Why I Can't Be Muslim

[orion]

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
pookie wrote:
Why is religion afforded that “mystical respect” where you have to pretend that believing impossible stuff is acceptable? If someone tells you that his milkman delivers his milk everyday using a flying horse, you’ll laugh in his face. If someone tells you his prophet flew to heaven on a flying horse, you have to respect that.

People are easier to rule, if you can convince them to suspend their rationality and scepticism.

They can be convinced that no one can truly know anything, all morality is relative. Thus, those who promote that view can get away with their agenda.

Excellent thread gents! Carry on!

[/quote]

To both of you:

I think that it cannot be denied that Christianity as a unifying force is dead in much of Europe.

Weather Christianity was “true” or not does not matter for the fact that it was also a unifying collectivist movement.

The moment Christianity lost its power over people other collectivist movements started that had a lot of traits of religious movements.

I am talking about nationalism in the 19th century and socialism in the 20th, or the mix of both national socialism.

Those movements were as irrational, murderous and fanatic as religions are were in their heyday.

Would it not make sense to believe in believe, meaning supporting the now existing highly tamed version of Christianity because whatever would fill that space would be much worse?

[Zap_Branigan]

[quote]lixy wrote:
…

“And if any of your slaves ask you for a deed in writing (for emancipation) give them such a deed; If ye knew any good in them: yea, give them something yourselves out of the means which Allah has given to you?” – Quran 24:33

…[/quote]

This clearly allows for slavery. Horrible thing.

[stellar_horizon]

[quote]pookie wrote:
Since you’re privy to the truth, could you enlighten us on what is the proper place of women in society? In clergy? How do they compare to men, are we equal?

We’ve been discussing this point, and women, apparently, can’t get a break. They’re worth, at best, half a man, have little future earning potential and are unstable and borderline irrational. Seems Eve was not God’s best effort.
[/quote]
I can’t tell you where the proper place of women in society is. Different societies/cultures have their own inherent beliefs on where women stand with regards to men. This is more or less a moral concept.

In Christianity, women are considered of equal value as men. Granted, as many posters cited previously, men and women share different attributes thus creating different roles for them in the spiritual scheme of things.

Just last week I was sitting in a break room at work with 4 others (a blend of agnostics/atheists). The news mentioned how Hillary was vying for the presidency. Their reaction was almost intrinsic, as if supported by logic.

They rambled on about how a woman should not be president of the United States because it was not suitable for our image. With or without religious dogmas, women are perceived to lack qualities men possess and vice versa.

And for all intents and purposes, Orthodox Christianity denotes that sin entered the world through a woman (Eve when she enticed Adam) yet was also defeated through a woman (the Virgin Mary when she was chosen by God to give birth to the Savior).

In religious affairs, men are considered the head and women the body. One can not function without the other. Different parts of the human organism provide different functions, but all components of the organism are vital to its welfare. So it is with women in the scheme of spiritual matters.

Men were ascribed to lead the Church as presbyters, hence women are not permitted to enter the clergy. Interestingly enough, women are “ordained” to nurture catechumens (new converts).

[stellar_horizon]

[quote]pookie wrote:
Well, you’re just a member of someone else’s heretical faction; why is your sect the enlightened one?
[/quote]

Because sola scriptura falls short of the [b]fullness of truth[/b] which Christ and the Apostles spoke of. The Church of Christ was commissioned in 33 AD, not 2007. The Bible is the Church’s handiwork. No contemporary scholar refutes this. Research the First Ecumenical Council of Nicea for details (if you’re genuinely interested in learning why).

[pookie]

(Thunderbolt: I require more time than I have right now to reply to your post above. I’ll try to reply tonight.)

[quote]lixy wrote:
“And mankind is naught but a single nation.”
– Quran 2:213[/quote]

That might be true, but in light of the rest of the Koran, that “single nation” is not a nation of brothers. If you’re not a muslim, you must be converted or perish. Infidels and unbelievers are not to be respected and accepted.

“And if any of your slaves ask you for a deed in writing (for emancipation) give them such a deed; If ye knew any good in them: yea, give them something yourselves out of the means which Allah has given to you?” – Quran 24:33

Is that supposed to show that the Koran is against slavery?

“If any of your slaves…” already shows that keeping slaves is apparently a completely normal state of affair.

The punctuation in your version is also different than the one I have which reads “give them the writing if you know any good in them,” So, IF the slaves was good, you MAY free them. That’s no argument against slavery. At best, it asks the master to free his slave if the latter has been “good.” As appeal against slavery, I’ve seen much better.

Oh, of course it can. In fact, it should. However, I don’t think I will be able to sustain such a dialog as I know none of us will budge an inch from his position.

Probably not, but that does not make the discussion uninteresting.

Keep in mind that we’ve each adopted our current position at some point in life. Who’s to say that those position won’t ever change again?

Is there a difference in the behavior of an atom or electron depending if you’re observing it or not? Yes, there is. Can we determine whether Schrodinger’s cat is alive or dead? No, we can’t. It’s usually the frame of mind I put myself into when dealing with such issues.

I fail to see how that connects with the current discussion.

For most people assuming a universe where God doesn’t exist is paradoxical since somebody had to be there to create it in the first place.

But they have no problem accepting a God (a being who’s even more complex than the universe) as having no creator.

I could phrase it this way: “For most people assuming a God without a creator is paradoxical since somebody had to be there to create Him in the first place.”

God doesn’t really answer the question of why is the universe there; it simply adds another layer of “why is it there” on top.

