Loaded-Gun.Com - Anti-Social.Com's Rejects!
General Category => Politics, Philosophy, News and/or Current Affairs => Topic started by: (_)_)===D on September 30, 2009, 01:09:14 PM
-
There go those crazy Muslims again... Now they're gonna cane a bitch for drinking a beer at a nightclub.
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Malaysian-Model-Kartika-Sari-Dewi-Shukarno-Ready-To-Face-Caning-Over-Beer-Drinking-Offence/Article/200909415394656 (http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Malaysian-Model-Kartika-Sari-Dewi-Shukarno-Ready-To-Face-Caning-Over-Beer-Drinking-Offence/Article/200909415394656)
-
It must be hudud in Malaysia.
There's a prohibition against alcohol in Islam.
-
Yes, Muslims aren't permitted to drink alcohol, but really, shouldn't the punishment for such an infraction be handled by Allah, not an Islamic court established here on planet earth? This is why Islam is a cancerous tumor that needs to be excised with extreme prejudice.
-
Seems to me, by that argument, you're having trouble understanding how a theocracy works.
-
Seems to me, by that argument, you're having trouble understanding how a theocracy works.
Ha!
You've fallen directly into my trap!
My stance is theocracy has no place whatsoever in the modern world, and since Islam is unable to conduct itself as a religion and not a theocracy it therefore must be eliminated.
-
There are valid reasons to have prohibitions on alcohol. Look at the former 18th Amendment. Look at our draconian Cannabis laws: simple possession can get you a year in jail. Is that any more just than a caning for drinking alcohol? The substance prohibitions of the Muslim faith, along with those of most other major religions, are usually based on something that transcends the religion.
-
This is why Islam religion is a cancerous tumor that needs to be excised with extreme prejudice... particularly Islam.
My stance is theocracy has no place whatsoever in the modern world, and since Islam is unable to conduct itself as a religion and not a theocracy it therefore must be eliminated.
Agreed.
Look at our draconian Cannabis laws: simple possession can get you a year in jail. Is that any more just than a caning for drinking alcohol?
Yes. And you know my stance on Cannabis laws.
The substance prohibitions of the Muslim faith, along with those of most other major religions, are usually based on something that transcends the religion.
Yes. Control.
-
The substance prohibitions of the Muslim faith, along with those of most other major religions, are usually based on something that transcends the religion.
Yes. Control.
I was going to say health, but control works too.
Haha, indeed you've pegged me. Personally I think governments should have nothing to do with what goes in or what comes out of your body (including thoughts and words), who or what you have consensual sex with, and for the most part what you can buy.
-
This is why Islam religion is a cancerous tumor that needs to be excised with extreme prejudice... particularly Islam.
Just because people decide to take things and interpret them like so, follow them so, is not the fault of the religion. It's the fault of the people.
-
Religions were made up by people. They don't exist without people.
-
If i wrote a book on how to eat healthily, people read the book, they followed the book.
Someone then ate a food that I said not to eat in the book, they got in trouble for it.
Is it really the books fault that they're getting in trouble?
-
My stance is theocracy has no place whatsoever in the modern world, and since Islam is unable to conduct itself as a religion and not a theocracy it therefore must be eliminated.
Theocracy is a useful tool for bringing a mindless rabble into order. Consider how many ancient governments were essentially a theocratic dictatorship.
You're only comfortable with its elimination because you live in a society where you don't need to invoke the power of an almighty being to get shit done.
-
If i wrote a book on how to eat healthily, people read the book, they followed the book.
Someone then ate a food that I said not to eat in the book, they got in trouble for it.
Is it really the books fault that they're getting in trouble?
How are they getting in trouble? Is it because of other people who also read the book and follow its teachings?
-
yeah
-
Im suprised this story made it to gun AFTER she got the downgraded sentance.
-
If your book specifically says (as in many religious texts) that non-believers, non-followers, or followers-who-break-the-rules (ie - sinners) of the book/way/prophet/etc should be punished then...
...it's YOUR fault for writing the book that way.
...it's YOUR fault for distributing the book to other people.
...it's THEIR fault for following your way, despite the negative aspects.
...it's THEIR fault for implementing the negative aspects of your way.
...it's the SINNER's fault for knowing the rules, but breaking them.
-
Im suprised this story made it to gun AFTER she got the downgraded sentance.
i blame apathy.
-
There are valid reasons to have prohibitions on alcohol. Look at the former 18th Amendment. Look at our draconian Cannabis laws: simple possession can get you a year in jail. Is that any more just than a caning for drinking alcohol? The substance prohibitions of the Muslim faith, along with those of most other major religions, are usually based on something that transcends the religion.
Trees:
(http://www.globalwitness.org/data/images/pages/ForestKakumGhana.jpg)
Forest:
(http://botit.botany.wisc.edu/images/veg/Southern_Mesic/Maple_forest_in_spring_I_VK.low.jpg)
I'd like to point out a couple of major differences between Islamic Law and US Law. For starters, our laws were created by man, not a fairytale Allah. I'd like to also point out that as such, we have not quite enough hubris to make our laws permanent, but Islam has no such qualms. The faulty 18th Ammendment was repealed after a paltry 13 years and our misguided Cannabis laws are changing for the better more and more each day. Islam however, has had a ban on alcohol for 1400 years. I think it's fair to say their prohibition on alcohol is written in stone. The real issue however isn't whether religious bans on intoxicants have any real world basis on whether they're harmful to the individual or society, the issue is whether religion has the right to create and enforce law, which I feel it doesn't.
With religious law you don't get to pick and choose the laws you think aren't that bad because they're based on something that transcends the religion, you get the whole package whether you like it or not.
Your post says to me that since intoxicants can be bad for you and Islam had recognised that, and that a year in jail is worse than a caning, that the logical conclusion is that the whole of Islamic law is therefore sane and acceptable, including brutal executions for things such as adultery.
Of course, the year in jail being worse than caning overlooks the fact that caning is a brutal affair that often results in permanent bodily damage, but to each his own I suppose.
-
If i wrote a book on how to eat healthily, people read the book, they followed the book.
Someone then ate a food that I said not to eat in the book, they got in trouble for it.
Is it really the books fault that they're getting in trouble?
If your book specificly says that your eating plan will grant them a blissful afterlife and anyone not following it should be smashed with stones until they were dead, then no, it's not the book's fault. It's the author's fault.
-
My stance is theocracy has no place whatsoever in the modern world, and since Islam is unable to conduct itself as a religion and not a theocracy it therefore must be eliminated.
Theocracy is a useful tool for bringing a mindless rabble into order. Consider how many ancient governments were essentially a theocratic dictatorship.
You're only comfortable with its elimination because you live in a society where you don't need to invoke the power of an almighty being to get shit done.
That's still often done, but in the confines of the religion of your choice, not by an agent of the state. Still, I'm thrilled that most of the world has progressed to the point where we can live in a society where the almighty isn't needed to keep us out of a state of anarchy.
It's shameful that part of the world wants to drag us kicking and screaming back into the stone age.
-
Trees:
Forest:
I couldn't see a difference.
-
Still, I'm thrilled that most of the world has progressed to the point where we can live in a society where the almighty isn't needed to keep us out of a state of anarchy.
Well, I don't know about you, but I'm going to keep theocratic rule in my back pocket, just in case.
-
Islam is unable to conduct itself as a religion and not a theocracy it therefore must be eliminated.
I take issue with this for the same reason as Sakhi. Islam doesn't conduct itself. The Islamic do.
Your post says to me that since intoxicants can be bad for you and Islam had recognised that, and that a year in jail is worse than a caning, that the logical conclusion is that the whole of Islamic law is therefore sane and acceptable, including brutal executions for things such as adultery.
Trees:
Forest:
I point out that there are valid health-based reasons to prohibit the consumption alcohol and suddenly I'm condoning the bombing of the WTC? No, I was pointing at a tree within the forest, not the whole forest.
the issue is whether religion has the right to create and enforce law, which I feel it doesn't.
Then I think you'll be happy to learn that the religion only creates law through the agency of the religious. There's absolutely nothing wrong with a moral code. Even a moral code that you disagree with or one that fundamentally contradicts your own moral code. As long as the threatened punishments only accrue in the afterlife all is well.
Now if your argument is that governing bodies shouldn't use religion as a basis for law then I agree. If the government punishes alcohol consumption based on its adverse health effects (as was the case with Am.XVIII) then there is a strong case to be made that the government is required to extend a paternal shield over us in our innocence. (Incidentally I disagree with this argument, but it's not as if it's completely outlandish). I'd go further and say that a government may well use the moral code of a religion as a guide. However I would not go so far as to say that any laws can be based purely on religious precepts. There must be something to ground the religious law to reality in order for the government to enforce it.
Of course, the year in jail being worse than caning overlooks the fact that caning is a brutal affair that often results in permanent bodily damage
You're thinking abut vandalism in Singapore. This is Malaysia.
"We want to co-operate with the religious authorities. But do it correctly and not the Taliban way," he said, referring to plans to carry out the punishment with only a light cane.
-
If i wrote a book on how to eat healthily, people read the book, they followed the book.
Someone then ate a food that I said not to eat in the book, they got in trouble for it.
Is it really the books fault that they're getting in trouble?
If your book specificly says that your eating plan will grant them a blissful afterlife and anyone not following it should be smashed with stones until they were dead, then no, it's not the book's fault. It's the author's fault.
I am confused now.
If I wrote in the book you will get a blissful afterlife now smash people with stones it is my fault for people following it.
If I didnt write in the book that you will get a blissful afterlife now smash people with stones it is the books fault that people are doing this.
How are people not accountable at all here?
How on earth does it become the books fault when it doesn't even say it in there?
I take issue with this for the same reason as Sakhi. Islam doesn't conduct itself. The Islamic do.
woohoo, someone agrees with me!
-
Then I think you'll be happy to learn that the religion only creates law through the agency of the religious. There's absolutely nothing wrong with a moral code. Even a moral code that you disagree with or one that fundamentally contradicts your own moral code. As long as the threatened punishments only accrue in the afterlife all is well.
I agree:
Yes, Muslims aren't permitted to drink alcohol, but really, shouldn't the punishment for such an infraction be handled by Allah, not an Islamic court established here on planet earth?
Now if your argument is that governing bodies shouldn't use religion as a basis for law then I agree. If the government punishes alcohol consumption based on its adverse health effects (as was the case with Am.XVIII) then there is a strong case to be made that the government is required to extend a paternal shield over us in our innocence. (Incidentally I disagree with this argument, but it's not as if it's completely outlandish). I'd go further and say that a government may well use the moral code of a religion as a guide. However I would not go so far as to say that any laws can be based purely on religious precepts. There must be something to ground the religious law to reality in order for the government to enforce it.
I completely agree. I'm not being so outlandish as to deny that religion will ever have an influence a secular government, or that secular government should neglect to create law on the grounds it might be agreeable to a religion. My central point is that enforcement of pure religious law created because a certain deity said so is something that should be handled by the supernatural deity in question, not their earthly representatives, especially when capital punishment is involved.
We already agree on this point though.
-
FWIW, Standard Maylasian caning is just as brutal as Singapore's, and this whole thing where Islam canings are supposedly token affairs administered with a limp wrist meant to be more of an embarassment than a physical punishment sounds like some spin-doctor type poppycock to me.
But, that opinion is entirely based on my own ignorance, suspicion, and prejudice.
-
My central point is that enforcement of pure religious law created because a certain deity said so is something that should be handled by the supernatural deity in question, not their earthly representatives, especially when capital punishment is involved.
The very state of being supernatural requires that you have earthly representatively to enact punishments in life. Besides, the suopernatural realm supposed to be pretty clear-cut: heaven and hell, without tomfoolery in between.
Punishments in life are intended to straighten your path. If you do not straighten due to punishments in life, then you do no deserve eternal salvation.
It is the duty of a just, theological society to ensure that everyone has the greatest opportunity possible to make it into the best of final resting places.
-
I'll bet you couldn't type that whole thing with a straight face.
-
I'll bet you couldn't type that whole thing with a straight face.
From the standpoint of a theological leader, it makes sense. Those leaders are responsible not only for their followers' physical well-being, but their spiritual well-being as well.
-
Except it's all bullshit.
-
I'll bet you couldn't type that whole thing with a straight face.
From the standpoint of a theological leader, it makes sense. Those leaders are responsible not only for their followers' physical well-being, but their spiritual well-being as well.
Come on dude, their rationalizations don't make their actions just, nor their imaginary super-beings real.
Like Si said.
-
Come on dude, their rationalizations don't make their actions just, nor their imaginary super-beings real.
But THEY believe it's real, and they're operating on their best, gut feeling on what's the just thing to do.
-
And they're wrong.
-
Except it's all bullshit.
This is YOU, operating on your best, gut feeling.
OH NO! SOLIPSISM! RUN!!
poking some fun at myself, there. :)
-
And they're wrong.
According to your theories, not to theirs.
OH NO! SUBJECTIVE VIEWPOINTS! RUN!!!
still poking fun at myself...! :D
-
Hey, you know, we could have this same argument over the kind of beer she was drinking, and make just as much headway.
I think she should've had an amber ale. Obviously the best beer when refuting religions.
-
But, that opinion is entirely based on my own ignorance, suspicion, and prejudice.
Hey I have no idea either...
heaven and hell, without tomfoolery in between.
not a valid lifestyle.
Except it's all bullshit.
I've made the argument before that religion (all religion) is inherently crippling due not so much to its potential to inspire evil actions, but rather due to its prohibition of scrutiny of itself in its believers. Anything where you are required to accept something is slavery.
-
I've made the argument before that religion (all religion) is inherently crippling due not so much to its potential to inspire evil actions, but rather due to its prohibition of scrutiny of itself in its believers. Anything where you are required to accept something is slavery.
Even with atheism you are accepting there is no God.
-
Not so. Atheism is experience-based. With atheism I'm failing to accept those things that go beyond nature (i.e. are supernatural).
So I'm not so much accepting the nothingness of God as I am failing to accept the reality of the non-natural.
-
I've made the argument before that religion (all religion) is inherently crippling due not so much to its potential to inspire evil actions, but rather due to its prohibition of scrutiny of itself in its believers. Anything where you are required to accept something is slavery.
Even with atheism you are accepting there is no God.
Not really. I don't assert that there's no god, I just have yet to see any proof that there is.
-
Exactly. Unlike religion, scientific-method-based atheism is a passive system.
Should proof of god emerge, then the scientific-method-based atheist would be logically required to believe in him (if you can call that "belief in").
Granted the atheist would probably avoid the terminology "God" as it's so suggestive of the "other-worldly."
EDIT: This is a point I've made many times before, but there's a fundamental problem with the language here. The word "believe" is far too vague.
Religious belief is intangible - it's like your belief that your mother loves you. Or the belief that aggression is wicked.
