Mohammad's Character

[Michael]

I think both Muslims and Scientologists will cheerfully agree that you have no clue.

I'm sure many would. And, as I have said in the past, MAYBE THERE IS A XENU. I just don't believe this to be the case. How about you SAM? Is it possible there is a Xenu or are still holding fast to an intolerance of everyone elses belief systems? If not then I wounder what the Scientologist would think of you?

 

[Michael]

786,

If there is no God, was Mohammad lying?

Cheers,
Michael

 

[786]

786,

If there is no God, was Mohammad lying?

Cheers,
Michael

Lets breakdown your question:

If there is no God

- can't prove it so no point in reading the rest of the question now because the question aswell as the answer would be pointless

You love to ask pointless questions and then claim them to be "thoughtful questions" at the same time- :bugeye:

And then you share your rationale as an argument when the whole rationale is full of irrationality.

Peace be unto you

 

[Michael]

Lets breakdown your question:

- can't prove it so no point in reading the rest of the question now because the question aswell as the answer would be pointless

You love to ask pointless questions and then claim them to be "thoughtful questions" at the same time- :bugeye:

And then you share your rationale as an argument when the whole rationale is full of irrationality.

Peace be unto you

By your rational then the Qur'an (and even pondering anything in it) is a colossal waste of time. You can not prove there is a God so anything to do with God is pointless.

Thanks 786 good of you to take another step forward.


Everyone here, except 786, are more than capable of wondering the following: I wonder if Xenu the Intergalactic Warlord was actually a fiction made up by Ron Hubbard as he formed his cult of Scientology? For 786, you just think nothing - blank. Because you can't even make the mental leap that perhaps Ronny Boy made up Xenu. For now, in your development, that's one step too many.

LOL
Peace be Upon Xenu and You 786

 

[786]

By your rational then the Qur'an (and even pondering anything in it) is a colossal waste of time. You can not prove there is a God so anything to do with God is pointless.

Quite the contrary. If you are going to discuss them then you have to assume it as correct and then use logic to prove it wrong.

Or

You can assume they are wrong- And if you are going to assume they are wrong then at least expand on the assumption to make an actual argument. Your arguments are based on the assumption "assume they are wrong" and the logical argument "they are wrong"----- illogical, and pathetic arguments. You would be delusional to call this an argument or an "intelligent debate".

(in other words pick a side and work backwards to prove it wrong)

There are arguments that can be dealt from the negative side- but none of the ones you posed are such arguments.

All of your questions are with "not God" "not perfect" they are quite pointless.

Thanks 786 good of you to take another step forward.

You're the one who needs to take a step forward and change your questions

Everyone here, except 786, are more than capable of wondering the following: I wonder if Xenu the Intergalactic Warlord was actually a fiction made up by Ron Hubbard as he formed his cult of Scientology? For 786, you just think nothing - blank. Because you can't even make the mental leap that perhaps Ronny Boy made up Xenu. For now, in your development, that's one step too many.

I've already said God can't be proven to exist or not. Anything further is an illogical leap. Secondly taking the negative approach wouldn't work either, at least not the way you have approached it.

If you make the mental leap

Ironic...

LOL

LAL

Peace be Upon Xenu and You 786

Peace be unto you

 

[Michael]

Quite the contrary. If you are going to discuss them then you have to assume accept the information and then use logic to prove it wrong.

You can assume they are wrong- but if you assume that then why discuss it in the first place? And if you are going to assume they are wrong then at least provide the reasons for doing so. Your arguments are based on the assumption "assume they are wrong" and the logical argument "they are wrong"----- pathetic arguments.

There are arguments that can be dealt from the negative side- but none of the ones you posed are such arguments.

All of your questions are with "not God" "not perfect" they are quite pointless.



You're the one who needs to take a step forward and change your questions




I've already said God can't be proven to exist or not. Anything further is an illogical leap. Secondly taking the negative approach wouldn't work either.



Ironic...



LAL



Peace be unto you

786 it's perfectly accepitble and valid line of questioning to start with the premise that a superstitious power did not do such and such. As a matter of fact, we live our lives mostly doing exactly this. When you lose your keys you don't think a Jinn took them, you think you misplaced them. that's not to say a Jinn didn't take them - but that you assume one didn't.

