Designer Religion

[S.A.M.]

Firstly: I am not concerned with wars in the past as only recently has secularism gained any power.

Secondly: I have already gave my reasons why I think wars such as the recent war in Iraq are due to religious beliefs. There would have been no invasion of Iraq if the USA was a secular country. The Bush administration is not stupid despite popular opinion - They know what they can get away with due to the support of the Christian right. In no way would liberal voters or secularists agree with such a war. Why on earth do you think someone like Bush would come into power in the first place? Take a look at the Christian right...

So you are not concerned with the past? Presently, the WHO has released a world violence report, in which it claims that over half of the people who died in 2002 under violent circumstances were suicides one-third were homicides and one-fifth were due to armed conflict ( war).

Those who died in the suicide/murders fell mostly in the category of child abuse, partner abuse, youth aggression and elder abuse.

The toal number of people who died was 1.6 million or 28.8 per 100000.

Would you care to comment on that?

 

[(Q)]

Yes but the hypothesis is based pretty much on what knowledge is already available.

Knowledge that is available and useful to us. What is your point?

In the sense of not being open to new interpretations of old theories or alternative explanations for the same observations

Sorry, but whatever interpretations and alternative explanations one has, they should demonstrate they're better than what's already understood. Science will not stop anyone from doing that.

Is that true science?

Not really, it's just an example of a mission statement.

Isn't it better to have an answer that leads to more exploration and further questions?

Isn't that what already occurs in science?

We can also reject perfectly good possibilities that may be connected because we are so certain that we have resolved the question to our satisfaction.

That is not science.

Does it; how? Isn't the primary requirement of religion faith?

Yup. That should answer your question.

 

[S.A.M.]

Knowledge that is available and useful to us. What is your point?

Isn't the usefulness of the knowledge also based only on how far we are able to predict the consequences of that knowledge?

Sorry, but whatever interpretations and alternative explanations one has, they should demonstrate they're better than what's already understood. Science will not stop anyone from doing that.

I did not claim that it would; but being open to alternatives or not can limit the usefulness of the knowledge.

Not really, it's just an example of a mission statement.

Yes and a mission statement should be broad enough to embrace all possibilities or it is short-sighted and only valuable or effective in the short-term.

Isn't that what already occurs in science?

Does it? Isn't science presently driven by the immediate, material gain to be had from it?

That is not science.

Yes, but since in the present climate only results matter and especially only the expected results, what are the chances of negative results making their way into the literature? How many scientists are "trained" to focus on the data that will be profitable?

Yup. That should answer your question

And you completely missed the point.

 

[(Q)]

Isn't the usefulness of the knowledge also based only on how far we are able to predict the consequences of that knowledge?

It's an ongoing process, I still don't understand what you're getting at.

Science gives us useful knowledge, and continues to do so each day with more knowledge.

I did not claim that it would; but being open to alternatives or not can limit the usefulness of the knowledge.

Religion is not open to alternatives, if that's what you mean, nor does it provide us with any useful knowledge.

Yes and a mission statement should be broad enough to embrace all possibilities or it is short-sighted and only valuable or effective in the short-term.

Ok.

Does it? Isn't science presently driven by the immediate, material gain to be had from it?

Such as what?

Yes, but since in the present climate only results matter and especially only the expected results, what are the chances of negative results making their way into the literature? How many scientists are "trained" to focus on the data that will be profitable?

I'm at a loss as to where you're going with all this? What exactly are you asking here?

And you completely missed the point.

I suppose so. But then, perhaps you did too.

 

[S.A.M.]

It's an ongoing process, I still don't understand what you're getting at. Science gives us useful knowledge, and continues to do so each day with more knowledge.

Just that science is limited by available tools and knowledge and it is presumptuous (? not the exact word I'm looking for but close), to conclude that it is currently fully equipped to test for any and every phenomena.

Religion is not open to alternatives, if that's what you mean, nor does it provide us with any useful knowledge.