There is also the possibility that whatever created the universe is an entirely natural cause, and not a sentient supernatural one.

One doesn’t exclude the other. As a matter of fact, most religions highly encourage such things. And, just for the record, I’m active in a couple of NGOs.

You were claiming that religion provided some things that couldn’t be found elsewhere. I was pointing out that except for the belief in the supernatural, very little of religion can’t be found elsewhere.

It’s a choice. A subjective one.

You’re being unfair here. There was nothing witty about my quote.

The point was that quoting a person does not an argument make.

The guy was a worldwide authority in the subject of quantum mechanics and acknowledges the limit of the human mind to understand it. My professor gave a couple more quotes that go along that path from prominent physicists.

Ok. I still don’t really see the relevance of QM vis-a-vis God and religion. QM might be replaced by another theory eventually (like String Theory). Do you think that Muslims will accept to replace the Koran with something better, if it comes along?

[quote]I’m glad you asked. I gave that a thought back in the days. I actually started from “doesn’t exist” but ended up with too many unanswered questions as well as inconsistencies in the origin of the universe and the meaning of life…

Then I realized that most men believe in His existence. From there, it was only common sense to assume that the majority was more likely to be right than a tiny fraction.[/quote]

So Truth is simply a majority agreement? If enough people don’t believe in Global Warming, then GW does not occur?

At some point, a large majority of people thought the Earth was flat. They were all wrong. Another majority, at some other time, thought the Earth was the center of the universe; they were also wrong.

A tiny, tiny minority of humanity actually understand QM enough to build technology with it. It still works.

I think this “the majority is most likely right” argument is completely flawed.

The abundance of divinities preceding monotheistic religions should suffice to answer that. Hmmm…I guess I just made your argument stronger.

I guess you did.

You don’t believe in God, and it’s fine by me as long as you don’t make generalisations or false accusations about my faith.

Is saying “it’s not true” a false accusation?

Some people don’t like brussel sprouts. Others go crazy over them. Religion is like that.

You make it sound as if religious belief has no more impact on the world than the color of the sweater you picked to wear this morning.

If such was the case, I wouldn’t bother arguing against it. But religion is not just a question of taste. It’s not “you pick yours and I’ll pick mine and we’ll all be happy together.” People use their beliefs to inform their opinions and their actions. If the beliefs are wrong, it can lead to a lot of pain and grief for large groups of people.

[lixy]

[quote]pookie wrote:
That might be true, but in light of the rest of the Koran, that “single nation” is not a nation of brothers. If you’re not a muslim, you must be converted or perish. Infidels and unbelievers are not to be respected and accepted.[/quote]

Here we go again with the generalizations and false accusations. The Quran did say that God is the only one who can judge the infidels and unbelievers. And that’s the end of it. That Ben Laden believes he’s got a right to convert them by force has little to do with the Islam I know.

“And if any of your slaves ask you for a deed in writing (for emancipation) give them such a deed; If ye knew any good in them: yea, give them something yourselves out of the means which Allah has given to you?” – Quran 24:33

Is that supposed to show that the Koran is against slavery?

For anyone remotely familiar with the pre-Islamic Arabia, yes, it certainly would. Slavery was an institution that Islam took some time to eradicate, but finally succeeded in doing so.

Claiming that the Quran condones it is preposterous.
http://www.twf.org/Library/Slavery.html

God doesn’t really answer the question of why is the universe there; it simply adds another layer of “why is it there” on top.

The very definition of God - at least in Islam - shows that He was not created. So, there cannot be another layer. Thus answering the question.

You were claiming that religion provided some things that couldn’t be found elsewhere. I was pointing out that except for the belief in the supernatural, very little of religion can’t be found elsewhere.

I stand by that.

How else can you be sure that the sneaky criminals who don’t get caught in this life will eventually be punished? Where else does it say that it’s the intention behind your actions that count?

The point was that quoting a person does not an argument make.

Whatever you’re smoking, put me down for a pound.

Yes, often a quote does not make an argument. But in that context, my quote was appropriate and makes the argument. The argument being that even the brightest QM experts acknowledge that nobody really understands it. It’s your word against that of a community of brilliant physicists.

Ok. I still don’t really see the relevance of QM vis-a-vis God and religion. QM might be replaced by another theory eventually (like String Theory). Do you think that Muslims will accept to replace the Koran with something better, if it comes along?

No, it won’t. It will merely complete it.
Did relativity replace Newton’s law? No.
Did QM replace relativity? No.

Did the Quran replace the Old testament? No.
Did the Quran replace the bible? No.
Plus, the Quran says that Muhammad was the last prophet. Smart, ey?

I think this “the majority is most likely right” argument is completely flawed.

It’s self-evident. The more trials/samples/cross-examinations, the more the probability of being right.

I’m not saying it’s ALWAYS right. Which is the only thing you demonstrated by you counter-examples.

Why don’t you show me that my theory is ALWAYS wrong?

Is saying “it’s not true” a false accusation?

You keep bringing out of context quotes from the Quran and examples of bad things perpetrated in the name of Islam to sally its image. That’s the false accusations I’m talking about.

Did you read the Quran a few dozen times (in Arabic) to understand its overall message? Have you ever studied the history of Arabia? Did you go around the Islamic world and talk to people from all levels? If not, then you’re falsely accusing my religion to preach something it never did.

If such was the case, I wouldn’t bother arguing against it. But religion is not just a question of taste. It’s not “you pick yours and I’ll pick mine and we’ll all be happy together.” People use their beliefs to inform their opinions and their actions. If the beliefs are wrong, it can lead to a lot of pain and grief for large groups of people.

