|
|
Welcome to the Exploding Garrmondo Weiner Interactive Swiss Army Penis. |
GFF is a community of gaming and music enthusiasts. We have a team of dedicated moderators, constant member-organized activities, and plenty of custom features, including our unique journal system. If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ or our GFWiki. You will have to register before you can post. Membership is completely free (and gets rid of the pesky advertisement unit underneath this message).
|
|
Thread Tools |
This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it. Bless the Maker and His water. Bless the coming and the going of Him. |
I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?
Last edited by FallDragon; Jan 19, 2007 at 09:20 PM.
|
I was speaking idiomatically. Bless the Maker and His water. Bless the coming and the going of Him.
Last edited by StarmanDX; Jan 19, 2007 at 11:23 PM.
|
Go back to my planet analogy. There's a man on a planet 5 million light years away, spinning 3 miles per second backwards. A group on Earth claims this man wrote a book for them, and the book tells them that it's OK to murder your wife if she runs away from you. And if you don't murder her, your entire family will be destroyed in a plague. Are you going to let people murder their wives because of an unprovable man on an unprovable planet? Or would you tell them not to murder their wives, because murdering people is obviously provably harmful to those being murdered?
On the other hand, I've already stated that there are Muslims who've escaped to western cultures and embraced secularism, and interpret the Koran with much modesty. This is why I believe the most effective way of reforming their culture is to attack it religiously by producing a big movement forward in moderate Islam. I would think many of them would see it as more rational, and thus more appealing than faith. At least, I'm sure the women would. I've already said there are positive aspects of any religion, but we don't need religion as a catalyst for these beneficial systems anymore. The reason I have impatience concerning reform is because the majority of Muslims are still OK with killing infidels, whether it be themselves or us, and now it's easier and easier for them to get a hold of nuclear devices. What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?
Last edited by FallDragon; Jan 20, 2007 at 12:06 AM.
|
I'm not saying believe in GOD i'm saying the guy doesn't have his facts straight so he has no right to say such things about Christianity. If you are against it fine but atleast know why. Atleast get your facts straight. FELIPE NO |
Atheism however does not necessarily have to rely on evidence. One theistic argument goes: We notice the external world is made up of extremely complex forms of life. These life forms in all their intricacies could not have come about by mere chance. Something intentional must have set up the conditions to start and support them. This something we call God. The weakness of this argument is such: Humans are indeed very complex. Even slight changes to our genetic material can leave parts of our body without function such as a child being born deaf for example. God however is exponentially more complex than any form of life we're familiar with. God is perfect, immutable and enduring. Since God himself is very complex there must have been some intentional condition met to allow for God's existence. For God is so complex himself he could not have just come about by chance even by his own divine power. This is where Darwin's theory takes over and explains how life did not come about by mere chance but by a gradual evolutionary process. When arguing for the existence of God, the onus is left to theism. Atheism has the much easier task of only having to prove that the probability of God's existence is so small, there is very little reason to suppose he does exists. So you are correct that we cannot disprove the properties of a star 5 million lights away regardless if that star exists or not, in the same manner that we cannot disprove that a Celestial Teapot orbits around the sun. No one of course believes there is a Teapot floating about in space and for very good reasons. The atheist rejects the existence of God in the same way a rational person would reject the existence of a Teapot orbiting the sun. What, you don't want my bikini-clad body? You're staring at me like I just asked you what the fucking square root of something. |
Jam it back in, in the dark. |
There's nowhere I can't reach. |
This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it. |
All I'm saying is, you may want to attempt to purge your own faith, according to your own definition, before you call on others to do the same. Also, you assume that any possible god is concerned with making a visible impact to everyone. If that were the case, religious faith would never have existed in the first place.
Now, I honestly hope you're not meaning to compare this absurd scenario to every well-established religion. But since you already "know" so well that every single one of them is a bunch of superstitious crap, I suppose I'm hoping for too much.
I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body? Bless the Maker and His water. Bless the coming and the going of Him. |
I was speaking idiomatically.
Last edited by FallDragon; Jan 20, 2007 at 02:41 AM.
|
We can't get rid of faith. Don't we use it all the time? When you are talking to people, you have faith that they are telling the truth or you have faith that someone will do something you've asked them to do for you. Faiths all over, ahh.
"Religious faith" I won't even touch that...well maybe a little. According to this author this is the worst hindrance ever to befall mankind . He highlights all the bad (according to the poster I haven't read the book) and doesn't highlight the good that religious faith has done. If someone does something bad it won't be just because they have faith in a certain religion, other factors come into play, like greed, envy, lust or deception. Just because Hitler killed millions of people in the name of Christianity doesn't mean that the religion itself is bad. He just interpreted it differently. Sure you can say, well it still drove him to do what he did but...how can you say whether it did or did not? Maybe from some writings from him or some historian. You can even ask the question, were those writings his? You can't really tell (unless you were there and you saw him writing it) you must have faith :d. Woo, I'm not sure if that makes sense but I'm sure the intelligent people here will dice it up. Go forth and have fun. What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?