Scientific belief is concrete - it's like believing that the apple you are holding is real. More complex concepts and mechanisms are built up on smaller proven units and bound together with logic. In many ways, the term "scientific belief" is more similar to "understanding" than belief.
In this way, scientific theories are almost like religious beliefs. The only difference is that scientific theories are extrapolations grounded in the concrete whereas religious beliefs are further intangible items grounded in other religious beliefs or not grounded in anything at all.
-
You fuckers DARE to have a theological debate when I'm either working or having a nap???
OK fine, I'm pulling a Tricky. I an soooo DONE with you.
-
You fuckers DARE to have a theological debate when I'm either working or having a nap???
OK fine, I'm pulling a Tricky. I an soooo DONE with you.
You must've been working, since you wouldn't be grumpy if you'd just come up from a nap.
-
Scientific belief is concrete - it's like believing that the apple you are holding is real.
Sakhi's hindu, she doesn't believe anything is real, it's all illusion created by various vibrational frequencies. Your analogy is lost on her.
-
Sakhi's hindu, she doesn't believe anything is real, it's all illusion created by various vibrational frequencies. Your analogy is lost on her.
That's what Quantum Physicists believe, too! :o
-
They stole it cause they don't know what the fuck they're talking about.
Duh.
-
In that statement, which group is represented by "They"...?
-
I'm partial to zen as far as things go. I'm not good about regularly practicing zazen, though.
I think the problem with Islam vs. other religions is that their text was outright written by people in power. Even if you accept that it was all uttered by Muhammad, he was a political and military leader in addition to a spiritual one. There's no separation.
Say what you want about Constantine and the Christian Bible, it was at least cobbled together from other sources (and rather poorly, in my opinion, for the explicit purpose of supporting the state) instead of being directly written by a Caliph & their scribes.
-
I love it when hot Arab bitches down a cold one.
-
Yeah, there should be a site with hot arab chicks drinking booze and voting and shit.
-
The world made in the image of Christianity:
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_2_hUT_u6qP8/SBV1kXJjIsI/AAAAAAAAAFM/PBqEEeCUXbU/S760/National_Cathedral_washington.jpg)
The world made in the image of Sikhism:
(http://namastey.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/amritsar-golden-temple-00.jpg)
The world made in the image of Islam:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDpfwuy4v2s&feature=player_embedded (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDpfwuy4v2s&feature=player_embedded)
PS- The world made in the image of proselytizing atheist dweebs with tiny imaginations:
iMo Apple (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G72o7QmVpyM&feature=related#normal)
-
17-year-old girl beaten by holy warriors
But I'd bet money she won't be catching anything from Kyle or Dylan...
-
Sakhi's hindu, she doesn't believe anything is real, it's all illusion created by various vibrational frequencies. Your analogy is lost on her.
That's what Quantum Physicists believe, too! :o
Can I call myself a Quantum Physicist then?
-
You can call yourself anything you like, dear. This is America, regardless of what Wozzeck thinks it is.
-
You can call yourself anything you like, dear. This is America the Internet, regardless of what Wozzeck every single american on the internet appears to think it is.
-
That too.
-
The world made in the image of Islam:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDpfwuy4v2s#noexternalembed
(http://www.go-travel-blog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/taj-mahal.jpg)
fixed.
The world made in the image of Christianity Anglicanism/Episcopalianism:
fixed, but of course you're forgetting the most popular cousin of the oldschool gentrified protestants: the Christian fundamentalists!
The world made in the image of Christian Evangelicalism:
(http://www.kintespace.com/bitmaps/blog_gummo2.jpg)
PS- The world made in the image of proselytizing atheist dweebs with tiny imaginations:
If Atheists Ruled the World (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qO9IPoAdct8#normal)
-
I think the problem with Islam vs. other religions is that their text was outright written by people in power. Even if you accept that it was all uttered by Muhammad, he was a political and military leader in addition to a spiritual one. There's no separation.
Say what you want about Constantine and the Christian Bible, it was at least cobbled together from other sources (and rather poorly, in my opinion, for the explicit purpose of supporting the state) instead of being directly written by a Caliph & their scribes.
I think th problem with Islam is entirely context-based. Look at conditions in the places where major world religions are practiced. Practitioners of Christianity have different cultural values than practitioners of Islam. It's not because of doctrinal differences in the religions. At best you could make a shaky argument that Islam is more easily interpreted to allow for violence, but that's a very hard argument to make given the similarities between the treatment of violence in the Qur'an and in the Hebrew Tanakh, and in many other texts central to many other religions. Religion is interpretation of vague and often self-contradictory scripture. Interpretation is accomplished by man. People who have problems with Islam have problems with the culture of the practitioners of Islam. The culture of the practitioners does not derive from the religion, rather the religious interpretations derive from the culture. The solution is not to expunge the religion, but to work with the practitioners.
-
You can call yourself anything you like, dear. This is America the Internet, regardless of what Wozzeck every single american on the internet appears to think it is.
Are we American's so impressive that we even completely own being assholes on the Internet?
I doubt that.
-
I think the problem with Islam vs. other religions is that their text was outright written by people in power. Even if you accept that it was all uttered by Muhammad, he was a political and military leader in addition to a spiritual one. There's no separation.
Say what you want about Constantine and the Christian Bible, it was at least cobbled together from other sources (and rather poorly, in my opinion, for the explicit purpose of supporting the state) instead of being directly written by a Caliph & their scribes.
I think th problem with Islam is entirely context-based. Look at conditions in the places where major world religions are practiced. Practitioners of Christianity have different cultural values than practitioners of Islam. It's not because of doctrinal differences in the religions. At best you could make a shaky argument that Islam is more easily interpreted to allow for violence, but that's a very hard argument to make given the similarities between the treatment of violence in the Qur'an and in the Hebrew Tanakh, and in many other texts central to many other religions. Religion is interpretation of vague and often self-contradictory scripture. Interpretation is accomplished by man. People who have problems with Islam have problems with the culture of the practitioners of Islam. The culture of the practitioners does not derive from the religion, rather the religious interpretations derive from the culture. The solution is not to expunge the religion, but to work with the practitioners.
Hey, Mr. Brainiac... You're talking about a religion based on a book that contains actual instructions to go kill everyone who won't "submit" to Islam. It's not the culture's interpretation, it's the religion's explicit instructions. While the Tanakh tells stories of specific instances where the Jews were commanded by God to conquer and destroy specific enemies, nowhere does it command that modern day followers go out and kill everyone who won't convert to Judaism.
In short, STFU.
-
You can call yourself anything you like, dear. This is America the Internet, regardless of what Wozzeck every single american on the internet appears to think it is.
Are we American's so impressive that we even completely own being assholes on the Internet?
I doubt that.
U S A!
U S A!
U S A!
-
It's down to interpretation. How come our domestic Muslims are so well behaved? Is it because they're secretly Jews? Give me a break.
It's popular to hate on Islam these days because of 9/11 and national pride. You're confusing emotion for logic.
Islam is a framework from which religious scholars describe what ought to be. Scholars are human and they are bound up in their cultural norms. So American Muslims emphasize the religious tolerance in the Qur'an (there are many verses that explicitly say that Muslims are entitled to befriend the Kuffar). Taliban Muslims emphasize the xenophobic aspects of the religion. The religion is not the problem anymore than Christianity is the problem with Abortion-Doctor-murderers and Creationists.
-
The bottom line is Islam's holy books themselves specificly say that it's a Muslim's job to fight the non-believers, AND Muslim leaders uphold this point. End of story.
I'll tell you what though, the second you post scripture that specificly instructs Christians to kill abortion doctors I'll totally concede this point. How did Creationists get involved in this though? All they do is say that the Dinosaurs died a few thousand years ago, did they start blowing people up over it now?
-
-
I'll tell you what though, the second you post scripture that specificly instructs Christians to kill abortion doctors I'll totally concede this point.
Romans 13:1
Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
13:2
Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
13:3
For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
13:4
For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
The question is what is meant by "evil." If, as the Spanish monarchs of the 15th century, you equate non-belief with evil then the bible commands you, as "a revenger" to "execute wrath upon him that doeth evil." I don't style myself as an interpreter of the Bible or the Qur'an, or any other religion for that matter, but the existence of horrendous acts under the condonation of an organized religion is absolute proof that the potential for evil exists within the text of the scriptures when interpreted by evil people. To think otherwise is to narrow one's mind and to embrace fear and bigotry.
The bible commands many things that are completely ignored by the followers. Look at the dietary restrictions of Deuteronomy. Christians who hold this text central to their religion throw these commands joyously to the winds in favor of more rational portions of the bible. That commandments within a text exist is not reason enough to call for the eradication of the religion using the text. It's down to the interpretation of the followers. If an interpreter is intent on finding something - anything - within a text he can find it. If the interpreter wants to make the believers fight the USA, he interprets the scripture this way. If he wants to emphasize love and respect then he emphasizes it this way. I mean the proof is all around us.
-
What Muhammad instructed his followers not to do was bother with coitus interuptus. Whether or not they had the right to rape their female slaves was not even an issue.
-
Not to bring up how shades of interpretation lead to wildly different results again, but... That's hard to interpret stripped as it is here of context.
-
Well then, thank you for interpreting the Quran for us! Obviously you're an expert. What ever would we do without you?
-
Here are some quotations from the Koran:
1. 2:190-193 Fight in the cause of God, those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for God loveth not transgressors. And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out: For tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; But fight them not at the sacred Mosque unless they first fight you there; But if they fight you, Slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith. But if they cease, God is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in God; but if they cease, Let there be no hostility except to those who practise oppression."
2. 2:216-217 Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But God knoweth, and ye know not. They ask thee concerning fighting in the Prohibited Month. Say: "Fighting therein is a grave (offense); but graver is it in the sight of God to prevent access to the path of God, to deny Him, to prevent access to the Sacred Mosque, and drive out its members. Tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter. Nor will they cease fighting you until they turn you back from your faith if they can. And if any of you turn back from their faith and die in unbelief, their works will bear no fruit in this life and in the Hereafter; they will be Companions of the Fire and will abide therein.
3. 2:244-245 Then fight in the cause of God, and know that God heareth and knoweth all things. Who is he that will loan to God a beautiful loan, which God will double unto his credit and multiply many times? It is God that giveth (you) want or plenty, and to Him shall be your return.
4. 4:74-77 Let those fight in the cause of God who sell the life of this world for the Hereafter, to him who fighteth in the cause of God, whether he is slain or gets victory, soon shall We give him a reward of great (value). And why should ye not fight in the cause of God and of those who, being weak, are ill-treated (and oppressed)? Men, women, and children whose cry is: "Our Lord! rescue us from this town, whose people are oppressors; and raise for us from Thee one who will protect; and raise for us from Thee one who will help!" Those who believe fight in the cause of God, and those who reject faith fight in the cause of evil: so fight ye against the friends of Satan: feeble indeed is the cunning of Satan. Hast thou not turned thy vision to those who were told to hold back their hands (form fight) but establish regular prayers and spend in regular charity? When (at length) the order for fighting was issued to them, behold! a section of them feared men as, or even more than, they should have feared God: they say: "Our Lord! why hast Thou ordered us to fight? Wouldst Thou not grant us respite to our (natural) term, near (enough)?" Say: "Short is the enjoyment of this world: the Hereafter is the best for those who do right: never will ye be dealt with unjustly in the very least!
5. 4:95-96 Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of God with their goods and their persons. God hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit (at home). Unto all (in Faith) Hath God promised good: But those who strive and fight Hath He distinguished above those who sit (at home) by a special reward: Ranks specially bestowed by Him, and Forgiveness and Mercy. For God is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.
6. 5:51 O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily God guideth not a people unjust.
7. 5:72-73: They do blaspheme who say: "God is Christ the son of Mary." But said Christ: "O Children of Israel! worship God, my Lord and your Lord." Whoever joins other gods with God, - God will forbid him the garden, and the Fire will be his abode. There will for the wrongdoers be no one to help. They do blaspheme who say: God is one of three in a Trinity: for there is no god except One God. If they desist not from their word (of blasphemy), verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them.
8. 8:12-15 Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): "I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instil terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them." This because they contended against God and His Apostle: If any contend against God and His Apostle, God is strict in punishment. Thus (will it be said): "Taste ye then of the (punishment): for those who resist God, is the penalty of the Fire." O ye who believe! when ye meet the Unbelievers in hostile array, never turn your backs to them.
9. 8:37-39: In order that God may separate the impure from the pure, put the impure, one on another, heap them together, and cast them into Hell. They will be the ones to have lost. Say to the Unbelievers, if (now) they desist (from Unbelief), their past would be forgiven them; but if they persist, the punishment of those before them is already (a matter of warning for them). And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in God altogether and everywhere; but if they cease, verily God doth see all that they do.
10. 9:5 But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (trick in war for deceiving and outwitting the enemy); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practice regular charity, then open the way for them: for God is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.
11. 9:14 Fight them, and God will punish them by your hands, cover them with shame, help you (to victory) over them, heal the breasts of Believers
12. 9:20 Those who believe, and suffer exile and fight with might and main, in God's cause, with their goods and their persons, have the highest rank in the sight of God: they are the people who will achieve (salvation).
13. 9:29 "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the last day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and his apostle nor acknowledge the religion of truth of the people of the Book (the Jews and the Christians) until they pay the Jizya [tax on non-Muslims] with willing submission and feel themselves subdued."
14. 9:41 Go ye forth, (whether equipped) lightly or heavily, and strive and struggle [fight in war], with your goods and your persons, in the cause of God. That is best for you, if ye (but) knew.
15. 9:73 O Prophet! strive hard [wage war] against the unbelievers and the Hypocrites, and be firm against them. Their abode is Hell, - an evil refuge indeed.
16. 9:123: O ye who believe! fight the unbelievers who gird you about, and let them find firmness in you: and know that God is with those who fear Him.
17. 22:38-39 Verily God will defend (from ill) those who believe: verily, God loveth not any that is a traitor to faith, or shows ingratitude. To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight) because they are wronged-and verily, God is Most powerful for their aid
18. 25:52 So obey not the unbelievers and fight strenuously with them in many a strenuous fight.
19. 47:4 Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks; At length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly (on them): thereafter (is the time for) either generosity or ransom: Until the war lays down its burdens. Thus (are ye commanded): but if it had been God's Will, He could certainly have exacted retribution from them (Himself); but (He lets you fight) in order to test you, some with others. But those who are slain in the Way of God, - He will never let their deeds be lost.
20. 48:29: "Those who follow Muhammad are merciless for the unbelievers but kind to each other."
21. 60:4: We have renounced you; and enmity and hatred is begun between us and you for ever, until ye believe in Allah alone
22. 61:9-11 It is He Who has sent His Apostle with Guidance and the Religion of Truth, that he may proclaim it over all religion, even though the Pagans may detest (it). O ye who believe! shall I lead you to a bargain that will save you from a grievous Penalty?- That ye believe in God and His Apostle, and that ye strive (fight) in the Cause of God, with your property and your persons: that will be best for you, if ye but knew!
