3 of 11
3
Worlds’s largest
Posted: 17 April 2008 05:33 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 31 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  156
Joined  2007-11-04

Sure, listen to the suppressed women. But listen to all of them, even the ones that understand that the suppression they face is not because of their religion, but because the people suppressing them have forgotten their religion.  Also, listen to those women who are in position of power, who feel liberated because of their religion.  Insofar as you only cite the accounts of less than a handful of individuals who obviously have derive profit from attacking Islam, your analysis is seriously flawed.

Well, I did listen to many of them. I value the most the ones whose lifes have to be protected because otherwise they would be killed by the most consequent adherents of the “religion of peace”. They seem on to something, otherwise there would not be death squads sent to kill them. Your insinuation that they “profit from attacking Islam” is stupid and malicious, how many people profit from cuddling with Islamism? Many more. And they are not attacked or threatened by islamist goons.

You assume that because you think you think for yourself, that somehow this makes you a superior person.  Well, some of us are at least honest enough to realize that we need to ask and follow when we clearly do not, or cannot, know for ourselves.

Well, not superior, just clever. And there are many things I also don’t know, I just don’t assume to know things that are unknowable. And waste my time in the futile attempt to trying to convince others about that.

Is this your explaination for why 20 000 American’s, overwhelmingly women, accept Islam in the US alone ever year?  Anyway, whatever you wrote here makes no sense.

20.000 is not many and yes, most converts are spouses, who simply don’t want to be lonely anymore.

This is according to you, someone who has no clue as to what nobility is about.

I think I know what nobility is about. It is certainly not about believing in fairy tales and promoting them. It is rather noble to help people to get their life together and life without such claptrap.

If you think science will solve the “problem of religion”, you don’t understand what science is.  In the end, given your belief that you are somehow superior because you do not follow the orders of the Most High, the only point you have made is how ignorant, and arrogant you are.

No, I said education will help solving it. People who are more educated are more resistant against beeing coned, that’s a fact.
I repeat, you have been coned into believing ridiculus claptrap. This is enforced through rituals that make you shake off doubts and further give you the feeling of belonging to some mass of people and something “bigger than yourself”, “the orders of the Most High” is your refuge from the terrifying real world. Those things consolate maybe very much but are an illusions, the world looks also much nicer without god.

 Signature 

“We may be confused about the distinction between tolerance and the refusal of evaluation, thinking that tolerance of others requires us not to evaluate what they do.”
Martha Nussbaum
  —Cultivating Humanity

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 April 2008 11:44 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 32 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  885
Joined  2008-01-23
Mel Olontha - 17 April 2008 09:33 AM

Sure, listen to the suppressed women. But listen to all of them, even the ones that understand that the suppression they face is not because of their religion, but because the people suppressing them have forgotten their religion.  Also, listen to those women who are in position of power, who feel liberated because of their religion.  Insofar as you only cite the accounts of less than a handful of individuals who obviously have derive profit from attacking Islam, your analysis is seriously flawed.

Well, I did listen to many of them. I value the most the ones whose lifes have to be protected because otherwise they would be killed by the most consequent adherents of the “religion of peace”. They seem on to something, otherwise there would not be death squads sent to kill them. Your insinuation that they “profit from attacking Islam” is stupid and malicious, how many people profit from cuddling with Islamism? Many more. And they are not attacked or threatened by islamist goons.

It seems you value only what fits with your bias.  The only thing the individuals you speak of are on to, is inciting people who do not have the ability or patience to respond appropriately.  Given their remarkable lack of scholarship and understanding, it’s amazing that anyone other then family and friends have come to know the names of such people, let alone the fact that their books sell.  Clearly, profiting from attacking a minorty in a politically convenient time is all there is to it.

You assume that because you think you think for yourself, that somehow this makes you a superior person.  Well, some of us are at least honest enough to realize that we need to ask and follow when we clearly do not, or cannot, know for ourselves.

Well, not superior, just clever. And there are many things I also don’t know, I just don’t assume to know things that are unknowable. And waste my time in the futile attempt to trying to convince others about that.

Among the things that you don’t know, is that you are not very clever.  All the views you have put forth are simply echoing what your compadres have said.  People tend to adopt views as their own, fooling themselves into thinking that they are critical.  I bet you never had an original thought.  As for knowledge of God, He is knowable, yet unknowable.

Is this your explaination for why 20 000 American’s, overwhelmingly women, accept Islam in the US alone ever year?  Anyway, whatever you wrote here makes no sense.

20.000 is not many and yes, most converts are spouses, who simply don’t want to be lonely anymore.

You need to review your posts.  Do you mean that most converts are divorced/separated looking to get back into a relationship?  If so, what does getting back into a relationship have anything to do with converting to Islam?  I could understand if you were trying to say that Muslim men treat their women with more respect, and so women tend to convert to Islam in hopes of marrying such a person, but it would be hard to prove that Muslim men are, on the whole, actually living up to their religious tradition.

