Why I Can't Be Muslim

[lixy]

[quote]pookie wrote:
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.

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.[/quote]

What on Earth is wrong with you? You apparently don’t read my posts. Instead, you twist my words in your head and reply to whatever you interpreted my word to mean. That’s not dialog.

Allah will reward anybody who frees a slave and there is absolutely no ambiguity about that.

The Supreme Court of the United States declared in 1857 that the slave Dred Scott could not sue for his freedom because he was not a person, but property. Islam proclaimed that slaves were not biologically inferior, that they had rights and there were ways a slave could buy his freedom.

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

There are several degrees of heaven and hell in Islam including an equivalent concept of purgatorium. When Allah says that He forgives, it should be interpreted as a salvation from an eternal stay in hell. But if you committed crimes intentionally chances are you’ll spend a few in the giant caldron.

[quote]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.”[/quote]

You claim that your brain is plenty able to understand QM. At the same time, a Nobel prize winner safely claims that noone on Earth can. So do most people in my school.

There’s nothing more to argue here.

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.

Fair enough. But I bet you get my point from response you might get from others.

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

Either way. Can you claim that your human mind isn’t limited when trying to visualize the universe?

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

By that logic, you can blame Islam for the Turkish genocide against Kurds. Then again, your bias is so pronounced, it wouldn’t surprise me if you did.

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

Yeah, well it’s not very convincing.[/quote]

Again, your mind must be a wonder when you argue against the word of an internationally renowned QM expert.

[quote]What other things can God not do?

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

Christian God > Allah[/quote]

You mean to tell me that, as a kid, you got a sample from your God. I’m intrigued.

Just so you know, Allah and the Christian God are the same God. We just don’t find the whole trinity concept very convincing.

[quote]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]

You evidently never heard of the word consensus before.

[irony]Can anyone please weight in on this?[/irony]

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

Why don’t the majority of Americans opposing war 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?

Ben Laden made it very clear that he’ll blow them up eventually. Many attempts have been foiled so far. You just don’t look closely enough to unearth the information.

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.

I defend the theory that Bushisms are carefully crafted PR techniques to make Bush appeal to the masses. It wouldn’t cut it if he was presented as a spoiled ivy-league brat.

But it’s just a theory…

[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.”[/quote]

I’m sure you constantly browse thru the Arab world’s press.

Stop talking about things you ignore. There were more than enough denunciations. You conveniently just failed to look them up.

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

If not, how can you dismiss it?[/quote]

I don’t dismiss the bible. I believe in its divine origin.

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.

Look at it this way; It means that to me, you sound like someone who knows two words of English and starts criticizing the work of Shakespeare.

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

I think I did.

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.

Why don’t you criticize your system that allows such changes? I think it makes more sense than calling for a witch-hunt.

What exactly are you trying to accomplish here? You want all copies of the Bibles and the Quran burned? You want to put all Christians, Muslims and Jews in concentration camps? You want to castrate them?

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?”

Those were not Muslims. They were blood thirsty freaks.

[lixy]

[quote]Finally, for lixy and the other nationalistic stooges, REMEMBER THAT ALL HAIL SET!!! was the God of foreign lands.
[/quote]

Sure. ALL HAIL SET!!!

Just as long as you remember that ALL HAIL SET!!! is nothing without ALL HAIL REP!!!, ALL HAIL REST!!!, ALL HAIL CREATINE!!! and ALL HAIL PROTEINS!!!

[orion]

[quote]JeffR wrote:

While your other silly little Gods were flailing around, ALL HAIL SET!!!
was ejaculating on the ground and bringing forth the plant bedded-kau. Did any of your Prophets make any bedded-kau. NO!!!

JeffR

[/quote]

Um, Im halfway convinced but Id probably be more impressed had I any idea what bedded-kau is?

[lixy]

[quote]hedo wrote:
Are you familiar with that passage. Does not Muhammad himself speak out about slaves being held as property and traded. Have I misinterpeted the passage? If so enlighten me please.[/quote]

Slavery practise in Arabia predated Muhammed. He used his influence as a ruler of the muslim community to adapt and regulate it under the system of shariah. His established norms encompassed condemning the mistreatment for well-behaved slaves, admonishing masters to regard slaves as their brothers, and providing means for slaves to ascend to the status of ‘clients’ (mawali) either as expiation for the master’s sins or pursuant to the terms of mukataba.