66:9 O Prophet! make war on the infidels and hypocrites, and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be their abode! and wretched the passage to it!
-
The Hadith:
1. Hadith 1:13-- "I have been ordered by Allah to fight with people till they bear testimony to the fact that there is no God but Allah."
2. Hadith 1.24 "Narrated Ibn `Umar: Allah's Apostle said: "I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle, and offer the prayers"
3. Hadith 1.25"Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah's Apostle was asked, "What is the best deed?" He replied, "To believe in Allah and His Apostle (Muhammad). The questioner then asked, "What is the next (in goodness)? He replied, "To participate in Jihad (religious fighting) in Allah's Cause."
4. Hadith 19:4294 "Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war."
5. Hadith 1:35 "The person who participates in Allah's cause (namely, in battle). . will be recompensed by Allah either with reward or booty or will be admitted to Paradise."
6. Hadith 9:4 "Wherever you find infidels kill them; for whoever kills them shall have reward on the Day of Resurrection."
7. Hadith 9:50, 57 "No Umma (a member of Muslim community) should be killed for killing a Kafir (an infidel). . Whoever changes his Islamic religion, kill him."
8. Sahih Muslim 4363: "You (the Jews) should know that the earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle and I wish to expel you from this land (Arabia)
9. Sahih Muslim 4366 Narrated by Umar ibn al-Khattab. Umar heard the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) say: I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslims
Words of Muslim leaders:
1. "Those who know nothing about Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those people are witless. Islam says: 'Kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all!' Does this mean that Muslims should sit back until they are devoured by the infidel? Islam says: 'Kill them, put them to the sword and scatter them.' Islam says: 'Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword.' The sword is the key to Paradise, which can be opened only for the Holy Warriors! Does all this mean that Islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war? I spit upon those foolish souls who make such a claim." (Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini)
2. "In the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and the obligation to convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or force. The other religious groups (Christianity and Judaism) did not have a universal mission, and the holy war was not a religious duty to them, save only for purposes of defense. (Ibn Khaldun, The Muqadimmah: Ail Introduction to History, Islamic historian, 1377 AD)
3. "Islam makes it incumbent on all adult males to prepare themselves for the conquest of countries so that the writ of Islam is obeyed in every country in the world." Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, Iranian Shiite mullah)
4. "the religion of Islam could be above all, so that all areas of life could be guided by Islam, and so that the earth could be cleansed from unbelief" (The Islamic Council in Chechnya)
5. "The foremost duty of Islam is to depose the government and society of unbelievers (jahiliyyah) from the leadership of man." (Sayyid Qutb, Egyptian)
6. "Uniting the five pillars of Islam is the principle Jihad (lit. struggle). In Islam a Muslim must struggle against himself and his habits to submit fully to God. He must also struggle to guide his family, relatives, and friends to bring them to Islam and to convey the message of Islam itself. Since Islam is totalistic, Muslims wherever they may be, must struggle and sacrifice their energy, time, and material resources to establish Muslim congregations, mosques, madrassas (religious schools) for the maintenance and spread of Islam. Where Muslims make up a substantial fraction of the population, they must struggle to establish the Islamic Shariah (law) as their rule for living, with the aim to ultimately establish a full Islamic state in which Islam would be the ruling ideology and system. To understand this last point is very important for it is part and parcel of Islam to seek its full manifestation and where Muslims fail politically or economically, they also fail spiritually. It is innate to Islam to be militantly uncompromising with alien systems since all sovereignty and glory belongs to God, to the Prophets (PBUH) and to the believers." (Spirit of Toronto, Ontario, Canada: 1834-1984, Lindsay Holton, 1983 AD, Foreword by David Crombie, MP: Secretary of State and Minister of Multiculturalism, Islam - A Dynamic Stability, by Camel Xerri Abdullah Idris, Islamic Center Toronto Jami Mosque, p282-293)
-
interesting, and somewhat related!
http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2009/10/finding-the-fear-and-love-of-god-inside-the-brain.ars (http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2009/10/finding-the-fear-and-love-of-god-inside-the-brain.ars)
-
What most people either fail to or refuse to grasp is that Muhammad was not some sort of "Arab Jesus", and that Allah is not God.
Muhammad was an Arab combination of Jim Jones (kill yourself in my name), Adolf Hitler (kill or subjugate all outsiders), and David Koresh (Allah says I can fuck nine year-olds if I want to).
Allah was just the sock puppet/imaginary friend he used to reinforce the whims of his pathological narcissism. Take for instance, the occasion upon which one of his wives (most of whom were forced to marry him after he killed off their families and took them as slaves) caught him fucking her maid: He quarrels with her, and the other wives jump in, and he then states he will "punish" them by not sleeping with them. The problem is, at this point in his life Muhammad is in the throes of acromegaly, which causes satyriasis. Before that single night is even over, suddenly Allah appears to instruct Muhammad what a special boy he is, and how he should not deprive himself of any pleasure, etcetera yada yada. The same tired spiel of adoration with which Muhammad always claimed Allah spoke to him, and assured him that he (Muhammad) was the center of the universe.
Islam is not a religion. Islam is the personality cult of a psychotic tyrant. Like all successful cults, it uses a veneer of spirituality to lend itself an illusion of validity, but that is all it is: an illusion. It is no accident that The state religion of this seventh-century whack job means not "peace", as is so often incorrectly stated, but "submission".
-
moses tells people to take a shower, stop fucking aound, and for God's sake don't set foot on Mt. Sanai (for fear of death)!
-
I have no problem with submission as long as I'm not the one submitting.
-
The world made in the image of Christianity:
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_2_hUT_u6qP8/SBV1kXJjIsI/AAAAAAAAAFM/PBqEEeCUXbU/S760/National_Cathedral_washington.jpg)
The world made in the image of Sikhism:
(http://namastey.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/amritsar-golden-temple-00.jpg)
The world made in the image of Islam:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDpfwuy4v2s&feature=player_embedded (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDpfwuy4v2s&feature=player_embedded)
PS- The world made in the image of proselytizing atheist dweebs with tiny imaginations:
iMo Apple (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G72o7QmVpyM&feature=related#normal)
Balor, I haven't read all of this thread and am too drunk right now to do so. But as much as I agree with your opinion that Islam is a particularly dangerous and misguided group of fucks, I have to disagree with this post. The "spanish tiles" that have come to just about represent the ideal of "quaint Mediterranean architecture" are a Moorish invention. Also, I dare anyone to wander around La Alhambra in Granada for a day and not come away with an appreciation for the artistry of those murdering bastards.
As a side note, I honestly believe that the greatest positive contribution made by organized religion in general throughout the ages is all the art and support of artists who would otherwise have been toiling away at other jobs.
-
What most people either fail to or refuse to grasp is that Muhammad was not some sort of "Arab Jesus", and that Allah is not God.
Muhammad was an Arab combination of Jim Jones (kill yourself in my name), Adolf Hitler (kill or subjugate all outsiders), and David Koresh (Allah says I can fuck nine year-olds if I want to).
Allah was just the sock puppet/imaginary friend he used to reinforce the whims of his pathological narcissism. Take for instance, the occasion upon which one of his wives (most of whom were forced to marry him after he killed off their families and took them as slaves) caught him fucking her maid: He quarrels with her, and the other wives jump in, and he then states he will "punish" them by not sleeping with them. The problem is, at this point in his life Muhammad is in the throes of acromegaly, which causes satyriasis. Before that single night is even over, suddenly Allah appears to instruct Muhammad what a special boy he is, and how he should not deprive himself of any pleasure, etcetera yada yada. The same tired spiel of adoration with which Muhammad always claimed Allah spoke to him, and assured him that he (Muhammad) was the center of the universe.
Islam is not a religion. Islam is the personality cult of a psychotic tyrant. Like all successful cults, it uses a veneer of spirituality to lend itself an illusion of validity, but that is all it is: an illusion. It is no accident that The state religion of this seventh-century whack job means not "peace", as is so often incorrectly stated, but "submission".
This is a perfectly sound albeit slightly melodramatic criticism of religion.
I agree that religion is a fantasy.
It can be useful, it can be dangerous, but at the final tally it's still a fantasy.
What I object to are the self-righteous throngs that claim that their god is better than all others, or at the very least that other gods are inferior to theirs.
It's about the stupidest thing an otherwise intelligent person can do.
It's like arguing - and seriously, forcefully arguing - that your sports mascot could beat the tar out of the sports mascot of a rival team.
I also must confess that it bothers me that people would consider making strong arguments against something they have such limited experience with. The audacity of scouring the internet for dirt on a text without having gone to the trouble of actually reading it oneself is rather staggering.
-
I read the Koran and did find it to be more troubling than the texts of the other Abrahamic religions.
I think Christianity is disturbing because evangelical sects are happily divorcing the text from context.
The Romans verse listed above is about submitting to the state. I think there are a fair number of verses from Paul that suggest Christians should be quiet and not stir up trouble with the state. It's probably one of the reasons so many writings from Paul were selected for the new testament.
-
Speaking as an authority then, would you go so far as to say that the trouble the Qur'an gave you was sufficient to justify its eradication as a religion?
Also, as you've implied that you've read the texts of the other Abrahamic religions, have you read the Kitab i Aqdas? I'm curious how it compares to the Qur'an given that Baha'i sprang from Islam. Note: this isn't a point I'm making, I'm genuinely curious.
-
Speaking as an authority then, would you go so far as to say that the trouble the Qur'an gave you was sufficient to justify its eradication as a religion?
Also, as you've implied that you've read the texts of the other Abrahamic religions, have you read the Kitab i Aqdas? I'm curious how it compares to the Qur'an given that Baha'i sprang from Islam. Note: this isn't a point I'm making, I'm genuinely curious.
I'm not really on the team arguing for it to be eradicated as a religion. I do agree that cultural elements factor heavily into things. I am more concerned about pushes for secular nations to recognize Sharia courts and the existence of extremist theocracies. I think all government should be secular and Islam seems to be making the biggest push against it, therefore it draws more of my ire than any other religion.
I actually have a lot of problems with the Baha'i. To me, it seemed like Islam in prettier wrapping. It makes sense, though, since the claim is Muhammad was the most recent previous prophet that he would take the Koran and rewrite it to suit his vision. And Baha'ullah fancied himself a poet, which generally makes his writings annoying to read.
My problem with the Baha'i though is that they misrepresent themselves somewhat. They claim to support & accept science, but still claim it's wrong for people to be gay for example. And they support theocracy as a goal, which is a grievous sin as far as I'm concerned. Plus they lie about being unified - there are multiple schisms over the years, they just refuse to acknowledge them, sort of like the Church of Scientology.
I also have never had someone try to hard sell me on their religion as when I contacted the local group to ask some questions about their religion (well, except maybe for my experience with having friends who were members of the Boston Church of Christ or International Churches of Christ or whatever that sect was called). I left having coffee with the guy and he was trying to sign me up as a member and later sent me an email inviting people over to my house to have a study group. I was afraid I was going to have to show up at the door with a gun and chase them off.
-
It's funny how acceptance of a religion seems to be so closely linked to the age of the religion.
If we order all the religions discussed here from most ancient to most recent we come up with:
Judaism
Christianity
Islam
Sikhism
Baha'i
Scientology
Apostolic Socialism (i.e. Jim Jonesism)
Koreshian Branch Davidianism
I can think of three different explanations for this seniority-based acceptance:
1-As time progresses religions are modified, molded, and re-interpreted by adherents in such a way as to soften their edges into a more palatable form.
2-As time progresses society develops blind-spots, ingrains quirks, and adapts itself to accommodate new religions.
3-New religions are becoming progressively crazier personality cults of pathological narcissism.
I suspect that all three explanations are correct to a degree. While a religion and the greater society grapple with and modify/accustom themselves to one another, crackpot "pathological narcissist" cults pop in and out of existence at the fringes.
-
You forgot Church Of Tibor - membership of two cos Mello is a believer
-
What do you have to do to join this "Church of Tibor"?
And I only ask because you got Geek to join and we all know how gullible she is...
-
I'll have to think of something different for men to join
-
It's funny how acceptance of a religion seems to be so closely linked to the age of the religion.
If we order all the religions discussed here from most ancient to most recent we come up with:
Judaism
Christianity
Islam
Sikhism
Baha'i
Scientology
Apostolic Socialism (i.e. Jim Jonesism)
Koreshian Branch Davidianism
I can think of three different explanations for this seniority-based acceptance:
1-As time progresses religions are modified, molded, and re-interpreted by adherents in such a way as to soften their edges into a more palatable form.
2-As time progresses society develops blind-spots, ingrains quirks, and adapts itself to accommodate new religions.
3-New religions are becoming progressively crazier personality cults of pathological narcissism.
I suspect that all three explanations are correct to a degree. While a religion and the greater society grapple with and modify/accustom themselves to one another, crackpot "pathological narcissist" cults pop in and out of existence at the fringes.
I was going to write something similar last night but decided to go to bed instead. I mostly agree with that assessment.
However, I'd amend the third point a little bit - I don't necessarily think that it's because new religions are getting crazier. I don't know enough about fringe religions & cults to have an opinion. I think as far as particular Christian sects go, with which I am slightly more familiar, the crazy personalities just keep coming and have been since the various sects were battling it out at during the founding years.
I think it owes more to generally having more knowledge of said pathological narcissists. Modern record keeping, reporting, and the availability of information make it harder for a dude like Elron to hide behind the image he wanted to paint for himself when placed under scrutiny.
-
I think that definitely plays into it.
As Emp said, one of the greatest dangers of Islam is it's goal of infiltrating societies and then when they feel their numbers are great enough their insistence on Sharia and Theocracy.
-
3-New religions are becoming progressively crazier personality cults of pathological narcissism.
However, I'd amend the third point a little bit - I don't necessarily think that it's because new religions are getting crazier.
Yeah I think my point was that time seems to weed out the pathological cults of narcissism fairly quickly relegating their tenure strictly to "modern times." The other thing is that the narcissists tend to be greatly disproportionately represented in terms of coverage and discussion.
I think that for the most part if a religion lasts long enough it demonstrates that there is something to it that works. I think, like you're saying, that it only appears that religions are getting crazier. And I definitely agree that the modern availability of information plays an enormous part.
-
PS: Islam sucks!
-
(http://www.splcenter.org/images/imglib/I/ir123_450x215.jpg)
Hell yeah.
-
What I object to are the self-righteous throngs that claim that their god is better than all others, or at the very least that other gods are inferior to theirs.
It's about the stupidest thing an otherwise intelligent person can do.
I object to self righteous atheists who call me a fool for believing in God.
I never push my beliefs onto anyone but apparently it's okay for people to do it to me, because I'm just a stupid little sheep.
