The Bowery Presents
Today's Document
No title available
if i look back, i am lost
❣ Chile in a Photography ❣
roma★
Doug Jones
titsay
Origami Around
2025 on Tumblr: Trends That Defined the Year
No title available
Misplaced Lens Cap
"I'm Dorothy Gale from Kansas"
izzy's playlists!
let's talk about Bridgerton tea, my ask is open
No title available
EXPECTATIONS
Color Me Curious
Product Placement
🩵 avery cochrane 🩵
seen from Tunisia
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Colombia
seen from United States
seen from Kenya
seen from United States
seen from France
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Vietnam
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Germany
seen from Sweden
@atheistexile
My @Quora comment on an answer to What would happen if all the atheists started living in a separate country?
My @Quora comment on an answer to What would happen if all the atheists started living in a separate country? : My @Quora comment on an answer to What would happen if all the atheists started living in a separate country?
Why is the Muslim world so behind in science and technology?
Answer by Jim Ashby:
According to the Nobel Prize website:
Between 1901 and 2014, the Nobel Prizes and the Prize in Economic Sciences were awarded 567 times to 889 people and organizations. With some receiving the Nobel Prize more than once, this makes a total of 860 individuals and 22 organizations.
According to the List of Jewish Nobel laureates wiki, Jews, on a per capita basis are 110 TIMES more likely to be awarded a Nobel prize than non-Jews.
The Nobel Prize is an annual, international prize first awarded in 1901 for achievements in Physics, Chemistry, Physiology or Medicine, Literature, and Peace. An associated prize in Economics has been awarded since 1969. Nobel Prizes have been awarded to over 850 individuals, of whom at least 22% (without peace prize over 24%) were Jews, although Jews comprise less than 0.2% of the world's population (or 1 in every 500 people). Overall, Jews have won a total of 41% of all the Nobel Prizes in economics, 28% in medicine, 26% in Physics, 19% in Chemistry, 13% in Literature and 9% of all peace awards.
You think that's interesting? How about this from the List of Muslim Nobel laureates wiki:
As of 2014, eleven Nobel Prize winners have been Muslims. More than half of the eleven Muslim Nobel laureates were awarded the prize in the 21st century. Seven of the eleven winners have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, including a controversial award to Yasser Arafat. The recipient of the 1979 Nobel Prize in Physics, Abdus Salam, was a member of the Ahmadiyya community of Pakistan, in 1974, the Pakistan parliament made a constitutional amendment that declared Ahmadis as non-Muslims. Muslims make up over 23% of the world's population.
Should we follow Pakistan's lead and subtract one from the total of eleven Muslim Nobel laureates? I didn't think so. :-) So, 11 out of 860 individual Nobel prize winners is equal to 1.28% of the total going to Muslims. But 7 of the 11 prizes were for the peace prize. So only 4 were for prizes in the sciences: that equals 0.47% (let's call it half a percent). Compare that to the 24% of prizes in the sciences that went to Jews and we see that Jews have received over 48 times more science Nobel prizes than Muslims. But where this REALLY gets crazy is when you do the per capita math. Jews comprise less than 0.2% of the world's population. Muslims comprise 23% of the world's population. That means there's more than 115 TIMES more Muslims than Jews. If Jews have received 48 times more science Nobel prizes than Muslims AND there are 115 times more Muslims than Jews, then, on a per capita basis, Jews are over 5,520 TIMES more likely than Muslims to win a Nobel Prize in science. That's just mind boggling. On a per capita basis, Jews are over 110 times more likely than non-Jews to win a Nobel Prize (including for peace) AND over 5,520 times more likely than Muslims to win a Nobel Prize in science. And, if you're one of those people who think there's a Nobel Prize committee conspiracy going on here, you should know that, according to the Jewish Achievement website:
In the sciences, Jews have won 22 percent of all the Nobel Prizes ever awarded - 29 percent of the prizes since 1950, after the Holocaust destroyed a third of their numbers. Given their small population, Jews should have earned only one of the 502 Nobels awarded for physics, chemistry, medicine and physiology. They have won 123. The Fields Medal, awarded to the world's brightest mathematicians under age 40, is the honor John Nash, of the book and movie A Beautiful Mind had hoped to win. Instead, he took a Nobel Prize in economics as a consolation prize. One-fourth of the Fields Medals winners are Jews. Encyclopedia Britannica provides its list of "Great Inventions." Of the 267 individual inventors, more than 13 were Jews, including Zoll (the defibrillator and the pacemaker), Land (instant photography), Gabor (holography), and Ginsburg (videotape). Jews are represented on the list 22 times more than one would expect based on their population.