If history has taught us anything, it’s that men will abuse religion to serve some selfish low interest.

As long as your religion doesn’t interfere with mine, I don’t see any problem with “you pick yours and I’ll pick mine and we’ll all be happy together.” History shows that it’s possible. Many countries shows that it’s possible. Why can’t we all get along and stop agressing each other?

What you’re doing is fuel an already raging hatred towards a religion (since 9/11) with little insight into its core. That will inevitably lead to a lot of pain and grief for large groups of people. For the sake of innocent children, give it a rest.

[Zap_Branigan]

[quote]lixy wrote:

“And if any of your slaves ask you for a deed in writing (for emancipation) give them such a deed; If ye knew any good in them: yea, give them something yourselves out of the means which Allah has given to you?” – Quran 24:33

Is that supposed to show that the Koran is against slavery?

For anyone remotely familiar with the pre-Islamic Arabia, yes, it certainly would. Slavery was an institution that Islam took some time to eradicate, but finally succeeded in doing so.

Claiming that the Quran condones it is preposterous.
http://www.twf.org/Library/Slavery.html

…[/quote]

They why doesn’t it simply say free all your slaves?

Instead it says you should treat some of them nicely if they meet certain conditions.

Watching you try to spin this issue of Islamic atrocities is amusing.

[pookie]

[quote]lixy wrote:
Claiming that the Quran condones it is preposterous.[/quote]

I remain unconvinced. On slavery, the Koran is rather similar to the Bible. I see tacit support from both books.

The very definition of God - at least in Islam - shows that He was not created. So, there cannot be another layer. Thus answering the question.

Well, that’s just because you’ve defined God as not requiring a creator.

Just define the universe in similar terms and you’ll get the same results.

How else can you be sure that the sneaky criminals who don’t get caught in this life will eventually be punished?

I can’t, but I’m not sure why I should care about that…

Where else does it say that it’s the intention behind your actions that count?

Intentions are a dime a dozen. I’ll take action over them anyday.

Yes, often a quote does not make an argument. But in that context, my quote was appropriate and makes the argument. The argument being that even the brightest QM experts acknowledge that nobody really understands it. It’s your word against that of a community of brilliant physicists.

You quoted one physicist, not an entire community. No one disputes that QM is counter-intuitive and works completely differently from the macro world. But your argument seems to be that we somehow “stumbled” on QM and can’t understand it. The whole theory is man made; we understand what the theory says.

I don’t get your infatuation with QM. It has nothing to do with Islam. In fact, Islam is rather anti-science.

[quote]No, it won’t. It will merely complete it.
Did relativity replace Newton’s law? No.[/quote]

Well, yes. Newton’s theory is still used because it’s good enough for most purposes; but you couldn’t get a precise GPS system without relativity.

Did QM replace relativity? No.

Well, no, since they don’t address the same thing at all. In fact, they’re not even compatible with each other, which is why we know that one (or both) is wrong.

And if String Theory does pan out, it will replace QM and the whole Standard Model.

Anyway, shouldn’t we be discussing this in some other thread? I still fail to see what QM has to do with being muslim; other than you don’t understand God or QM.

QM has supporting evidence; God, not so much.

[quote]Did the Quran replace the Old testament? No.
Did the Quran replace the bible? No.
Plus, the Quran says that Muhammad was the last prophet. Smart, ey?[/quote]

I’ll give you “convenient.” Still no evidence of anything, though.

It’s self-evident. The more trials/samples/cross-examinations, the more the probability of being right.

You’re moving the goal posts. Previously you claimed that belief in God was justified simply because the majority of people across history believed in God.

Now you’re talking about trials, samples and cross-examination. I’d like to get a sample of God to test, please. Or if I could book him for cross-examination, that’d be great too.

I’m not saying it’s ALWAYS right. Which is the only thing you demonstrated by you counter-examples.

What I demonstrated is that popularity tells us nothing about the validity of an idea. Truth is not made so by being widely accepted; truth is truth, even if no one knows about it.

Why don’t you show me that my theory is ALWAYS wrong?

It’s not always wrong. If the majority of people think the Earth is spherical, and the Earth is, then it works. But you could also flip a coin and be right 50% of the time; would you defend the coin-flip method as being a valid instrument to find the truth of a proposition?

You keep bringing out of context quotes from the Quran and examples of bad things perpetrated in the name of Islam to sally its image. That’s the false accusations I’m talking about.

Putting the quotes back in context doesn’t make them any better. I can’t really post the whole Koran every time I want to illustrate a point.

As for the bad thing perpetrated in the name of Islam, you should be blaming your muslim brothers who perpetrate them. Stuff like the riots and murders “provoked” by cartoons of Muhammad printed in a Danish newspaper make muslim appear like a bunch of retarded barbarians. Those riots required organization and preparation; how is it that the vast majority of peaceful muslim is unable to prevent those stupid outbursts? Worse, why don’t we see or hear any muslim denouncing those rioters?

Dd you read the Quran a few dozen times (in Arabic) to understand its overall message?

Unfortunately, Allah, for all his wisdom, has not made Arabic comprehension an inherent characteristic of humans.

So, I’ve read parts of it in English and French, but some parts are incredibly tedious. Not as bad as chapters 1 to 9 of the Bible’s Chronicles 1, but close.

Have you ever studied the history of Arabia? Did you go around the Islamic world and talk to people from all levels? If not, then you’re falsely accusing my religion to preach something it never did.