As for Mohammad, it's more than fair enough to question his actions in light of the notion there are no Gods. As a matter of fact - it's possibly the ONLY way to truly understand his motivations.


If you were interested in Scienotlogy. You wanted to know why Ron Hubbard formed this new religion. Would you be better off thinking that Xenu was real and talked to Ron through theta-bands formed in the alpha Centaurus quadrant of space and beamed into The Prophet Ron (pbuh) brain OR.... OR.....(I know this is a big baby step) OR..... do you think a better starting point would be to assume there is no Xenu Intergalactic Space Warlord - Xenu was in fact something Ron made up?


If you can make the mental leap to understanding there is no Xenu, then you can better answer questions such as this: Why did Ron make up Xenu? What function does Xenu play? From this perspective I arrive at this answer: Xenu fills the place of an authority figure. People often fall for the logical fallacy appealing to authority. In this case Xenu is the UNQUESTIONABLE authority. Because Ron was the Last Prophet then in reality Ron's opinions become unquestionable.

Sounds familiar doesn't 786?

You don't have to answer that last question we both know the answer to it.

 

[786]

I find myself talking to a brick wall.

I already said taking the negative position is valid- but the argument that follows that can't be "its wrong".

When you say there is not God as an assumption you automatically make the assumption that Muhammad was wrong as well (they are NOT mutually exclusive assumptions) so what is your argument- Muhammad must be a liar-- which is actually the assumption to begin with.

In other words all your threads start with the negative assumption and your argument to back it up is also your negative assumption. --- this is NOT an argument! :bugeye:

Peace be unto you

 

[Michael]

I'd say the assumption there is no Xenu is required to truely understand Ron Hubbard's motivations. You may think this is a "negative" assumption but really 786 - do you think you can have a meaningful discussion about Scientology AND assume there is a Xenu???

I think there are a lot of interesting things that can be gleaned and learned about both the Human Condition and the people who take advantage of it but stepping back and recognizing that Xenu is not real discussing how societies is affected by thinking there is a Xenu, why million of people worship Xenu (many ex-Muslims become Scientologist - I happen to have known one [although she quite eventually but she knows many Muslims who still do worship Xenu and pretend to be Muslims during the day]).

These are interesting questions that can really only be discussed by first assuming HEY there is no Xenu.

The exact same is true of Mohammad, Allah and Islam.

 

[James R]

Michael:

Secondly, I don't see why it's such a mental-leap to open a thread about Mohammad assuming there's no God. To me it seems a basic assumption that MUST be made.

About a billion people disagree with you and consider it a large mental leap.

I mean, we open threads about ice formation and we just assume we're not going to invoke the GOD DID IT line of reasoning. We assume a priori ice forms without help from the Gods.

Don't we?

We do if we're talking science. If we're talking religion, then we may very well be interested in the GOD DID IT line.

Think about this: By positing there is no God (which there isn't) we can actually learn something new about Mohammad's character because we are viewing his actions from this new perspective.

Doesn't that seem fair enough?

Yes. That's fair enough.

I was only pointing out that preaching that there is no God is beside the point that you say you're trying to make.

 

[James R]

(Q):

The fact that Mohammed believed in God doesn't make him unusual or a liar. Plenty of honest people believe in God. They honestly believe God exists.

Why do they "honestly" believe, James? If you can answer honestly, then perhaps Michael has a point.

You're asking for my opinion. Perhaps you'd be better asking actual Muslims why they honestly believe in God. But I can tell you why I think they honestly believe in God if you want me to.

And no middle ground, eh? It's either babbling psychopathology or lying con artist. Hmm....

Or, gross ignorance based on previous myths and superstitions. Either way, for a man to create a cult like Islam, Muhammad most certainly had an agenda. Which agenda do you think he was a proponent?

You appear to be conflating Mohammed's belief in and experience of Allah with his establishment of the religion of Islam. The two things are related, but separable issues. Mohammed was a complex character. He had political goals, military goals, religious and philosophical goals.

What I take issue with is not so much the accusation that Mohammed pursued a particular "agenda", but that he did so dishonestly or deceitfully. If you want to make the latter claim, I'd like you at least to try to support your contention.

Mohammed clearly did not just copy the bible. Islam is not the same as Christianity. Enough said.