Hadith - Sunan of Abu Dawud, #2694, Narrated Ali ibn Abu Talib

Some slaves (of the unbelievers) went out to the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) on the day of al-Hudaybiyyah before treaty. Their masters wrote to him saying: O Muhammad, they have not gone out to you with an interest in your religion, but they have gone out to escape from slavery. Some people said: They have spoken the truth, Apostle of Allah, send them back to them. ]

The Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) became angry and said: I do not see your restraining yourself from this action, group of Quraysh, but that Allah send someone to you who strike your necks. He then refused to return them, and said: They are emancipated (slaves) of Allah, the Exalted.

Hadith - Sahih Al-Bukhari 3.721, Narrated Al Marur bin Suwaid

I saw Abu Dhar Al-Ghifari wearing a cloak, and his slave, too, was wearing a cloak. We asked him about that (i.e. how both were wearing similar cloaks). He replied, "Once I abused a man and he complained of me to the Prophet. The Prophet (peace be upon him) asked me, ‘Did you abuse him by slighting his mother?’ He added, 'Your slaves are your brethren upon whom Allah has given you authority.

So, if one has one’s brethren under one’s control, one should feed them with the like of what one eats and clothe them with the like of what one wears. You should not overburden them with what they cannot bear, and if you do so, help them (in their hard job).’ "

You not being truthful. But since you are speaking to a largely infidel audience is that not also permitted?

Sure. Just like crashing planes into your buildings is permitted.

If you’re unable to assume good faith, there’s not much I can do about it.

[Zap_Branigan]

[quote]lixy wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
Islam against slavery huh? Someone explain what the Mamelukes of Egypt and the Jannissaries of the Ottoman Empire were. If Islam is against slavery, explain the existance of those 2 groups.

You mean the fact that the Mamluks ruled Egypt? FYI, Mamluk means “possessed” in Arabic (in the literal sense of the term). The very slaves became rulers. Unlikely to happen in a segragationist pro-slavery state, heh?

As for the Ottomans, why don’t you get a clue?

Ottoman Empire

Your link confirmed slavery existed as part of the Ottoman Empire. They may claim the didn’t condone it but they allowed it.

[pookie]

[quote]lixy wrote:
Allah will reward anybody who frees a slave and there is absolutely no ambiguity about that.[/quote]

He doesn’t forbid slavery and does not punish slave owners. That’s tacit approval.

The Supreme Court of the United States declared in 1857 that the slave Dred Scott could not sue for his freedom because he was not a person, but property. Islam proclaimed that slaves were not biologically inferior, that they had rights and there were ways a slave could buy his freedom.

Even with an out, it still means that slavery is acceptable.

There are several degrees of heaven and hell in Islam including an equivalent concept of purgatorium. When Allah says that He forgives, it should be interpreted as a salvation from an eternal stay in hell. But if you committed crimes intentionally chances are you’ll spend a few in the giant caldron.

How does causing pain to the perpetrator in the afterlife compensate either the victim or his family and friends?

[quote]You claim that your brain is plenty able to understand QM. At the same time, a Nobel prize winner safely claims that noone on Earth can. So do most people in my school.

There’s nothing more to argue here. [/quote]

Ok, since you’ve got such a hard-on for Feynman, he also said this:

“God was invented to explain mystery. God is always invented to explain those things that you do not understand.”

Now, who should I believe? A Nobel Prize-winning physicist, or a desert dwelling illiterate pedophile?

Either way. Can you claim that your human mind isn’t limited when trying to visualize the universe?

Of course it is. But that’s exactly what I’ve stated earlier. We can’t VISUALIZE it properly; neither can we VISUALIZE the quantum world. We can still build models that allow us to understand how the universe and QM works. The models are incomplete and flawed; but that doesn’t mean we should discard them and stop looking.

By that logic, you can blame Islam for the Turkish genocide against Kurds. Then again, your bias is so pronounced, it wouldn’t surprise me if you did.

Er, what? I was commenting on Evolution not being taught in Islamic countries and you comment on Turks and Kurds?

Evolution, does Islam accept it?

Again, your mind must be a wonder when you argue against the word of an internationally renowned QM expert.

For some reason, I think you’ll also be arguing against the word of an internationally renowned QM expert. But hey, “God was invented” works for me. It’s so obvious anyway.

You mean to tell me that, as a kid, you got a sample from your God. I’m intrigued.

Like just about every kid, I was taught the same belief system that my parents had.

Just so you know, Allah and the Christian God are the same God. We just don’t find the whole trinity concept very convincing.