The very fact that religion is interpretative means that it is open to alternatives.

Which begs the question, if religion is useless and only leads to war and segregation, why has it been present in each and every society in some form or another?

Such as what?

You tell me - what is the main force driving scientific research today? How much is basic and how much applied? What drives applied research in most fields?

I'm at a loss as to where you're going with all this? What exactly are you asking here?

I am asking you to consider the possibility that not everything is so black and white that we can ignore the shades.

 

[SnakeLord]

The process of religion is basically a process of emancipation - your statements about anger, attachment and fear indicate you have no knowledge of practically applying emancipation

No, it shows I have knowledge concerning what emotions are.

the proper application of emanicipation is utilization, the middle path between the diametricly opposed extremes of renunciation and sense enjoyment. Duality is the enemy of spiritual endeavour

Please, this kind of senseless tripe bothers me.

until of course you introduce the idea that god is also there in the equation (God being possessed of a superior level of consciousness that doesn't fluctuate between illusion and liberation like the living entity's).

At which stage you are still talking senseless tripe unless you can provide some evidence. It's no different to someone 'introducing' the idea that leprechauns are there. It has no value whatsoever.

(Latin root relgia - connection - same with sanskrit Yoga - yoke or connect)

Truly fascinating. While I fail to see the worth in giving me the latin and sanskrit words, it was wonderful nonetheless.

Anyway if you think it is something like "hearing voices" that is as crude as piling firewood under a nasa rocket set for outer space

Sorry, that's my job. What do you know about "hearing voices"? Or are you just trying to find some difference between the two because any similarity and you'd realise how utterly fucked up it is?

"Just as those with ordinary vision see the sun's rays in the sky, so the wise and learned devotees always see the supreme abode of Lord Visnu. Because those highly praiseworthy and spiritually awake brähmanas can see that abode, they can also reveal it to others. [Rg Veda]"

Again, truly fascinating.

And that avenue of connection is catalysed by accepting the instruction of a qualified person

Fine, so you have to accept that I am qualified when it comes to "detecting presences" and "hearing voices" and so must accept my instruction that when I tell you these people have problems, not gods talking to them.

But they are crazy people - sounds like you work with the mentally insane

So are those that claim they hear gods - and yet you dare call them 'qualified'. There are levels of course - those that simply hear gods, those that get orders from gods, those that undertake those orders and stone their children to death, preach to zoo animals, or blow up abortion clinics. All very qualified god listeners I guess.

- I am talking about persons who actually have credibility in th e field of religion - like for instance do any of these 60+ people have students or a congregation? (not that a following is evidence of qualification, but it can be initially helpful) Have they pulished anything in the field of religion that has born an influence on practioners? are they accepted as leaders in the field of religious knowledge?

Certainly. I treated David Koresh, (I didn't really, it's just an example). He had a congregation, followers, influence, has published things in the field of religion, and had students.

Next.

And most importantly who is their teacher?

god, apparently.

 

[lightgigantic]

No, it shows I have knowledge concerning what emotions are.



Please, this kind of senseless tripe bothers me.



At which stage you are still talking senseless tripe unless you can provide some evidence. It's no different to someone 'introducing' the idea that leprechauns are there. It has no value whatsoever.

Actually i was trying to illustrate how your interpretation of attachment (previously quoted "being freed from attachment fear and anger") is not correct - you defined that to mean that one must be detached and just dump everything they have in the way of material to prove they are detached - I was trying to indicate that that's a dualistic concept because we neither own anything (we die empty handed) or renounce anything (how are you going to renouce food and water or the earth?).

Anyway, as you can see it is quite an innvolved topic, and one not so conducive to this thread - the simple fact that emmotions are such a difficult thing to comprehend and often get us in to trouble should indicate enough about the difficulty of being free from their implications (a unique quality that a saintly person possesses - they are not disturbed by lust, wrath, greed etc like an ordinary person)

Sorry, that's my job. What do you know about "hearing voices"? Or are you just trying to find some difference between the two because any similarity and you'd realise how utterly fucked up it is?