No, not enough said. Michael was most likely referring to the Old Testament.

Islam is not Judaism, either.

Have you considered that, just possibly, they are meaningful on their own?

Then, why the need to support them with myths and superstitions that demand obedience and offer only a fiery pit of eternal suffering for those who do not obey?

Who said there is a need? What I'm saying is that certain elements of Islam are defensible on grounds other than that Allah exists or wants or demands certain things.

Was it an honest belief that Muhammad spoke with an angel? He wasn't lying about that?

Who knows? It is certainly quite possible that he was not lying about his belief about that.

Don't you mean the "myth" of Jesus of Nazareth?

While I acknowledge that the biblical accounts of Jesus have been massaged to a large extent, I do not hold the view that Jesus was an entirely fictional character. Therefore, you need to be a little more specific when referring to "the myth" of Jesus. Which particular myth?

Only you have no evidence that Allah is pretend.

What about the talking with an angel? Is that not evidence of pretend?

It could be evidence of many things. For example, it might constitute some evidence of the existence of angels.

What's sadder is those who purport to be intelligent, but would defend a cult of personality and label others as closed minded when they themselves argue against the possibilities of the supernatural.

I smell a big fat hypocrite, James.

There's nothing hypocritical about my position here. All I have done is to point out that to call Mohammed a con artist and liar on the basis of your own or Michael's personal beliefs in whether God exists doesn't constitute much of a persuasive argument. It is subjective at best.

 

[786]

I'd say the assumption there is no Xenu is required to truely understand Ron Hubbard's motivations. You may think this is a "negative" assumption but really 786 - do you think you can have a meaningful discussion about Scientology AND assume there is a Xenu???

You are not assuming Xenu exists but rather the possiblity that he does- then you go about using logical, reasonable arguments against Xenu- once you get through that- then you can attack other tenets of scientology. This is the approach you should take to have any credence to what you are saying. Otherwise it is basically crap... (from the logical perspective)

Also yes you still can have meaningful discussions about Scientology even if you assume Xenu exists- your meaningful discussion would be about the nature of Xenu and otherwise something related to the tenets of scientology- which can still be meaningful

I think there are a lot of interesting things that can be gleaned and learned about both the Human Condition and the people who take advantage of it but stepping back and recognizing that Xenu is not real discussing how societies is affected by thinking there is a Xenu, why million of people worship Xenu (many ex-Muslims become Scientologist - I happen to have known one [although she quite eventually but she knows many Muslims who still do worship Xenu and pretend to be Muslims during the day]).

If you feel you are qualified enough to think about the motives of someone then be my guest- because I don't have those qualifications because the likelihood that someone who had no chance of winning, was being persecuted, was also close to death due to starvation as you possibly can would have motives other than truly believing what he was saying- or he could be crazy- but then talking about motives would be a pointless discussion. I don't know if the founder of Scientology went through such troubles but founders of other religions have.

These are interesting questions that can really only be discussed by first assuming HEY there is no Xenu.

They can be interesting questions if only you knew how to ask them and how to build an argument.

The exact same is true of Mohammad, Allah and Islam.

True after you consider what I said above.

Lets forget Xenu and everything else. Let me give you the taste of your own medicine:

Lets assume that Michael (You) were completely lying.

This means: [I don't mean this, but the following is an exaggerated example of what you are essentially doing]

"You are a deceiver and the worker of devil, and you will rot in hell for eternity, and also your motives are to turn everyone to a non-believer so that they can be your buddies in hell. Because you can't live with anyone going to heaven or live in bliss. You want everything to be a deceiver. You want all husbands to cheat on their wives and all wives to cheat on their husbands. You are the starter of fights. You don't want peace. You want suicide bombers to kill little children. You want children pornography to be available on main street. You want everyone to die a painful death. You want to destroy the environment. You want everyone who disagrees with you to die. You are basically a sadistic lunatic! You're going to burn in hell with all your comrades. All Hail Xenu!"

[All of the above should be logical if everything you say is a lie. If you said you want peace that means you want warfare... and so on]

Is the above interesting? Perhaps.
Is it meaningful in anyway? No
What does it say? Whoever said this was basically expressing his beliefs
Does this have any meaningful logic? No
Is this called intelligent discussion? No
What would this be called? Ranting...

