Then by all means, keep that insight of yours in mind as you attempt to perform Draize tests on us, instead of complaining how we aren't sedated enough.
Safety from God's wrath.
Is Islam a good religion?
- Thread starter Saint
- Start date
Then by all means, keep that insight of yours in mind as you attempt to perform Draize tests on us, instead of complaining how we aren't sedated enough.
Safety from God's wrath.
so in the example of pointing to the north pole, which individual/s are guilty of providing information that is not satisfactorily comprehensive?
discrimination certainly doesn't equate with sedation ..... although if one desires something strongly enough (and doesn't have the necessary tools of discrimination) one might be able to suppress their distaste in order to achieve their goals ... perhaps that is a sedation of sorts
:scratchin:
I don't think your analogy applies to begin with.
As "God" is defined as a unique entity in a unique position, there can be no adequate analogy.
Sure, there is a point to be made about not being a princess on a pea.
And the Buddhists can give some good teachings on the four bases of success (iddhipāda) — namely, desire, persistence, intentness, circumspection.
And that is all fine and well - for mundane goals and for goals one is sure of or inherently finds them worthy.
But to suggest that the same could work when it comes to God - that assumes at least that God is someone who actually wants to have something with one, personally. I think that may be assuming too much.
Balerion:
Neverfly:
As to what does it mean, why, it's simple. It means they are willing to surrender their selves, mind and personal opinions before body, to that higher power. They believe that their wisdom is incomparable to his, so they surrender to it, force themselves into accepting it, rationalize it or they inherently agree with it on conviction.
Now that aside, the discussion wasn't on the violence committed in the name of religion during the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, it's whether there is any religiously related reason that started the wars.
Your attitude has been angry from the start, I suggest you tone it down. Calling someone a nuisance isn't proper manners.
Yes.
Let's recap; I asked you if you have something to support your claim that the attacks were religiously motivated, and that was your reply ?! That it's clear it was, that the evidence is ample, and the Al-Qaeda 'was believed to be responsible for it' ?!. Your argument that both wars in Iraq and Afghanistan rests on one premise, that they were a direct result for the 9/11 attacks. No problem, let their cause be anything, but first justify why that cause is related to religion and those countries.
Neverfly:
Looks like you may have your debate. May I ask your permission for a question first, to save myself the trouble of an unnecessary long answer ?. Are you willing to accept a justification, where the end result of it, inevitably, will be because they 'believe in the existence of a higher power' ?.
As to what does it mean, why, it's simple. It means they are willing to surrender their selves, mind and personal opinions before body, to that higher power. They believe that their wisdom is incomparable to his, so they surrender to it, force themselves into accepting it, rationalize it or they inherently agree with it on conviction.
Thank you, I choose not to.
I don't understand your point, here. The motives of the orchestrator, whatever it may be, is or isn't the motive of the attack ?!.Neverfly said:
Regarding the video, the reasons you mentioned aren't mentioned in the video. Their reasons were that he was a prisoner, they offered to exchange him with some of the Abu Gharib prisoners but were refused, so, 'oh wives and mothers, this is how we will send your soldiers back to you from now on, beheaded and in coffins'. That's a literal translation, not a personal opinion. My opinion differs greatly but is of no relevance. But still, those individuals believe they aren't fighting for Afghanistanis only, they are avenging what was done to the Muslims everywhere. So in taking their actions into account, towards any group, you should consider the motives to be whatever that group did to Muslims or any other group that is aided by it; e.g the US and Israel. However, the official reason, stated in the video, was the torture of the Abu Gharib prisoners.
Now that aside, the discussion wasn't on the violence committed in the name of religion during the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, it's whether there is any religiously related reason that started the wars.
Why do I have to believe one or the other ?!. In this particular case, no one presents any solid evidence, neither that it was Islamist terrorists, regular old-fashioned terrorist nor an inside job. To the best of my knowledge, no Islamic group claimed responsibility for such an action; how was it established that Al-Qaeda, of all other groups, was the one behind it ?!. What is sufficient proof, you say ? As if you presented me with any at all, but I'm the greedy one refusing to say 'when'. [Edit: This last sentence sounds rude but wasn't meant to be.]
as far as locations go, the north pole is also unique ... thats why i ask you which one IYHO lacks providing comprehension.
simialr to the 6 +'s of NOI
hence it gets back to the value of the goal (that is being offered by the said community)
If you don't find spiritual goals worthy or think your reserves of perseverance are better off invested in mundane goals that kind of spells a different direction to the obstacles you face
I guess that makes you powerless to change your lifestyle in this regard
:shrug:
I understand.
And Yasin, I have been arguing from a point that somewhat opposed that of Balerion and Spidergoat.