(On a side note snakelord, please try and refrain from coarse language - good manners is an essential ingredient to any intelligent discussion and makes it easier to examine the ideas of a person as opposed to just focusing on insulting the person )
Don't misunderstand me - I don't doubt that the people you deal with are crazy - What i do doubt is whether the people you deal with are the right persons to judge the qualities of a saintly person by. Just like I mentioned earlier, would it be reasonable to ask you to prove the credibility of genetic research by using a group of people who believed their lounge chair received secret messages from the CIA? If you don't expect science to be proven by the lowest denominator, why do you expect religion to be proven by the same class of lunatic?

Fine, so you have to accept that I am qualified when it comes to "detecting presences" and "hearing voices" and so must accept my instruction that when I tell you these people have problems, not gods talking to them.

Yes I don't doubt that god is not talking to them - I am sure, as you are, that it is in fact their mind talking to them - I don't doubt that you are qualified in psychiatric nursing but i do doubt that you are qualified in the field of religion - I mean suppose you suddenly got a cartload of crazy people who thought they were genetic scientists - would that suddenly make you an expert in understanding the nature of genetics?

So are those that claim they hear gods - and yet you dare call them 'qualified'. There are levels of course - those that simply hear gods, those that get orders from gods, those that undertake those orders and stone their children to death, preach to zoo animals, or blow up abortion clinics. All very qualified god listeners I guess.

No - i didn't say that all - i said that a person must be intelligent enough to know who is qualfied and who is not - its not all or nothing - its not like the credibility of genetics rests on either everyone who speaks about genetics being correct otherwise no one is correct - the credibility of genetics depends upon qualified persons

Certainly. I treated David Koresh, (I didn't really, it's just an example). He had a congregation, followers, influence, has published things in the field of religion, and had students.

- I said these were initial indications of qualification - I mean they can straight away help you distinguish whether you are dealing with a street vagrant or someone who has actually applied themself to a field of knowledge. I even declared in my previous statement that these qualities (congregation, influence through publishing etc) were not fallible so i don't know what you are trying to prove by saying they are fallible here - no need to convince me - I already know! Lol
The main quality, however, I gave emphasis to was to examine the historical continuum a person is coming from - in other words who is their teacher (This can help you pick out personalities like Mr Koresh). Your answer was

god, apparently.

If a person thinks that there is nothing between themselves and god, and have not studied under someone who teaches them by practical example how to approach god, and if their teacher of their teacher also doesn't have the same link to such a personality and so and so, then immediately you can disreagard them. whatever they are speaking is nonsense and the only benefit you can get from listening to them is the understanding that there is no benefit listening to them (a benefit you seem to have acquired - congratulations!!!!)

 

[(Q)]

Just that science is limited by available tools and knowledge and it is presumptuous (? not the exact word I'm looking for but close), to conclude that it is currently fully equipped to test for any and every phenomena.

hehe - science is 'presumptuous,' too funny.

Where does science make the claim it is currently fully equipped to test for any and every phenomena? Are you just making this stuff up or something?

The very fact that religion is interpretative means that it is open to alternatives.

And it is open to misinterpretation too. What alternatives do you refer?

Which begs the question, if religion is useless and only leads to war and segregation, why has it been present in each and every society in some form or another?

So has myth and mysticism. Which begs the question, why do you believe in your religion and not those others?

You tell me - what is the main force driving scientific research today? How much is basic and how much applied? What drives applied research in most fields?

Availble funding.

I am asking you to consider the possibility that not everything is so black and white that we can ignore the shades.

I assure you, good science is based on rigor, very little is ignored, if at all.

Considering possibilities is one thing, accepting them is another.

 

[S.A.M.]

hehe - science is 'presumptuous,' too funny.

the 'it' does not refer to science, as you well know.