Me neither. Even a single god is unconvincing. Lack of evidence and all that.

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

Well yes. What is so special about tradition? It used to be tradition to travel on horseback. Do you still do that?

You evidently never heard of the word consensus before.

Consensus doesn’t imply truth. It simply implies that the majority of a group is in agreement.

Scientific consensus brings you closer to the truth, but that’s because of the science part, not the consensus part.

But if consensus and majority opinion is convincing to you, I’d point out that the vast majority of the world’s 6.5 billion humans do not believe Islam.

Can 88.5% of the world be wrong? By your “majority consensus = truth” logic, they can’t. Ergo, Islam = false. QED.

Why don’t the majority of Americans opposing war do something about it?

Ask them. I’m Canadian. Why does a peaceful muslim feel the need to deflect the question? It seems every peaceful muslim deflects those questions. And then you wonder why Islam has an image as a violent religion?

Ben Laden made it very clear that he’ll blow them up eventually. Many attempts have been foiled so far. You just don’t look closely enough to unearth the information.

Any links? References?

[quote]I defend the theory that Bushisms are carefully crafted PR techniques to make Bush appeal to the masses. It wouldn’t cut it if he was presented as a spoiled ivy-league brat.

But it’s just a theory…[/quote]

No one is that good an actor.

I’m sure you constantly browse thru the Arab world’s press.

I read the english version of Al-Jazeera fairly often. Not that much outrage to be found.

Stop talking about things you ignore. There were more than enough denunciations. You conveniently just failed to look them up.

If we have to go hunting for them and learn Arabic, you’ll never convince anyone.

Why doesn’t a muslim group buy a two-page ad in the New York Times and denounce violent acts when they occur? The Palestinians have mastered PR, why can’t others?

I don’t dismiss the bible. I believe in its divine origin.

If the Bible is of divine origin, how can you reject that Jesus is the son of God? Is God lying about that?

Look at it this way; It means that to me, you sound like someone who knows two words of English and starts criticizing the work of Shakespeare.

You can criticize the works of Shakespeare translated to some other language. That notion that a work is entirely denatured when translated is daft. Some particular nuances will be lost, or some of the clever puns; but the Koran is not a collection of jokes, right?

Why don’t you criticize your system that allows such changes? I think it makes more sense than calling for a witch-hunt.

Because I believe in that system that allows for change. Except for the change that would remove the ability to change it.

I also don’t believe in changes that remove rights earned by individuals in our societies. Reinstating unfairness and injustice in not acceptable.

What exactly are you trying to accomplish here? You want all copies of the Bibles and the Quran burned? You want to put all Christians, Muslims and Jews in concentration camps? You want to castrate them?

No, no and no. I want to keep the separation of church and state. I want religion to be a private matter; I don’t want it mixing with our politics, our laws, our education or our science.

Those were not Muslims. They were blood thirsty freaks.

There’s a difference?

[lixy]

[quote]pookie wrote:
He doesn’t forbid slavery and does not punish slave owners. That’s tacit approval.[/quote]

If I ask someone to reduce his consumption of cigarettes, would you automatically deduce that it’s tacit approval?

Ever heard of someone who approves of smoking reward you if you cut your consumption?

If you answer yes to those, then there’s nothing more I can say to convince you.

How does causing pain to the perpetrator in the afterlife compensate either the victim or his family and friends?

It makes you less likely to seek revenge and jeopardize your life, family and many other things.

That said, if you’re strong enough and have the good sense to not give in to vengeance, then you probably don’t need to turn to religion in such circumstances. It’s just that from my understanding, most people would.

[quote]Ok, since you’ve got such a hard-on for Feynman, he also said this:

“God was invented to explain mystery. God is always invented to explain those things that you do not understand.”

Now, who should I believe? A Nobel Prize-winning physicist, or a desert dwelling illiterate pedophile?[/quote]

What are you, 12? Feynman’s credibility is limited to Physics. He didn’t get any Nobel prize in God.

Your logic is surreal.

Er, what? I was commenting on Evolution not being taught in Islamic countries and you comment on Turks and Kurds?

Turkey’s Higher Education Council issued a regulation in 1987 forbidding female university students to cover their heads in class. And you call that an Islamic country.

But, let’s not diverge. I just said that you if you can blame the opposition to teaching evolution on Islam, you can also blame the genocide on Islam as well.

Evolution, does Islam accept it?

Sure, why not?