So, think again . . . it's no conspiracy. I've always maintained that Islam and the Quran instills a 'Muslim mindset' that westerners often find alien and values that are incompatible with western values. I'm sure there's a variety of reasons why Muslims are so under-represented in the sciences but there's a blazing neon sign pointing to their religion, and the cultures it dominates, in the same way they point to terrorism. According to the National Counterterrorism Center's 2011 report, prepared for the U.S. Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Sunni Muslims were responsible for 70% of all terrorist killings in the world. On a per capita basis, that's over 3.6 TIMES more terrorist killings than the world at large. Yet apologists would have us believe that has nothing to do with Islam. They'll have a much tougher time trying to convince us that Muslim under-representation in Nobel prizes has nothing to do with Islam.
Why is the Muslim world so behind in science and technology?
When Muslims die and enter Paradise do they still have to pray to Allah?
Answer by Jim Ashby:
Hmmm . . . interesting question. The only thing I recall that might relate to the question is the matter of the seven heavens. The original Quran has existed since Allah created the universe. He keeps it with him in seventh heaven. When it came time to begin sending revelations to Muhammad, Allah moved the Quran to first heaven -- where the archangel Gabriel could access it whenever he needed to parse out revelations to Muhammad. This mythical arrangement of Quranic revelation, from outermost (first) heaven, via archangel Gabriel, to Muhammad, suggests to me that Allah is not directly accessible, even in paradise; at least, not by archangels. If archangels reside in the outermost heaven, where do humans reside (assuming they don't go to hell)? Is there a pecking order in heaven? Which level is Muhammad in? If, while alive, he was allowed more wives than other men, does he also get more virgins in heaven? Which level of heaven do suicide bombers go to? Do they really go straight to heaven without waiting? Is there a bevy of virgins in all levels of heaven or just one or some? Do archangels also get virgins? Is sex between angels and humans allowed in heaven? Why stratify heaven unless there's some sort of hierarchy there? The existence of seven heavens, with Allah in the seventh heaven, suggests to me that he wants to keep worship going, even in heaven. Maybe, if you ever get to seventh heaven, in the presence of Allah, you won't have to pray any more. But I wouldn't count on it.
When Muslims die and enter Paradise do they still have to pray to Allah?
My @Quora comment on an answer to How many non-Muslims believe that ISIS are Muslims and follow Islam?
My @Quora comment on an answer to How many non-Muslims believe that ISIS are Muslims and follow Islam? : My @Quora comment on an answer to How many non-Muslims believe that ISIS are Muslims and follow Islam?
Why does my faith to Islam become stronger day by day when the world is mocking Islam?
Answer by Ernie Jones:
I would recommend that you read a slim volume called "Influence" by Robert Cialdini. If you believe something that everyone else believes, it doesn't take much (if any) psychological resources to continue believing that thing. On the other hand, if you hold a belief which is significant to your identity, such as the religion of your country and culture and family and childhood, and that belief is attacked, especially if it is continually attacked and attacked by the dominant culture, then in order to retain your sense of identity, you have to actively devote psychological resources to shoring up that belief against the assault, and as a result you become increasingly entrenched in your belief. This phenomenon is commonly observed in end-times cults, for example, when the predicted end time passes without a world-shattering cataclysm. You'd think that members of the cult would abandon their belief, but this is not in fact what happens. Rather, the group casts about for an explanation until they find one which fits their world view, and then something very interesting happens. Such groups typically are very closed, very focused on the fact that they know the truth and others don't and outsiders don't have any place. But once their predictions fail, and they've come up with a justification, they tend to become evangelical, opening up their doors and obsessively attempting to convert others to the cult, because the more people they can convert, the more comfortable they are in continuing to believe something for which they have sacrificed everything -- because in most cases they've severed all ties with friends and family and even given away all their possessions in anticipation of the event. What you're describing is the same process. The more you're exposed to people "mocking, hating and insulting" your religious beliefs, which like all religious beliefs are based on faith rather than logic and evidence and therefore cannot be rationally defended, the more you're forced to choose between accepting the criticism -- which would mean turning your back on your family, your culture, and even your own personal identity forged in childhood -- or digging in deeper. Most people choose to dig in deeper.