Where does science make the claim it is currently fully equipped to test for any and every phenomena?

Agreed.

Are you just making this stuff up or something?

And it is open to misinterpretation too. What alternatives do you refer?

You have to work with me here; remember what I said about philosophy vs action?

So has myth and mysticism. Which begs the question, why do you believe in your religion and not those others?

Actually, I've studied most of the religions, Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity ( not Judaism cos I didn't know any Jews back home). I've attended mass, confirmation, poojas, satsangs, etc.

Islam however is the religion I found most attractive because the focus in Islam is on the individual; There are no head priests, no Pope, no temple, no church.

Availble funding.

Right

I assure you, good science is based on rigor, very little is ignored, if at all.

Considering possibilities is one thing, accepting them is another

Yes of course but considering them is important.

 

[(Q)]

Actually, I've studied most of the religions, Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity ( not Judaism cos I didn't know any Jews back home). I've attended mass, confirmation, poojas, satsangs, etc.

Islam however is the religion I found most attractive because the focus in Islam is on the individual; There are no head priests, no Pope, no temple, no church.

Then, you accept and believe everything there is about Islam?

Yes of course but considering them is important.

So what? Religion has been considered and found to be completely unacceptable. Each one claims to be the one religion, yet there are thousands of them, hence they all can't be right.

You yourself claim to have chosen Islam over the others as you felt it attractive due to the focus on the individual, and of course because you were brought up with it. In other words, you've "designed" your own religion.

 

[S.A.M.]

Then, you accept and believe everything there is about Islam?

You're repeating yourself.

So what? Religion has been considered and found to be completely unacceptable. Each one claims to be the one religion, yet there are thousands of them, hence they all can't be right.

Considered by whom?

You yourself claim to have chosen Islam over the others as you felt it attractive due to the focus on the individual, and of course because you were brought up with it. In other words, you've "designed" your own religion.

Last time I looked I had a right to my beliefs.

The three great strategies for obscuring an issue are to introduce irrelevancies, to arouse prejudice, and to excite ridicule.... ---Bergen Evans, The Natural History of Nonsense

 

[SnakeLord]

Actually i was trying to illustrate how your interpretation of attachment (previously quoted "being freed from attachment fear and anger") is not correct - you defined that to mean that one must be detached and just dump everything they have in the way of material to prove they are detached

You defined it that way: "attached to temporary things". TV's and everything else I mentioned are temporary things.

When concerned with just emotions, I have yet to see someone that doesn't have them, (including god), and can't really say from a realistic instead of wishful thinking perspective, that many people would really be better off without them.

With no fear, people wouldn't even look when they crossed the road etc.

Of course some people are a bit over the top, but a lobotomy would generally help that.

the simple fact that emmotions are such a difficult thing to comprehend and often get us in to trouble should indicate enough about the difficulty of being free from their implications

They're not "difficult to comprehend", but hey.. you did state it was a fact, and a simple fact at that, so I'll leave it to you to back that statement up. Yes, they do sometimes 'get us into trouble' - but more often than not they actually help.

(a unique quality that a saintly person possesses - they are not disturbed by lust, wrath, greed etc like an ordinary person)

So saintly people are unlike god as well. From a biblical standpoint, even god has a range of emotions, (including wrath), and thus are you trying to tell me that saintly people are better than god?

(On a side note snakelord, please try and refrain from coarse language - good manners is an essential ingredient to any intelligent discussion and makes it easier to examine the ideas of a person as opposed to just focusing on insulting the person )

I'll certainly try although I do enjoy my freedom of speech, and of course it is worth pointing out that a swear word is not really relevant to whether a discussion is "intelligent" or not and it wasn't "insulting a person". If you read it once or twice, you'll learn there was no personal insult there at all.

Still, as this is request time, I might as well ask if you could refrain from claiming I said things I never did and stop making up answers and conclusions for me, (something other people have had to ask you to stop doing). Thank you. {insert smiley face here with the pretence that you're being friendly}.