Last edited by Chef Sean; Jan 20, 2007 at 03:19 AM.
|
He also talks about children and their tendency to invent imaginary friends. To the child their "friend" is every bit real and it's this imagination that carries over into adulthood in the form of religious faith. God to the theistic grown up is every bit as real as the "friend" is to the child.
FELIPE NO You're staring at me like I just asked you what the fucking square root of something.
Last edited by JackyBoy; Jan 20, 2007 at 04:03 AM.
|
This word "faith" is just not a clear-enough statement to make judgments like that. What, you don't want my bikini-clad body? |
Jam it back in, in the dark.
I long for the day they develop a technology by which you can virtually plant a fist in someone's face over the internet. -FuzzyForeigner.
|
There's nowhere I can't reach. |
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact. 3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims. 4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty. 5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith. 6. the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith. 7. the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance, etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles. 8. Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved. —Idiom 9. in faith, in truth; indeed: In faith, he is a fine lad. I don't expect I can change the meaning of words but number 1 bothers me. I trust my friends because there is reason to believe there is a high probability that what they say is true, or will become true. Faith is a much stronger word. As we know, faith is belief in the absence of reason. Because of the different strengths of these words I think it's improper to confuse them, even if according to a dictionary, they mean the same thing. It further suggests that science itself is a religion which I disagree. When I think about the properties of metal and how metal expands when heated it's not my faith which leads me to believe this. I can prove this belief empirically. David Hume noted that in all his tests metal expanded when heated. However, he doesn't believe heat causes metal to expand. There is no reason to believe that in future tests metal will always expand when heated. Just like there is no reason to believe the sun will rise tomorrow or your favourite food you have been eating for years will instead poison you. We can however make predictions about these things with very high probability of them becoming true in the future not based on faith. The principle of the uniformity of nature is our reason to believe the sun will rise tomorrow. It's why we don't expect the sun to suddenly start revolving around the Earth. This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it. You're staring at me like I just asked you what the fucking square root of something.
Last edited by JackyBoy; Jan 20, 2007 at 05:29 PM.
|
I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body? Bless the Maker and His water. Bless the coming and the going of Him.
Last edited by StarmanDX; Jan 20, 2007 at 04:49 PM.
|
Let the believers not make friends with infidels in preference to the faithful - he that does this has nothing to hope for from God - except in self-defense 3:28 Believers, do not make friends with any but your own people. They will spare no pains to corrupt you. They desire nothing but your ruin. Their hatred is evident from which they utter with their mouths, bu greater is the hatred which their breasts conceal. 3:118 Believers, if you yield to the infidels they will drag you back to unbelief and you will return headlong to perdition... We will put terror into the hearts of the unbelievers... The Fire shall be their home 3:149-51 Their hearts were hardened, and Satan made their deeds seem fair to them. And when they had clean forgotten Our admonition We granted them all that they desired; but just as they were rejoicing in what they were given, We suddenly smote them and they were plunged into utter despair. Thus were the evil-doers annihilated. 6:43-45 The only justification that's needed is that you're not Muslim, and even if you are Muslim we can see in Iraq that those scriptures can lead them to justify any murder they commit.
Of course, there are instances where it's perfectly fine to follow your heart to a degree. As long as it doesn't involve politics or human justice.
And the idea that men have been happier than me during oppression has nothing to do with being in oppression itself. Sure, maybe his family made him super happy, or his coworkers, but living in oppression did not cause him happiness, and decreased his happiness to some degree knowing he can't escape his situation. Even though both of our cases are hypothetical to begin with, thinking that oppression causes happiness is completely bunk. I was speaking idiomatically.
Last edited by FallDragon; Jan 20, 2007 at 05:00 PM.
|
"Real" world history is subject to the same possible fallacies that any sacred text is.
How ya doing, buddy? Bless the Maker and His water. Bless the coming and the going of Him. |
And you are incorrect that world history is subject to the same possible fallacies. Example: Prophecy-A says all of Egypt will remain destitute and a wasteland for the remainder of all time. Reality: It hasn't. World history is not subject to claims without evidence. Prophecy and Sacred texts are. And I'm no longer going to argue the validity or invalidity of Religion with you. The point remains that Religion has no place in a rational world, in the real world, where action A causes effect A to happen in an observable, reproducible way.