Why does my faith to Islam become stronger day by day when the world is mocking Islam?
Which insult is worse and deserves more criticism from the Muslim world: Charlie Hebdo's insult of Muhammad (and thereby Islam) in its ca...
Answer by Jim Ashby:
Thanks for the A2A, Joseph!
I'll paraphrase your question: 'Which ideology deserves more criticism: democracy or theocracy?' From the perspective of freedom-loving people, the most common answer is likely to be theocracy. From the perspective of theorcrats, the most common answer is likely to be democracy. There are exceptions, of course, but the two ideologies are essentially incompatible. The self-proclaimed clear, perfect, immutable, and inerrant Quran contradicts itself. The peaceful, tolerant, passages (ayat and suwar) from Muhammad's Meccan period gave way to vengeful, intolerant, passages after Muhammad's Hijra to Medina and his rise to wealth and power gained by raiding caravans. Islamic exegesis (Tafsir) developed the doctrine of Naskh (abrogation) to account for the contradictions in revelations that accompanied Muhammad's transformation from reviled Meccan to exalted Medinan: from persecuted prophet to warlord prophet. If you're not familiar with Hijra, Tafsir, or Naskh, please check out the links for more information. While in Mecca and before rising to power in Medina, revelation frequently counseled 'no compulsion in religion' and 'fight only in self defense'. But, in Medina, Muhammad and his followers enriched themselves by raiding caravans: stirring up a hornet's nest of repercussions leading directly to war. Now, instead of 'no compulsion in religion' and 'fight only in self defense', revelations counseled 'convert or die' and 'fight for any excuse you please'. Revelations commanded preemptive and retaliatory attacks (not self defense) and ambush as well as assassinations of critics and physical coercion (compulsion) against recalcitrant pagans who were too slow to convert. But violating 'no compulsion in religion' and 'fight only in self defense' is okay because naskh claims that, where apparent contradictions exist, later revelations supersede earlier ones. Convenient, no? What this means is that the later intolerant and violent revelations supersede the earlier tolerant and peaceful ones. So, in a very real sense, the multiple revelations that counsel 'no compulsion in religion' and 'fight only in self defense' have been effectively removed from the Quran through abrogation of them (naskh). Naskh legitimizes jihadi and terrorist violence in the same way it did for Muhammad. Jihadis and terrorist are merely following Muhammad's example. The consequence of contradiction is that it forces some adherents to choose between peace and tolerance or violence and intolerance. Other adherents are selective Muslims that cherry-pick ayat in accordance with personal inclinations. In other words, at the individual level, Islam is what you make of it. Collectively, Islam is as Islam does. Although it's probably a minority who adhere to violent and intolerant revelations, the ostensibly 'moderate' majority don't sufficiently exercise the power of their numbers to call out and ostracize extremists and radicals. As far as I can see, until they do, they're irrelevant or superfluous. The later violent and intolerant revelations of the Quran makes it absolutely clear that Allah is the God of everything and everyone. We are all accountable to Allah regardless of whether or not we know or believe in him and Islam. Disrespect of Islam -- Allah, the Quran or Muhammad -- gives all the license necessary for violent retaliation . . . as we've seen over and over again. This REALLY pisses me off. The true insult here is the violence and intolerance that attempts to pass itself off as misunderstood peace and tolerance. It's why I try my damnedest to fight the propaganda, historical revisionism and apologia that flows like a sewer from fundamentalist Islam.
Which insult is worse and deserves more criticism from the Muslim world: Charlie Hebdo's insult of Muhammad (and thereby Islam) in its ca...
My @Quora comment on an answer to What is last thing God created ?
My @Quora comment on an answer to What is last thing God created ? : My @Quora comment on an answer to What is last thing God created ?
My @Quora comment on an answer to What are the true colors of Islam?
My @Quora comment on an answer to What are the true colors of Islam? : My @Quora comment on an answer to What are the true colors of Islam?
My @Quora comment on an answer to What are the true colors of Islam?
My @Quora comment on an answer to What are the true colors of Islam? : My @Quora comment on an answer to What are the true colors of Islam?
My @Quora comment on an answer to What is the exact definition of an atheist?
My @Quora comment on an answer to What is the exact definition of an atheist? My @Quora comment on an answer to What is the exact definition of an atheist? : My @Quora comment on an answer to What is the exact definition of an atheist?