I don’t have to relive my whole life as an Arab to be able to see the actions of many muslim who kill hundreds of civilians in the name of Islam and Allah.

Basically your argument is that you’re muslim because it’s the religion of your culture. Not because it’s right or better… if you were part of another culture, you’d be Hindu or Christian or whatever else the religion of the community would be.

As long as your religion doesn’t interfere with mine, I don’t see any problem with “you pick yours and I’ll pick mine and we’ll all be happy together.” History shows that it’s possible. Many countries shows that it’s possible. Why can’t we all get along and stop agressing each other?

That’d be nice. Although I have trouble swallowing the peaceful nature of Islam while Sunnis and Shias are busy drilling holes in each other’s head in Iraq. Imagine if they can do that to other muslims, how well infidels and unbelievers will have it if they manage to get power.

What you’re doing is fuel an already raging hatred towards a religion (since 9/11) with little insight into its core.

We didn’t throw those building in your airplanes.

For all the talks about being about peace, Islam is very easy to subvert for violence.

Try doing that with Jainism for example. THAT is a religion of peace.

[pookie]

[quote]stellar_horizon wrote:
I can’t tell you where the proper place of women in society is. Different societies/cultures have their own inherent beliefs on where women stand with regards to men. This is more or less a moral concept.[/quote]

So God doesn’t offer any guidance on this question?

In Christianity, women are considered of equal value as men. Granted, as many posters cited previously, men and women share different attributes thus creating different roles for them in the spiritual scheme of things.

So everyone’s equal, but they have to accept “different roles” in the “spiritual scheme.”

Right.

Equal is equal. If some roles are reserved for one sex or forbidden to the other, that’s not equality.

And yes, I’m aware of the physiological differences; it’s the mental person I’m concerned about.

Just last week I was sitting in a break room at work with 4 others (a blend of agnostics/atheists).

You mean 4 other Christians who aren’t Orthodox?

The news mentioned how Hillary was vying for the presidency. Their reaction was almost intrinsic, as if supported by logic.

Really. As if? How about “as if supported by patriarchal prejudice?”

Seems to fit better, don’t you think?

They rambled on about how a woman should not be president of the United States because it was not suitable for our image. With or without religious dogmas, women are perceived to lack qualities men possess and vice versa.

Britain didn’t implode with Thatcher was running the show.

I think any woman (anyone really) would be hard pressed to flush your global image further down the toilet than Bush already has.

And for all intents and purposes, Orthodox Christianity denotes that sin entered the world through a woman (Eve when she enticed Adam) yet was also defeated through a woman (the Virgin Mary when she was chosen by God to give birth to the Savior).

I thought sin was defeated by Jesus dying on the cross? You know, when God sacrificed himself to himself to pay back his own sin debt.

In religious affairs, men are considered the head and women the body. One can not function without the other. Different parts of the human organism provide different functions, but all components of the organism are vital to its welfare. So it is with women in the scheme of spiritual matters.

That passes off as deep in Orthodox theology? No wonder religion is slowly dying in modern societies.

[pookie]

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
They why doesn’t it simply say free all your slaves?[/quote]

Excellent question.

I was reading about Jainism, and came across this:

“Do not injure, abuse, oppress, enslave, insult, torment, torture, or kill any creature or living being.”
– Mahavira, the Jain patriarch

That’s pretty good. In one sentence, he exceeds the morality of the Bible and the Koran. It’s simple and to the point, and doesn’t require hours of creative interpretation to understand.

[Headhunter]

[quote]pookie wrote:

Ok. I still don’t really see the relevance of QM vis-a-vis God and religion. QM might be replaced by another theory eventually (like String Theory). Do you think that Muslims will accept to replace the Koran with something better, if it comes along?

[/quote]

LOL!!

Lixy, you will NOT defeat Pookie in an argument about religion. His knowledge is encyclopedic.

Forget all the Korans, Bibles, and all that. You can only know God through personal experience anyway.

[brucevangeorge]

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Lixy, you will NOT defeat Pookie in an argument about religion. His knowledge is encyclopedic.[/quote]

As opposed to the rock solid facts of personal experience which is qualitatively based, cannot be measured and varies between interpretations of individuals.

[quote]
Forget all the Korans, Bibles, and all that. You can only know God through personal experience anyway.[/quote]

This one I agree with.

[stellar_horizon]

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Lixy, you will NOT defeat Pookie in an argument about religion. His knowledge is encyclopedic.

Forget all the Korans, Bibles, and all that. You can only know God through personal experience anyway.
[/quote]
Encyclopedic? The guy is spewing nothing but diarrhea. There’s something psycho-emotionally defective about anyone who is so antagonized by religion. In every forum on Christianity, pookie pops up in attempts to share his misery of godlessness with the world.

pookie: slice down the road, not across the street.

Headhunter, you are right though. The epiphany of God occurs in the heart, not in the brain. As wax melts and clay hardens in the presence of the same sun, so too it goes with the hearts of believers and unbelievers.

peace be with you

[lixy]

[quote]pookie wrote:
I remain unconvinced. On slavery, the Koran is rather similar to the Bible. I see tacit support from both books.[/quote]

The Koran unambiguously says that God highly regards the freeing of slaves. This ultimately lead to an enormous number of slaves being freed. That you prefer to ignore this fact shows an extreme prejudice.

Well, that’s just because you’ve defined God as not requiring a creator.

No. God defined himself as such. I just accepted that definition.

[quote]How else can you be sure that the sneaky criminals who don’t get caught in this life will eventually be punished?