This is according to you, someone who has no clue as to what nobility is about.

I think I know what nobility is about. It is certainly not about believing in fairy tales and promoting them. It is rather noble to help people to get their life together and life without such claptrap.

If you think science will solve the “problem of religion”, you don’t understand what science is.  In the end, given your belief that you are somehow superior because you do not follow the orders of the Most High, the only point you have made is how ignorant, and arrogant you are.

No, I said education will help solving it. People who are more educated are more resistant against beeing coned, that’s a fact.

I repeat, you have been coned into believing ridiculus claptrap. This is enforced through rituals that make you shake off doubts and further give you the feeling of belonging to some mass of people and something “bigger than yourself”, “the orders of the Most High” is your refuge from the terrifying real world. Those things consolate maybe very much but are an illusions, the world looks also much nicer without god.

Again, you are simply parroting old atheist arguments.  My guess is that you took the idea of the need to be consoled from Freud’s “The Future of an Illusion” or Dawkin’s “God Delusion” which is a play on the former.  I wonder who Freud consoled in when his head needed to be covered with a bag so that the flies wouldn’t be attracted to the stench of his rotting face, as he died from cancer.

While the need to feel like one is a part of a group is arguably a part of human nature, I am less concerned with this need when put against the need for truth.  I would not change my religion if I was the only Muslim alive and had nowhere to belong.  Then again, it would be hard to learn about the religion without others being around to teach it.

More importantly, that God is a source of consolement (indeed He is), says nothing as to whether or not He exists.  You assume that people created God in order to be consoled, but how can you argue that God did not create people so that they could in fact console in Him?

In any case, you are no different from the average believer you describe.  You have been, as you put it, “coned” into believing rediculous claptrap (or simply crap), that you think is the result of objective analysis.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 April 2008 04:38 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 33 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1639
Joined  2007-12-20

Jack Shooter:


You replied, “It seems as though you may have been reading Ayan Hrsi Ali’s works or some other laypersons understanding of Islam.  In any case, you apparently don’t know much about Islamic law.  First of all, female genital mutilation has no basis in Islam whatsoever.  It is a cultural practice, plain and simple.  Secondly, forced marriages also have no Islamic sanction.  Thirdly, stonning to death for adultery applies to the guilty man and woman, not the woman only.  So your wrong on all three counts.  I suggest you ask if you do not know.  And trust me, if you believe Ayan Hrsi Ali’s understanding of Islam to be authoritative, then clearly you do not know.”

I am wrong?  These practices are condoned and accepted by Islamic law.  Whether they are supported by the Koran or not has no bearing on the fact that they are being played out across the lands and are condoned by Islamic governments under the rule of Islam. When you have governments that are controlled under the rule of religion you have governments that destroy and abolish the individual and civil rights of its people.

Jack stated, “Actually, there are many, many Westerners who, after accepting Islam, have moved to so-called Muslim countries (so-called because many of the practices are often un-Islamic in these countries) to study Islam with Muslim scholars or simply to live in a more “Islamic environment” if you will.  I am sure that most practicing Muslims, American born or otherwise, would welcome the ‘rule’ of Islam anywhere.  At the same time, however, the reality is that many countries in the West are actually more “Islamic” in practice than many so-called Muslim countries, and Muslims know this very well.”

It may be the case that westerners who convert to Islam move to Islamic countries, but that is not my point. I am referring to the Jack Shooters of the world, the Westerners who appease the barbaric practices of Islam by defending them in just this type of forum, yet who have no desire or intention to live under their laws.

 Signature 

“Every war is a war against children.”
Howard Zinn

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 April 2008 07:54 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 34 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  156
Joined  2007-11-04

Clearly, profiting from attacking a minorty in a politically convenient time is all there is to it.

Bullshit, here you simply throw mud. They live under police protection because they are threatened to be killed by your co-religionists, who like everybody else is free to say your opinion. You nowhere said that you found that in any way strange.
Maggots like Tariq Ramadan make the big bucks, thanks mainly to gullible moonfaced DoGooders in the West.

As for knowledge of God, He is knowable, yet unknowable.

Again, complete meaningless drivel. Evidence? None. Sounds like one of those mantras they mumble in Tibet to close their mind.

You need to review your posts.  Do you mean that most converts are divorced/separated looking to get back into a relationship?  If so, what does getting back into a relationship have anything to do with converting to Islam?  I could understand if you were trying to say that Muslim men treat their women with more respect, and so women tend to convert to Islam in hopes of marrying such a person, but it would be hard to prove that Muslim men are, on the whole, actually living up to their religious tradition.

No, I said that 20.000 coverted women are not many in a country like the USA and can be explained mainly by lonely woman that decide to marry muslim men. I said nothing about the quality of those relationships but that I have met a woman that after beeing abused by her father liked the submission under her new faith and husband (whom I suspect of beating her), yes she even enjoyes the hijab and prepares to produce offspring for allah.