What do atheists have against Islam?
My @Quora answer to What do atheists have against Islam? Answer by Jim Ashby:
The first thing I had against Islam was the Quran. Upon reading it, I could only shake my head in wonder at the mindset it must inculcate among adherents. It's unrelentingly xenophobic, militaristic, totalitarian and supermacist. As I cross-referenced it with ahadith, I saw that they were even worse than the Quran. This led me to look at the history of Islam, which had its strengths and weaknesses. Islam's 1000-year history in India was particularly appalling. Sickening, actually. Then I saw how Islamic tradition proved to be very misogynistic -- going well beyond what was warranted by the Quran or even by ahadith. The subjugation of women in Islam is a fait accompli without rival in all of history. As if all these things weren't bad enough, what really bothers me most is how Islam is binding on non-Muslims. No other religion holds non-adherents accountable to its beliefs like Islam does. You must acknowledge and respect Allah, the Quran and Muhammad: disrespecting them is disrespecting the entire ummah of Islam. It's considered to be (literally) making war on Allah and is all the warrant necessary for violent retaliation. We're all aware of how true this is. Cartoon of Muhammad, anybody? There is precious little in Islam for freedom-loving Westerners to like. Our liberty and rights are anathema to Islam. Our respective values are simply not compatible, at all. As with any other religion, Islam's adherents are like anybody else. They just want to get through life with as little unnecessary drama as possible. Having lived in Kuwait for 6 months, I find no fault with Muslims. They're actually very nice people. My problem with Islam is not its adherents, it's the ideology as informed by the Quran, sunna (ahadith and Muhammad's example), jihad, sharia, Islamic tradition and history. It is my belief that the ideology flowing from the Quran and ahadith is poison to peace and tolerance (despite the opposite claim of Muslim apologists). For instance, antisemitism is institutionalized by sharia law in the form of dhimma. Jews (and other 'People of the Book') are subjugated and deemed inferior to Muslims. Robert Bernstein, founder of Human Rights Watch, says that antisemitism is "deeply ingrained and institutionalized" in "Arab nations in modern times." That's an understatement. It's not as if I want to dislike Islam. It's just that the more I learn about it, the less there is to like. I hope everybody reads the Quran and cross-references it with ahadith when questions arise. It will give you a glimpse into the mindset Islam instills.
What do atheists have against Islam?
My @Quora comment on an answer to Isn't atheism based on faith?
My @Quora comment on an answer to Isn't atheism based on faith? My @Quora comment on an answer to Isn't atheism based on faith? : My @Quora comment on an answer to Isn't atheism based on faith?
My @Quora comment on an answer to Why do some atheists insist on calling religious people's beliefs fairy tales?
My @Quora comment on an answer to Why do some atheists insist on calling religious people's beliefs fairy tales? My @Quora comment on an answer to Why do some atheists insist on calling religious people's beliefs fairy tales? : My @Quora comment on an answer to Why do some atheists insist on calling religious people's beliefs fairy tales?
My @Quora comment on an answer to Why atheists almost always lose to William Lane Craig ? (even though his arguments are claimed to be fl...
My @Quora comment on an answer to Why atheists almost always lose to William Lane Craig ? (even though his arguments are claimed to be flawed) : My @Quora comment on an answer to Why atheists almost always lose to William Lane Craig ? (even though his arguments are claimed to be fl...
My @Quora comment on an answer to Is it ok to think that the prophet Muhammad was a bad guy for having sex with a 9-year-old child?
My @Quora comment on an answer to Is it ok to think that the prophet Muhammad was a bad guy for having sex with a 9-year-old child? : My @Quora comment on an answer to Is it ok to think that the prophet Muhammad was a bad guy for having sex with a 9-year-old child?
My @Quora comment on an answer to Question with assumptions: Why are only women in Muslim countries found guilty of adultery stoned to de...
My @Quora comment on an answer to Question with assumptions: Why are only women in Muslim countries found guilty of adultery stoned to death but not Muslim men who seek sex from their wives and others and can marry and divorce as many as they want? : My @Quora comment on an answer to Question with assumptions: Why are only women in Muslim countries found guilty of adultery stoned to de...
My @Quora comment on an answer to Why doesn't God provide scientific proof of His existence?
My @Quora comment on an answer to Why doesn't God provide scientific proof of His existence? : My @Quora comment on an answer to Why doesn't God provide scientific proof of His existence?