-
People believe all kinds of unreasonable things, but so long as these believers restrict their beliefs to religion and don't try to interfere in politics, law, or science, I think they're entitled to hold their beliefs unmolested. In fact I think their beliefs are objectively fascinating. I think it tells us a lot about the human condition that religion is such a universal concept that like language (or at least written language) it is capable of independent convergent evolution.
-
I am Agnostic with a Science bias.
-
(http://www.splcenter.org/images/imglib/I/ir123_450x215.jpg)
Hell yeah.
I'm mystified... What does that have to do with Islam?
-
(http://www.splcenter.org/images/imglib/I/ir123_450x215.jpg)
Hell yeah.
I'm mystified... What does that have to do with Islam?
Equally stupid beliefs?
(Note: Just being a dick)
-
Hey, that's MY job buddy.
-
I read that as "White Flower' then the second take was 'White Plower''...I got it on the third.
-
(http://www.t-shirt-mania.com/tshirt-hell-pictures/WHITE-FLOUR.gif)
-
I read that as "White Flower' then the second take was 'White Plower''...I got it on the third.
dirty hippy!
-
What I object to are the self-righteous throngs that claim that their god is better than all others, or at the very least that other gods are inferior to theirs.
It's about the stupidest thing an otherwise intelligent person can do.
I object to self righteous atheists who call me a fool for believing in God.
I never push my beliefs onto anyone but apparently it's okay for people to do it to me, because I'm just a stupid little sheep.
Atheists really often times are total tools. "Look at me, I don't believe in God and that makes me smarter than you!!!"
-
I saw an older black gentleman the other day who was dressed like a pimp and sporting a hitler moustache.
It was very odd.
-
Atheists really often times are total tools. "Look at me, I don't believe in God and that makes me smarter than you!!!"
A few other variations:
The religious really often times are total tools. "Look at me, I believe in God and that makes me smarter than you!!!"
People really often times are total tools. "Look at me, I believe I am smarter than you!!!"
-
slightly random anecdote:
I went to a christian thing the first week at this new school.
That was fun. They said they just hang out and chat, doesn't matter what religion you are...
...half an hour in and they pulled out the fucking Bibles.
-
Atheists really often times are total tools. "Look at me, I don't believe in God and that makes me smarter than you!!!"
A few other variations:
The religious really often times are total tools. "Look at me, I believe in God and that makes me smarter than you!!!"
People really often times are total tools. "Look at me, I believe I am smarter than you!!!"
Really? I can't think of too many religious persons that considered their religious beliefs to be proof of their superior intellect.
Weird.
-
You're right I lied. I was trying to sneak that one past, but you caught me. Religious people are in fact all humble and down to earth people. They have no feelings of superiority based on their beliefs, and they readily concede that their beliefs might not actually be any smarter than the beliefs of anyone else. That's actually just an atheist myth designed to justify the atheists' aggressive approaches to handling the otherwise easygoing religious crowd.
PS - Fuck Islam!
-
I suppose I can only base my opinion on my own experiences.
My parents weren't religious and never went to church, but neighbors and relatives took me to Sunday school when I was a child. For second through sixth grade I attended a private elementary school that was Lutheran. Each day began with like a half hour of learning why God is so nice and all that, and every Wednesday we went to the attached church for like a half hour of worship.
In Jr. high cousins took me to a Baptist church on Sundays, and I went there too on Thursday nights for youth group, which was like organized games of dodge ball with a half hour or so of bible study thrown in the mix. During my childhood through teen years I have attended Methodist, Baptist, and Lutheran services. Certainly I met some real assholes along the way, but I can't remember ever having met anyone who gave me the feeling that they felt superior to the non religious. One of my best friend's parents are Missionaries, and his family is the most caring, accepting family I've ever met. They still treat me like I'm the specialest person ever, even though I tattooed a giant Baphomet on their son's back.
Myself, I'm Agnostic, and I don't care who your God is. I also don't care if you believe there is no God. In my experience I've never witnessed Christian persons attack Atheism the way I've personally experienced Atheist friends vehemently attack religion. I've never experienced religious persons use their belief in a supreme being as proof of their superior intelligence, but I see Atheists use their Atheism as a display of how obscenely intelligent they are all the time.
So, when it comes to religion or lack of it I prefer to live and let live... But, if your religion (not some "interpretation" of it) explicitly says that if you can't convert me then it's time to kill me, then sorry buddy... You gotta go.
So yeah, fuck Islam.
-
http://deadspin.com/234596/stephen-a-smith-voice-of-reason-in-a-world-of-insanity (http://deadspin.com/234596/stephen-a-smith-voice-of-reason-in-a-world-of-insanity)
-
So, when it comes to religion or lack of it I prefer to live and let live... But, if your religion (not some "interpretation" of it) explicitly says that if you can't convert me then it's time to kill me, then sorry buddy... You gotta go.
So yeah, fuck Islam.
I can see my suggestion that it's only the emphasis of this part of the religion that is dangerous has had no impact whatsoever.
Internet discussions are depressing. I have to cut back.
-
I understand that it's your belief that Islam itself is not dangerous, it's certain radical fringe groups that emphasize the kill the infidels part that's dangerous, and that condemning Islam as a whole is a knee-jerk reaction. After all, Christianity has had it's radical fringe groups ala Fred Phelps, Jim Jones, David Koresh, etc.
My counterpoint is the kill the infidel part of Islam isn't some radical interpretation of it, it's a core part of their religious dogma regardless of whether American Muslims actively practice that part of the religion or not, and it may only be a matter of time before they too are convinced that they're slackers at their religion if they don't follow what their religious books tell them to do. If it weren't for Allah and Muhammad instructing their followers to either convert everyone to their religion or kill them I would have no problem with their religion.
I don't understand what's so difficult to understand (from either of our stances). Is there something I'm missing?
-
Cause the koran does not actually say to kill people that dont convert. Does not say to kill people who are not islamic either...unless you snip the verses and take them into a new context.
that would be my best guess as to what you are missing.
-
Bah! Your complete denial of facts and ignorance of evidence have defeated me!
I simply can not contend with such invincibility to logic and reason.
-
What facts ? I have not seen anybody post anything but sniped quotes.
So either post up full quotes that state what you claim or stfu.
-
Here you go douchebag, an entire chapter from the Koran where it's nothing but instructions on how to fight the non-believers and kill them if they won't submit to the one true religion, Islam.
http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=HolKora.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=8&division=div1 (http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=HolKora.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=8&division=div1)
Now, amaze me with your denial.
-
No.
Non-Believers are those who dont believe in God. That passage has nothing to do with Isalm. Try alt + f ' Islam' you wont get a hit.
and this is the problem ... Interpretation of the words. Islam is the problem for you because you choose to interpret Islam that way.
Islam is not the problem here. ( unless, of course, you dont believe in god. )
-
Okay... I was merely looking for amazing, not astounding.
You might want to get your head looked at again after that beating you took.
For real.
-
I think you know you just got your ass kicked...by me.
-
I think what we're seeing here is that Krsna is a fundamentalist. Or at least that's his impression of what religion is all about.
Like all other Qur'an-interpreting literalist fundamentalists, you'd make a very dangerous Imam, Krsna. If you were a Muslim I believe you might fit right in with Osama hisself.
Luckily most Muslims don't agree with your radical views of the "proper" way to interpret scripture.
In fact most modern religious scholars tend to adopt more of a context-based interpretation where passages written in response to great battles (like the Qur'an's 8th Sura), dietary laws (like those of the Tanakh's Deuteronomy), the historical genocides (like those of the Tanakh's Exodus and Leviticus), and phantasmagorical hallucinations (like those in the New Testament's Revelation of St. John) are not treated as literal instructions, but are instead considered metaphorical instructions at best and historical curios at worst.
-
I think you know you just got your ass kicked...by me.
No. You are delusional. Curtly disagreeing and then spouting off nonsense does not constitute an ass kicking, it constitutes willful douchebaggery.
I think what we're seeing here is that Krsna is a fundamentalist. Or at least that's his impression of what religion is all about.
Like all other Qur'an-interpreting literalist fundamentalists, you'd make a very dangerous Imam, Krsna. If you were a Muslim I believe you might fit right in with Osama hisself.
Luckily most Muslims don't agree with your radical views of the "proper" way to interpret scripture.
In fact most modern religious scholars tend to adopt more of a context-based interpretation where passages written in response to great battles (like the Qur'an's 8th Sura), dietary laws (like those of the Tanakh's Deuteronomy), the historical genocides (like those of the Tanakh's Exodus and Leviticus), and phantasmagorical hallucinations (like those in the New Testament's Revelation of St. John) are not treated as literal instructions, but are instead considered metaphorical instructions at best and historical curios at worst.
I suppose I might be fundamentalist at heart, but that's what Christianity and Judaism instruct one to do, and certainly Islam as well. You're taught that God's intelligence and plan are way beyond our earthly understanding, and all we need to concern ourselves with is following his instructions he's relayed to us in His Word, whichever holy book your religion has decided that is.
The only place I've ever seen religious "scholars" discuss the Bible and the Old Testament as anything other than God's Word to be taken as fact spoken directly from God Himself, is on the History Channel.
I don't think you really understand religion. To the true believer a passage isn't a puzzle meant to be interpreted, it's to be taken literally. The very religious feel it's their duty to follow God's word, not to second guess Him.
Have you had any first hand experience with religion Doormouse?
-
I have actually.
But look I think we've found the essential point on which we disagree here. So there's some progress.
We're just coming at it from two different angles.
You're taking a literalist approach whereas I'm taking the figurative approach.
I assume it has to do with the religious systems we each know best.
If we look at Islam literally, then there are definite and distinct problems with it. I'd argue that the same goes for Christianity, although that's more in regard to the dismantling of science than the dismantling of human life. If we look at Islam figuratively I see very few if any problems with it.
In other words: Fuck Islamic Fundamentalism! I stand by that completely.
-
The only place I've ever seen religious "scholars" discuss the Bible and the Old Testament as anything other than God's Word to be taken as fact spoken directly from God Himself, is on the History Channel.
I think it depends on the denomination with Christianity. Some denominations are pretty insane about Biblical inerrancy - the Baptists, for example. Some of the doctrine of the Church of Christ is based on reading individual verses out of context - you don't need context if the Bible is without error, I suppose. On the other hand, some denominations hold to Biblical infallibility - basically that what the Bible says about faith is good, true, and useful, but references about historical/scientific things aren't necessarily true or accurate but that's not relevant since it's intended as a book for spiritual practice, not a history or science textbook.
I don't think most Christians could explain the difference, though.
I went to a pretty liberal Presbyterian church when I was a teenager. We did discuss a lot of things being myth - Adam & Eve, for instance. Of course, my youth group was led by a Princeton Seminary grad & an MIT phd, which I don't think is representative of most.
-
In other words: Fuck Islamic Fundamentalism! I stand by that completely.
I can certainly agree with that.
-
I don't think you really understand religion. To the true believer a passage isn't a puzzle meant to be interpreted, it's to be taken literally. The very religious feel it's their duty to follow God's word, not to second guess Him.
Exactly. Religion is a delusion. By its very nature the more religious a person is, the less hesitation they'll have about doing things written in their holy books.
I read some of the chapter krsna posted. I didn't pore over every word carefully, but read enough about, "whatever you do to 'the blind', it's on Allah, and not you, so go for it!" to get the fucking point. As for it being only the most fundamental/radical Muslims being dangerous, um... so what? Haven't we been repeatedly shown that there are enough of them to be a serious threat?
The most diehard followers of anything are the most dangerous people there are in any society. People with a cause, people with a passionate belief in whatever, for better or for worse, these are the people who get shit done. The danger to the less passionately convinced increases the more accepted the diehards are by the general public.
-
As for it being only the most fundamental/radical Muslims being dangerous, um... so what? Haven't we been repeatedly shown that there are enough of them to be a serious threat?
The most diehard followers of anything are the most dangerous people there are in any society. People with a cause, people with a passionate belief in whatever, for better or for worse, these are the people who get shit done. The danger to the less passionately convinced increases the more accepted the diehards are by the general public.
Literal-interpretation fundamentalism is the problem, not the religion. Can you imagine how offensive it is to be told that your religion is worthless simply because some modern-day morons who share your holy-book can't recognize that the book, as a set of instructions inspired by God and recorded in the year 600 A.D., requires a liberal/contextual reading? It's a seriously narrow-minded view that simply because dangerous radicals exist we should excise the entire institution. Dangerous radicals exist everywhere. By the same logic you should probably excise all religions.
This is just being beaten to death here, but the problem is fundamentalism and literalism. This goes beyond religion even. Dogma is dangerous. When you stop thinking about and reasoning about and questioning what you are doing then you do thoughtless, unreasonable, and questionable things. That is dangerous regardless whether it is in politics, religion, or anything.
Since 9/11 it has become popular to equate Islam with Islamic Fundamentalism. This is a mistake, and it's a thoughtless, unreasonable, and highly questionable one at that.
-
This is just being beaten to death here, but the problem is fundamentalism and literalism. This goes beyond religion even. Dogma is dangerous. When you stop thinking about and reasoning about and questioning what you are doing then you do thoughtless, unreasonable, and questionable things. That is dangerous regardless whether it is in politics, religion, or anything.
More danger to the average American from dogmatic politics than religious fundamentalism at the moment, I'd say.
-
I'm not following the discussion anymore, just one question.
Question: If Islam is the problem and we need to stop it creating more extremists then surely by openly persecuting Muslims we'll only create more?
Also, I double checked the spelling of extremists on dictionary.com and on the side, in related searches, was:
"What percentage of ...
What is meant by po...
Extremist groups
Islamic extremists
Extremist muslim be...
Religious extremist...
Christian extremist...
History of muslim e...
Muslim extremists a...
Muslim extremist st...
What percentage of ...
Extremist groups in..." ...which i thought was amusing.
I think what we're seeing here is that Krsna is a fundamentalist.
I read this and immediately thought you guys were talking about God.
-
Literal-interpretation fundamentalism is the problem, not the religion.
Yes, in the same way that those pesky bullets are what do the harm, not the gun itself.
Can you imagine how offensive it is to be told that your religion is worthless
No. I have no religion, and while I respect people's rights to believe whatever they want, I still think they're absolutely deluded to believe any of this crap.
By the same logic you should probably excise all religions.
I fail to see how this would be a bad thing in the long run.
Since 9/11 it has become popular to equate Islam with Islamic Fundamentalism. This is a mistake, and it's a thoughtless, unreasonable, and highly questionable one at that.
I don't know that this is a mistake at all. Where are the huge crowds of regular ol' Muslims denouncing the actions of the Fundies? Where is the outcry from the moderates? If Islam would like to distance itself from the image its most radical elements create, it needs to step the fuck up and say something. That's what people who disapprove of stuff do. Spain kicked Aznar the fuck out and got out of Iraq cuz the majority of the Spanish people disagreed with what was going on. The Bush travesty resulted in Obama being elected in a landslide. I realize these are governments and not religions, but I don't think it's a completely unfair comparison.