This is according to you, someone who has no clue as to what nobility is about.

I think I know what nobility is about. It is certainly not about believing in fairy tales and promoting them. It is rather noble to help people to get their life together and life without such claptrap.

That I said well, thats why you quoted it again?

Again, you are simply parroting old atheist arguments.  My guess is that you took the idea of the need to be consoled from Freud’s “The Future of an Illusion” or Dawkin’s “God Delusion” which is a play on the former.  I wonder who Freud consoled in when his head needed to be covered with a bag so that the flies wouldn’t be attracted to the stench of his rotting face, as he died from cancer.

Well, I get it, you really don’t like Freud. Is it because he as a Jew is by you despised as an ape or pig like the Quran tells you or is it maybe because his arguments are “old” but also valid and you are not able to refute them?

By the way, devout Muslims die of nasty diseases too, how do you like that? Islamic countries have also much less life expectency and higher infant mortality rates than most others apart from subsaharan Africa. Why is that? Let me guess: Jewish-Crusader conspiracy and allahs plan to make the Muslims so angry that they can finally take over the world? Am I right?

If my atheist arguments are so “old” for you and you know them already, how come you cannot come up with anything to prove god? Doesn’t it indicate that “god” is not evident but simply blindly asserted by you?

More importantly, that God is a source of consolement (indeed He is), says nothing as to whether or not He exists.  You assume that people created God in order to be consoled, but how can you argue that God did not create people so that they could in fact console in Him?

Besides this beeing a quite perverse thought -created sick and commanded to be well- why should an omnipotent beeing do something like that? - ah, ok, he works in mysterious ways…
Again, where is the evidence? Without evidence for something like the “god” you propose the hypothesis of the man made god is the more logic explanation, based on evidence collected in comparative anthropology: many cultures created god or gods or somekind of belief system in absence of more logical explanations for the realities of their life.

In any case, you are no different from the average believer you describe.  You have been, as you put it, “coned” into believing rediculous claptrap (or simply crap), that you think is the result of objective analysis.

Nope, you are wrong again. I believe in science because of the Wealth of Evidence that its conclusions are likely to be true. You believe in god because you have faith.
This quite well explained in this comic.

 Signature 

“We may be confused about the distinction between tolerance and the refusal of evaluation, thinking that tolerance of others requires us not to evaluate what they do.”
Martha Nussbaum
  —Cultivating Humanity

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 April 2008 07:00 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 35 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  885
Joined  2008-01-23
lindajean - 18 April 2008 08:38 AM

Jack Shooter:

You replied, “It seems as though you may have been reading Ayan Hrsi Ali’s works or some other laypersons understanding of Islam.  In any case, you apparently don’t know much about Islamic law.  First of all, female genital mutilation has no basis in Islam whatsoever.  It is a cultural practice, plain and simple.  Secondly, forced marriages also have no Islamic sanction.  Thirdly, stonning to death for adultery applies to the guilty man and woman, not the woman only.  So your wrong on all three counts.  I suggest you ask if you do not know.  And trust me, if you believe Ayan Hrsi Ali’s understanding of Islam to be authoritative, then clearly you do not know.”

I am wrong?  These practices are condoned and accepted by Islamic law.  Whether they are supported by the Koran or not has no bearing on the fact that they are being played out across the lands and are condoned by Islamic governments under the rule of Islam. When you have governments that are controlled under the rule of religion you have governments that destroy and abolish the individual and civil rights of its people.

After I just clarified the issues you brought up initially, which “practices are condoned and accepted by Islamic law” in your mind? To recap in case you missed it: (1) female genital mutilation = not sanctioned by Islam (2) forced marriages = not sanctioned by Islam (3) stoning to death for adultrey = sanctioned by Islam when necessary evidence is given (evidence is very difficult to obtain, almost impossible).

Jack stated, “Actually, there are many, many Westerners who, after accepting Islam, have moved to so-called Muslim countries (so-called because many of the practices are often un-Islamic in these countries) to study Islam with Muslim scholars or simply to live in a more “Islamic environment” if you will.  I am sure that most practicing Muslims, American born or otherwise, would welcome the ‘rule’ of Islam anywhere.  At the same time, however, the reality is that many countries in the West are actually more “Islamic” in practice than many so-called Muslim countries, and Muslims know this very well.”

It may be the case that westerners who convert to Islam move to Islamic countries, but that is not my point. I am referring to the Jack Shooters of the world, the Westerners who appease the barbaric practices of Islam by defending them in just this type of forum, yet who have no desire or intention to live under their laws.

I would love to live under Islamic law.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 April 2008 07:59 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 36 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  885
Joined  2008-01-23
Mel Olontha - 18 April 2008 11:54 AM

Clearly, profiting from attacking a minorty in a politically convenient time is all there is to it.