If anything anyone could ever have said ever convinced me that Islam is a horrific, detrimental... even evil thing, you just convinced me in one paragraph. These people will forgo the most fundamental humane objections for their belief... in something that doesn't even exist. They are so indoctrinated that they will kill and commit terrible atrocities, because they believe that their GOD is to be followed no matter what... And what happens when they believe that their God wants them to KILL innocent people?
I'm not going to bother with the rest of your post- don't feel like it's being ignored. The absolute magnitude of what you just said is weighing on my mind and it's pretty much the only thing I want to concentrate on, right now.
You just handed the debate to Balerion, actually.
I commend your honesty and even the sense of shame you almost seemed to feel in your delivery. But you have no idea how angry what you just said made me at the FOOLS you are trying to validate. You've changed my mind, Yasin. I made the foolish mistake of thinking that Muslims were still self aware human beings, still ordinary people that still think and have thoughts of their own. This image you just painted of a Majority that will follow even corrupted Hadiths... That will ignore their own conscience and sense of being or honor or decency if they are given to believe that your invisible non-existent GOD wants them to do something... To kill innocent people over a God that doesn't even exist! And even if he did- What a monster he would be.
No, I agree. Islam is a terrible thing. It may not be what Mohammed had intended. But it's become a vile thing. Demented, distorted and twisted over time.
Spidergoat and Balerion- He's all yours. I concede my utter defeat of my position and I bow out now before I say things I will regret. My hands were actually shaking as I tried to type this.
Yasin, I do not hate you. But the religion you are trying to defend, I just lost the capacity to ever try to give it any benefit of the doubt. It's bent on indoctrinating Drones- Slaves, even. You should be ashamed.
Such a pity indifference is no longer an option, with regard to a religion suddenly made more popular by dint of a declared opposition to it by one of the most powerful states on the planet.
I mean really. How completely and utterly stupid are the Americans.
Oh, and in response to the OP....
No organised religion has any relevance in the modern world, other than in what we assign to it.
The majority of humanity will only believe harder in anything we might tell them they shouldn't believe in.
No organised religion has any relevance in the modern world, other than in what we assign to it.
The majority of humanity will only believe harder in anything we might tell them they shouldn't believe in.
Neverfly, there are three things I would like to address to you before you leave. The first is that this, what I said and what you say, isn't limited to Islam only. In essence, believing in a religion, and a higher power, means just that; that you surrender to it; accept his wisdom not yours, his knowledge not yours and believe that that is the right path to take. To accept parts of a religion doesn't mean you embraced it; it means you embraced a fictional one that you created without what you don't accept; you might as well give it a new name.
This brings us to the second point; the position you assume I'm taking even though I repeatedly refused to take on more than one occasion. I do not defend a religion; I do not try to validate Islam or stand by it. My discussion with you, Balerion and spidergoat wasn't me standing by the side of Islam against you; you yourself weren't on the same side as Balerion regarding how violent Islam is but I opposed you when something you said I believed was incorrect, same with spidergoat. Do not confuse knowledge with patronage. I correct what I see is wrong, but I'm impartial towards your view of Islam. My last post is your finest proof that I'm not attempting to defend neither people nor religion. It's your job to form your own convictions; I will not present you with the verses that prove Islam violent, nor the verses that prove it a peace loving religion, nor the ones that show how predicting it is of aspects of modern sciences and neither will I present an argument to support or deny them. I will, however, correct your mistakes, and interpret or explain what you find hard to understand.
Last and least, my discussion with Balerion. Till now, that discussion isn't even about Islam, nor any specific religion for that matter. It's about the influence of religion in the different conflicts in the Middle East, which makes me surprised as to why you think I surrendered it to him.
I appreciate your honesty as well.
This brings us to the second point; the position you assume I'm taking even though I repeatedly refused to take on more than one occasion. I do not defend a religion; I do not try to validate Islam or stand by it. My discussion with you, Balerion and spidergoat wasn't me standing by the side of Islam against you; you yourself weren't on the same side as Balerion regarding how violent Islam is but I opposed you when something you said I believed was incorrect, same with spidergoat. Do not confuse knowledge with patronage. I correct what I see is wrong, but I'm impartial towards your view of Islam. My last post is your finest proof that I'm not attempting to defend neither people nor religion. It's your job to form your own convictions; I will not present you with the verses that prove Islam violent, nor the verses that prove it a peace loving religion, nor the ones that show how predicting it is of aspects of modern sciences and neither will I present an argument to support or deny them. I will, however, correct your mistakes, and interpret or explain what you find hard to understand.
Last and least, my discussion with Balerion. Till now, that discussion isn't even about Islam, nor any specific religion for that matter. It's about the influence of religion in the different conflicts in the Middle East, which makes me surprised as to why you think I surrendered it to him.
I appreciate your honesty as well.
Last edited:
Typical evasion. When presented with a point you can't refute, accuse the other of being "too angry" and avoid the point altogether.