-
Question: If Islam is the problem and we need to stop it creating more extremists then surely by openly persecuting Muslims we'll only create more?
Good point, and something I neglected to add to my earlier post about there being more than enough radical Muslims for them to be considered a threat, is that that's especially true considering how many martyrs have been created recently.
But I'm not advocating persecuting Muslims, or stopping them from believing whatever they like. All I think is any modern country ought to have a zero tolerance policy for people doing harmful shit in the name of their imaginary friend, no matter who that may be.
David Berkowitz said the neighbour's dog told him to kill, and he was rightfully removed from society. Most people you ask would agree that he was a sick, crazy fuck. How is killing in the name of god any better?
-
Literal-interpretation fundamentalism is the problem, not the religion.
Yes, in the same way that those pesky bullets are what do the harm, not the gun itself.
To follow this analogy, you're mistaking the armed gun-owner for the gun. Just because someone owns a gun doesn't mean he should or has to use it.
There is nothing fundamental to Islam that requires its adherents to kill heathens any more than there is something fundamental to the the Tanakh that requires its adherents to only eat certain foods lest they should go to hell.
The idea that literal interpretation is the only way to go is positively medieval. Religion has come a long way since then.
Can you imagine how offensive it is to be told that your religion is worthless
No. I have no religion, and while I respect people's rights to believe whatever they want, I still think they're absolutely deluded to believe any of this crap.
By the same logic you should probably excise all religions.
I fail to see how this would be a bad thing in the long run.
Well this is a different question which (without proselytizing) I agree with you about. The only thing that makes me disgusted is the offensive level of vitriol leveled at Islam in isolation. Quotes like these bother me:
(click the link)
and
(click the link)
If you want to do away with all religion equally then you'd find a more appreciative audience in me.
Since 9/11 it has become popular to equate Islam with Islamic Fundamentalism. This is a mistake, and it's a thoughtless, unreasonable, and highly questionable one at that.
I don't know that this is a mistake at all. Where are the huge crowds of regular ol' Muslims denouncing the actions of the Fundies? Where is the outcry from the moderates? If Islam would like to distance itself from the image its most radical elements create, it needs to step the fuck up and say something. That's what people who disapprove of stuff do. Spain kicked Aznar the fuck out and got out of Iraq cuz the majority of the Spanish people disagreed with what was going on. The Bush travesty resulted in Obama being elected in a landslide. I realize these are governments and not religions, but I don't think it's a completely unfair comparison.
Muslims are reacting defensively these days to what they interpret (quite accurately it appears) as an attack on their religion as a whole. It's quite incorrect to believe that the Muslim community doesn't speak out against violence. I assume you're referring exclusively to the face of Islam on TV - namely the Taliban. Normal Muslims have decried violence and have tried to demonstrate that their religion is about peace and love. They have been viciously mocked for this.
-
Some religions have come a long way since medieval times, but how do you explain an entire region of the world who would rather stay in the dark ages as a small population of extremists?
Why do you defend Islam so vehemently if you claim you're against religion as a whole? You're really making me wonder if you have denounced all religion except for the one you know is the only real one. Is this the case?
-
Y'know, people ask em all the time what my religion is, and I ask what they mean... So they ask whom I worship and I tell them I worship my Goddess... and they ask me what my Goddess is and I tell them they're standing on her. And if they don't like it I'd gladly hack them to bits.
So I guess that makes me a Fundamentalist too.
Go fuck yourself.
-
Which one of us?
-
Why is it that with all the convo about Islam and the Koran, the whole world does not know of the chapter that states Islam is for killing all those who dont convert to Islam ?
I would of thought we would ALL know the url to the info the proves Islam wants to kill everybody else. If the url existed.
-
BRAWL HALL IS WAY BETTER THAN THIS CESSPOOL OF NIGGERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
Go back to f4$ noob.
-
I think religion is here to stay as long as humans exist. I think there's an evolutionary element to things, such as suggested in this article: http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/10/god-brai/ (http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/10/god-brai/) and I also think that there are ingrained elements in our language and culture that aren't likely to be stripped.
-
SATANISM ROCKS!
-
I also think that there are ingrained elements in our language and culture that aren't likely to be stripped.
The elements within both would be clashing, and the intra 'set' of elementsl. Could the problems be sovled with social chemistry (?). I say, Yes !
-
Satin Rules!!!
No... 100% Cotton!
-
Penn Says: Agnostic vs. Atheist (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EAF2NuAI9EU#ws-normal)
-
Y'know, people ask em all the time what my religion is, and I ask what they mean... So they ask whom I worship and I tell them I worship my Goddess... and they ask me what my Goddess is and I tell them they're standing on her. And if they don't like it I'd gladly hack them to bits.
So I guess that makes me a Fundamentalist too.
Go fuck yourself.
Nobody cares about your religion because you guys haven't crashed any airplanes into skyscrapers yet.
-
BRAWL HALL IS WAY BETTER THAN THIS CESSPOOL OF NIGGERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
BAHAHAHA!
-
My counterpoint is the kill the infidel part of Islam isn't some radical interpretation of it, it's a core part of their religious dogma regardless of whether American Muslims actively practice that part of the religion or not, and it may only be a matter of time before they too are convinced that they're slackers at their religion if they don't follow what their religious books tell them to do.
Yoiu think folks should go after Jews & Christians, since a core part of the old testament is the sacrifice (without consumption) of live animals? After all, it's just a matter of time before we start slaughtering fattened calves to appease God!
-
So long as Krsna's around to light a cooking fire after, who cares?
-
BRAWL HALL IS WAY BETTER THAN THIS CESSPOOL OF NIGGERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
BAHAHAHA!
I gotta hand it to Doormouse on that one, it was pretty good :)
-
oohh, sorry. can't cook-then-eat your sacrificial animals. it's an afront to God.
-
So long as Krsna's around to light a cooking fire after, who cares?
Yeah man.
-
oohh, sorry. can't cook-then-eat your sacrificial animals. it's an afront to God.
Not to our God.
-
NOT cooking and eating sacrificed animals is an affront to my Goddess. And a waste of a good meal.
-
oohh, sorry. can't cook-then-eat your sacrificial animals. it's an afront to God.
Not to our God.
But that's not the literal interpretation of the Bible! YOU CAN'T EXIST.
-
NOT cooking and eating sacrificed animals is an affront to my Goddess. And a waste of a good meal.
So, for clarity's sake, what does your Goddess think about caning women that drink beer?
-
oohh, sorry. can't cook-then-eat your sacrificial animals. it's an afront to God.
Not to our God.
But that's not the literal interpretation of the Bible! YOU CAN'T EXIST.
Ha ha! w3rd!
Man, wouldn't that be totally crazy if people in this modern day and age had actually decided to follow their ancient religious instructions?
Man, I'm glad that's never going to happen!
-
NOT cooking and eating sacrificed animals is an affront to my Goddess. And a waste of a good meal.
So, for clarity's sake, what does your Goddess think about caning women that drink beer?
My Goddess DEMANDS equality in the bedroom, the bar room and the battlefield. And my Goddess requires that I accept all people of all beliefs until they threaten me or my people DIRECTLY. If they do this she requires that I release their souls back into the maelstrom. Or give my life trying.
-
Man, wouldn't that be totally crazy if people in this modern day and age had actually decided to follow their ancient religious instructions?
Many folks choose to ignore passages from their holy books, whatever those books might be. If Christians and Jews can do it, where's your hang-up on Muslims doing it?
-
I saw a bit of The Daily Show this afternoon, and the guest was a woman who'd written about Roger Williams, the dude who got kicked out of Massachusetts and founded Providence, RI. He was apparently so incredibly religious that he was content with the fact that all these Indians and people of other faiths were going to burn in hell for all eternity, and therefore didn't mind living around them.
It occurred to me that it's a damn shame there aren't more people like that around. I have zero problem with anyone believing passionately that I or anyone else is going to hell forever, since it's all bullshit anyway.
-
Precisely, Si. I have no problem with people who believe that. It's when they feel the need to constantly whisper it in my ear or help me along on my journey to eternal damnation that I get uncomfortable. And I don't like to be uncomfortable.
-
I saw a bit of The Daily Show this afternoon, and the guest was a woman who'd written about Roger Williams, the dude who got kicked out of Massachusetts and founded Providence, RI. He was apparently so incredibly religious that he was content with the fact that all these Indians and people of other faiths were going to burn in hell for all eternity, and therefore didn't mind living around them.
It occurred to me that it's a damn shame there aren't more people like that around. I have zero problem with anyone believing passionately that I or anyone else is going to hell forever, since it's all bullshit anyway.
I thought it was clear that my hang up was on them not ignoring what their books say.
I don't mind if your Muslim, but please don't go wanting me dead for not being so. As Doormouse brought up, my issues lie with fundamentalism.
Plus, what Si said, and Zoomie agreed with.
-
Does the Goddess of LARP have a name ?
-
Why don't you walk back into town, I hear they have a 2 for 1 sale on dents in your head.
-
Somebody took their witty pills this morning!
-
yeah but he forgot his punctuation.
-
I think religion is here to stay as long as humans exist. I think there's an evolutionary element to things, such as suggested in this article: http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/10/god-brai/ (http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/10/god-brai/) and I also think that there are ingrained elements in our language and culture that aren't likely to be stripped.
I think their beliefs are objectively fascinating. I think it tells us a lot about the human condition that religion is such a universal concept that like language (or at least written language) it is capable of independent convergent evolution.
I've been looking for a good book on the subject actually. I think I may buy that Dean Hamer book despite the criticism it's received.
I'm also keen on getting my hands on a book about the evolution of language. It's really interesting. Apparently it follows a Lamarkian pattern to a greater degree than cultural evolution does.
BRAWL HALL IS WAY BETTER THAN THIS CESSPOOL OF NIGGERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
BAHAHAHA!
I gotta hand it to Doormouse on that one, it was pretty good :)
Look, our 2004 invasion is internet famous:
http://tdtcoalition.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=34492&sid=4d5b1b1fc14745a8018423071573b3d1 (http://tdtcoalition.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=34492&sid=4d5b1b1fc14745a8018423071573b3d1)
-
I dont mind women drinking bottles of beer.But pints is a bit dykish IMO.
This woman's a model aint she?
Actually, it shows what a banana republic most Asian countries are.I always thought Malaysia was ahead of Indonesia and the like.Maybe not...?
-
Well at least someone turned it away from Islam as a whole...
Nicely played, Ress. Still a fail. Sorry.
-
A bottle of beer is okay but a pint is dykish? That's like saying a turtleneck on a guy isn't gay if he teaches art.
-
Women drinking beer in any form is hot if she was originally hot
-
When I'm drinking beer in any form, a woman seems hotter especially if she was originally hot.
-
Is it gonna be another model cane her?
If so, I think the judge may've got this one right..
-
If the caning takes place in a vat of lime jello...
-
I think "caning" might be a Muslim code word for "bukkake".
-
http://ahlalhdeeth.com/vbe/showthread.php?t=1625 (http://ahlalhdeeth.com/vbe/showthread.php?t=1625)
In conclusion,
Emoticons are forbidden
You're all secretly Muslims!
Many folks choose to ignore passages from their holy books, whatever those books might be. If Christians and Jews can do it, where's your hang-up on Muslims doing it?
I do it. I tried, I really did but there is way too much..
then a nice old man gave me a cute little yellow book with good quotes from the Gita,
...but I didn't even read that.
-
Hey, Mr. Brainiac... You're talking about a religion based on a book that contains actual instructions to go kill everyone who won't "submit" to Islam.
Moses are you there?
-
Hello two and a half weeks ago. I've considered your arguments and am anxious to troll you mercilessly.
-
Hey, Mr. Brainiac... You're talking about a religion based on a book that contains actual instructions to go kill everyone who won't "submit" to Islam.
Moses are you there?
Yeah, fuck those kikes too!
Hey, here comes a drive by...
f u c k I s l a m!
-
http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/1027/p08s01-comv.html (http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/1027/p08s01-comv.html)
-
Global blasphemy law?
If I said "Mohammed was a cocksucker who looked like David Copperfield, and Allah was a gay Israeli pawnbroker", would that be considered blasphemous?
Would I be allowed to ask, "why is it families going on holiday to Morocco, the 14 yr old boys are always "checked out" by Muslim men?"
-
Pedophiles weigh heavily on your mind, don't they?
I wonder why that is?
-
Bags of jelly bears are cheaper than dinner dates and divorce settlements.
-
I wouldn't know but apparently you would.
-
It's a good thing Muslims in the US aren't popping off and killing people at military bases.
-
It's a good thing Muslims in the US Army aren't popping off and killing people at military bases.
Fixed.
-
doesn't matter to me if they're in the army, navy, air force, or marines.
-
I'm no expert, but I don't think that would have been considered a blasphemous action...
Some reports say he gave the international jihadi takbir before firing the first shot.
-
How does someone go FROM:
Oh, wow, i can't Kill a bunch of my fellow religious nut cousins,
TO:
so instead,
i'll just cold-bloodedly ambush a bunch of my fellow citizens. ?!?
-
I'm absolutely not defending his actions, but to be fair the same question could be applied to Christian fundamentalists:
How does someone go FROM:
Oh, wow, we can't Kill a bunch of unborn foetuses
TO:
so instead,
i'll just cold-bloodedly ambush an abortion doctor. ?!?
I think the answer we'll discover is that crazy is crazy. And craziness more or less defies understanding.
-
I think they're been a lot more Christian fundamentalists killing Muslims the past few years than vice versa.
Meanwhile, Britain gets the shit like banning "Mecca Casinos" and Christmas decorations in offices etc
If we had a concert for all the Arab victims (like the 911 families one), Cat Stevens would be on TV 68 hrs a day.So, the threat of that is probabaly enough reason to get the troops out.
-
i'll just cold-bloodedly ambush a bunch of my fellow citizens. ?!?
When dealing with the religious, THERE ARE NO CIVILIANS!!!
But I think we may be putting more into this story than it merits in that regard.
He could have just went off like any other cracker head or negroid or rag head or Latin or Asian motherfucker on any fucking block in America or elsewhere!
-
Yes and we have to be sympathetic because he probably suffered from vicarious trauma, after listening to young men and women missing arms and legs and parts of their brains, telling of the horrors of war for 10 hours every day. For eight years.
-
Why would you interject the sympathy card?
-
While I can't speak for you, I've been around people who had limbs blown off, were shot, had TBI, survived in-flight egress, and if this guy, Muslim or not, conscientious objector or not, put up with that shit for 8 years and then they told him it was his turn, I can see how he pull a suicide by cop and take a few raghead burners with him.
That's all.
-
Well obviously he was no conscientious objector. And don't project sympathy on me just because I think he is more common among our ranks than most realize.