Bullshit, here you simply throw mud. They live under police protection because they are threatened to be killed by your co-religionists, who like everybody else is free to say your opinion. You nowhere said that you found that in any way strange.
Maggots like Tariq Ramadan make the big bucks, thanks mainly to gullible moonfaced DoGooders in the West.

I like Tariq Ramadan, and I like do-gooders in the West that make him rich too.  Why shouldn’t good people help good people? 

As for you, I despise your despicable views, and am glad that no one with a brain would take them seriously.

As for knowledge of God, He is knowable, yet unknowable.

Again, complete meaningless drivel. Evidence? None. Sounds like one of those mantras they mumble in Tibet to close their mind.

Meaningless drivel to an imbecile? Absolutely.  Evidence that you are not an absolute imbecile?  None.

You need to review your posts.  Do you mean that most converts are divorced/separated looking to get back into a relationship?  If so, what does getting back into a relationship have anything to do with converting to Islam?  I could understand if you were trying to say that Muslim men treat their women with more respect, and so women tend to convert to Islam in hopes of marrying such a person, but it would be hard to prove that Muslim men are, on the whole, actually living up to their religious tradition.

No, I said that 20.000 coverted women are not many in a country like the USA and can be explained mainly by lonely woman that decide to marry muslim men. I said nothing about the quality of those relationships but that I have met a woman that after beeing abused by her father liked the submission under her new faith and husband (whom I suspect of beating her), yes she even enjoyes the hijab and prepares to produce offspring for allah.

Again, you put forth a view based on unsupported hypothesis.  In any case, good for that lady, except that I’m only sorry that she personally knows someone with views as horrible as yours.

This is according to you, someone who has no clue as to what nobility is about.

I think I know what nobility is about. It is certainly not about believing in fairy tales and promoting them. It is rather noble to help people to get their life together and life without such claptrap.

That I said well, thats why you quoted it again?

Actually no.  You have said nothing well so far.  It must have been an oversight on my part.

Again, you are simply parroting old atheist arguments.  My guess is that you took the idea of the need to be consoled from Freud’s “The Future of an Illusion” or Dawkin’s “God Delusion” which is a play on the former.  I wonder who Freud consoled in when his head needed to be covered with a bag so that the flies wouldn’t be attracted to the stench of his rotting face, as he died from cancer.

Well, I get it, you really don’t like Freud. Is it because he as a Jew is by you despised as an ape or pig like the Quran tells you or is it maybe because his arguments are “old” but also valid and you are not able to refute them?

I don’t dislike Freud per se.  The fact that he was a Jew, although interesting to me, is not reason for me to dislike his works.  As far as his arguments go, you are a fool if you think that they are somehow ‘valid’.  “Where is your evidence” if you claim Freud’s arguments to be true?  Idiot.

By the way, devout Muslims die of nasty diseases too, how do you like that? Islamic countries have also much less life expectency and higher infant mortality rates than most others apart from subsaharan Africa. Why is that? Let me guess: Jewish-Crusader conspiracy and allahs plan to make the Muslims so angry that they can finally take over the world? Am I right?

I never suggested that Muslims do not die of horrible diseases too.  I only asked the question as to what people console themselves with in times of need.

As to low life expactancy and high infant mortality rates among Muslims, so what?  Muslims don’t believe that those who live long are necessarily more blessed than those who die young.  Idiot.

If my atheist arguments are so “old” for you and you know them already, how come you cannot come up with anything to prove god? Doesn’t it indicate that “god” is not evident but simply blindly asserted by you?

I can give you all types of arguments, but having the die-hard skeptic mindset that you do, I am sure you will always look for the smallest probability that there may not be a God and suggest that it is sufficent evidence to think everyone who believes in God is somehow irrational.  In the end, I know God exists through my experience of worshiping him.

More importantly, that God is a source of consolement (indeed He is), says nothing as to whether or not He exists.  You assume that people created God in order to be consoled, but how can you argue that God did not create people so that they could in fact console in Him?

Besides this beeing a quite perverse thought -created sick and commanded to be well- why should an omnipotent beeing do something like that? - ah, ok, he works in mysterious ways…
Again, where is the evidence? Without evidence for something like the “god” you propose the hypothesis of the man made god is the more logic explanation, based on evidence collected in comparative anthropology: many cultures created god or gods or somekind of belief system in absence of more logical explanations for the realities of their life.

The man-made god hypothesis is only the more logical explanation for materialists who do not believe in the possibility of a metaphysical reality.  In any case, given our knowledge of anthropology, it seems that man has always had a desire to worship something.  Perhaps this is a need that God placed in man?  This is a tenable explanation.  But I am sure that you would choose to believe that man’s worshiping has other reasons.  Anyway, I don’t think your evidence, or that put forth by most atheists, is any good.

In any case, you are no different from the average believer you describe.  You have been, as you put it, “coned” into believing rediculous claptrap (or simply crap), that you think is the result of objective analysis.

Nope, you are wrong again. I believe in science because of the Wealth of Evidence that its conclusions are likely to be true. You believe in god because you have faith.
This quite well explained in this comic.