I can’t, but I’m not sure why I should care about that…[/quote]

Suppose someone killed a person very dear to you and got away with it. Religion assures you that he/she’s gonna be put on trial on judgement day. Where else can you find such comfort? An unbeliever is likely to squander the Earth seeking revenge, while the believer knows it’s just “partie remise”.

[quote]Where else does it say that it’s the intention behind your actions that count?

Intentions are a dime a dozen. I’ll take action over them anyday.[/quote]

Even the most well-intentioned person can sometimes end up harming others. Religion ensure that you won’t be judged for that since your intentions were good.

[quote]You quoted one physicist, not an entire community. No one disputes that QM is counter-intuitive and works completely differently from the macro world. But your argument seems to be that we somehow “stumbled” on QM and can’t understand it. The whole theory is man made; we understand what the theory says.

I don’t get your infatuation with QM. It has nothing to do with Islam. In fact, Islam is rather anti-science.[/quote]

Most of the physics department of my university agrees that QM is beyond the human mind. I happen to be one of them. Humans derived equations that approximately model the behavior of things on the nanoscale but it doesn’t mean that we understand it. Then again, you’re arguing against the word of a physics Nobel prize winner. I don’t know you, but I’m sure most people will give more weight to an authority like Sir Richard over you.

Just to give you an example of the limitations of the human mind, try to mentally approximate how much time is comprised in a billion of seconds. Give me an answer of the top of your head.

Now, what you’re trying to do is pretty much similar, except that you’re dealing with an infinite being.

Knowing something and understanding it are completely different things.

Would you mind elaborating on why you see Islam as being anti-science?

Anyway, shouldn’t we be discussing this in some other thread? I still fail to see what QM has to do with being muslim; other than you don’t understand God or QM.

I introduced QM to show that there are things simply beyond the human mind.

You’re moving the goal posts. Previously you claimed that belief in God was justified simply because the majority of people across history believed in God.

Now, you’re just being silly and taking my words completely out of context.

I never made such a claim. If you took the time to go back thru the thread, you’d realize that when you asked me about why I started with the assumption that God existed rather than the other way around, I replied by showing that I just used the “majority” thing to show why I prefered to start from “exist” rather than “don’t exist”.

Now you’re talking about trials, samples and cross-examination. I’d like to get a sample of God to test, please. Or if I could book him for cross-examination, that’d be great too.

Ha. God cannot be materialized (again, according to Him, not me).

If He just showed up on your door, he’d be removing all the “sport” from religion.

[quote[What I demonstrated is that popularity tells us nothing about the validity of an idea. Truth is not made so by being widely accepted; truth is truth, even if no one knows about it.

It’s not always wrong. If the majority of people think the Earth is spherical, and the Earth is, then it works. But you could also flip a coin and be right 50% of the time; would you defend the coin-flip method as being a valid instrument to find the truth of a proposition?[/quote]

Non sense. You’re assuming that Humans behave randomly.

You disregard thousands of years and billions of brains and say that the best success rate they can come up with is 50%. It’s ridiculous.

It’s obviously not 100% but it HAS to be more than half. You are trying to blast tradition as completely useless.

The public vote in “Who Wants to Be A Millionaire” illustrates perfectly my point.

As for the bad thing perpetrated in the name of Islam, you should be blaming your muslim brothers who perpetrate them. Stuff like the riots and murders “provoked” by cartoons of Muhammad printed in a Danish newspaper make muslim appear like a bunch of retarded barbarians. Those riots required organization and preparation; how is it that the vast majority of peaceful muslim is unable to prevent those stupid outbursts? Worse, why don’t we see or hear any muslim denouncing those rioters?

I cannot defend such actions and am opposed to them, but understand that all Arab countries are dictatarships with the media being used for political purposes such as blatantly inflaming
a topic. There are simply no alternative media to counter that (unless they’re jailed). George Walker Bush initially referred to his War on Terrorism as a “Crusade” and code-named the initial plan to invade Afghanistan “Operation Infinite Justice.” That, the aggression against Iraqis, the last summer carnage perpetrated by Tsahal against the Lebanese all contributed to that.

Just in case you didn’t know, the cartoons were published in an Egyptian papers weeks before the cause was hijacked by politicians.

That said, the people who participated in the riots do indeed ashame me.

Unfortunately, Allah, for all his wisdom, has not made Arabic comprehension an inherent characteristic of humans.

I appreciate your sarcasm.

Can it be that he didn’t equally distribute intelligence and the openmindedness towards learning new languages?

So, I’ve read parts of it in English and French, but some parts are incredibly tedious. Not as bad as chapters 1 to 9 of the Bible’s Chronicles 1, but close.

I second that.

That is precisely why you shouldn’t be asserting that you know the Koran.

Ever read a novel or watched a movie for the second time and realized all the jokes, allusions and details you missed? Well the Koran is like that, except that you only get the global picture after lots and lots of reads.

[quote]I don’t have to relive my whole life as an Arab to be able to see the actions of many muslim who kill hundreds of civilians in the name of Islam and Allah.

Basically your argument is that you’re muslim because it’s the religion of your culture. Not because it’s right or better… if you were part of another culture, you’d be Hindu or Christian or whatever else the religion of the community would be.[/quote]

My argument is that I’ll only accept critics of the Koran from someone who is knows it. Heck, I was one for a long time.

That’d be nice. Although I have trouble swallowing the peaceful nature of Islam while Sunnis and Shias are busy drilling holes in each other’s head in Iraq.