If even this doesn't get through to you then you need to pray to Xenu

Peace be unto you

 

[Michael]

You are not assuming Xenu exists but rather the possiblity that he does- then you go about using logical, reasonable arguments against Xenu- once you get through that- then you can attack other tenets of scientology. This is the approach you should take to have any credence to what you are saying. Otherwise it is basically crap... (from the logical perspective)

Also yes you still can have meaningful discussions about Scientology even if you assume Xenu exists- your meaningful discussion would be about the nature of Xenu and otherwise something related to the tenets of scientology- which can still be meaningful

Ah, yes, we could have a meaningful discussion about the nature of Xenu. I agree. However, it's also possible to discuss ideas from the bases that Ron Hubbard made up the Xenu character. I actually think most people do, do this when talking about Scientology.

If you feel you are qualified enough to think about the motives of someone then be my guest- because I don't have those qualifications because the likelihood that someone who had no chance of winning, was being persecuted, was also close to death due to starvation as you possibly can would have motives other than truly believing what he was saying- or he could be crazy- but then talking about motives would be a pointless discussion. I don't know if the founder of Scientology went through such troubles but founders of other religions have.

Maybe I should have made it clear that I think Mohammad is a literary creation. A myth. Of course in any good story the protagonist struggles against the odds. It's the most common theme in story telling. The people who made up the Mohammad Character - I mean, those people who wrote the Qur'an (we still do not know who these people are nor when they finished the Qur'an - interesting huh?), they obviously knew the elements to a good story.


Just like the Jesus Myth.

Lets assume that Michael (You) were completely lying.

This means: [I don't mean this, but the following is an exaggerated example of what you are essentially doing]

"You are a deceiver and the worker of devil, and you will rot in hell for eternity, and also your motives are to turn everyone to a non-believer so that they can be your buddies in hell. Because you can't live with anyone going to heaven or live in bliss. You want everything to be a deceiver. You want all husbands to cheat on their wives and all wives to cheat on their husbands. You are the starter of fights. You don't want peace. You want suicide bombers to kill little children. You want children pornography to be available on main street. You want everyone to die a painful death. You want to destroy the environment. You want everyone who disagrees with you to die. You are basically a sadistic lunatic! You're going to burn in hell with all your comrades. All Hail Xenu!"

[All of the above should be logical if everything you say is a lie. If you said you want peace that means you want warfare... and so on]

How does me completely lying have anything to do with hell?




Unless I am Satan and trying to trick you into questioning your beliefs so that you turn on Allah and stop believing Mohammad was the Last Prophet.

But I suppose the Scientolgist could say the same. I'm trying to trick them from believing in Xenu and to question is Ron Hubbard was a con-artist and in doing so they don't get to transcend to alpha-Centary 8674XC-7 intergalactic Heavenly Space Station.


Oh course if we were to take this line of reasoning even further - I wounder what it says about Bahai? They now think the Qur'an is corrupted. And while Mohammad was a Prophet he has been well and truly superseded by the new Adam - Bahá'u'lláh. Interestingly, by doing what I am doing, question Islamic faith, some Bahai' have paid for this with their lives. Intolerance of other belief systems being the obvious outgrowth of monotheistic philosophy.


It's certainly not uncommon for non-Mormons to see Joseph Smith Jr. as a con-man. And I think they have a point.

Some things to think about huh?
M

 

[786]

How does me completely lying have anything to do with hell?


M

Confused? Your arguments are in essence no different
Although it seems you still don't agree. Nevermind.

Peace be unto you

 

[Michael]

Confused? Your arguments are in essence no different
Although it seems you still don't agree. Nevermind.

Peace be unto you

You postulated I could be a liar. Although I haven't lied, I've only postulated there's not a God.

Anyway, suppose I were I liar - what does me being a liar have to do with a magical place called "hell"? I don't see how the two connect. Unless that is, I am destined to go to hell for being a liar. Or am I destined to burn in hell for questioning Allah's existence? Or is it my question of magical Mohammad?

Which is funny. As I can no more believe in Allah then you could in Xenu. Funny that. Try to 786 - try to have faith in Xenu. It's impossible. I suppose to hell with you then? Is THAT your point?

 

[786]

You postulated I could be a liar. Although I haven't lied, I've only postulated there's not a God.