Don't misunderstand me - I don't doubt that the people you deal with are crazy - What i do doubt is whether the people you deal with are the right persons to judge the qualities of a saintly person by

Well, some claim to be saints, or kings, or gods for that matter - but I don't really see where this has come from. Originally you simply mentioned people that could "detect god's presence", and I said I knew many of them. I didn't say they were saintly, or that they were used to judge saintliness.

would it be reasonable to ask you to prove the credibility of genetic research by using a group of people who believed their lounge chair received secret messages from the CIA?

Probably not, but then you simply stated that the "qualified" were those that could "detect god's presence".

Yes I don't doubt that god is not talking to them - I am sure, as you are, that it is in fact their mind talking to them

Same goes with everyone else - whether you call them saintly or not.

- I don't doubt that you are qualified in psychiatric nursing but i do doubt that you are qualified in the field of religion

I have studied religious education, yes. If you mean "qualified" as in being able to "detect god's presence", (your original claim), then no, certainly not. But then if I had have said yes, I can detect god's presence, what method exactly would you employ to check I am being honest or am not mentally ill?

I mean suppose you suddenly got a cartload of crazy people who thought they were genetic scientists - would that suddenly make you an expert in understanding the nature of genetics?

Certainly not, but how exactly would you determine that these 'crazy people' were not 'genetic scientists'?

How many of these 'saintly people' that you assume are "qualified" have you actually met and questioned? What methods did you use to ensure they were not ill, were telling the truth? Who has the final say on who is qualified and who is not? You? Why?

- I said these were initial indications of qualification - I mean they can straight away help you distinguish whether you are dealing with a street vagrant or someone who has actually applied themself to a field of knowledge. I even declared in my previous statement that these qualities (congregation, influence through publishing etc) were not fallible so i don't know what you are trying to prove by saying they are fallible here - no need to convince me - I already know! Lol

? You asked me a list of questions. I answered them. Nothing more:

"do any of these 60+ people have students or a congregation? (not that a following is evidence of qualification, but it can be initially helpful) Have they pulished anything in the field of religion that has born an influence on practioners? are they accepted as leaders in the field of religious knowledge?
And most importantly who is their teacher?"

See how many question marks there are? (They're called questions). I didn't try to "prove" anything, I simply answered what you asked me. K?

If a person thinks that there is nothing between themselves and god, and have not studied under someone who teaches them by practical example how to approach god, and if their teacher of their teacher also doesn't have the same link to such a personality and so and so, then immediately you can disreagard them.

So long Jesus, bye bye Mohammed *yawn*

whatever they are speaking is nonsense and the only benefit you can get from listening to them is the understanding that there is no benefit listening to them

Aye, tell that to the christians.

(a benefit you seem to have acquired - congratulations!!!!)

Oh please, you ask a question and then get all pissy because the answer doesn't please you.

 

[(Q)]

You're repeating yourself.

No, I'm not, I'm asking you a question, another hard question you didn't answer or acknowledge. It has been evident that you continue to deflect or ignore the hard questions that have been presented to you and all you seem to be doing is tossing out every tired old argument every other Muslim has done so far. Tedious, really.

Considered by whom?

Considered by those who don't believe in myths and fairy tales, of course.

Last time I looked I had a right to my beliefs.

And you think you should have the right to believe in myths and fairy tales all the while offending every thinking human being on the planet?

The three great strategies for obscuring an issue are to introduce irrelevancies, to arouse prejudice, and to excite ridicule.... ---Bergen Evans, The Natural History of Nonsense

Yet, another deflection to a hard question. Nice.

 

[S.A.M.]

No, I'm not, I'm asking you a question, another hard question you didn't answer or acknowledge. It has been evident that you continue to deflect or ignore the hard questions that have been presented to you and all you seem to be doing is tossing out every tired old argument every other Muslim has done so far. Tedious, really.

What can I say? Either you are being deliberately obtuse, or we are on different planets.