Hmmm… I usually get back to Christians by evoking Ireland but you’re obviously covered since there’s not a single atheist country in the world to show you that it would still be split at some point of its history.

I heard of the follies of intolerant atheism before, but never ran across one of the cult. You make most religious figures suddenly appear a lot less tolerant toward others.

[quote]We didn’t throw those building in your airplanes.

For all the talks about being about peace, Islam is very easy to subvert for violence.
[/quote]

Your airplanes?

I will not dignify this with a response.

[Headhunter]

I’m reading a book about the Carolingian Empire (Europe, about 750 AD to 900 AD or so) and the book talks how Muslim countries were the biggest buyers of slaves, buying slaves from as far away as Northern Germany.

It appears the Koran endorses slavery, since Muslims had no religious problem in buying people from Europe. If it was against the rules, the market wouldn’t exist.

[btm62]

[quote]lixy wrote:
pookie wrote:
I remain unconvinced. On slavery, the Koran is rather similar to the Bible. I see tacit support from both books.

The Koran unambiguously says that God highly regards the freeing of slaves. This ultimately lead to an enormous number of slaves being freed. That you prefer to ignore this fact shows an extreme prejudice.

Well, that’s just because you’ve defined God as not requiring a creator.

No. God defined himself as such. I just accepted that definition.

How else can you be sure that the sneaky criminals who don’t get caught in this life will eventually be punished?

I can’t, but I’m not sure why I should care about that…

Suppose someone killed a person very dear to you and got away with it. Religion assures you that he/she’s gonna be put on trial on judgement day. Where else can you find such comfort? An unbeliever is likely to squander the Earth seeking revenge, while the believer knows it’s just “partie remise”.

Where else does it say that it’s the intention behind your actions that count?

Intentions are a dime a dozen. I’ll take action over them anyday.

Even the most well-intentioned person can sometimes end up harming others. Religion ensure that you won’t be judged for that since your intentions were good.

You quoted one physicist, not an entire community. No one disputes that QM is counter-intuitive and works completely differently from the macro world. But your argument seems to be that we somehow “stumbled” on QM and can’t understand it. The whole theory is man made; we understand what the theory says.

I don’t get your infatuation with QM. It has nothing to do with Islam. In fact, Islam is rather anti-science.

Most of the physics department of my university agrees that QM is beyond the human mind. I happen to be one of them. Humans derived equations that approximately model the behavior of things on the nanoscale but it doesn’t mean that we understand it. Then again, you’re arguing against the word of a physics Nobel prize winner. I don’t know you, but I’m sure most people will give more weight to an authority like Sir Richard over you.

Just to give you an example of the limitations of the human mind, try to mentally approximate how much time is comprised in a billion of seconds. Give me an answer of the top of your head.

Now, what you’re trying to do is pretty much similar, except that you’re dealing with an infinite being.

Knowing something and understanding it are completely different things.

Would you mind elaborating on why you see Islam as being anti-science?

Anyway, shouldn’t we be discussing this in some other thread? I still fail to see what QM has to do with being muslim; other than you don’t understand God or QM.

I introduced QM to show that there are things simply beyond the human mind.

You’re moving the goal posts. Previously you claimed that belief in God was justified simply because the majority of people across history believed in God.

Now, you’re just being silly and taking my words completely out of context.

I never made such a claim. If you took the time to go back thru the thread, you’d realize that when you asked me about why I started with the assumption that God existed rather than the other way around, I replied by showing that I just used the “majority” thing to show why I prefered to start from “exist” rather than “don’t exist”.

Now you’re talking about trials, samples and cross-examination. I’d like to get a sample of God to test, please. Or if I could book him for cross-examination, that’d be great too.

Ha. God cannot be materialized (again, according to Him, not me).

If He just showed up on your door, he’d be removing all the “sport” from religion.

[quote[What I demonstrated is that popularity tells us nothing about the validity of an idea. Truth is not made so by being widely accepted; truth is truth, even if no one knows about it.

It’s not always wrong. If the majority of people think the Earth is spherical, and the Earth is, then it works. But you could also flip a coin and be right 50% of the time; would you defend the coin-flip method as being a valid instrument to find the truth of a proposition?

Non sense. You’re assuming that Humans behave randomly.

You disregard thousands of years and billions of brains and say that the best success rate they can come up with is 50%. It’s ridiculous.

It’s obviously not 100% but it HAS to be more than half. You are trying to blast tradition as completely useless.

The public vote in “Who Wants to Be A Millionaire” illustrates perfectly my point.

As for the bad thing perpetrated in the name of Islam, you should be blaming your muslim brothers who perpetrate them. Stuff like the riots and murders “provoked” by cartoons of Muhammad printed in a Danish newspaper make muslim appear like a bunch of retarded barbarians. Those riots required organization and preparation; how is it that the vast majority of peaceful muslim is unable to prevent those stupid outbursts? Worse, why don’t we see or hear any muslim denouncing those rioters?

I cannot defend such actions and am opposed to them, but understand that all Arab countries are dictatarships with the media being used for political purposes such as blatantly inflaming
a topic. There are simply no alternative media to counter that (unless they’re jailed). George Walker Bush initially referred to his War on Terrorism as a “Crusade” and code-named the initial plan to invade Afghanistan “Operation Infinite Justice.” That, the aggression against Iraqis, the last summer carnage perpetrated by Tsahal against the Lebanese all contributed to that.

Just in case you didn’t know, the cartoons were published in an Egyptian papers weeks before the cause was hijacked by politicians.

That said, the people who participated in the riots do indeed ashame me.