Oppressing people for greed and power and oppressing them because you don't believe them to be equal are indeed very deeply connected. But I'm not going to explain myself to you again when I've already explain why in previous posts. You apparently can't grasp the interconnectivity of oppression and equality, and how faith is the justification of all oppression. You make gross generalizations based on your belief all men are evil and selfish to such an extreme that the only way we can become better is by following religious creeds that make us selfless. This is preposterous. As we can see, there are plenty of atheists and agnostics who all care more about others than most religious fanatics do. Where do they get their selflessness from when there's no God telling them to be selfless? Because it is in our godless, faithless self-interest to help others as well, whether you want to admit it or not. FELIPE NO |
6:42. Before thee We sent (apostles) to many nations, and We afflicted the nations with suffering and adversity, that they might learn humility. 6: 43. When the suffering reached them from us, why then did they not learn humility? On the contrary their hearts became hardened, and Satan made their (sinful) acts seem alluring to them. 6: 44. But when they forgot the warning they had received, We opened to them the gates of all (good) things, until, in the midst of their enjoyment of Our gifts, on a sudden, We called them to account, when lo! they were plunged in despair! 6: 45. Of the wrong-doers the last remnant was cut off. Praise be to Allah, the Cherisher of the worlds. 6: 46. Say: "Think ye, if Allah took away your hearing and your sight, and sealed up your hearts, who - a god other than Allah - could restore them to you?" See how We explain the signs by various (symbols); yet they turn aside. 6: 47. Say: "Think ye, if the punishment of Allah comes to you, whether suddenly or openly, will any be destroyed except those who do wrong? 6: 48. We send the apostles only to give good news and to warn: so those who believe and mend (their lives),- upon them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve. 6: 49. But those who reject our signs,- them shall punishment touch, for that they ceased not from transgressing. God is simply saying that he sent prophets with clear signs to many communities throughout history, yet these communities ignored their warnings and persisted in their evil ways, and hence they were punished. time and time again i see people like you quoting verses like those that are above. putting things into context and a little further reading would clear all of these misconceptions up. i bet you've never even read the Quran from cover to cover and that you took those verses off of some anti-arab or anti-islamic website. i ask that you stop spreading lies about islam and that you do some proper research into it before talking about it like you're some kind of expert. martin lings' book 'muhammad' is a biography of the prophet and a good place to start as it will give you the background information needed to properly understand the context of verses like those which you quoted above. one last thing:
Thousands of the Companions of the Prophet learned the Qur'an directly from the Prophet (pbuh) just as millions of Muslims know it off by heart today. They memorized it and were known in Islamic history as huffaadh (the memorizers and preservers of the Qur'an). Moreover, a number of Companions wrote it down during the lifetime of the Prophet (peace be upon him), and it was compiled in its entirety immediately after his death. The following generation of Muslims learned the Qur’an directly from the Companions. Thus the chain of teaching and learning through direct contact continued systematically, methodically, and meticulously until the present age. Additionally, several of the Companions of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) were appointed as scribes to record the words of the revelation directly from the Prophet himself on parchment, leather, or whatever else was available. The most famous of these scribes was Zayd ibn Thabit, who also memorized the entire Qur’an, and he formed with the others a community of huffaadh that can be compared to academic societies of our present time. We know the Qur’an was recorded in totality during the lifetime of the Prophet (pbuh) and the different surahs (chapters) personally arranged by him. Many copies of the text were used for study and teaching, even in Mecca before the Hijrah, the migration to Medina. The entire Qur’an was written down during the lifetime of the Prophet Muhammad, and trusting the fact that many scholars knew it by heart, it was not collected in one volume. It was personally arranged by him, and the Muslims memorized it in the same order. The companion Uthman reported that whenever a new verse was revealed, the Prophet would immediately call a scribe to record it. He would instruct the person to put the specific verse or verses in a particular chapter. Furthermore, every year during the month of Ramadan, the Prophet would recite the whole Qur’an from beginning to end in its present-day arrangement, and everyday people could hear it from his own lips in the mosque. Its sequence is no mystery. Many of the Companions not only memorized it completely, they also wrote it down and even added commentary (tafseer) on their own personal copies. When the Prophet passed away, the whole Qur’an was already written down, but it was not yet compiled in book form. During the rule of the first Caliph Abu Bakr, there was a rebellion among some distant Arab tribes that resulted in a series of fierce battles. In one particular battle, a number Companions who had memorized the Qur’an were killed. The Companion Omar worried that the knowledge of the Qur’an was in danger, thus he convinced Abu Bakr that the Qur’an should be compiled into book form as a means of preserving it once and for all. Zayd bin Thabit was entrusted with this important task. Zayd followed strict methods in his compilation and had dozens of other huffaadh recheck his work to ensure its accuracy. Abu Bakr, who had also committed the entire Qur’an to memory, approved of the final product. After Abu Bakr passed away, the copy was passed to the Caliph ‘Omar, and then Uthman. However