-
OK, the "We have to..." part was sarcastic. The rest I believe. I'm sure we'll learn a lot more in the coming weeks. Particularly that the Army Chief of Staff was talking out of his ass this morning when he reported that Dr Hassan started shouting "Allah-u Akbar!" just before he opened fire. Knowing what we know now that just doesn't fit. The guy was proud to be a soldier, he wore his uniform to prayers at the Washington Muslim Worship Center but he was no extremist.
-
Maybe he was coerced.
This also leaves the bit about him going/being crazy open.
-
Something drove him to do it. If the man just wanted to kill people he could have killed a lot more and possibly not been caught.
-
Something drove him to do it. If the man just wanted to kill people he could have killed a lot more and possibly not been caught.
Yeah, by getting deployed and aiming at legitimate targets. Hell, he would've had a hero's welcome at that. *Something* cracked.
-
hmm, they must have tanks and SGMs on that base.
-
Considering what Zoomie had to say, but from the Other Side:
Imagine how his patients must have felt, talking to a Muslim man about the horrors of the war ...
(Wonder how Politically Correct you are expected to be with a shrink?)
***
On the UpSide, looks like it'll just take a couple more of these incidents before everyone else starts being suspicious of ALL Muslim folks.
-
Lol. Let's not be overbroad. It's only the UpSide for us white power nazis.
-
With all these freckles?
i'm an EVERY color power nazi.
-
So I'm not supposed to be talking about how the guy who shot up the military base was on the FBI watch list for being a kook and that he was trying to get in touch with Al Qaida, right?
-
In local news, I saw a black man get arrested on drug charges yesterday. It totally fulfilled my stereotypical model of the world.
-
Fort Hood Gunman Said Infidels Should Have Their Throats Cut (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/6526030/Fort-Hood-gunman-had-told-US-military-colleagues-that-infidels-should-have-their-throats-cut.html)
Fort Hood Gunman Called for Jihad (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/11/yep-jihad.html)
-
In local news, I saw a black man get arrested on drug charges yesterday. It totally fulfilled my stereotypical model of the world.
He probably got arrested for dealing drugs because he was dealing drugs.
-
Just like all black guys.
-
Hey, at least they can jump high.
-
They sure can.
-
That's cause they have strong legs from all that running from the cops.
-
oops wrong thread!
-
Yes and we have to be sympathetic because he probably suffered from vicarious trauma, after listening to young men and women missing arms and legs and parts of their brains, telling of the horrors of war for 10 hours every day. For eight years.
I hope you are joking... Or are you seriously suggesting Hassan is the first head-shrinker in the history of mankind or the military to deal with, gasp, traumatized individuals?
OK, the "We have to..." part was sarcastic. The rest I believe. I'm sure we'll learn a lot more in the coming weeks. Particularly that the Army Chief of Staff was talking out of his ass this morning when he reported that Dr Hassan started shouting "Allah-u Akbar!" just before he opened fire. Knowing what we know now that just doesn't fit. The guy was proud to be a soldier, he wore his uniform to prayers at the Washington Muslim Worship Center but he was no extremist.
Except for when he was trying to contact al-Queda, arguing with every other soldier on base, or giving a speech on the justification of beheading infidels at what was suppose to be a psychiatric lecture.
While I can't speak for you, I've been around people who had limbs blown off, were shot, had TBI, survived in-flight egress, and if this guy, Muslim or not, conscientious objector or not, put up with that shit for 8 years and then they told him it was his turn, I can see how he pull a suicide by cop and take a few raghead burners with him.
Because his six-figure a year ass was being deployed to the 44th Fighting Freuds, right? Their motto: "Tip of the Phallic Symbol!"
He is a jihadi and a traitor who betrayed and murdered those whom it was his duty to help. Everything else is just relativist babel from moral lepers and cowards.
-
This guy was a free radical like Richard Reid.
Crazy is crazy.
There was no organized anything.
Sure he used jihad as an excuse to commit terrible acts, but he's not a terrorist in the same sense that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is.
Man, what we need is a religion forum...
I don't even like religion period so I'd just stay happily out of there.
This bigotry shit is a kind of religion anyway. It's sad to see it filling up a forum that's supposed to be about "brainy-like things" and politics.
EDIT: unnecessary...
-
Wozz I'd just like you to know that while you've been off for the past month doing whatever you do when you're not here I ceased to give a fuck. So yeah. Laughing at you. All of you who waste your time on this subject.
-
I love Islamic girls.
Find a fucking record cover for that, Aaron.
-
(http://www.arikiart.com/Images/max-emadi/ms-july-painting-iranian-woman.jpg)
-
Eat one, bitch.
(http://www.justmuslim.co.uk/shop/images/muslim%20belal%20new%20album%20cover.jpg)
-
Yeah, crazy is crazy,
but it's a little disconcerting to have the Same Bunch Of Nuts that all belong to the same "religion" performing the same hideous acts of violence for the same reasons.
Jeffery Dahmer was a "isolated incident;"
a Muslim man going berserk and killing everyone within reach of his weapon is just Ho Hum ~ another act of Terrorism. What a shock.
On the Up-Side,
it's going to come down to a major war between Muslims and the Chinese, hopefully riding the world of most of both.
(Does ^ThaT^ cover This?
...
a forum that's supposed to be about "brainy-like things" and politics.
-
Oh I was just saying that neither religion nor bigotry were really part of the prescription for this forum so it's sad that that's what this forum is devolving into.
The whole "oh look I'm noticing a trend where all Muslims are terrorists. We should eliminate them all with extreme prejudice" line is a good example of the kind of thing I'm talking about.
Maybe it's easier to see the blatant bigotry if we use an example that receives more mainstream attention.
Imagine if we'd instead said "oh look I'm noticing a trend where all criminals doing time for drug offenses are Black. We should eliminate them all with extreme prejudice."
Or even "oh look I'm noticing a trend where all avaricious moneylenders holding our country back are Jews. We should eliminate them all with extreme prejudice."
Sounds kinda off, doesn't it?
-
To you or me, sure.
-
Everything old is new again.
KILL NIGGERS.
-
Hey, if YOU're a-skared of calling a Spade,
a Spade,
rest assured ~
i'm not.
Take your Political Correctness and put it where your mouth is ~
go tell these lovely Muslims how much you respect their rights,
and how all of the rest of us are just fuktards.
If they're "honorable" Muslim men? They'll spit on you BEFORE they kill you.
-
When I was an infant, my parents both had to work full-time in order to put food on the table. I was taken care of during the days by a loving and extremely devout Muslim woman from Iran. She and her husband treated me as if I were one of their own children, and in gratitude a friendship developed between my parents and these kindly neighbors. Although I left the city when I was only 5, my parents took me back to visit them several more times throughout my grade school career. These people are strongly Islamic. The father of the family prayed five times a day, and although she didn't wear one around me when I was an infant, I can't picture the mother of the family any more without her hijab. Eating dinner with them was done at a low table, and if I remember correctly I think the father brought his son with him to Hajj in the late 90s. When the terrorist attacks came on 9/11, they were among some of the first people my parents called in New York. Like all New Yorkers these people were dumbstruck and appalled by the incident.
I haven't shared that before because I didn't want people to think that's the secret reason I'm not joining the joyous chorus of "Let's destroy someone else's religion!" Being called out to square my claims with reality, though, I felt compelled. The real reason I've been defending Islam is not because I think the religion is so wonderful or even that I think Muslim people are all so great. I just think that the recently-popular unequal treatment of Islam as compared to other religions is disgusting, and I hate to see hardline hypocrisy raising its tawdry spectre here. Ultimately I don't think Islam is any better than any religion. I think they all cause people to do irrational and silly or even dangerous and despicable things. I think religion is a total elevation of form over substance, an embracement of the status quo, and a rejection of independent thought. I recognize that it is a comfort for people, and there are positive effects it can have also. It's an interesting topic, but one in which I will almost never chose favorites.
I understand the main issues here, I think.
Both Krsna and Balor are extremely hung up on the literalist fundamentalist mindset. They can't seem to fathom a religion that could allow for deviance from the rigid literal text. Yes, there are words in the Quran that recommend bad acts. Yes, there are bad people and idiots who use those lines as justification to do the bad acts. But no, all followers of the religion don't take those lines as much to heart as the TV likes to scare us into believing. There are insane portions of most if not all major religious texts. If we can't break from the literalist interpretation then we're no better than the unthinking soldiers of god who do things like blowing up the WTC. I've said it over and over, but once again: the religion itself is not the problem - it's the literalist fundamentalist approach used to interpret it that causes all of the problems.
I'm not really sure what your deal is, Fyre, but considering that you're a proud birther I would suspect your mind has been poisoned by Fox News and the fringe Right and this is probably some sadly misguided attempt at patriotism.
Anyway I'm done defending Islam. Nothing changes. The more I try to lay things out clearly, the more tangled things become. And the more I discuss and rediscuss things like this, the more I feel the self-loathing creeping in.
Apparently Islamophobia is yet another topic like evolution and agnosticism that I'm better off staying well away from. This will be my last post on the topic. Probably.
-
Most scientists belive in god.
-
Doormouse,
I think that's the best post you've made on this topic.
I understand your point about fundamentalism and literalism, but in my eyes you seem to be ignoring the fact that for a very significant portion of the Muslim population that that literal fundamentalism is all there is.
Really, those are the only guys I worry about.
-
and it's why you need to support the moderate Muslim population... which is the majority.
-
When I was an infant, my parents both had to work full-time in order to put food on the table. I was taken care of during the days by a loving and extremely devout Muslim woman from Iran.
So, you're saying you were infliuenced by Islam at a young age, and now you're an apologizer for the religion?
I love logical fallacies!
-
Most scientists belive in god.
Really? I thought it was the opposite.
-
Really.
I would love to link to a decent study on it, but the google results are full of christians screaming that they dont. Go figure. I've personal lost count of the number phd people I have meet who either believe in god or are agnostic. Sure they are ones who think god does not and can not exists... and there's alot, just not a majority.
-
When I was an infant, my parents both had to work full-time in order to put food on the table. I was taken care of during the days by a loving and extremely devout Muslim woman from Iran.
So, you're saying you were infliuenced by Islam at a young age, and now you're an apologizer for the religion?
I love logical fallacies!
You evil bastard. I see what you're trying to make me do here, and it won't work. I'm on hiatus from this topic.
@Krsna - Thank you. I know you're an intelligent all-around good guy in the end. I understand your point and agree with it to an extent although I think you overemphasize it somewhat. Anyway I'm spent on this issue for a while.
-
@Krsna - Thank you. I know you're an intelligent all-around good guy in the end.
How can a man how makes ribs that good be anything but?
-
-
My personal experience with scientists is that there are a lot of agnostics. I've known a lot of agnostic theists too among scientists (I guess that's the proper terminology). People who profess not to know one way or another about god, but participate in church because it has cultural and social value, their wife does, or some other similar reason.
Here's a survey out of Rice University: http://www.ehecklund.rice.edu/publications/Ecklund_Contexts_7_1.pdf (http://www.ehecklund.rice.edu/publications/Ecklund_Contexts_7_1.pdf)
Depending on how your regard the categories that don't state anything outright, it's roughly a third in each category of belief based on that survey. I've seen other surveys with similar results - sometimes a little higher in the atheism category, sometimes a little lower. It would probably be fair to say that no broad category of belief holds a majority among scientists, whereas a majority of the American public professes to belief.
----
Of course, the belief of scientists with respect to religion is irrelevant. I think the beliefs of philosophers are probably slightly more relevant, but still not really applicable except insofar as you're willing to accept any particular school of thought. If you're trying to develop a rational argument about belief, an appeal to authority is a logical fallacy.
I personally think that proving the existence of God, assuming that one existed, is not scientifically possible. We exist within this system. To me, any attempt to truly describe and prove the existence of a deity would be like a molecule of refrigerant in my refrigerator's piping trying to explain the color of my kitchen tile. Or if you were drugged and sealed in a crate - you might hear some muffled sounds, maybe you'd pick up some scent of something, but you're never be able to see me masturbating furiously over the crate or prove that I was out there!
-
And the reality is that if I called either of these laryngeal polyps "nigger-hating honkies" they'd be upset at the accusation. But they have no problem lumping another group of people into a stereotype themselves.
-
Look, it isn't that i have anything against Muslim folks ~ i, too, was cared for by a fatimah, and lived on the economy in a Muslim community in french Morocco.
i'm a Christian, but if i had been around for the Crusades, i would have been every bit as concerned about the cult that promoted THAT!
And that's what the terrorist segment seems to be ~ a cultish offshoot from the main religion.
Unfortunately, i have neither the time, inclination nor resources to try to figure out who the good guys and who the bad guys ARE,
so i have to stereotype them, and think it would be the height of stupidity NOT to be a little suspicious.
THAT's what calling a spade, a spade is all about, imho.
-
Really.
I would love to link to a decent study on it, but the google results are full of christians screaming that they dont. Go figure. I've personal lost count of the number phd people I have meet who either believe in god or are agnostic. Sure they are ones who think god does not and can not exists... and there's alot, just not a majority.
You've got to consider what people really believe, and not what they project out of a sense of what's supposed to be considered "right" at the moment.
-
Most of them were drunk when the topic came up...
-
[me = drunk]the problem I've always had with the definition of "agnostic" vs "atheist" is that they're too clear cut. An agnostic says they don't know but they don't discount the possibility of a deity. An atheist absolutely discounts the possibility of a god. I fall in between the two. If something can be scientifically proven, I'll believe in it. As of now, there's no scientific proof of a god. So I tend to feel like more of an atheist. But as someone who wants to follow proof, rather than belief or "faith", if I say that I don't discount the possibility of a deity, but I highly doubt its existence, people often flip out on me. And I'm realizing that I'm too drunk to keep "talking".
-
Really.
I would love to link to a decent study on it, but the google results are full of christians screaming that they dont. Go figure. I've personal lost count of the number phd people I have meet who either believe in god or are agnostic. Sure they are ones who think god does not and can not exists... and there's alot, just not a majority.
So what info you can find suggests that most scientists don't believe in god, but your personal experiences suggest otherwise?
I cant find the info i think i remember. Emp posted some somewhere that come close to it. and yeah, my personal ex strongly leans towards it.
and for your drunk stuff... that would make you sorta like me... if im reading you right. agnostic with a science bias ? which is usually how I describe myself when im not trolling.
-
so i have to stereotype them, and think it would be the height of stupidity NOT to be a little suspicious.
THAT's what calling a spade, a spade is all about, imho.
OK. Let's use your logic. Texas, though having a relatively low per capita murder rate, does seem to have a high rate of execution for capital murder cases. So all Texans should lose the right to keep and bear arms because they're just not safe to be around. Sasha, Luke, Kyle, Wendy, let's have them. One of you go find Rev and get his shit, too. If you don't give them up, we're going to send in federal troops because you obviously have caches of weapons hidden in the mountains of NE TX and out in the caves in W TX. And since Texas seems to execute a disproportionate number of blacks (hey, the facts don't matter, right? We have to stereotype you...) we're going to take away your rights, nullify your legal elections and we're going to put the people you've been executing in charge.