Considered by those who don't believe in myths and fairy tales, of course.

You mean the people who agree with your beliefs; not surprising considering they are atheists?

And you think you should have the right to believe in myths and fairy tales all the while offending every thinking human being on the planet?

The implication being that only atheists can think?

Yet, another deflection to a hard question. Nice.

You mean a reply which did not fit with your opinions; hardly likely with opposing beliefs, don't you think ?

 

[(Q)]

Ah yes! obviously my only desire in this entire pointless (to me) exercise is to obfuscate you with inanities!

No, just the same old tired arguments already refuted. I was hoping you were going to offer a fresh look and answer some hard questions, but it appears that didn't happen.

I could write you a half page on my views on Islam but it seems to me that you are less interested in my views ( or else you would comprehend that I have. already. expressed. them. ad. nauseum.) If there is a nasty question you want to ask me, why beat around the bush? Go for the jugular, I say.

Your views might be somewhat different than other Muslims, but that's due to the designing of your religion. The arguments are the same.

By the way if your "hard questions" are just another attempt to portary yourself as a hard core rationalist, I would suggest you take a look at one more word:"perspective". If you cannot appreciate that there are differences in pespective between people then you need to reconsider your definition of secularism.

The perspective is that of reality, one which you don't appear to share with reality. The hard questions have nothing to do with me and everything to do with your religion.

By the way, this is equally if not more tedious for me; seems to me you just need an excuse to revert to your theist bashing. Well, I challenge you to a discourse without invective; is that possible for you?

But, as I already stated, your arguments lack anything new that hasn't already been refuted before. And I don't bash theists, only their religions.

To be fair, your disbelief in spirituality, leads me to the conclusion that you are "spiritually challenged" and hence some aspects of my dialogue ( in addition to tedium, of course) are so unacceptable to you that you simple refuse to consider them.

And your 'reality' challenged. And you make the huge mistake in assuming one must believe in myths and fairy tales in order to be spiritual. Complete nonsense.

I could also accuse you of having a one track mind; if you are in science, it amazes me that you see things in such a linear perspective; surely you've heard of alternative models of thought?

Of course I have, but the only alternative models of thought in regards to religion stem from the imagination. I have an imagination too, I just don't allow it to rule my worldview.

See above. Your continued attempts to lump everything in the basket you deem most feasible simply indicate that you are resistant to the idea that there are beliefs other than your own; is this your idea of an evolved mind?

I completely understand that there are many beliefs, hence many religions. It is those minds that hold those beliefs that have yet to evolve.


Been there, done that.

So you consider it inconsequential that a person has the right to his/her own beliefs? I wonder, perhaps you might like to expand further on YOUR idea of the future where everyone will be atheist ( or else!!); yes, I wonder you can miss the fact that your notions of equality very closely resemble those of people who want to convert everyone to their own world view?

Clearly, you have a problem with reality. What is it about reality you detest and would much rather not have anything to do with?

The future will be devoid of religion as it will take its rightful place alongside all the other myths. Everyone will have access to information and education, and we will use it for the betterment of mankind, to cure diseases, end wars and famine, and bring an end to ignorance once and for all.

Since I presume you don't expect that an anti-religion virus will conveniently wipe out all theists, what do you presume to achieve by this constant dialogue of hate and intolerance?

Uh, escuse me, but it is religion that breeds hate and intolerance. That is clearly evident, hence I am intolerant to religion.

If your aim is to let others see the value of rationality as defined by atheism, you might as well give up. The attitude you portray does nothing more than arouse disgust which is not the state of mind you might want to aim for.

Yes, to a theist, I would appear disgusting. And since theists haven't a clue what rationality is, they would find no value in anything that is rational. You have exhibited the lack of rationality in many of your posts, and I called you on it, only to be ignored, of course, but that was expected as you are unable to answer the hard questions aimed at your religion.

 

[(Q)]

What can I say? Either you are being deliberately obtuse, or we are on different planets.