There’s more than enough scientific evidence that species do evolve.

There’s a very good book on the subject. “Evolution theory and Islam” by Nuh Ha Mim Keller. You may wanna check it out.

For some reason, I think you’ll also be arguing against the word of an internationally renowned QM expert. But hey, “God was invented” works for me. It’s so obvious anyway.

A QM expert has authority on QM not on God matters.

Like just about every kid, I was taught the same belief system that my parents had.

It must have been heavy shit to make you adopt such radically intolerant position towards religion.

Me neither. Even a single god is unconvincing. Lack of evidence and all that.

Times of miracles are over.

Consensus doesn’t imply truth. It simply implies that the majority of a group is in agreement.

Consensus implies that the probability of it being right exceeds that of being wrong.

Scientific consensus brings you closer to the truth, but that’s because of the science part, not the consensus part.

Ever heard of empiricism?

Now, if you went and tried my “consensus” method on a infinitely large number of problems, you come up with the answer you’re looking for.

7 billion of brains working for thousands of years cannot be easily dismissed.

[quote]But if consensus and majority opinion is convincing to you, I’d point out that the vast majority of the world’s 6.5 billion humans do not believe Islam.

Can 88.5% of the world be wrong? By your “majority consensus = truth” logic, they can’t. Ergo, Islam = false. QED.[/quote]

Very well. What do I care?

I showed you that it was more likely to start from the “God exist” proposition. I never claimed that majority consensus was enough to prove anything. It was just meant to give a feeling of what proposition was more reasonable to assume as a starting point for further investigations.

That said, your argument is flawed. Islam not being the only religion and all.

Need I say that it’s the fastest growing religion in the world?

Ask them. I’m Canadian. Why does a peaceful muslim feel the need to deflect the question? It seems every peaceful muslim deflects those questions. And then you wonder why Islam has an image as a violent religion?

You asked me why don’t the peaceful Muslims do something about the fanatics, and I pointed out that even if there’s a contestation movement, it does not necessarily succeed

Any links? References?

http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=958

No one is that good an actor.

Again, it’s just my theory.

I read the english version of Al-Jazeera fairly often. Not that much outrage to be found.

Since you speak French, here’s something that might give you an idea about the dictatorial regimes that rule the Arab world. There is no such thing as a free press.

http://www.blogdemagog.com/site/articles/articleinternat/artinternat_7fev.htm
“Mais l’affaire des caricatures a entrouvert une porte. L?hebdomadaire jordanien Shihane a os? publier, le 2 f?vrier dernier, trois des caricatures danoises sous le titre “Musulmans du monde, soyez raisonnables”, le r?dacteur en chef se demande dans l’article: “Qu’est ce qui porte plus pr?judice ? l’islam, ces caricatures ou bien les images d’un preneur d’otage qui ?gorge sa victime devant les cam?ras, ou encore un kamikaze qui se fait exploser au milieu d’un mariage ? Amman?” M. Momani avait affirm? ? l’AFP avoir “publi? volontairement ces caricatures pour que les gens sachent contre quoi ils se r?voltent”. Il a ?t? licenci? et arr?t? ce samedi.”

Many publications in Casablanca were also shut down after denouncing the riots.

Keep in mind that those dictatorial regimes are all supported by the West.

Why doesn’t a muslim group buy a two-page ad in the New York Times and denounce violent acts when they occur?

That’s actually a very good question. They’re probably afraid of being attacked by Ben Laden & co.

I can promise you that I’ll look into supporting/starting a group like that.

As far as I know, every act of violence by fanatics is harshly condemned by the majority of public opinion in the Arab/Muslim world.

9/11 was such an example:

September 11 attacks

Aftermath of the September 11 attacks

The Palestinians have mastered PR, why can’t others?

Might have to do with who they’re up against.

If the Bible is of divine origin, how can you reject that Jesus is the son of God? Is God lying about that?

Because the updated version says otherwise.

Because I believe in that system that allows for change. Except for the change that would remove the ability to change it.

Yet you oppose changes to accomodate some groups. The ultimate irony.

I also don’t believe in changes that remove rights earned by individuals in our societies. Reinstating unfairness and injustice in not acceptable.

I perfectly support you on that one. I fail to see how ad hominem arguments would help you oppose those changes. You may wanna attack on substance instead.

No, no and no. I want to keep the separation of church and state. I want religion to be a private matter; I don’t want it mixing with our politics, our laws, our education or our science.