I never postulated anything, as I was trying to give you an example. Secondly your postulates are not actual arguments- your arguments are equivalent to your assumptions thus you have yet to postulate anything.

Anyway, suppose I were I liar - what does me being a liar have to do with a magical place called "hell"? I don't see how the two connect.

You believe it to not exist- if you lie then it means it does exist- this is the logic you were following, I tried to show you- there is a connection- but the discussion is meaningless- because when I assume everything you believe and say is a lie- then the logical argument is everything opposite of your belief and words are true--- its logical, but this is this nonsense of an argument- and you like to use such arguments that is why I was giving you an example of what you are really doing.

I suppose to hell with you then? Is THAT your point?

No. You have never understood my point. My point is all your threads and your arguments are a non-argument, nonsensical, meaningless, illogical, irrational, and a joke at best.

Call to action- Go take a research based English class- it can hopefully help you overcome this stumbling block :idea:

Peace be unto you

 

[Michael]

If you want to discuss Hell, and if you tell me what Hell is and how one ends up in Hell then I am happy to discuss Hell with you. I do not need to believe in Hell to discuss it.

Likewise, regardless of belief it is possible to discuss Ron Hubbard - one can do this even if one does not Worship nor believe in the existence of Xenu. It most certainly is possible say up front - Assuming there is no Xenu, lets talk about Ron Hubbard.

It seems to me you just can't get your mind around the fact there is no Xenu??? Which is odd to me as you seem a relatively intelligent individual.

 

[786]

If you want to discuss Hell, and if you tell me what Hell is and how one ends up in Hell then I am happy to discuss Hell with you. I do not need to believe in Hell to discuss it.

I don't think you understood what I said. Anyways why don't you rephrase your topic and main argument and lets see if we can have an intelligent discussion.

Peace be unto you

 

[S.A.M.]

He couldn't understand a simple example. What intelligent discussion do you think you're going to get out of this?

 

[Michael]

Lets see if I can follow your summary

You believe it to not exist- if you lie then it means it does exist- this is the logic you were following,

No this is not the logic I was following. I am saying it is possible to consider Mohammad's actions from the perspective there is no God and by this no-God-perspective understand his character in a different way. Perhaps a better way. As there isn't a God I'd say it's the more informative way.


It's very very very simple. If there is no Xenu, then every single time Ron said "Xenu told me to tell you such and such" he was telling a lie (assuming he didn't hear Xenu in his head - that is, he was sane). What do you fail to understand?


Now, we can discuss this. For example: Why did Ron use Xenu as his proxy? Why didn't he just say what he had to say. Why appeal to authority? Could it possibly be that the Great Revelation of Space Opera, the very one that Scientologist think is deep and meaningful is actually is shallow and meaningless? Or isn't it? I mean, what happens to the Space Opera with no Xenu? Is it still a "Revelation to Humankind?" If so why?

These are important questions to consider and are at the VERY heart of the OP.

If you can not get that then fine. Don't. But it's pretty simple.

I tried to show you- there is a connection- but the discussion is meaningless- because when I assume everything you believe and say is a lie- then the logical argument is everything opposite of your belief and words are true--- its logical, but this is this nonsense of an argument- and you like to use such arguments that is why I was giving you an example of what you are really doing.

You can assume everything I say is a lie. It has no bearing on the conversation at all.

If there is no God AND Mohammad didn't hear voices in his head THEN why do you suppose he pretended there was a God?

See, it's a question 786 - one for you to answer. But, you don't want to answer this question you want to answer one where there is a God. Good, open a different thread and posit that as an OP. This thread assumes there is no God.

Geesh.


Here's one last time, let me make it really really reall REALLY super duper easy. If there IS a God and it spoke to Mohammad through an Angel and that informatoin went into Mohammad's head and was transmitted from his head to his voice across the air into the ears of other people and they wrote it down onto scraps of bark and that bark was passed down for 150 years give or take and eventually made it into a book. Then that's what happened.

That's what you think happened and for some reason you seem able to talk about this but not able to think about what happened IF THERE WAS NO GOD. I on the other hand can discuss both scenarios.

 

[S.A.M.]

try framing your hypothesis in scientific terms and see if you can get his point.

How would you proceed?