as the Muslim world expanded into lands where the people spoke Arabic as a second language, the new Muslims had a difficult time learning the correct pronunciation of the text. The Caliph Uthman consulted other Companions, and they agreed that official copies of the Qur’an should be inscribed using only the pronunciation of the Quraysh tribe, the Arabic dialect that the Prophet spoke. Zayd bin Thabit was again given this assignment, and three other huffaadh were assigned to help him in the task. Together, the four scribes borrowed the original, complete copy of the Qur’an, duplicated it manually many times over, and then distributed them to all of the major Muslim cities within the empire. Two of these copies still exist today: one is in Istanbul and the other in Tashkent. One must keep in mind that in traditional learning in the Arab world, transmission was based upon an oral tradition as well as a written one; the Arabs (and later all Muslims) excelled in accurately reporting scripture, poetry, aphorisms, etc. through the generations without change. Similarly, the chain of huffaadh was never broken, and thus the Qur'an today has reached us in two forms: the memorized version transmitted through the scholarly chain, and the written version based upon the Companions’ initial recording. If the Qur’an had been changed, there would be huge discrepancies between these two today, as the Qur’an has reached isolated (and sometimes illiterate) communities through the memorized form of transmission without the written form to correct it. No such discrepancies have ever been recorded or reported. In other words, isolated village A in African Mali and isolated village B in Afghanistan will both produce contemporary huffaadh reciting the same words of the Qur’an, though they did not learn from a similar printing of the scripture nor has there ever been a concerted international effort to rectify would-be discrepancies. Most amazing jew boots
I long for the day they develop a technology by which you can virtually plant a fist in someone's face over the internet. -FuzzyForeigner.
|
Nevermind that the Nazis kidnapped Jews from other countries and gassed them, or their sporadic slaughter of Russians and Ukranians, and denied the rights of self-determination to other countries, cultures, and especially individuals. Nevermind that the Jews themselves were a seperate culture unto themselves, and that the Nazis had no right to subjugate those outside of their cultural boundaries, or that the very practice of genocide didn't even conform to German norms. Nevermind, either that Roosevelt maneuvered America into fighting a war it wanted no part of (and really didn't need us) and as a result established global American hegemony and eradicated the classical liberal qualities valued by Americans due to the paranoia propagated over a threat that didn't exist (Communism). Our legacy of interventionism has fucked over several countries in the Americas and Asia, yet here you are proposing a Jacobinist rational utopia which can never be implemented because people don't appreciate being forced into conformity. How can you be this stupid?
Nigga please. Your ideology is so idiotic and old-hat that if you actually shared it with other secular rationalists they would laugh you out of the county.
Consider this excerpt from Columbus's journal: "They brought us parrots and balls of cotton and spears and many other things, which they exchanged for the glass beads and hawks' bells. They willingly traded everything they owned. . . they do not bear arms, and do not know them, for I showed them a sword, they took it by the edge and cut themselves out of ignorance . . .. Their spears are made of cane . . . they would make fine servants . . .. With fifty men we could subjugate them all and make them do whatever we want." Did this require faith in order to convince Spain that conquest was to be had?
It's not as if women aren't capable of consenting to a culture which marginalises their roles in favor of men, either. The greatest opponents of Women's Suffrage were women. It's possible to make rational judgements concerning marginalised societies in which men and women accept their gender-roles instead of encouraging social equality. In that sense, it's possible to make a reasonable claim, that it's ok to hit somebody if they deserve it. What is deserving of hitting or beating is determined by culture, and while some justifications aren't acceptable to us, that does not make them illegitimate within the bounds of that culture.
I think it's dumb as shit, but you can't end stupid.
Of course, you're also applying what is fundamentally an individual value to groups which lack political or family ties. Honor is very much still alive in society, it's just a term that possesses little use. Shit-talking behind somebody's back, for instance, is often perceived as a cowardly trait, and since cowardice cannot exist as a concept in the absence of honor, it sort of means that the concept of it is alive and well, even if it isn't applied as much semantically or given as much social import.
The "Rational World" is not a complete world, because it can only ever be based on the capabilities of human perception. It's impossible to understand beyond what the mind can perceive, and it is that uncertainty which establishes the subjective nature of "truth." The existance or non-existance of a god, or more specifically The God, can only ever be a truth and not a fact.
Jam it back in, in the dark. |
Don't fucking tell me what I believe, either. I believe that men are born without concepts of morals, and whatever morals they learn, they learn by what their culture teaches them and by their experience. I also believe that there can be godless, faithless self-interest to help others. My whole point with the oppression example was to show that godless, faithless self-interest can also hurt others and still be rational. Rationality does not always have to be right, and vice versa, because it is based on our subjective reasoning. There's nowhere I can't reach. Bless the Maker and His water. Bless the coming and the going of Him.
Last edited by StarmanDX; Jan 21, 2007 at 12:38 AM.
|
Well, technically oppression also requires power. =/
This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it. |