Again, I strongly support that. Religion is a private matter and shouldn’t mix in with science and such. While you’re at it, you may wanna consider not using it to attack others.

There’s a difference?

Yes, there is.

What I don’t see, is the difference between you and a troll.

Well tried though.

[Gkhan]

Me get a clue?

From your wiki-pedia:

Recruitment, training and status
“The first Janissary units comprised war captives and slaves, selecting one in five for enrollment in the ranks (Pencik rule). After the 1380s Sultan Mehmet I filled their ranks with the results of taxation in human form called devshirmeh: the Sultan?s men conscripted a number of non-Muslim, usually white, Christian boys, taken at birth [1] at first at random, later, by strict selection ? to be trained. Initially they favoured Greeks, Albanians (who also supplied many gendarmes), usually selecting about one boy from forty houses, but the numbers could be changed to correspond with the need for soldiers. Boys aged 14-18 were preferred, though ages 8-20 could be taken. Greeks formed a large part of the Janissary units. Next the devshirmeh was extended to also include Serbs, Croats and other Balkan countries, later especially Ukraine and southern Russia. The Janissaries started accepting enrollment from outside the devshirmeh system first during the reign of Sultan Murad III (1546-1595) and completely stopped enrolling devshirmeh in 17th century. After this period, volunteers were enrolled, mostly of Muslim origin.[3]”

and about mamelukes:

 "In 1250, when the Ayyubid sultan as-Salih Ayyub died, the Mamluks owned by sultan killed his owner's heir, and the Mamluk general Aybak (who ruled 1250 - 1257) married Shajar al-Durr (Arabic: "String of Pearls"), widow of as-Salih. The Mamluks consolidated their power in ten years and eventually established the Bahri dynasty. They were helped by the Mongols' sack of Baghdad in 1258, which effectively destroyed the Abbasid caliphate (love them Mongols). Cairo became more prominent as a result and remained a Mamluk capital thereafter."

 Says they were OWNED by the Sultan.  Anyone who knows history knows the Mamelukes were A SLAVE DYNASTY.  There was also one in muslim occupied India which we now call Pakistan.

[brucevangeorge]

[quote]lixy wrote:
Yes, there is.

What I don’t see, is the difference between you and a troll.

Well tried though.[/quote]

So I take it its time for namecalling now?

Someone give me a PM when lynx starts throwing feces in a rage after losing an argument.

[lixy]

[quote]brucevangeorge wrote:
So I take it its time for namecalling now?
[/quote]

Pookie’s suggesting that all Muslims are blood-thirsty freaks.

Anyone who makes such generalization has to be a troll in this sense;

Internet troll

[emonkeh]

well , if it suits the muzzie women ,more power to them

however I believe we should have all fat asses wear something like that through the method of fashion

and textile manufacturers will profit!

[emonkeh]

there at least assholes like you

[pookie]

[quote]lixy wrote:
If I ask someone to reduce his consumption of cigarettes, would you automatically deduce that it’s tacit approval?

Ever heard of someone who approves of smoking reward you if you cut your consumption?

If you answer yes to those, then there’s nothing more I can say to convince you.[/quote]

Smoking is voluntary and self-inflicted. Slavery is not. Rewards and encouragements are used with smokers to help them overcome a physical and mental addiction to nicotine. I really doubt slavery is addictive to the user.

[quote]It makes you less likely to seek revenge and jeopardize your life, family and many other things.

That said, if you’re strong enough and have the good sense to not give in to vengeance, then you probably don’t need to turn to religion in such circumstances. It’s just that from my understanding, most people would.[/quote]

What I find interesting is that when I ask what religion gives you that you can’t get elsewhere, the first thing you mention is that it satisfies your need for revenge.

[quote]What are you, 12? Feynman’s credibility is limited to Physics. He didn’t get any Nobel prize in God.

Your logic is surreal.[/quote]

Well, fine, but you’re the one who brought him up to make a point. Notwithstanding that there’s no Nobel for God, Feynman still has been called one of the greatest minds of the 20th century. I’m sure he gave God some thought. Do you think you’re smarter than he is? Shouldn’t you wonder about his conclusion, since he was so intelligent?

[quote]Evolution, does Islam accept it?

Sure, why not?[/quote]

It appears to be a minority movement within Islam. The majority opinion appears to be that “adaptation” occurs, but that new species do not evolve from previous species.

A QM expert has authority on QM not on God matters.