I believe in science AND God because of various types of evidence.  So, no, you are, in fact, wrong again.  Idiot.

[ Edited: 22 April 2008 08:01 PM by Jack Shooter]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 April 2008 04:29 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 37 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  156
Joined  2007-11-04

I like Tariq Ramadan, and I like do-gooders in the West that make him rich too.  Why shouldn’t good people help good people?

That you like him makes me dislike him even more. And “good” is relative here, good for you is bad for me (as well as reason and secularism).

As for you, I despise your despicable views, and am glad that no one with a brain would take them seriously.

Again, here you show your true face (and that you are out of arguments). To be despised by somebody like you is an honour.

Meaningless drivel to an imbecile? Absolutely.  Evidence that you are not an absolute imbecile?  None.

So if you do not manage to convince somebody you resort to personal attacks, slander and name calling? Wow, how enlightened, intelligent and well mannered. Truly a model to emulate. (what you really say is: “you don’t believe what I do so you are an “imbecile”. A pathetic statement.)

Again, you put forth a view based on unsupported hypothesis.  In any case, good for that lady, except that I’m only sorry that she personally knows someone with views as horrible as yours.

Don’t worry, I will make sure that her children get the best chance to become atheists.

You have said nothing well so far. It must have been an oversight on my part.

I think you oversee a lot of things. This is called “selective perception” and is employed by believers to ignore evidence that contradict supernatural claims.

I don’t dislike Freud per se.  The fact that he was a Jew, although interesting to me, is not reason for me to dislike his works.  As far as his arguments go, you are a fool if you think that they are somehow ‘valid’.  “Where is your evidence” if you claim Freud’s arguments to be true?  Idiot.

Freuds arguments are not scientific, merely philosophical, as is his reasoning. I know the difference, do you?
Again, pathetic name calling does not speak for your case.

I never suggested that Muslims do not die of horrible diseases too.  I only asked the question as to what people console themselves with in times of need.
As to low life expactancy and high infant mortality rates among Muslims, so what?  Muslims don’t believe that those who live long are necessarily more blessed than those who die young.  Idiot.

I think the “consolation” by religion is highly overrated. Especially the believe in the afterlife: if this would consolate people why are they still sad when somebody dies?
If Muslims don’t mind dying poor and sick after a short life but blessed, why do they emigrate in masses to Western Europe? Why do rich Arabs go to clinics in Germany and Switzerland?

I can give you all types of arguments, but having the die-hard skeptic mindset that you do, I am sure you will always look for the smallest probability that there may not be a God and suggest that it is sufficent evidence to think everyone who believes in God is somehow irrational.  In the end, I know God exists through my experience of worshiping him.

So you have no evidence or convincing arguments. You again say that I have to become a believer in order to believe in God. This is not reasoning, this is a tautology: completely meaningless. And your problem is bigger: you don’t only have to prove that there is some “probability” for god, but that he cares that I butt the rug 5 times a day.

The man-made god hypothesis is only the more logical explanation for materialists who do not believe in the possibility of a metaphysical reality.  In any case, given our knowledge of anthropology, it seems that man has always had a desire to worship something.  Perhaps this is a need that God placed in man?  This is a tenable explanation.  But I am sure that you would choose to believe that man’s worshiping has other reasons.  Anyway, I don’t think your evidence, or that put forth by most atheists, is any good.

Again, I apply occams razor and what stays is the hypotesis that “God” as part of cultural ontologies was important for human society in history. This I am willing to discuss. “God”  as part of subjective cultural reality, but not as a supernatural beeing.

Nope, you are wrong again. I believe in science because of the Wealth of Evidence that its conclusions are likely to be true. You believe in god because you have faith.
This quite well explained in this comic.

I believe in science AND God because of various types of evidence.  So, no, you are, in fact, wrong again.  Idiot.

Well how smart of you to “believe in science”. You did not understand the point of the comic although this was not difficult to understand: there is no evidence for God, you just have faith in it. With science it is exactly the opposite, it presents evidence that is constantly doubted, therefore it’s claims are likely to be true.
And the third “idiot” name calling, do you think this shows any education or culture on your side? To me it just shows that you are very angry that you cannot convince or silence me and other doubters.

 Signature 

“We may be confused about the distinction between tolerance and the refusal of evaluation, thinking that tolerance of others requires us not to evaluate what they do.”
Martha Nussbaum
  —Cultivating Humanity

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 April 2008 06:51 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 38 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  885
Joined  2008-01-23
Mel Olontha - 23 April 2008 08:29 AM

I like Tariq Ramadan, and I like do-gooders in the West that make him rich too.  Why shouldn’t good people help good people?

That you like him makes me dislike him even more. And “good” is relative here, good for you is bad for me (as well as reason and secularism).

As for you, I despise your despicable views, and am glad that no one with a brain would take them seriously.