This strategy worked quite well in Iraq and it will protect Americans from the cheap beer-swilling, mechanical bull-riding white trailer trash of Texas (i.e. all of you)... right?
In case you didn't get it...
Throwing a demographic into a big pot and slapping a label on them makes you look incredibly stupid. It's not 1950 anymore. Well, except at Sasha's house where her daddy says she needs a man to validate her...
-
Nigger lovers...
-
[me = drunk]the problem I've always had with the definition of "agnostic" vs "atheist" is that they're too clear cut. An agnostic says they don't know but they don't discount the possibility of a deity. An atheist absolutely discounts the possibility of a god. I fall in between the two. If something can be scientifically proven, I'll believe in it. As of now, there's no scientific proof of a god. So I tend to feel like more of an atheist. But as someone who wants to follow proof, rather than belief or "faith", if I say that I don't discount the possibility of a deity, but I highly doubt its existence, people often flip out on me. And I'm realizing that I'm too drunk to keep "talking".
I understand this view. It's very fair and even-handed, but it's also a bit naive I think. I like to think I'm open to all new ideas, and that if scientific proof came that God existed then I would accept it and "believe" it. The thing about God, though, is that the concept is defined by its disconnection from nature. God (like all deities) is a supernatural concept. So by definition God is incompatible with nature thus with science.
To put it differently, God can be described as an entity to which the laws of nature do not apply and which is a morally and spiritually perfect entity. Now the moral and spiritual aspects of it are so vague and purely human-thought-related that they cause no problems, but I rankle at the notion that that there is anything that sits in a privileged position outside of the laws of nature unless it is also understood to be purely human-thought-related. So to me God can only be a concept. I think part of embracing the scientific method as the tool by which to investigate nature is to reject the notion that there are some things that are simply outside of the laws of nature (i.e. are extra-, sub-, or super-natural). I'd be open to the idea that if science proved his existence then he's real, but if science were to prove his existence, it would simultaneously subject him to the laws of science and thus perform clinical deicide. Science could only prove god by disproving his supernature and thus by disproving him.
-
[me = drunk]the problem I've always had with the definition of "agnostic" vs "atheist" is that they're too clear cut. An agnostic says they don't know but they don't discount the possibility of a deity. An atheist absolutely discounts the possibility of a god. I fall in between the two. If something can be scientifically proven, I'll believe in it. As of now, there's no scientific proof of a god. So I tend to feel like more of an atheist. But as someone who wants to follow proof, rather than belief or "faith", if I say that I don't discount the possibility of a deity, but I highly doubt its existence, people often flip out on me. And I'm realizing that I'm too drunk to keep "talking".
I understand this view. It's very fair and even-handed, but it's also a bit naive I think. I like to think I'm open to all new ideas, and that if scientific proof came that God existed then I would accept it and "believe" it. The thing about God, though, is that the concept is defined by its disconnection from nature. God (like all deities) is a supernatural concept. So by definition God is incompatible with nature thus with science.
To put it differently, God can be described as an entity to which the laws of nature do not apply and which is a morally and spiritually perfect entity. Now the moral and spiritual aspects of it are so vague and purely human-thought-related that they cause no problems, but I rankle at the notion that that there is anything that sits in a privileged position outside of the laws of nature unless it is also understood to be purely human-thought-related. So to me God can only be a concept. I think part of embracing the scientific method as the tool by which to investigate nature is to reject the notion that there are some things that are simply outside of the laws of nature (i.e. are extra-, sub-, or super-natural). I'd be open to the idea that if science proved his existence then he's real, but if science were to prove his existence, it would simultaneously subject him to the laws of science and thus perform clinical deicide. Science could only prove god by disproving his supernature and thus by disproving him.
I think it's possible that something exists outside of the system which we define. Of course, that thing probably couldn't interact with this system without upending the balance of things.
-
It's a good point, but I think if we were to accept god and science then we would be expanding science to bring god under its laws rather than loosening the restriction that science applies to nature.
Maybe it all boils down to how you define God. If you think of God as all that exists naturally but that is unexplained by science then sure he could exist.
If on the other hand you define him as a being to which the laws of science cannot apply then I can't subscribe to your newsletter.
-
Ironic that we're discussing this in the year of the 200th anniversary of Darwin's birth, and the 150th anniversary of his work being published. Even the C of E acknowledged his work as valid. Too bad many of the American protestant sects are unable to see the light.
-
It's a good point, but I think if we were to accept god and science then we would be expanding science to bring god under its laws rather than loosening the restriction that science applies to nature.
Maybe it all boils down to how you define God. If you think of God as all that exists naturally but that is unexplained by science then sure he could exist.
If on the other hand you define him as a being to which the laws of science cannot apply then I can't subscribe to your newsletter.
I think of it in a lot of ways and maybe don't really believe in any of it as anything more than a thought experiment. Or maybe I do. I'm not always sure one way or the other.
Anyway. My point about systems: draw a circle around the universe. That's where the laws we have defined apply. Things or beings could exist beyond that. You can't necessarily extend the information we've derived from within the circle to things that exist outside of it, though I also think that something that exists outside said system could not interact inside of it without wrecking it. It would be sort of akin to how we define a closed system where certain rules apply that don't generally hold true. Or imagine that you're a sentient molecule of water flowing in a pipe. You might be able to come up with a set of laws that describe the system as you experience it, but I would be that you would never be able to derive the Navier-Stokes equations. (Which is incidentally why I think we will never solve some of the questions we have in science, deities or not. Our perspective is within the system with a limited tool set of perception & measurement)
I also wasn't joking when I posted a while ago about thinking about sentient galaxies. If human consciousness is a product the organization of a bunch of cells firing off electric signals, I think there certainly could be other sorts of consciousness out there (or maybe I've just watched way too much Star Trek). Or the totality of the universe could be sentient being.
And there are countless other ideas that could be explored as thought experiments or games. I knew one professor of physics who believed in some convoluted idea that sounded an awful lot like Stargate. Ultimately, though, whether any of the ideas are true or not also doesn't really matter to me (much as what scientists or anyone else believes).
-
TLDR:
I think for me I would say I believe nature to be an expandable concept. Certainly the idea of other forms of consciousness is an idea that fits within nature. The idea that there may be areas outside the closed system of our universe that can interact with us is an interesting one and could work as an explanation for god, but in explaining god you reduce god to the natural. I'm capable of imagining some alternate universe idea where the laws of nature act in a different fashion, but I think the thing to do would be to expand the definition of "natural" to cover those areas as.
The idea of a god is a religious one. Most religious people at least pay lip service the the modern major organized religions that endorse dogmatic views that discourage investigation and that discourage the search for explanation from nature. That's what repulses me. Most religions have a stance that they believe there is a god and that he is believed to have accomplished acts X, Y, and Z and to have said words A, B, and C, and that he wishes us to do 1, 2, and 3. Any questioning of X, Y, Z, A, B, C, 1, 2, or 3 is heresy. God is employed as a conceptual enforcer of the dogma. For articles of faith that beg explanation the answer is that "who are we to question God?" For articles of faith that conflict with nature the riposte is that "God acts in mysterious ways, and that God trumps science." For the religious, God is an ultimate point from which further questions are unnecessary and in fact morally wrong. For one who likes to search for explanations, God represents the ultimate throwing up of one's hands and an abandonment of the search.
Of course there's also a more basic religious belief of god than that of the organized religions. Take Agnosticism, for example. Many agnostics would doubtless bristle at the idea that they held a religious belief of god, but I think the description is an accurate one. Agnosticism purports to endorse the view that whether or not god exists is an unknowable thing. The Agnostic's very use of the term "god," however is telling. If we follow the view that God may exist in some form that our modern science can't explain and that he is unbound by our natural laws because he is outside of our closed universe, then we can say very little about God, however the concept of a god does not allow it's use for natural concepts like "gravity" or "oxidation" or "evolution." So we can narrow down the extra-universal area of what could be god a little. By definition, God is an entity. The concept of god also doesn't allow it's use for sterile natural objects like "a pulsar" or "iron" or "a photon." By definition, God is a conscious entity. Other godly attributes are necessarily assignable as well, such as "importance," "power," and possibly even "beneficence." After all, the term connotes an importance that transcends simply the definition of the "conscious entity." If our universe were doubled, surely our doubles in the other universe would not be gods. In other words "god" is not a term that is used to refer simply to generic extra-universal conscious entities. So the Agnostic view is that whether or not an important powerful conscious entity of probable beneficence exists outside of our closed universe is unknowable.
Considering that nothing outside of our closed universe is knowable, the fact that we are able to assign by definition attributes to a concept like God evokes the concept of the vanishingly small probability. Considering that we are totally unknowing about matters beyond the closed universe we inhabit, the idea that we know anything about anything extra-universal is a virtual impossibility. The agnostic is forced then to dwell in the 0.01% virtual fingernail of uncertainty that exists simply due to the fact that because we know nothing, anything we suggest is possible. But is this kind of thing uncommon in the realm of science? Do scientists adopt theories that are merely virtually certain? Or do they require a more rigorous proof before they accept a theory? The answer is that for most scientists the benefit to science that derives from accepting virtually certain theories as accurate by far outweighs the negative effects of ignoring the vanishingly small possibilities.
So why does the science-minded agnostic so emphasize the fact that it is not a total certainty but merely a virtual certainty? The answer, I believe is that the Agnostic assigns great importance to the question. The question of whether there is a god or not is an existence-altering question. It is a foundation-rocking question. And to me this is proof positive that the agnostic holds a religious belief of god. To a non-religious person, the issue would be merely academic, but to one who has latched onto the 0.01% virtual fingernail of uncertainty relating to God's existence the issue is clearly of special significance. That special significance is religion.
What are we left with?
I'm ready to accept that there are things that science cannot yet explain. I'm ready to accept that there could be extra-universal realms where our natural laws fail. I'm ready to expand the definition of nature to cover things that are currently outside of our closed system as well as those that are within our system. I draw the line, however, at making predictions about the characteristics of anything that falls outside of the current corpus scientis. I will happily accept the virtual certainty that something we have imagined to exist outside of our universe does in fact not exist given our limited imaginations and our predilection for inaccurate predictions. And finally, even if we were to be able to know of things outside of our closed system, by the very act of our expansion of "what is natural" to include these things we will have undone everything supernatural about them and we'll have stripped them of the portion of their godly significance that derives from their basic alterity. We'll be left with a natural process that can be understood and we'll have pulled down the beard of the proverbial shopping-mall Santa.
-
Science could only prove god by disproving his supernature and thus by disproving him.
Who said god > supernature ? If your going to define/limit your abilty to accept a defintion of a thing... before you study it, you are not fit to study it.
-
It's a good point, but I think if we were to accept god and science then we would be expanding science to bring god under its laws rather than loosening the restriction that science applies to nature.
Maybe it all boils down to how you define God. If you think of God as all that exists naturally but that is unexplained by science then sure he could exist.
If on the other hand you define him as a being to which the laws of science cannot apply then I can't subscribe to your newsletter.
I think of it in a lot of ways and maybe don't really believe in any of it as anything more than a thought experiment. Or maybe I do. I'm not always sure one way or the other.
Anyway. My point about systems: draw a circle around the universe. That's where the laws we have defined apply. Things or beings could exist beyond that. You can't necessarily extend the information we've derived from within the circle to things that exist outside of it, though I also think that something that exists outside said system could not interact inside of it without wrecking it. It would be sort of akin to how we define a closed system where certain rules apply that don't generally hold true. Or imagine that you're a sentient molecule of water flowing in a pipe. You might be able to come up with a set of laws that describe the system as you experience it, but I would be that you would never be able to derive the Navier-Stokes equations. (Which is incidentally why I think we will never solve some of the questions we have in science, deities or not. Our perspective is within the system with a limited tool set of perception & measurement)
I also wasn't joking when I posted a while ago about thinking about sentient galaxies. If human consciousness is a product the organization of a bunch of cells firing off electric signals, I think there certainly could be other sorts of consciousness out there (or maybe I've just watched way too much Star Trek). Or the totality of the universe could be sentient being.
And there are countless other ideas that could be explored as thought experiments or games. I knew one professor of physics who believed in some convoluted idea that sounded an awful lot like Stargate. Ultimately, though, whether any of the ideas are true or not also doesn't really matter to me (much as what scientists or anyone else believes).
That all makes a lot of sense.
-
Science operate to describe nature not supernature. It requires superscience to describe supernature and superscience is religion.
By definition, the concept of God is antithetical to science so if science were to define God then God would cease to be God and would become god (little g rather than big G). By bringing God into the realm of the natural and thus divesting it of its supernature, scientists would be gaining purchase on a measurable, studyable, experimentable, subject which by definition could not be God.
Let's put it this way: God by definition possesses heightened importance, right? It would be silly to speak of a new alien life form as God simply because it had gone previously undiscovered by science. It would be equally silly to speak of a generic conscious entity from outside the universe as God simply because it had gone previously undiscovered by science. There's something so important about God that it commands the worship of the faithful. God has a supernatural importance. Nothing in nature has a supernatural importance. Importance itself is a human concept.
-
One of the concepts/principles of science is not to say the super does not/can not exists untill its actually proven not to.
or so i would of though... and just typed in my own confused style.
as for importance being a human concept. humans are flawed, we might be wrong.
ok, i feel like im trolling. not intended.
-
My only point is that "supernatural" things aren't "natural."
Science only deals with the latter topic.
There are things that science doesn't deal with because science hasn't developed that far yet, but that's yet a third category. Let's call it "extra-scientific."
Extra-scientific topics are not supernatural. They exist in nature but haven't been described by science.
Supernatural things are things that defy a scientific explanation. There is no possible way for science to describe a supernatural thing because as soon as it does the thing becomes natural. Whereas Extra-scientific things start out natural and stay natural even after science describes them. Moreover, God is definitionally supernatural. Were science to describe him then he would become natural and thus cease to be God.
EDIT: Incidentally this is the reason ID advocates don't speak about a God. They simply speak of a creator.
-
Part of my thinking is that I redefine god(s) to be whatever suits me at the moment, instead of feeling confined to the magic man definition that plagues the major monotheistic religions. At any given time in my thinking, it might refer to some race of aliens that seeded the earth for life, to some collective consciousness/god as the universe idea, to an entity outside of this particular closed system responsible for its creation, to some aspect of my own consciousness that I encounter when I'm really fucking high, or anywhere in between.
If you ask me if I believe in a magic man who intervenes in the world, then the answer is no. I don't believe in a supernatural god. So strictly speaking in regards to the argument you've laid out, I think that would make me an atheist. I don't self-identify that way, though. I self identify with some flavor of deism, but mostly consider it a bunch of thought experiments.
