth, despite the fact that the vast majority of Muslims alive today are unaware of the deep epistemological framework that underpins the religion, and are unaware of the fact that we are instructed, not encouraged, to ask the question: "Am I sure that Islam is the correct religion?" Without considering this question and engaging in the research and reflection required to answer it, one's adherence to the faith is considered to be deficient.

Comment Re: Well, that's embarrassing (Score 1) 613

Yes, it would have. My acceptance of the religion as true rests on my ability to verify all of the facts contained in its doctrines. To date, none have contradicted anything scientifically verifiable, even though there have been many attempts such as the clowns who wrote this article.

Comment Re:Well, that's embarrassing (Score 2) 613

This is a joke. Full disclosure: I'm a Muslim. Nonetheless, I've read this article and it's bollocks. There are at least two major flaws that I can see:

a) Paper back then was a valuable resource, and it is highly likely that this parchment was either made and stored for several years before being used, or could have been reused.
b) Radiocarbon dating is NOT accurate to 2 years in 1400, or about 0.14% which is what they are claiming.
c) Even if we DO accept the radiocarbon dating, the date range confidence intervals overlap the historically recorded dates anyway well within one standard deviation so I don't know where all this "OMG this Koran is older" nonsense is coming from, unless some idiot journalist took the mean value and took that as, ahem, gospel.

As I said earlier, in the interests of intellectual honesty I'm disclosing the fact that I am a Muslim and that I would have to engage in significant review of my world view, were this proved correct. But as I see it, there just is nothing to this claim that warrants any time spent considering the possibility that the whole historical record to date is wrong.

Comment Re:science was wrong (Score 1) 212

Exactly. Just because something is highly improbably does not mean it cannot happen. The occurrence of a statistical outlier does not negate the existence of factors that heavily weigh against it occurring. It just means that anyone who bet on American Pharaoh would (or at least should) have gotten extremely good odds.

"Can you program?" "Well, I'm literate, if that's what you mean!"