I am a prophet. You will follow my religion. You are now a Pastafarian.
Kneel to his noodley appendage.
Our attitude concerning mockery of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon
- Thread starter tresbien
- Start date
I am a prophet. You will follow my religion. You are now a Pastafarian.
Kneel to his noodley appendage.
GOD is merciful.Do not blame GOD but those who behind their poverty.God set up a balance on earth and order man to help each other.GOD forbids unjustice and exploitation and leave the wrongdoer to a day that they will not escape from his punishment and reward the wronged and the deprived with his gifts and his paradise.This life is an abode of trial and afflication.
I STILL reiterate my request pray o ALLAH AND U will see.PLS DO IT OUT OF U HEART my friends
I STILL reiterate my request pray o ALLAH AND U will see.PLS DO IT OUT OF U HEART my friends
Men help each other out because of evolution. Gods merely get in the way and screw things up.
Request and reiterate all you want. Your god has forsaken you. He will not answer your prayers.
Join the Pastafarians, find peace, don't worry and be happy.
tresbien,
Is there any more or any less evidence for Allah as there is for FSM (the noodely God)?
The answer = no
There is no more evidence for your Allah then there is for Xenu the intergalactic War Lord revered by Scientologist then there is for a Pastaferian God like FSM, then there is is for the 1 million Japanese Gods, than there is for Athena the Greek Goddess of Athens.
The evidence for them all is the same. There is none.
I used to think rational debate was a method of making this point. Now, I accept some people simply do not have the mental aptitude for whatever reason. It's not that they don't get it, they can't get it. Probably they are missing the proteins necessary for such abstract logic at the required concentrations. Perhaps Q's notion of "brainwashing" is in reality the down regulation of key proteins. Well, for a few, they have a brain so skewed from the norm as to be interesting but pointless to have rational debate (an odd ball temporal lobe) - think of the guy on the street talking to the invisible person. Maybe some people here think that "invisible" person is Satan or a Jin or Demon. But those of us in the "know" understand that t he person has a problem with their brain, maybe something as simple as dopamine concentrations (a missing enzyme, an enzyme with lower or high kinetics, etc, ...).
Trying to make a point to a person who sees and speaks with invisible people is rather silly as it's a total waste of time.
Michael
Is there any more or any less evidence for Allah as there is for FSM (the noodely God)?
The answer = no
There is no more evidence for your Allah then there is for Xenu the intergalactic War Lord revered by Scientologist then there is for a Pastaferian God like FSM, then there is is for the 1 million Japanese Gods, than there is for Athena the Greek Goddess of Athens.
The evidence for them all is the same. There is none.
I used to think rational debate was a method of making this point. Now, I accept some people simply do not have the mental aptitude for whatever reason. It's not that they don't get it, they can't get it. Probably they are missing the proteins necessary for such abstract logic at the required concentrations. Perhaps Q's notion of "brainwashing" is in reality the down regulation of key proteins. Well, for a few, they have a brain so skewed from the norm as to be interesting but pointless to have rational debate (an odd ball temporal lobe) - think of the guy on the street talking to the invisible person. Maybe some people here think that "invisible" person is Satan or a Jin or Demon. But those of us in the "know" understand that t he person has a problem with their brain, maybe something as simple as dopamine concentrations (a missing enzyme, an enzyme with lower or high kinetics, etc, ...).
Trying to make a point to a person who sees and speaks with invisible people is rather silly as it's a total waste of time.
Michael
He's Moroccan, he can read Arabic
What about the Hafsah codex? And the other versions of the Quran that were burned? There was more than one Arabic version, which seems to undermine the present versions' reputation as infallible.
Not really, people often get confused by the fact that older Qurans had no didactic marks and that the Kufic script was invented for people who did not speak Arabic as a first language. However the Quran has been passed on since Mohammed's lifetime as a Qiraat by those who memorised it, a continuous tradition of which exists from the Sahabas.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qur'an
People who talk about differences are thinking in the English context, they forget Arabic is a phonetic language.
But there was more than one line of transmission, therefore more than one version. It was deemed so important that several codices were destroyed.
Which lines were these?
There are several different traditions of Qiraat but they all follow the same Quran.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qira'at
edit: I see your confusion. Some websites (*cough cough*) claim that Hafsa's version was "destroyed"; however, her version was memorised by her (and was the copy of Zaid ibn Thabit, from Abu Bakr, the father of Aisha, wife of Mohammed) and she was used by Uthman when he was checking for deviations. This fact is apparently missed while claiming that her codex was destroyed.
Last edited:
From birth, children are immersed in an environment in which their god is as real as the teats they suckle, right through Sunday school and straight on to the pew and pulpit later. There is no time the individual would entertain or grasp the notion a life without their god could possibly exist or could exist. And you would receive a blank doe in the headlights stare as if you'd have suggested they try breathing underwater.