-
Yeah, that works. And I'm not immune from spiritual feelings anyway even if I self-describe as an atheist. I experience feelings of profound reverence and worshipful love and astonished amazement just like everyone else. It's what makes us humans. Organized religion is particularly interesting because it represents a distilling of or perhaps more accurately a crystallization of millennia worth of spiritual sentiment spanning generations worth of individuals. It reflects ancient understanding and as static and fixed as it purports to be, it does morph over time. I think it's something that's locked in and hardwired into the human mind. As much as I fight it, there is definitely some kind of a basic kernel of truth behind the religious position that atheists have a religion of their own. There's no structure to an atheist's spirituality, though. Essentially the same applies to agnostics, I guess, and minimalist deism might also share much of the lack of structure. It would seem that people who adopt these philosophies act as their own religious leaders independent of all others. Maybe religion is a vestigial cultural-evolutionary stepping-stone that led to communal living in humans...
Ok that's enough for me on this topic. It's degenerating into horizon-gazing stoner-talk now. :P
-
some race of aliens that seeded the earth for life
That was an awesome STNG episode.
And this whole conversation is reminding me of Sagan's Contact.
-
I love Carl Sagan.
Carl Sagan - 'A Glorious Dawn' ft Stephen Hawking (Cosmos Remixed) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSgiXGELjbc#normal)
-
I loved Carl Sagan as well. I have a hard bound copy of "The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Demon-Haunted_World)" Didn't much care for the character as portrayed in the Dark Skies series but adored the Cosmos series.
scientists would be gaining purchase on a measurable, studyable, experimentable, subject which by definition could not be God.
Why? Regardless of "his" supposedly for the moment existence, I refuse to believe we will forever be incapable of detecting or measuring his influence precisely.
If he exists and created the entire of our existence then there must be "by definition" a way to prove or disprove such a claim definitively through science.
If some scientists want to believe in a god then fine let them work to prove his existence, because I am firmly convinced that in the endeavor they will eventually prove the exact opposite.
Great posts btw guys, good food for thought.
-
Why?
Because God is a supernatural entity. If science is capable of coming to terms with it then it's natural. If it's natural it's not God because God is supernatural.
I misspoke slightly earlier when I suggested that as soon as God-the-supernatural-entity is nailed down by science then he loses his supernature.
In reality, as soon as God-the-supernatural-entity is nailed down by science then we realize that we were wrong that it was a supernatural entity to begin with. Since God is a supernatural entity by definition, the only option left is that what science will have nailed down cannot be God.
-
Why?
Because God is a supernatural entity. If science is capable of coming to terms with it then it's natural. If it's natural it's not God because God is supernatural.
I misspoke slightly earlier when I suggested that as soon as God-the-supernatural-entity is nailed down by science then he loses his supernature.
In reality, as soon as God-the-supernatural-entity is nailed down by science then we realize that we were wrong that it was a supernatural entity to begin with. Since God is a supernatural entity by definition, the only option left is that what science will have nailed down cannot be God.
Right, but god being a supernatural entity refers only to the human invention of god. No matter which way you look at it, there may or may not be a god, but we thoughtful apes don't have the slightest way to prove or disprove this, nor would we likely be able to comprehend the answer if it were revealed to us. I think we sell the idea of a god short. The kind of ridiculously powerful being I could imagine fitting what we refer to as a god would be far beyond anything we could understand.
And the beauty of looking at it this way is that it matters not at all whether or not one professes to "believe in god".
-
If science is capable of coming to terms with it then it's natural. If it's natural it's not God because God is supernatural.
Why does God have to be supernatural ? as far as i know all god did was create the universe and has the ability to know all... which is not exactly supernatural. Unless you believe scince will not be able to do the aformentioned.
-
I covered all this under TLDR.
The main point is that if we say we can't know if God exists then it implies that we have a definition of God in our head. Si's going the route of the ultra powerful creature that is so powerful that we can't comprehend it. HoJo's going the route of the omniscient creator. These are both good attributes for "God" as we understand the idea. There are definitely other characteristics we could attribute to God. God is a conscious entity. God has influence over humans. God has worship-worthy significance. For many God is a beneficent being. All of these are great. The only problem is that as soon as we make a single prediction concerning a matter that we all recognize to fall deeply outside the realm of that which we can know, we are holding onto the possibility that a matter of vanishingly small likelihood could be accurate predicted. With each additional attribute predicted we multiply the unlikelihood that we've predicted accurately. Before we've finished describing our version of what god is we've predicted God into virtually certain non-existence. (Note: If we go the other direction and try to define God as minimally as possible, our definition dissolves. Can belief in God be described as simply as the belief that there are things we can't know. I would say no.) So why are we willing to dwell on the vanishingly uncertain prediction in this case when in all other cases we are happy to accept the virtual certainty that our blind guesses about things we can have no way of understanding are totally and obviously wrong?
Let's say I made the cavalier prediction that written in 40-foot letter cut from the living rock at the highest point of the Maxwell Montes was the final message written from God to his creation... in English. Given what we know about my experience with the Maxwell Montes range and given the average probability of messages cut into living rock on all ranges with which we are familiar, we can say with virtual certainty that there is no message on the highest Maxwell point. We can never know for sure without visiting the range and searching around, but somehow this vanishingly small possibility doesn't bother us. In this situation we would not declare the matter uncertain but we would declare it incorrect. Shouldn't the burden of proof (or even the burden of furnishing even a shred of evidence) lie on the person asserting that there is a message on Maxwell Montes rather than on the one assuming that a blind prediction relating to unknown subjects makes such a thing impossible?
The question comes up: how do we know that god is supernatural? The term "God" is a loaded term. If, like the ID adherents, you believe there is a creator somewhere out there in what I had earlier called "extra-science" (i.e. in that area of nature that is as yet undescribed by science) then this creator will necessarily be bound by the laws of science. To the atheist this is simply a part of nature. Your use of the term "god" to describe this creator is akin to using the term "god" to refer to your Irish Setter (who is also a member of nature). To the agnostic, God is an unknowable quantity. Since science is capable of knowing all that exists within nature, to the agnostic God is at the very least extra-natural. The same goes for the theist of course, although to the theist God would definitely be super-natural.
-
To the agnostic, God is an unknowable quantity.
umm, youre telling me what I believe ? or that there is only one way to be agnostic.
-
No, that's pretty much straight from Websters.
-
I love Carl Sagan.
Carl Sagan - 'A Glorious Dawn' ft Stephen Hawking (Cosmos Remixed) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSgiXGELjbc#normal)
I heard that the other day on RRR... fabulous piece of music.
I loved the "Cosmos" TV series when I was a kid... it went a long way to forming my opinions on a lot of things. Huge pity Carl Sagan died so young.
-
No, that's pretty much straight from Websters.
So that would be the Koran for agnostics ?
-
I don't know what religion I am. I like tits & beer.
-
I don't know what religion I am. I like tits & beer.
That's the best religion. Strip clubs are a sacrament.
-
I don't know what religion I am. I like tits & beer.
That's the best religion. Strip clubs are a sacrament.
Ah, a fellow believer. Peanuts are on the house, my son.
-
So that would be the Koran for agnostics ?
No, no. I'm just saying the common definition in place for agnosticism describes it in relation to a supernatural god and/or supernature at large.
Belief in the idea that we don't know everything is just as much a secular concern as it is a religious one.
According to common definitions the atheist will say that all unknown is natural.
The religious person will say that within the unknown lies God: a supernatural entity with attributes X, Y, and Z.
The common-definition agnostic will say that whether or not the virtual certainty that the religious person has predicted wrongly on matters that are logically beyond his ken is in fact reality is a matter we cannot know because absolute certainties are impossible.
I think that's silly, personally. Or at least a very fuzzy and muddled position.
I heard that the other day on RRR... fabulous piece of music.
Then perhaps you'd be interested in the somewhat worse but still pretty good sequel:
Symphony of Science - 'We Are All Connected' (ft. Sagan, Feynman, deGrasse Tyson & Bill Nye) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGK84Poeynk#normal)
There's a third song as well, but I haven't gotten to the point where I like it yet...
-
Ha ha!
You guys are fighting about agnosticism.
Calm down you bigots! What's with all the hate?
-
Straight out of a south park episode!
-
No, no. I'm just saying the common definition in place for agnosticism describes it in relation to a supernatural god and/or supernature at large.
Belief in the idea that we don't know everything is just as much a secular concern as it is a religious one.
According to common definitions the atheist will say that all unknown is natural.
The religious person will say that within the unknown lies God: a supernatural entity with attributes X, Y, and Z.
The common-definition agnostic will say that whether or not the virtual certainty that the religious person has predicted wrongly on matters that are logically beyond his ken is in fact reality is a matter we cannot know because absolute certainties are impossible.
I think that's silly, personally. Or at least a very fuzzy and muddled position.
How many times do I have to type that god dont have to be supernatural ? For you it might have be, but we are not talking about you.
-
You're the one that chose to use a word already in common English use to define your beliefs. I just accepted it at face value. If your brand of agnosticism is different than traditional agnosticism then I can't really speak to it without you divulging more about your unique beliefs that you call "agnosticism."
If God isn't supernatural then he must be part of nature. So he must fall under the laws of nature. Nature is knowable.
Agnostic = a gnostic = non gnostic = non knowing/non knowable.
You can see why I was confused about your label.
It seems to me you're a believer in the possibility that everything was created by one natural source and that this source is omniscient. Omniscience strikes me as a supernatural quality, but I haven't put much thought to it and I think you'd end up deep in philosophical waters about experience-based knowledge versus inherent knowledge and anyway this gets too deep for me. Still if we accept the position that this "God" is strictly natural, then it is knowable, and I can't imagine where that leaves your agnosticism.
EDIT: I had a thought. Perhaps you mean to say that "God is unknowable" goes too far, but that "God is unknown" is accurate. I guess that's true. God is certainly unknown to science. I think the thing that bothers me about that is the idea that by even framing the discussion around something that was pulled out of pure imagination to describe something that may exist in the realm of the unknown, we're already walking down the exponentially diminishing pathway of probabilities. Fixating on this infinitesimal probability is only something that applies (for many people) to the topic of God. I just don't see why the issue is of such importance that the normal probabilistic analysis breaks down unless the subject (God) is imbued with supernatural significance. If you maintain that your conception of God lacks supernatural qualities then the only other reason I can think of to hold out for the possibility of a god is to defer coming down on either side of the argument and/or to soften your position in the face of opposition. Both rationales seem mushy to me.
-
Calm down you bigots! What's with all the hate?
No hate here. I may not agree with HoJo's belief but I'll defend to the death his right to believe it.
-
"Agnostic = a gnostic = non gnostic = non knowing/non knowable."
a simple version. ( in relation to how god can exist and not be 'god' in the religious way )
God can proven to be natural and still be God. Sure God might turn out to be an Alien with way too much time on its tenticles or the result of the multiverse seroiusly fucking up when it tried to install an exhaust pipe. but it would still be what God was. I already posted the only things needed to be considered God, to have created the universe and to know all. Both (i believe) within the grasp of science.
now...some agnostics think you can also have something natural happening without the direct or indirect actions of soemthing sentient, but you may not know it is natural nor be able to define it as natural, that then becomes suitable for the label of God. big bang is the best example of that. personaly this is not where i place god. I dont place god anywhere other than in the exhaust type examples and even then it's not something i think about.
the agnostic does not always place god at the '7th day he rested' level. infact ive never met one who does. but i have heard of them.
If you would like you could consider me to be an ultra liberal atheist, however, I shall stick to Agnostic with a science bias.
Is this semantics ? maybe it is, personaly as somebody who believes in science i cannot throw out the possibillty of something meeting the criteria of god at this point in the knowledge base of science.
-
I get you. My only argument lies with probabilities. Your view is that probabilities are not certainties.
It's an attractive viewpoint for many.
-
If probabiltiies were certainites we would have half of the science we have now.
Scientist A : that's not likely given X blahblah
Scientist B : Well lets give it a go anyway, who knows.
Scientist B : Crap, you're right
Scientist C : hey wait a min, check this section of the results.
Scientist A : hmm, this could work with that other thing.
Scientist B : woohoo !
or the same type of thing with the 'lets give it a go' working out on the thing it was not likely to work out on given X.
shit imagine math if people gave up trying to disprove proofs. a proof IS certainty.
-
We're talking about the probability that a person can accurately predict something about which he admittedly hasn't the first fragment of a conception.
Your scenario has to be rewritten:
Scientist A : I think X blahblah
Scientist B : Interesting. That flies in the face of everything we've learned up till now. Do you have any evidence?
Scientist A : Absolutely none! I just made it up right now.
Scientist B : Well how can it possibly be correct then? Let's stick to building things up from what we know and what's likely based on that.
Scientist C : Now hold on, B! A may have just invented that idea out of thin air based on no evidence whatsoever, but we can't conclude that it's wrong.
Scientist B : Well by that logic I could come up with something out of thin air myself, and would you say that we should waste even an instant considering it?
Scientist C : I try to keep my mind considering all things with equal possibility until they are definitively proven false.
Scientist B : Well I'm more interested in theories based on evidence.
Scientist C : Oh, B. You fool. If we'd concentrated only on things that were more likely than not then where would we be today? Why we wouldn't even have math.
Scientist A : Well I'm going to go develop my theory of X. It will require invalidating much of what we know so far about nature so I'd better get on it.
Scientist B : Enjoy yourself. I'll be ignoring you due to the virtual certainty that your theory is wrong. If you try to teach your theories to the children in place of the reason-based work I've accomplished I'll write editorials. Scathing editorials.
Scientist C : I shall split my time equally between observing the actions of both. If B writes scathing editorials I'll try to play the part of the peacemaker. We're all equal under the eyes of what may be a higher being, and no theory is any worse than any others unless 100% proof negative is achieved.
-
Are we ? I thought we were talking about science.
You added the part about not having the first fragment. My senario starts with A suggesting its not likely, not that it flies in the face of/no evidence... just unlikely.
So unless you wish to state no benefit has come from exploring the unlikey... ~shrug.
-
The concept of God goes beyond mere unlikeliness. The likelihood of the validity of the concept is vanishingly small.
If you'll indulge a bit of shameful sophistry,...
1/3 = 0.333...
2/3 = 0.666...
but
3/3 != 0.999...
rather,
3/3 = 1
God is the 0.0...1 that stands in the way of mathematics.
I would say that no scientific advancement has come from exploring God except maybe by accident.
But then again, scientific advancement isn't necessarily the highest goal of humanity. Religion and the concept of God enriches our culture and society for sure.
-
God ? Why you still typing about that... I clearly said science. and I meant science. nothing in my previous 2 posts had anything to do with god.
-
I'm medium drunk right now, but I think I lost the line of the conversation. What about science?
-
Exactly !
-
Just keep your eyes glued to the Omega constant, and let me know if there are any big changes.