I'm actually a head in jar floating far out in space. But I do consider my home the planet Earth, in which reality exists.

You mean the people who agree with your beliefs; not surprising considering they are atheists?

Funny how we all agree with each other on religion and theists don't.

The implication being that only atheists can think?

Theists can think too, they simply refuse to do so when it comes to the supernatural.

You mean a reply which did not fit with your opinions; hardly likely with opposing beliefs, don't you think ?

Sorry, I forgot you base your beliefs on fairy tales and myths.

 

[S.A.M.]

No, just the same old tired arguments already refuted. I was hoping you were going to offer a fresh look and answer some hard questions, but it appears that didn't happen.



Your views might be somewhat different than other Muslims, but that's due to the designing of your religion. The arguments are the same.



The perspective is that of reality, one which you don't appear to share with reality. The hard questions have nothing to do with me and everything to do with your religion.



But, as I already stated, your arguments lack anything new that hasn't already been refuted before. And I don't bash theists, only their religions.



And your 'reality' challenged. And you make the huge mistake in assuming one must believe in myths and fairy tales in order to be spiritual. Complete nonsense.



Of course I have, but the only alternative models of thought in regards to religion stem from the imagination. I have an imagination too, I just don't allow it to rule my worldview.



I completely understand that there are many beliefs, hence many religions. It is those minds that hold those beliefs that have yet to evolve.


Been there, done that.




Clearly, you have a problem with reality. What is it about reality you detest and would much rather not have anything to do with?

The future will be devoid of religion as it will take its rightful place alongside all the other myths. Everyone will have access to information and education, and we will use it for the betterment of mankind, to cure diseases, end wars and famine, and bring an end to ignorance once and for all.



Uh, escuse me, but it is religion that breeds hate and intolerance. That is clearly evident, hence I am intolerant to religion.



Yes, to a theist, I would appear disgusting. And since theists haven't a clue what rationality is, they would find no value in anything that is rational. You have exhibited the lack of rationality in many of your posts, and I called you on it, only to be ignored, of course, but that was expected as you are unable to answer the hard questions aimed at your religion.

Frankly, I don't get your hard questions at all; I don't understand what it is that you think I'm avoiding or evading.

Maybe we just cannot see it from each other's perspective.

I am trying to answer your questions to the best of my ability only I get the feeling we're going around in circles. Maybe I'm unable to communicate my perspective effectively. I've followed the philosophy of Islam for over a decade now and I do not find anything uncomfortable or contradictory in it.

Maybe you're right and I'm wrong. Maybe I'm right and you're wrong. Ultimately we all have to live with the results of our assumptions and expectations.

 

[(Q)]

Frankly, I don't get your hard questions at all; I don't understand what it is that you think I'm avoiding or evading.

How convenient.

Maybe we just cannot see it from each other's perspective.

Swing by reality some time and have a look see from my perspective.

I am trying to answer your questions to the best of my ability only I get the feeling we're going around in circles. Maybe I'm unable to communicate my perspective effectively. I've followed the philosophy of Islam for over a decade now and I do not find anything uncomfortable or contradictory in it.

Irregardless of all the contradiction presented and ignored by you.

Maybe you're right and I'm wrong. Maybe I'm right and you're wrong. Ultimately we all have to live with the results of our assumptions and expectations.

If you're right, then every other person in the world is wrong, past, present and future. That is, unless someone else has a carbon copy of your tailored beliefs imprinted on their mind.

If I'm right, there are millions that are also right, with more appearing each day. And some day, we'll all be right.

 

[S.A.M.]

How convenient.



Swing by reality some time and have a look see from my perspective.



Irregardless of all the contradiction presented and ignored by you.



If you're right, then every other person in the world is wrong, past, present and future. That is, unless someone else has a carbon copy of your tailored beliefs imprinted on their mind.

If I'm right, there are millions that are also right, with more appearing each day. And some day, we'll all be right.

Got it.