As for calling you a nuisance, I can only repeat to you what I've said numerous times to wynn: It is not my responsibility how you present yourself on these forums. Intentionally distracting from discussions for the purpose of avoiding the discussion altogether is something a dishonest person does. If you don't want to be considered such a thing, I suggest you stop acting like one.
So again you want to argue the merits of 1+1=2.
Fine. Here is the fatwa issued by Osama bin Laden in 1996. This information has been on the internet since...you guessed it...1996. It has been a part of the American consciousness since 2001. There is no excuse for you not knowing this. Of course, I suspect you already did know about this, and are seeking merely to distract from the actual argument at hand. If that's not enough, here is bin Laden taking credit for the attacks.
The idea that anything or anyone pointing in the direction of "God" (even if just nominally), are perfect, is specific to your religion.
On principle, Christian denominations, for example, maintain that your religion is from the devil and points to the devil; that you are deluded liars who are only misleading people, claiming to lead them to God, while you in fact lead them to the devil. Some theists will state so literally, some in a more polite way, but this kind of skepticism is a given in many theistic denominations.
IOW, while you seem to think that anyone who claims to be pointing toward God, is in fact pointing toward God (even if not very precisely), other theists don't necessarily hold that view.
So other theisms readily introduce a point of skepticism that you don't even address.
If you mean the six loving exchanges among devotees, then I don't see the similarity.
I'm not so sure whether all those purported spiritual/religious organizations offer any spiritual goals at all, even if they claim to do so.
Your shrug is telling, and it hurts.
I didn't say "But to suggest that the same could work when it comes to God - that assumes at least that God is someone who actually wants to have something with one, personally. I think that may be assuming too much. Therefore I will remain a bitter and determined atheist and materialist."
I meant it like "But to suggest that the same could work when it comes to God - that assumes at least that God is someone who actually wants to have something with one, personally. I think that may be assuming too much. One cannot make another person love one, one cannot make God love one. So one may have to live life without being loved. This is a sad fact of life."
To the point where 84% of a population disregarded what was ethical and proper and condoned needless and insane killing.
If it helps, I believe Christians will behave that way, too.
I'm giving the benefit that you mean what you say here- so consider this:
When you withhold information, you're supporting the opposition to that information.
When you neglect to inform, you're not presenting the full picture. You are taking sides, perhaps not one of the sides discussed, but you are taking a side everytime you hold back.
So, you see one item wrong, you say- you correct that. But in that correction you fail to provide further information as to how it's interpreted. You don't really have a choice because it's a complex issue with many factors.
A Muslim mother beat her son to death because he wasn't memorizing verses fast enough to satisfy her desire that he become an Imam by a certain time.
What went wrong there? Is it just an Islam thing? Or will any fundamentalist believer act that way?
If you point out where the scriptures say that was the wrong thing for her to do, how do we account for the fact she did do that thing?
That reason must be neglected, you see, to point out what you think was wrong with the accusation.
You even say this yourself:
You surrendered it to him or anyone when you neglected the premise. The thing that snakes along underneath any faith.
It doesn't matter what the scriptures say.
It doesn't matter what the leaders meant.
It doesn't matter how noble or good the intentions were: When people give themselves over, surrender their minds to a non-existent entity, to something that is outside of any realm of understanding, something that cannot be verified or challenged in any way, then they become capable of great harm.
Balerion:
If the video you present is different, and does contain Bin Laden's admission of the attacks, or if you provide me with any other proof of the role religion played in the war in Afghanistan, I will concede that most, if not all, of the conflicts in the Middle East are religiously motivated. This is not out of confidence that there is no such proof, I admit that my knowledge is limited and to this day I have no knowledge of such video, but it's my gesture of good will to assure you that I am honest in this discussion and will accept facts should they be presented to me.
Neverfly:
So it should be easy for you to point out what it is I said or didn't say that makes you believe I'm avoiding which discussion or question I was asked.
The video you provided doesn't work, but I looked around the web to find anything with a similar title; if this video is the one you referenced, there is not one word of him or Al Qaeda taking credit of the attacks in it.
If the video you present is different, and does contain Bin Laden's admission of the attacks, or if you provide me with any other proof of the role religion played in the war in Afghanistan, I will concede that most, if not all, of the conflicts in the Middle East are religiously motivated. This is not out of confidence that there is no such proof, I admit that my knowledge is limited and to this day I have no knowledge of such video, but it's my gesture of good will to assure you that I am honest in this discussion and will accept facts should they be presented to me.
Neverfly:
That's what I mean; it's inherent in accepting a religion to control your life that you, well, accept its control over your life. Whichever the religion.
It worked when I clicked it...
http://abcnews.go.com/International...ricas-most-tragic-days-international-13505793