You were the one arguing that Feynman was incredibly smart and that I shouldn’t contest his views. Now he’s smart in QM but dumb and ignorant at everything else?

It must have been heavy shit to make you adopt such radically intolerant position towards religion.

Not really. I was encouraged to be curious and question a lot. I was told about the faith, but not brainwashed with it. When you evaluate most religion objectively, they’re almost all filled with contradictions and absurdities. No perfect being would be caught dead creating something like that.

Times of miracles are over.

Why? If miracles are so convincing and inspire belief, why stop them?

Or is it simply because science and/or sleight-of-hand techniques can explain almost every “miraculous” occurrence?

Note that according to other religions, miracles still do occur. It’s a requirement for sainthood in the Catholic Church. To become a saint, someone must have performed a miracle during his life.

Ever heard of empiricism?

Yes. Have you? It’s based on experience acquired from repeatable experiments; not some personal feeling you’ve experienced.

Very well. What do I care?

You’ve been arguing that point for the last 3 or 4 posts now. Suddenly, when it doesn’t work for you anymore, you don’t care?

That said, your argument is flawed. Islam not being the only religion and all.

You’re the one arguing for consensus as support for an idea. I’m simply pointing out that 88.5% of the world doesn’t consider Islam to be the one true religion.

The argument can be applied to all other religions too. It supports my personal conclusion about religion.

[quote]You asked me why don’t the peaceful Muslims do something about the fanatics, and I pointed out that even if there’s a contestation movement, it does not necessarily succeed

http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=958[/quote]

[quote]Since you speak French, here’s something that might give you an idea about the dictatorial regimes that rule the Arab world. There is no such thing as a free press.

http://www.blogdemagog.com/site/articles/articleinternat/artinternat_7fev.htm[/quote]

[quote]Many publications in Casablanca were also shut down after denouncing the riots.

Keep in mind that those dictatorial regimes are all supported by the West.[/quote]

Ok, maybe. But even if all the Islamic countries have no freedom or the press, why don’t they use the presses from the free Western countries? Especially since it’s with the West that you’re image as a peaceful religion is in the toilet.

[quote]That’s actually a very good question. They’re probably afraid of being attacked by Ben Laden & co.

I can promise you that I’ll look into supporting/starting a group like that.[/quote]

Well, if you’re too afraid of Bin Laden to do anything, you can’t really condemn the West or its methods when it decides to step up and clean that mess you’re too afraid to deal with.

[quote]As far as I know, every act of violence by fanatics is harshly condemned by the majority of public opinion in the Arab/Muslim world.

9/11 was such an example:

September 11 attacks

Aftermath of the September 11 attacks

Might have to do with who they’re up against.[/quote]

So the majority (and a vast one, according to peaceful muslim) is held in check by a tiny minority? I find that very odd. From the outside, it looks more like a fairly sizeable minority being operating with tacit approval from the rest. There are a few token protest here and there, but nothing to inspire much confidence.

But again, if the vast majority are such cowards, please tell them to step aside and not interfere while we clean the mess.

You can thank us later.

Because the updated version says otherwise.

What updated version? If the Bible is the word of God, then Jesus is the messiah that accomplishes the old prophecies. There’s nothing left to update.

Yet you oppose changes to accommodate some groups. The ultimate irony.

I oppose changes that reduce freedom and liberty for some people to accommodate a minority. Big difference.

A few examples of situations that have occurred in Quebec in the past few months:

• An Hasidic Jewish temple asking the YMCA across the street to frost up its windows so that the young jewish men can’t see the women exercising.
• Hasidic Jews, again, asking that only male police officers deal with them. A woman police officer is to call for male backup and not talk to the persons.
• Jews again asking and receiving and extra three days paid vacation to be able to celebrate Yom Kippur.
• A young Sikh’s parents petitioning for him to be allowed to wear his kirpan (ceremonial knife) in school.
• Muslims asking that a separate swimming pools be made available for the girls in a school that has only 1 swimming pool.
• Same swimming pool demands being made on the city for the public municipal pools. They didn’t offer to finance it.
• Demands being made in hospitals to be seen before other patients because of religious holidays and/or sabbath day.
• Demands for dedicated prayer rooms in schools. (Public ones).
• Demands for segregation of various activities in public schools and publicly organized activities.
• etc.

Now, I can understand all the demands. What I don’t understand is why we should change to accommodate the minorities and worse, pay for the various accommodations.