Again, here you show your true face (and that you are out of arguments). To be despised by somebody like you is an honour.

Meaningless drivel to an imbecile? Absolutely.  Evidence that you are not an absolute imbecile?  None.

So if you do not manage to convince somebody you resort to personal attacks, slander and name calling? Wow, how enlightened, intelligent and well mannered. Truly a model to emulate. (what you really say is: “you don’t believe what I do so you are an “imbecile”. A pathetic statement.)

Again, you put forth a view based on unsupported hypothesis.  In any case, good for that lady, except that I’m only sorry that she personally knows someone with views as horrible as yours.

Don’t worry, I will make sure that her children get the best chance to become atheists.

You have said nothing well so far. It must have been an oversight on my part.

I think you oversee a lot of things. This is called “selective perception” and is employed by believers to ignore evidence that contradict supernatural claims.

I don’t dislike Freud per se.  The fact that he was a Jew, although interesting to me, is not reason for me to dislike his works.  As far as his arguments go, you are a fool if you think that they are somehow ‘valid’.  “Where is your evidence” if you claim Freud’s arguments to be true?  Idiot.

Freuds arguments are not scientific, merely philosophical, as is his reasoning. I know the difference, do you?
Again, pathetic name calling does not speak for your case.

I never suggested that Muslims do not die of horrible diseases too.  I only asked the question as to what people console themselves with in times of need.
As to low life expactancy and high infant mortality rates among Muslims, so what?  Muslims don’t believe that those who live long are necessarily more blessed than those who die young.  Idiot.

I think the “consolation” by religion is highly overrated. Especially the believe in the afterlife: if this would consolate people why are they still sad when somebody dies?
If Muslims don’t mind dying poor and sick after a short life but blessed, why do they emigrate in masses to Western Europe? Why do rich Arabs go to clinics in Germany and Switzerland?

I can give you all types of arguments, but having the die-hard skeptic mindset that you do, I am sure you will always look for the smallest probability that there may not be a God and suggest that it is sufficent evidence to think everyone who believes in God is somehow irrational.  In the end, I know God exists through my experience of worshiping him.

So you have no evidence or convincing arguments. You again say that I have to become a believer in order to believe in God. This is not reasoning, this is a tautology: completely meaningless. And your problem is bigger: you don’t only have to prove that there is some “probability” for god, but that he cares that I butt the rug 5 times a day.

The man-made god hypothesis is only the more logical explanation for materialists who do not believe in the possibility of a metaphysical reality.  In any case, given our knowledge of anthropology, it seems that man has always had a desire to worship something.  Perhaps this is a need that God placed in man?  This is a tenable explanation.  But I am sure that you would choose to believe that man’s worshiping has other reasons.  Anyway, I don’t think your evidence, or that put forth by most atheists, is any good.

Again, I apply occams razor and what stays is the hypotesis that “God” as part of cultural ontologies was important for human society in history. This I am willing to discuss. “God”  as part of subjective cultural reality, but not as a supernatural beeing.

Nope, you are wrong again. I believe in science because of the Wealth of Evidence that its conclusions are likely to be true. You believe in god because you have faith.
This quite well explained in this comic.

I believe in science AND God because of various types of evidence.  So, no, you are, in fact, wrong again.  Idiot.

Well how smart of you to “believe in science”. You did not understand the point of the comic although this was not difficult to understand: there is no evidence for God, you just have faith in it. With science it is exactly the opposite, it presents evidence that is constantly doubted, therefore it’s claims are likely to be true.
And the third “idiot” name calling, do you think this shows any education or culture on your side? To me it just shows that you are very angry that you cannot convince or silence me and other doubters.

Idiot.  I’m not calling you an idiot because I’m angry, idiot.  I’m calling you idiot, because I like to call them as I see them, nothing more.  Now, I don’t care to convince you or other doubters.  I don’t profess to make the blind see, only God can do that.  As I said before, there is NO contradiction between science and religion, you just pretend that there is.  Since you like Youtube so much, go look up science and Islam.  There is plenty to keep you busy, idiot.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 April 2008 07:11 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 39 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1639
Joined  2007-12-20

Jack Shooter: I would love to live under Islamic law.


Then I stand corrected. And I understand why a male would. It is the best manner in which you can treat women as slaves and do with them as you will without the law standing in your way. For a sadist and a misogynist, it must be a dream come true.

 Signature 

“Every war is a war against children.”
Howard Zinn

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 April 2008 10:52 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 40 ]  
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  82
Joined  2006-11-25

Hypothetical scenario

Situation :In year 123456…, all the sentient beings on this planet believe in one and only one religion ‘YYYYY….....’

A)Will there be eternal peace among the sentient beings ?

OR

B)Will there be war as sentient beings still argue among themselves about what is the true teaching of ‘YYYYY…..............’ ?

Can anyone answer ?

[ Edited: 24 April 2008 02:53 AM by sgxbroker]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 April 2008 03:17 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 41 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  156
Joined  2007-11-04

Idiot.  I’m not calling you an idiot because I’m angry, idiot.  I’m calling you idiot, because I like to call them as I see them, nothing more.  Now, I don’t care to convince you or other doubters. I don’t profess to make the blind see, only God can do that.

What a pathetic statement, a tautology of self pity and fatalism, is there more proof needed to show that religion makes people dumb and that islam, beeing the most dogmatic religion left, produces the dumbest nowadays?
If you don’t care to convince doubters, what do you do here in this forum anyway? You want to prey on the gullible? Or throw sand in our eyes? Why do you do anything at all if the real stuff is all for “God” to do?
“Stupid is who stupid does” as an American saying goes. And name calling people in a discussion things like “idiots” shows bad manners as well as that you completely lost it (in more than one sense).

As I said before, there is NO contradiction between science and religion, you just pretend that there is.  Since you like Youtube so much, go look up science and Islam.  There is plenty to keep you busy, idiot.

As I said before, show me some evidence or at least some hints of it. All arguments you presented, like the one of the “islamic” scholars of the middle ages (Ibno Rushd, known as Averroes f.e. had to endure a trial staged by muslim fanatics because of his “godlessness”), I refuted you quite politely, pointing out historical contradictions and “ad homonym” arguments as well as blind assertions from your side.
Further: if Islam is so benevolent towards science, why are the “Islamic” states still so backwards?
I guess because it’s not. Scientists doubt the literal truth of ancient texts. “Islamic scientists” however come up with such great discoveries like: Science Shows Mecca is the Center of the Earth
QED.
You did not quote the nice video again, but here it is repeated for the others: Iraqui Islamic Researcher Defies Scientific Axioms: The Earth Is Flat and Much Larger than the Sun (Which Is Also Flat)

 Signature 

“We may be confused about the distinction between tolerance and the refusal of evaluation, thinking that tolerance of others requires us not to evaluate what they do.”
Martha Nussbaum
  —Cultivating Humanity

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 April 2008 02:09 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 42 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  156
Joined  2007-11-04
sgxbroker - 24 April 2008 02:52 AM

Hypothetical scenario
Situation :In year 123456…, all the sentient beings on this planet believe in one and only one religion ‘YYYYY….....’
A)Will there be eternal peace among the sentient beings ?
OR
B)Will there be war as sentient beings still argue among themselves about what is the true teaching of ‘YYYYY…..............’ ?
Can anyone answer ?

I once thought about a world where all people have the same colour of skin, hair and eyes. I am sure that given certain social circumstances people would come up with different reasons for racism: big noses, ears, feet, fingers, round faces vs. long faces etc.etc.

About religion it is even more easy: there is no true doctrine, and anyone is arguable so there is always potential for new schisms or prophecies as well as wars about it.

I think however that social circumstances are in the end more important than ideas (religious, political etc.), ideas are produced and used in order to fix certain power relations: Catholicism was as religion the ideology of feudalism and thus part of the European medival social condition. Religious doctrins as well as secular political ideologies have usually certain implications of who is powerful in the society and who not. As long as there is the need for religion (and the possibility of people to believe in it) some people will use it for their advantage, thus religious conflicts are possible.

To finish and answer your question:
1. One future is thinkable in which all mankind could live under the ignorant dictatorship and oppression sanctioned by religious scholars. Science and culture would have been directed only to serve very limited needs as decided by those religious scholars or abandoned at all. Problems of overpopulation (blessed be the womb) and low productivity (no dangerous inquiry in matters of nature) is solved through genocide and permanent mass killings of “heretics” in global witch hunts on an earth turning more and more into a desert. After the next big meteorite collides with the planet mankind will be an extinct species.

2. In another future mankind builds a global secular society and pursues science and cultural sophistication, after we solved world hunger, fought all diseases etc. We are to be confronted with completely new problems: we will reach the limits of our small brains produced by evolution.
We might than have to chose between autoevolution towards superhumans or the conservatorship of machines over mankind (or chose both).

Both is of course fiction, I would prefer the second option though, sounds simply more interesting and humane to me.

 Signature 

“We may be confused about the distinction between tolerance and the refusal of evaluation, thinking that tolerance of others requires us not to evaluate what they do.”
Martha Nussbaum
  —Cultivating Humanity

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 April 2008 12:27 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 43 ]  
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  82
Joined  2006-11-25

Age of this universe is about 13.73 ± 0.12 billion years old.
(astronomers estimate with current technology)

Age of the sun is about 4.56 billion years old.
(astronomers estimate with current technology)

Age of this earth is as about 4.54 billion years
(geologists estimate with current technology)

In the hypothetical scenario, the year is 123456…., or roughly 1 billion years from now.(each dot symbolise one digit)

If the sentient beings on this planet is still the same kind of ‘human’ without improvement of its strenght and elmination of its weakness by natural/non natural events,it would be a miracle to have reached that far into the future so as a recorded date of 1234567890 A.C is still available.