Unfortunately, Allah, for all his wisdom, has not made Arabic comprehension an inherent characteristic of humans.

I appreciate your sarcasm.

Can it be that he didn’t equally distribute intelligence and the openmindedness towards learning new languages?

So, I’ve read parts of it in English and French, but some parts are incredibly tedious. Not as bad as chapters 1 to 9 of the Bible’s Chronicles 1, but close.

I second that.

That is precisely why you shouldn’t be asserting that you know the Koran.

Ever read a novel or watched a movie for the second time and realized all the jokes, allusions and details you missed? Well the Koran is like that, except that you only get the global picture after lots and lots of reads.

I don’t have to relive my whole life as an Arab to be able to see the actions of many muslim who kill hundreds of civilians in the name of Islam and Allah.

Basically your argument is that you’re muslim because it’s the religion of your culture. Not because it’s right or better… if you were part of another culture, you’d be Hindu or Christian or whatever else the religion of the community would be.

My argument is that I’ll only accept critics of the Koran from someone who is knows it. Heck, I was one for a long time.

That’d be nice. Although I have trouble swallowing the peaceful nature of Islam while Sunnis and Shias are busy drilling holes in each other’s head in Iraq.

Hmmm… I usually get back to Christians by evoking Ireland but you’re obviously covered since there’s not a single atheist country in the world to show you that it would still be split at some point of its history.

I heard of the follies of intolerant atheism before, but never ran across one of the cult. You make most religious figures suddenly appear a lot less tolerant toward others.

We didn’t throw those building in your airplanes.

For all the talks about being about peace, Islam is very easy to subvert for violence.

Your airplanes?

I will not dignify this with a response.[/quote]

And just to throw a little more in to the mix. I am a Christian, (Lutheran). You and I pray to the same God. (as do Jews. Different branches of the same tree as it were. I don’t agree with much of your religion, but certainly not so much as to want to do you harm based on that. I think we’ve found some common ground. Would that the politicians and those in power could extract their heads from their asses.

[pookie]

[quote]lixy wrote:
The Koran unambiguously says that God highly regards the freeing of slaves. This ultimately lead to an enormous number of slaves being freed. That you prefer to ignore this fact shows an extreme prejudice.[/quote]

I’m betting that you posted the best surah available about freeing the slaves. It’s far from unambiguous. Unambiguous would be: “Free all your slaves. Now. Allah is great, merciful, etc.” What you posted is long-winded legalese that can be interpreted both ways.

Don’t take my word for it, just google for interpretation of that surah. It’s used to both show the the Koran supports slavery and opposes it. Try supporting slavery using “Free all your slaves. Now.”

No. God defined himself as such. I just accepted that definition.

Astonishing logic.

Suppose someone killed a person very dear to you and got away with it. Religion assures you that he/she’s gonna be put on trial on judgement day. Where else can you find such comfort?

Revenge doesn’t bring any comfort. The dead person is still dead; killing another one won’t bring him/her back.

An unbeliever is likely to squander the Earth seeking revenge, while the believer knows it’s just “partie remise”.

So the Koran fills your bloodthirst for revenge? Doesn’t Allah forgive?

Most of the physics department of my university agrees that QM is beyond the human mind. I happen to be one of them.

I rather doubt that someone who doesn’t know the difference between Relativity and QM is part of a dept. of Physics at a university.

I don’t know you, but I’m sure most people will give more weight to an authority like Sir Richard over you.

I think you have a weird definition for “understanding.”

Just to give you an example of the limitations of the human mind, try to mentally approximate how much time is comprised in a billion of seconds. Give me an answer of the top of your head.

32 years. But it’s not really off the top of my head, since I’ve calculated it a long time ago. It’s useful to put things in perspective when discussing evolution.

By the way, what does the science-revealing Koran say about evolution?

Now, what you’re trying to do is pretty much similar, except that you’re dealing with an infinite being.

Ok. Now replace “being” with “universe” See, that was easy.

Would you mind elaborating on why you see Islam as being anti-science?

Evolution is not thought in Islamic countries. Turkey ranks worse than the U.S. on the acceptance of the theory of evolution.

I introduced QM to show that there are things simply beyond the human mind.

Yeah, well it’s not very convincing.

Ha. God cannot be materialized (again, according to Him, not me).

What other things can God not do?

When I was a young and naive believer, my God could do anything.

Christian God > Allah

If He just showed up on your door, he’d be removing all the “sport” from religion.

So would Santa Claus.

Non sense. You’re assuming that Humans behave randomly.

Sigh. No, I’m showing you another bad method of evaluating the truth of something.

Coin flip method = bad at finding truth because of randomness.

Human popularity method = bad at finding truth because people believe falsehoods as readily (sometimes more readily) than truths.

It’s obviously not 100% but it HAS to be more than half. You are trying to blast tradition as completely useless.

Actually, I don’t think that the proposition “God exists” and “God doesn’t exists” are 50%/50%. I think that the “God doesn’t exist” one is around 99%.

The public vote in “Who Wants to Be A Millionaire” illustrates perfectly my point.

That a majority of people can get questions about cultural trivia right?

You don’t really care about whether something is actually true or not; you’re simply trying to fit any method that will validate your beliefs.

That’s not scientific; it’s not reason.

[quote]I cannot defend such actions and am opposed to them, but understand that all Arab countries are dictatarships with the media being used for political purposes such as blatantly inflaming
a topic. There are simply no alternative media to counter that (unless they’re jailed).[/quote]

Great, you’re aware of the problem. Why don’t the peaceful majority of those 1.4 billion people do something about it?