If they want religious pools, fine, build them in or near the Mosques/Synagogues/Temples/etc. Frost your own windows. Don’t want to deal with female police officers? Don’t get arrested. Need a prayer room in your schools? Fine, do it. In your own private schools.

As for the rest, if you come to live here - we didn’t kidnap you and bring you here against your will - you learn to live in our society.

I perfectly support you on that one. I fail to see how ad hominem arguments would help you oppose those changes. You may wanna attack on substance instead.

What ad hominem arguments would those be? Maybe Alzheimer is hitting me young, but I don’t recall attacking you as a person directly.

Again, I strongly support that. Religion is a private matter and shouldn’t mix in with science and such. While you’re at it, you may wanna consider not using it to attack others.

Like I said, the day your religion impacts me the same way the color of your shirt does, you won’t hear a peep from me. Until then, I will fight and oppose any encroachment, by any religion, on our secular and free society.

[quote]What I don’t see, is the difference between you and a troll.

Well tried though.[/quote]

Apparently, you see only what you want to see.

[pookie]

[quote]brucevangeorge wrote:
So I take it its time for namecalling now?[/quote]

From someone who’s denouncing ad hominem attacks two paragraphs earlier.

I guess there are rules for muslims and rules for infidels.

[pickapeck]

[quote]pookie wrote:
I thought the answer would be “Because I was born to Christian parents who have already supplied me with a set of semi-coherent delusions from which I can pick and choose to justify all my prejudices.”

My bad.

[/quote]

You yourself are taking an extremely bias, prejudiced and offensive stance here. You are lumping all Christians into a one size fits all box and casting a judgment on the faith as an ideology based on supremacy. Christians do a tremendous amount of good in the world.

Catholic charities and Christian Charities, o name only two, have given millions in aid and services in LA and MI to name only one of thousands of activities. These charities aid the impoverished the down trodden and the sick, all based on values portrayed by Jesus Christ as portrayed in the Gospels. Christianity boils down to " Love others as you would have them love you."

I am a lapsed Catholic but I do remember my faith’s character.

I am quite certain that someone will trot out the priest sex scandals… and to that I answer, let the first without sin cast the first stone. Also, who of your less fortunate brethren have you helped today hhhhhhhmmmmmm???

[Gkhan]

“So the majority (and a vast one, according to peaceful muslim) is held in check by a tiny minority? I find that very odd. From the outside, it looks more like a fairly sizeable minority being operating with tacit approval from the rest”

I found this interesting article:

IndPride.com is available at DomainMarket.com

and this part which may shed light on your question:

All thoughts of pacifying Islam by assimilating it into the global democratic system must fall down before a simple, terrible fact: Jihad?holy war against all non-Muslims?does not represent a mere excess or defect of Islam, but its timeless core. According to Muslim scholar Bassam Tibi, “Muslims are religiously obliged to disseminate the Islamic faith throughout the world… If non-Muslims submit to conversion or subjugation, this call can be pursued peacefully. If they do not, Muslims are obliged to wage war against them.” World peace, according to Islamic teaching, “is reached only with the conversion or submission of all mankind to Islam.”

Moreover, continues Tibi, when Muslims disseminate Islam through violent means, that is not war (harb), as that word only describes the use of force by non-Muslims. Islamic wars are acts of “opening” the world to Islam. “Those who resist Islam cause wars and are responsible for them.”

“In other words, simply by the act of existing, the entire non-Islamic world is equated with war. That is why Muslims call it the Dar al-Harb, the Realm of War. Yet when Muslims wage jihad, they are doing it to bring about the peace of universal Islam. So whatever Muslims do, is by definition peace, and whatever infidels do, is by definition war. This explains why “moderate” Muslims almost never admit that Muslim terrorists are terrorists. It is because jihad itself is not war, but a way of pursuing peace. By such manipulations of language and such massive double standards, Islam reveals itself as a closed system that precludes any critical thought about itself, as well as any fair and honest dealings with non-Muslims.”

[pookie]

[quote]pickapeck wrote:
Catholic charities and Christian Charities, o name only two, have given millions in aid and services in LA and MI to name only one of thousands of activities. These charities aid the impoverished the down trodden and the sick, all based on values portrayed by Jesus Christ as portrayed in the Gospels. Christianity boils down to " Love others as you would have them love you."[/quote]

So do many other, entirely secular, organizations. Doctors Without Borders, for example.

Belief and faith are not prerequisites to doing good.

In fact, I find that rationalization rather appalling. It seems to suggest that if you didn’t believe in a reward/punishment system awaiting you after death, you’d feel no compulsion to help another human being.