If the sentient beings on this planet are still ‘human’ who have successfully rise to the challenges of its survival and thus has reached a higher level of technology, social structure, consciousness,and maybe are star/galaxy/dimension travellers etc.. then this ‘human’ would not be recognisable as ‘human’ based on our present understanding and definition of ‘human’.

? Om…
(Have you heard the sound of your flourescent light trying to light up when the power is being switched on…)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 April 2008 03:25 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 44 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  156
Joined  2007-11-04
sgxbroker - 27 April 2008 04:27 AM

In the hypothetical scenario, the year is 123456…., or roughly 1 billion years from now.(each dot symbolise one digit)
[...]
? Om…
(Have you heard the sound of your flourescent light trying to light up when the power is being switched on…)

rrrrrrrrrrrrright, dots and digits + om.

nevermind than.

? Ohm…

 Signature 

“We may be confused about the distinction between tolerance and the refusal of evaluation, thinking that tolerance of others requires us not to evaluate what they do.”
Martha Nussbaum
  —Cultivating Humanity

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 May 2008 02:33 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 45 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  6
Joined  2008-05-06
Jack Shooter - 22 April 2008 11:00 PM

After I just clarified the issues you brought up initially, which “practices are condoned and accepted by Islamic law” in your mind? To recap in case you missed it: (1) female genital mutilation = not sanctioned by Islam (2) forced marriages = not sanctioned by Islam (3) stoning to death for adultrey = sanctioned by Islam when necessary evidence is given (evidence is very difficult to obtain, almost impossible).

Browsing through the forum I had to register just so that the outright lies stated above by Jack Shooter could be rebutted.

I will assume that “Islam” refers to Sunni Islam.  (The differences to Shia Islam for the these issues are not significant however).

1. Female Genital Mutilation:
What in Western society is called FGM is condoned in Islam. Specifically a Hadith (of a lesser origin) mentions that Muhammad most certainly does not ban and slightly views positively the practice of FGM.

This slightly tepid condoning of FGM has generally meant that in societies where there has been no pre-existing culture of FGM, there has GENERALLY not developed a practice of FGM - e.g. Iran, Pakistan etc. However this is not true in all cases - e.g. in Indonesia, where FGM has been practiced since the introduction of Islam.  Also in societies where Islam exists there is extreme resistance to the banning of FGM - e.g. Egypt.  (though there are forces who do wish to ban FGM and do claim to be Muslim). 
Umm ‘Atiyyah; Abu Dawud, al-Bayhaq:
a woman used to perform circumcision in Medina. Muhammad said to her, ‘Do not cut severely as that is better for a woman and more desirable for a husband
Note that generally it is not a Shia practice.
See further here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_cutting#cite_ref-47

2. Forced Marriages are not sanctioned in Islam: True - in very literal theory.  Islam does grant significant leeway to a father to put psychological pressure on his daughter.  However it does grant a right in theory to the daughter to reject a marriage proposal.

3. Stoning to death for adultery is allowed: True
(evidence is very difficult to obtain, almost impossible): True - but this is the problem.
Sharia does not recognise the Western concept of Rape - only marital or non marital sex (Zina in Arabic).
(Rape as defined in English Common Law depends on the consent/lack of consent)

The problem with this of course is that where a woman has been raped if she wishes to prosecute her rapist, she must have a case brought against him.  The problem is that to bring a case against the rapist she requires 4 male witnesses or 8 female witnesses (or a combination of the two). The problem is that by bringing a case, the woman has admitted to having extra-marital sex - so there is no need of 4 male witnesses.

This leads to legal rulings that (to Western eyes) are beyond barbaric:
e.g. in Sudan a woman was raped in front of 7 women.  As 8 women are required to successfully prosecute a rape, the rapist got off.  She however had “confessed” to Zina (i.e. being raped) and so was stoned to death.

As a further example, under Zia ul Haq in Pakistan, the 4 witnesses rule was introduced for rape/zina (though without the requirement of stoning - rather imprisonment).  The result is that since the rule has been introduced in the 80’s, there has been no successful prosecution of rape in Pakistan. The second result has been that majority of women in Pakistani prisons are there because THEY were raped. 

As background: The reason for the introduction of the 4 witnesses rule is quite interesting:
Muhammad introduced the idea of stoning based on Mosaic law.
However, his wife Aisha (the 6 year old) had an affair with someone (roughly when she was 16 and Muhammad was 61).  She was dragged before Muhammad by some irate Muslims.  Just then Muhammad got a message from Allah saying that Allah required 4 male witnesses for stoning - and hence she was let go. (I am guessing that there were only 3 present).  There are 2 possible explanations -
either
a. he was being kind to her.
b. he didn’t want to lose her for his own selfish reasons.
I’ll let it up to you to decide whether you believe he was capable of being kind or not.

Profile
 
 
   
3 of 11
3
 
RSS 2.0     Atom Feed