Instead of blowing themselves up in hotels filled with tourists, maybe a few martyrs could do it in the Official building of the House of Saud?

George Walker Bush initially referred to his War on Terrorism as a “Crusade” and code-named the initial plan to invade Afghanistan “Operation Infinite Justice.”

Well Bush is a fucking idiot who doesn’t understand half the words he uses. I’m sure he was quite unaware of the impact of using “crusade” in a speech. His speech writer probably was aware though.

That, the aggression against Iraqis, the last summer carnage perpetrated by Tsahal against the Lebanese all contributed to that.

9/11 was the great facilitator to those actions. Without it, getting public support to invade Afghanistan and Iraq would have been much hard to get.

[quote]Just in case you didn’t know, the cartoons were published in an Egyptian papers weeks before the cause was hijacked by politicians.

That said, the people who participated in the riots do indeed ashame me.[/quote]

Yeah, but all those ashamed muslims are so silent. Why has there been no denunciation in the media of those actions? Why is all the outrage spoken by secular journalist or Christian ones?

As someone once said, “your silence is deafening.”

Can it be that he didn’t equally distribute intelligence and the openmindedness towards learning new languages?

Have you learned Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic to read the Bible in it’s original form?

If not, how can you dismiss it?

That is precisely why you shouldn’t be asserting that you know the Koran.

Let’s be serious here. There’s no way a cruel surah in English is going to be a appeal to compassion in the original Arabic. Nuances might be lost, but I think the overall meaning is understandable.

I think the true message from God would be understandable to everyone, no matter in what language it’s told.

Something that’s so convoluted and ambiguous that it can only be properly grasped in one language sounds suspiciously like the work of man.

Ever read a novel or watched a movie for the second time and realized all the jokes, allusions and details you missed? Well the Koran is like that, except that you only get the global picture after lots and lots of reads.

Erasing reason does take a good bit of brainwashing.

My argument is that I’ll only accept critics of the Koran from someone who is knows it. Heck, I was one for a long time.

That’s a nice argument. Taken to it’s logical conclusion, it means that only members of a religion should be able to criticize it.

I heard of the follies of intolerant atheism before, but never ran across one of the cult. You make most religious figures suddenly appear a lot less tolerant toward others.

Is it possible to make religious figures appear less tolerant? I think you wrote the opposite of what you meant.

And the only way I’m intolerant towards religion is because believers tend to try and force it on everyone else. They ask for a bunch of special considerations from secular society to accommodate them; they seek to have some laws changed to better reflect their religious laws.

Like I said, if the impact was similar to what color of shirt you picked today, I wouldn’t bother. But it’s not.

[quote]Your airplanes?

I will not dignify this with a response.[/quote]

Yeah, sorry. Our hijacked airplanes, filled with civilians.

I’d bet also that those 19 hijackers memorized the Koran before you ever did and read it a lot more times than you did. How come they missed “the global picture?”

[JeffR]

[quote]stellar_horizon wrote:

peace be with you[/quote]

stellar!!!

It’s been too long. I’ve been busy in the interim.

I have a new God who would destroy yours in a nanosecond: ALL HAIL SET!!!

The God of caravans, storms, cosmic fire, wind, desert and thunder!!!

All hail Set!!!

He shows he knows how to take a hit. It’s said that Horus pulled off his testicles. ALL HAIL SET!!!

Did ALL HAIL SET!!! cry, wail, and moan about his fate. NO!!!

ALL HAIL SET!!! He was thought to be co-equal to ALL HAIL AMMAN RA!!!

ALL HAIL SET!!! was politically correct before the term was invented. He was a bisexual. Therefore, he understood and didn’t denigrate homosexuality. ALL HAIL SET!!!

In summary, you guys can have your little debates. However, if your head was screwed on correctly, you’d be bowing to the strength, wisdom, and tolerance that is ALL HAIL SET!!!

JeffR

[Headhunter]

Lixy,

Are you still a Muslim?

[pookie]

[quote]stellar_horizon wrote:
Encyclopedic? The guy is spewing nothing but diarrhea.[/quote]

Spoken like a true Christian Orthodox scholar. Those theological terms are dazzling.

There’s something psycho-emotionally defective about anyone who is so antagonized by religion. In every forum on Christianity, pookie pops up in attempts to share his misery of godlessness with the world.

Yeah, you got me. I’m so miserable.

I think you’re just jealous because I’m free in so many ways you’re not.

pookie: slice down the road, not across the street.

Orthodox priests have nice hats.

Headhunter, you are right though. The epiphany of God occurs in the heart, not in the brain.

Isn’t it odd, though that the thing that most distinguishes us from animals, our brain, is to be turned off for religion?

As wax melts and clay hardens in the presence of the same sun, so too it goes with the hearts of believers and unbelievers.

Hey, I got one too:

Mitsos lived above his restaurant with only his beloved pet dog for company.

One day the dog died and Mitsos went to the parish priest and asked, “Father, my dog died. Could you do a Trisagion for the poor animal? He was like a son to me.”

Father Nikos shook his head, “I’m afraid not; we cannot have services for an animal in the church. But, there’s a Unitarian church on the next block, and God knows what they believe. Maybe they’ll do something for your dog.”

Mitsos said, “I’ll go right away Father. Do you think $5,000 is enough to donate to them for the service?”

Father Niko exclaimed, “Kyrie Eleison! Vre Mitso, why didn’t you tell me the dog was Greek Orthodox?”