I am a lapsed Catholic but I do remember my faith’s character.

If it’s character was so good, why lapse?

I am quite certain that someone will trot out the priest sex scandals… and to that I answer, let the first without sin cast the first stone.

Of course. Since we all tell little white lies now and then, or disobey the speed limit, let’s forgive those pedophiles and move them to another church, so they can continue to destroy the lives of young children. How dare we suggest that they should spend the rest of their lives in a prison cell?

Your Christian compassion is overwhelming.

[pookie]

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Jihad?holy war against all non-Muslims?does not represent a mere excess or defect of Islam, but its timeless core.

…

So whatever Muslims do, is by definition peace, and whatever infidels do, is by definition war.[/quote]

Sounds about right.

Even in this thread, the only way our muslim friend would denounce the 9/11 hijackers is by claiming they weren’t muslim.

On every other point, endless rambling justifications are provided. It seems no muslim can ever do wrong, see it in another muslim or admit either of those.

[pickapeck]

[quote]pookie wrote:
pickapeck wrote:
Catholic charities and Christian Charities, o name only two, have given millions in aid and services in LA and MI to name only one of thousands of activities. These charities aid the impoverished the down trodden and the sick, all based on values portrayed by Jesus Christ as portrayed in the Gospels. Christianity boils down to " Love others as you would have them love you."

So do many other, entirely secular, organizations. Doctors Without Borders, for example.

Belief and faith are not prerequisites to doing good.[/quote]

Simply because others do good does not diminish the good that Christians do and the faith of Christians certainly does not diminish that good as you seem to imply.

pookie wrote:“In fact, I find that rationalization rather appalling. It seems to suggest that if you didn’t believe in a reward/punishment system awaiting you after death, you’d feel no compulsion to help another human being.”

I have “suggested” no such thing and the motivations of the Christian faith to do good should not be of any concern of yours. The fact that I bring to the arguement is that they do a tremendous amount of good. Yet, you seem bent on a personal quest to tear down any goodness that is not secular.

[quote]pookie wrote:“I am a lapsed Catholic but I do remember my faith’s character.”

“If it’s character was so good, why lapse?”[/quote]

I am falible just like you.

pookie wrote:“I am quite certain that someone will trot out the priest sex scandals… and to that I answer, let the first without sin cast the first stone.”

pookie wrote:"“Of course. Since we all tell little white lies now and then, or disobey the speed limit, let’s forgive those pedophiles and move them to another church, so they can continue to destroy the lives of young children. How dare we suggest that they should spend the rest of their lives in a prison cell?”

As I suspected. This is an ad hominem argument and does not deserve a response.

[quote]pookie wrote:"Your Christian compassion is overwhelming.
[/quote]

Without some level of compassion society can not exist, although individuals that lack compassion do exist.

[pookie]

[quote]pickapeck wrote:
Simply because others do good does not diminish the good that Christians do and the faith of Christians certainly does not diminish that good as you seem to imply.[/quote]

I’m not saying it diminishes the good, I’m simply pointing out that faith is not a prerequisite to doing good.

Your argument was that we shouldn’t question or hold accountable churches because they do a lot of good.

If they were the sole source of good in the world, I’d agree with you, but they’re not. If they did nothing but good, I’d also agree. But again, they don’t.

I have “suggested” no such thing and the motivations of the Christian faith to do good should not be of any concern of yours. The fact that I bring to the arguement is that they do a tremendous amount of good. Yet, you seem bent on a personal quest to tear down any goodness that is not secular.

I’m all for goodness, no matter its source. Religion-based “good works” are seldom entirely altruistic. It’s usually accompanied with proselytizing. For example, the Catholic Church is very present and active in Africa. But it’s stance on birth control and its staunch opposition to condoms even in cases where someone in a couple has and STD or AIDS does nothing to reduce the suffering of a lot of people. Population control still occurs, but it does so when kids die of disease or famine.

As I suspected. This is an ad hominem argument and does not deserve a response.

You might want to look up “ad hominem,” it doesn’t mean what you think it means.

Second, you brought up the child abuse scandal, not me. What’s revolting is that you seem more scandalized by people blaming the Church for its reaction to the scandal, and not what the priests did to the kids.

If that was my position, I’d try to avoid having to give a real response too.

Without some level of compassion society can not exist, although individuals that lack compassion do exist.

Is it time to play “state some random obvious fact?”