From that position, how could one possible debate any claim made by a theist whose religions ongoing and definitive imprint began when they were but a blank slate?
bs
no matter how you sugar coat it, this is a HATE motivated post that targets westerners and those of all other religons. The works that the post is linked to asks for an entire nation to rise up and kill those that are not like them.
people are baned here for calling someone an asshole but calling on a jihad [holy war] to kill all those that are not like them is tolereated?
How backward is that?
no matter how you sugar coat it, this is a HATE motivated post that targets westerners and those of all other religons. The works that the post is linked to asks for an entire nation to rise up and kill those that are not like them.
people are baned here for calling someone an asshole but calling on a jihad [holy war] to kill all those that are not like them is tolereated?
How backward is that?
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
That sentence doesn't make any sense. By definition, all spoken languages have phonetics. There are phonetic and non-phonetic writing systems, but there is no such thing as a phonetic or non-phonetic language. What did you mean?
--Note from the Linguistics Moderator
Oh it's even much deeper than that. We Jungians see compelling evidence that religion is nothing but a collection of archetypes, instinctive beliefs that are hard-wired into our synapses during the course of evolution. Some archetypes are useful like love of children, some were useful in the past like fear of predators, and there are many whose origins we can't guess at. Maybe they were survival traits in an era whose conditions we can't imagine, or maybe they are just accidental mutations passed through genetic bottlenecks. In any case, the danger with archetypes is that they feel true, which can give them a higher priority than truths we discover through reason and learning. (Fear of predators is a good example because it was useful before they were all locked up in zoos. Now we take advantage of that archetype commercially, thrilling ourselves in movies by showing giant alien predators harvesting humans like oysters. Similarly, priests take advantage of the religion archetypes to accumulate wealth and power.)
All I can say is that it's very difficult for a website whose identity is founded on science, reason and scholarship to host a subforum on religion at all. We have to suspend some of the rules to even allow these discussions to take place. My reasoned, evidence-based hypothesis that religion reinforces our atavistic tribal instinct is well-known, the specific problem with the tribal instinct being that it fosters hatred of and violence toward "outsiders." As was brought up in another discussion, archeologists have discovered that during the Mesolithic Era, when tribalism was supreme, more adults were killed by human violence than by all other causes combined.
My point is that it's impossible to separate religion from hatred, so if this website is going to allow unfettered discussions of religion, I don't see how it can avoid permitting expressions of hatred.
If we ranked tribalism on a scale from 1-10 (with 1 being city-dwelling immigrant doing his/her own thing and 10 being, I'm off to marry my first or second cousin tomorrow) would you say that some areas of the world are more tribal than others? Do you think these areas are more violent?
I was thinking about medieval Japan, the Samurai, the clans and the centuries of conflict.
Michael
In English you have wound and wound, sounded differently the same word is two different words. In Arabic, the sound is the language. (This is also true of Hindi, Marathi, Gujarati, Urdu etc). If you know the alphabet, you can pronounce the words even if you never saw them or don't know their meaning.
sowhatifit'sdark
Valued Senior Member
Your 'oh, it's even much deeper than that' is, I think misleading or perhaps misunderstanding. Q's tabula rasa position and yours are distinctly different, with different implications. Yours, which you described as Jungian, is not an extension of his at all. His could, for example, be used to attack religious upbringing. Yours makes the issue almost moot.
Mind Sifter
Registered Member
i thought that the same written arabic word with the same meaning can be pronounced differently in different parts of arabic speaking region?
Yup, like jeem is geem in Egypt.
But you can still read it as jeem and Egyptians as geem and everyone is happy.
Mind Sifter
Registered Member
Yup, like jeem is geem in Egypt.
But you can still read it as jeem and Egyptians as geem and everyone is happy.
what's jeem in english? are you saying one arabic word can only be written in exactly one particular way, and although it can be pronounced differently in several dialects it can only have one meaning?
i still can't get the "In Arabic, the sound is the language" part.
You got it.
You learn the alphabet, the rules, the roots and you can derive the meanings of the words. In classical Arabic.
e.g. root = ktb = to write
katîb writer
kitâba the act of writing
kitâb some writing, book
kutub books
kutubî bookdealer
kutayyib booklet
maktûb letter
maktab school, office
maktaba library, literature
maktabî individual office
miktâb typewriter
mukâtaba correspondence
iktitâb registration
istiktâb dictation
.... and on and on. This is only a limited sample of the immense variety of words that can be formed by simple and predictable usage of the basic root which was only the three consonants k-t-b.
There are mixtures like Moroccan darija, which is why classical Arabic speakers don't understand Moroccan.
edit:
And jeem is a letter in the Arabic alphabet (fifth)
http://www.appliedlanguage.com/media/images/languages/arabic_alphabet_table.png
Last edited: