Gamingforce Interactive Forums
85239 35211

Go Back   Exploding Garrmondo Weiner Interactive Swiss Army Penis > Garrmondo Network > Political Palace

Notices

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).


The end of faith.
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
StarmanDX
Muad'Dib!


Member 354

Level 20.96

Mar 2006


Old Jan 19, 2007, 07:12 PM Local time: Jan 19, 2007, 06:12 PM #51 of 95
I don't need to prove they're false, because I deny their very foundation as being legitimate in a rational world. Make no mistake, a rational world is a real, tangible, observable world. A faith-based world is an imaginary, intangible, unobservable world. The imaginary has no place in the justice system of our physical world.
How very convenient for you. Throughout this thread you've thrown around the words rational and irrational as though they're going out of style, but there is no basis in rationality without truth or logic, and no basis in truth or logic without proof. If you do not or cannot disprove what you so confidantly claim to be imaginary, then your reasoning is just as much based in faith.

Originally Posted by Wiktionary.com
Noun
faith (plural faiths)

1. Mental acceptance of and confidence in a claim as truth without proof supporting the claim.

...

Synonyms
(feeling, without direct evidence but based on indirect evidence and experience (inductive reasoning), that something is true, real, or will happen): belief, confidence, trust
If you really have to change the definitions of words so much to suit your argument, I see no point in continuing this discussion.

I was speaking from an Islamic perspective. Yes there are obviously positives, but their faith will blind them to it.
And you honestly think that these positives have not occurred to and even appealed to more than a few middle-eastern Islamic bussinessmen and generals? They are clearly evident in western culture, whether the zealots like it or not. As Brady already put it, "No moral posturing will get us anywhere that observable phenomenon can't."

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.

FallDragon
Good Chocobo


Member 2657

Level 14.90

Mar 2006


Old Jan 19, 2007, 07:45 PM Local time: Jan 20, 2007, 02:45 AM #52 of 95
Originally Posted by StarmanDX
How very convenient for you. Throughout this thread you've thrown around the words rational and irrational as though they're going out of style, but there is no basis in rationality without truth or logic, and no basis in truth or logic without proof. If you do not or cannot disprove what you so confidantly claim to be imaginary, then your reasoning is just as much based in faith.
I should not need to disprove it, because it cannot be proven in the first place. I only need to disprove that which can be proven. Beating people causes pain. People don't like pain. This is proven. Showing too much skin angers Allah, and deserves beating for repentance. This cannot be proven, and thus has no significant weight against my argument.

Originally Posted by StarmanDX
If you really have to change the definitions of words so much to suit your argument, I see no point in continuing this discussion.
If you cannot deal with my definition of faith as believing in the irrational, then stop wasting my time. My definition still applies to almost all concepts of faith, and concentrates on the ones that produce irrational claims. More specifically, irrational means contradicting things that CAN be proven, such as how a beating produces pain and people don't like pain. Deal or GTFO.

Originally Posted by StarmanDX
And you honestly think that these positives have not occurred to and even appealed to more than a few middle-eastern Islamic bussinessmen and generals? They are clearly evident in western culture, whether the zealots like it or not. As Brady already put it, "No moral posturing will get us anywhere that observable phenomenon can't."
You're ignorant to their culture. I'm sure they seem appealing if you look at it from a secular point of view instead of a religious one. And I'm sure there are some silent secularists in the middle east that want this change to take place. However, the masses find no such appeal in it. I'm pretty sure the Arab culture remaining behind the times the past 300-400 years is evidence enough that moral posturing can quite easily overpower observable phenomenon.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Last edited by FallDragon; Jan 19, 2007 at 09:20 PM.
StarmanDX
Muad'Dib!


Member 354

Level 20.96

Mar 2006


Old Jan 19, 2007, 10:54 PM Local time: Jan 19, 2007, 09:54 PM #53 of 95
I should not need to disprove it, because it cannot be proven in the first place. I only need to disprove that which can be proven. Beating people causes pain. People don't like pain. This is proven. Showing too much skin angers Allah, and deserves beating for repentance. This cannot be proven, and thus has no significant weight against my argument.
And in the first place you're jumping to the conclusion that doing something to someone that they don't like, even selfish violence, cannot just as easily be rationalized or justified without faith, and is "wrong" - from your own viewpoint. Not to acknowledge that amorality is and has always been vastly prevalent, regardless of faith, is simply narrow-minded.

If you cannot deal with my definition of faith as believing in the irrational, then stop wasting my time. My definition still applies to almost all concepts of faith, and concentrates on the ones that produce irrational claims. More specifically, irrational means contradicting things that CAN be proven, such as how a beating produces pain and people don't like pain. Deal or GTFO.
Oh, I can certainly "deal" with it, even if I disagree with it. I've merely been pointing out how you've been irrational and hypocritical yourself, and you've offered little in the way of disputing that. By no means do you need to disprove religion, but doing so would mean that your matter-of-factly statements about it being undeniably false would not be based on faith. Using something that you call for the complete eradication of hurts your argument just a bit.

You're ignorant to their culture. I'm sure they seem appealing if you look at it from a secular point of view instead of a religious one. And I'm pretty sure the Arab culture remaining behind the times the past 300-400 years is evidence enough that moral posturing can quite easily overpower observable phenomenon.
And you're racist. Every single middle-easterner is completely incapable of interpreting their religion differently without diminishing it to allow for positives? I think many of those who have immigrated to a western country might just disagree with you. Granted that it's currently nearly impossible for reform to happen in the middle east itself. But where, exactly, for the past 300-400 years, have women had equal rights, and forms of media been able to convey such positives across vast distances? Considering how recently the latter has begun leaking in, expecting reforms already is impatient.

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.
FallDragon
Good Chocobo


Member 2657

Level 14.90

Mar 2006


Old Jan 19, 2007, 11:52 PM Local time: Jan 20, 2007, 06:52 AM #54 of 95
Originally Posted by StarmanDX
And in the first place you're jumping to the conclusion that doing something to someone that they don't like, even selfish violence, cannot just as easily be rationalized or justified without faith, and is "wrong" - from your own viewpoint. Not to acknowledge that amorality is and has always been vastly prevalent, regardless of faith, is simply narrow-minded.
Nice way to skip over my point that rationality is based on proof and faith-based rationality isn't. And no, injustices can't be just as easily rationalized or justified if you're not including faith. But then, I'm almost 100% sure you're not paying attention to how I'm defining faith, especially in context of political and or social motivations, so I could care less about your argument against mine.

Originally Posted by StarmanDX
Oh, I can certainly "deal" with it, even if I disagree with it. I've merely been pointing out how you've been irrational and hypocritical yourself, and you've offered little in the way of disputing that. By no means do you need to disprove religion, but doing so would mean that your matter-of-factly statements about it being undeniably false would not be based on faith. Using something that you call for the complete eradication of hurts your argument just a bit.
Any religious dogma without proof to substantiate it should be irrelevant to human justice. Secondly, I'm not disproving religion, I'm disproving faith. Get with the game. I don't need faith that there is no religious truth. I can simply look around and observe that gods have no impact on the world.

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?

Originally Posted by StarmanDX
And you're racist. Every single middle-easterner is completely incapable of interpreting their religion differently without diminishing it to allow for positives? I think many of those who have immigrated to a western country might just disagree with you. Granted that it's currently nearly impossible for reform to happen in the middle east itself. But where, exactly, for the past 300-400 years, have women had equal rights, and forms of media been able to convey such positives across vast distances? Considering how recently the latter has begun leaking in, expecting reforms already is impatient.
Playing the racist card. It's understandable to a degree to think I'm racist because I blast Islam much more than other religions, but make no mistake, it has nothing to do with the color of their skin or how intelligent or unintelligent they are as humans. This has to do with their sacred text, which greatly supports violence, and their fundamentalism that's ever prevalent in the middle east. Scroll back to the first page of this thread, and you'll see the statistics of how many Muslims in that area think it's acceptable in some way to suicide-bomb civilian targets in defense of Islam. This is why I detest their faith. If it didn't breed so much violence and death, I could care less about it and would concentrate on other subjects.

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.
Lost_solitude
stop stealing my "me time"


Member 2164

Level 13.85

Mar 2006


Old Jan 20, 2007, 12:46 AM Local time: Jan 19, 2007, 07:46 PM #55 of 95
So, I recently got done reading a book called The End of Faith by Sam Harris. In it, he goes to show that faith is the prime factor in irrational decisions and injustices throughout history.

First, he calls for an end to all established religions: especially Islam, due to the number of verses the Muslim community in the Middle east uses to support it's suicide bombings and violence. Because there is little to no moderate Islam in the middle east, and little tolerance for liberal positions on Scripture, the area has become religiously stagnant and their religious texts and faith is what drives them to violence and rationalizes their violence. If they were a faithless society, it would remove the justification for their actions. We can also go into how Christianity has used it texts and faiths to savagely murder millions, but since a majority of it's followers are now moderate, our largest concern is the end of Islam, or at least fundamental Islam.

Secondly, he makes the case that we can establish moral truths without the need for religion. He basically founds this on the principle that almost all of us want happiness and happiness for others. This is a general concept, so don't bother getting picky about it. If we establish that it is in our nature to find happiness and to provide happiness, we can then extend this into what brings happiness and what doesn't in a rational way. BUT - we can only approach rational morality this way if we first throw away faith-based rationality. An example would be: God doesn't like homosexuality, therefore it makes me unhappy to see gay people, therefore gay people should be outlawed. This is an irrational claim based on the beliefs of an unresponsive invisible being. Imagine the case where anti-gay advocates had to base their arguments on rationality: "We want to end homosexuality because they don't produce babies, and that means it wastes energy, which makes society more tired and less happy!" A bit harder to argue then the typical "GOD WILL BURN YOU" argument, eh? As our society becomes more secularized and less religionized, we will see more rational morality, such as gay unions/marriage, female/male equality, drug laws that actually make sense, etc. As we can see from the past, Religion is always playing catch-up adaptation with modern day secular morality and science.

Thirdly, he claims we can have spiritual experiences without Religion, mainly concentrating on our levels of consciousness. We still don't know why we are self-aware and other creatures are not. There's yet to be a biological marker found that says "these creatures will be self-aware and these creatures will not." The spirituality Harris puts forth is based mainly around our interaction with our self-awareness and how we can manipulate or experience reality differently. This is most commonly accomplished through meditation, drug use, and other ways yet to be discovered.

----------------------------------

That's a basic summary of the book. I think I agree with most of what he has to say. It's difficult to present the book since it covers an insane number of topics on culture and society and government and of course, religion, but I tried. There are pluses to Religion, such as establishing a community, goodwill services, etc, but these can all be accomplished just as easily through secular mechanisms instead of religious ones. Faith is, in a nutshell, the largest hindrance we've had to peace and justice in this world. If we look at the different Religions, the ones we consider most moral are the ones most closely tied to secular rationality, not faith based rationality.
Ok I don't know if anyone said this already but Christianity did not use it's text to murder millions. greedy men who wrongly used the power of the the bible killed millions. The text it self was and is against this. Jesus himself said inform the ignorant and ignore the arrogant. The text in the bible tells you that even evil thoughts are bad let alone any harmful and or evil acts. Christianity in itself never used it's text to kill millions MAN did. Also the bible's text may seem against homosexuality but does not tell people to hate gay people. The bible tells us to love all men or women no matter what. If they do something you disagree with you still treat them like you would a friend. The mus slim thing I agree with but Christianity was always about loving your fellow man and anything other wise was wrong. It may have told stories about man doing other wise but god and jesus's messages were all clear.

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

Last edited by Lost_solitude; Jan 20, 2007 at 12:50 AM.
JackyBoy
A Cinnamon Role?


Member 2219

Level 13.14

Mar 2006


Old Jan 20, 2007, 12:48 AM #56 of 95
Originally Posted by FallDragon
This is called agnostic. Unless you think you can rationally reject something from existing because of a lack of evidence. Example: there's a planet 5 million light years away that spins backwards at a speed of 3 miles a minute. Can we prove this right or wrong? No. Which means we can't make statements on whether it really exists or not. Without evidence one way or the other, you have no right to make claims on it's existence unless you have faith.
Good point. But why then do people believe in God? Why not believe in the Celestial Teapot or the Yo-Yo theory where the sun begins to revolve around Earth? Why do so many people believe in God when they could just as easily believe in any number of unknown and unprovable objects?

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.
Lost_solitude
stop stealing my "me time"


Member 2164

Level 13.85

Mar 2006


Old Jan 20, 2007, 01:01 AM Local time: Jan 19, 2007, 08:01 PM #57 of 95
Secondly, I'm not disproving religion, I'm disproving faith. Get with the game. I don't need faith that there is no religious truth. I can simply look around and observe that gods have no impact on the world.
You are disproving religious faith so yes you are disproving religion. You are not disproving faith. Faith in general can mean hey I have faith in the fact that the sun will rise tomorrow. Will you disprove that? it sounds stupid right?

Jam it back in, in the dark.
FallDragon
Good Chocobo


Member 2657

Level 14.90

Mar 2006


Old Jan 20, 2007, 01:12 AM Local time: Jan 20, 2007, 08:12 AM #58 of 95
Originally Posted by JackyBoy
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.
Haha, I like that theory. But anyway, I think I agree with most of what you say. I can't say how or why we developed the idea of God in the first place, since I really haven't studied it. Though was polytheism around before monotheism? You could then make the case polytheism started due to exaggerated claims of people doing great deeds, and eventually the Hebrews took that to the next step be embodying the concept of a god free from any human notions. I think the issue with god verses the issue with a magical teapot is that god was originally rooted in some form of fact about a man perhaps killing 20 soldiers, then exaggerated to 100 then exaggerated will this man was invincible, etc etc until you get the notion of God. I'm not sure what my point is for this paragraph haha, but it's interesting.

Originally Posted by Lost_solitude
You are disproving religious faith so yes you are disproving religion. You are not disproving faith. Faith in general can mean hey I have faith in the fact that the sun will rise tomorrow. Will you disprove that? it sounds stupid right?
I've defined faith as belief in the irrational. I'm not going to argue with you about anything, though. First read up on the past 3 pages. Don't just enter and thread and start arguing when you have no idea what I'm talking about.

There's nowhere I can't reach.
Lost_solitude
stop stealing my "me time"


Member 2164

Level 13.85

Mar 2006


Old Jan 20, 2007, 01:22 AM Local time: Jan 19, 2007, 08:22 PM #59 of 95
Haha, I like that theory. But anyway, I think I agree with most of what you say. I can't say how or why we developed the idea of God in the first place, since I really haven't studied it. Though was polytheism around before monotheism? You could then make the case polytheism started due to exaggerated claims of people doing great deeds, and eventually the Hebrews took that to the next step be embodying the concept of a god free from any human notions. I think the issue with god verses the issue with a magical teapot is that god was originally rooted in some form of fact about a man perhaps killing 20 soldiers, then exaggerated to 100 then exaggerated will this man was invincible, etc etc until you get the notion of God. I'm not sure what my point is for this paragraph haha, but it's interesting.



I've defined faith as belief in the irrational. I'm not going to argue with you about anything, though. First read up on the past 3 pages. Don't just enter and thread and start arguing when you have no idea what I'm talking about.
Calm down and be careful what you say "Secondly, I'm not disproving religion, I'm disproving faith" threw me off cause it doesnt make sense so practice what you preach.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Last edited by Lost_solitude; Jan 20, 2007 at 01:29 AM.
StarmanDX
Muad'Dib!


Member 354

Level 20.96

Mar 2006


Old Jan 20, 2007, 01:54 AM Local time: Jan 20, 2007, 12:54 AM #60 of 95
Any religious dogma without proof to substantiate it is irrelevant to human justice. Secondly, I'm not disproving religion, I'm disproving faith. Get with the game. I don't need faith that there is no religious truth. I can simply look around and observe that gods have no impact on the world.
Let's look at this before I even dignify anything else. Pay real close attention here. You have no proof for your belief that religion is inherently false; obviously you're not trying to disprove it, you feel that you already have.

Quote:
Faith for me, at this point, is defined as belief in the irrational.
And I can describe your confident disbelief in all religions as little but irrational. You know, since:
Quote:
rationality is based on proof
Sound familiar?

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.

Quote:
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?
Assuming this little scenario takes place in our own culture, where our established morals are enforced, then yes, obviously I would stop them. But since it is similarly impossible to disprove them, I would be stopping them because I have faith that they are wrong; because they contradict the morals that I believe in. I'm still being irrational, I just don't think I'm being as irrational as what they're advocating.

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.

Quote:
Scroll back to the first page of this thread, and you'll see the statistics of how many Muslims in that area think it's acceptable in some way to suicide-bomb civilian targets in defense of Islam.
Because surveys are ALWAYS incredibly accurate, right? Pardon me for having some doubts about a poll of 38,000 people in an area consisting of roughly 461 million people.

Quote:
And no, injustices can't be just as easily rationalized or justified if you're not including faith.
If you're even concerned with injustices. In such a case, would one not come to the rational conclusion that one's own happiness is more important than the happiness of others?

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.

FallDragon
Good Chocobo


Member 2657

Level 14.90

Mar 2006


Old Jan 20, 2007, 02:37 AM Local time: Jan 20, 2007, 09:37 AM #61 of 95
Originally Posted by StarmanDX
And I can describe your confident disbelief in all religions as little but irrational.
Yes, a rational world is based on proof. NOT unprovable things, as you so adamantly cling to. Proving something true or proving something is false is the foundation of a rational world, and faith has no place in it. Why? Because faith is unprovable. It will go into the same categories that Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny go into. It will only gain importance in a rational world when it can be proved or disproved.

Originally Posted by StarmanDX
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.
Exactly. The only reason faith cropped into existence is because people couldn't legitimize their beliefs rationally, so they chose instead to convince people to follow their hearts. How sweet, and how completely inconclusive.

Originally Posted by StarmanDX
But since it is similarly impossible to disprove them, I would be stopping them because I have faith that they are wrong; because they contradict the morals that I believe in. I'm still being irrational, I just don't think I'm being as irrational as what they're advocating.
And this is the exact scenario why faith fails. You aren't stopping them because of the rational, factual reality that killing people is painful and brings sorrow, you're stopping them because a Bible or a government tells you it's bad. Faith verse faith, the ultimate battle of imaginary forces, with both sides thinking God fights for them.

Originally Posted by StarmanDX
Because surveys are ALWAYS incredibly accurate, right? Pardon me for having some doubts about a poll of 38,000 people in an area consisting of roughly 461 million people.
Then you don't know much about how surveys work.

Originally Posted by StarmanDX
If you're even concerned with injustices. In such a case, would one not come to the rational conclusion that one's own happiness is more important than the happiness of others?
Yes, one owns happiness is more important. However, it is also in our self interest that the others around us are happy. And if we view the others around us as purely equals, which only rationality brings, destructive selfishness will hardly have legs to stand on. Rationality will provide justice due to our social dependence on each other.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Last edited by FallDragon; Jan 20, 2007 at 02:41 AM.
Chef Sean
Larry Oji, Super Moderator, Judge, "Dirge for the Follin" Project Director, VG Frequency Creator


Member 17504

Level 1.47

Dec 2006


Old Jan 20, 2007, 03:16 AM Local time: Jan 20, 2007, 12:16 AM #62 of 95
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.
JackyBoy
A Cinnamon Role?


Member 2219

Level 13.14

Mar 2006


Old Jan 20, 2007, 03:34 AM #63 of 95
Haha, I like that theory. But anyway, I think I agree with most of what you say. I can't say how or why we developed the idea of God in the first place, since I really haven't studied it. Though was polytheism around before monotheism? You could then make the case polytheism started due to exaggerated claims of people doing great deeds, and eventually the Hebrews took that to the next step be embodying the concept of a god free from any human notions. I think the issue with god verses the issue with a magical teapot is that god was originally rooted in some form of fact about a man perhaps killing 20 soldiers, then exaggerated to 100 then exaggerated will this man was invincible, etc etc until you get the notion of God. I'm not sure what my point is for this paragraph haha, but it's interesting.
I have to admit I don't have any of my own ideas of how religion came about but Richard Dawkins has an interesting theory. He says religion is a by-product caused by a misfire of some otherwise useful quality in human brains. He uses moths as an analogy. We've all seen a moth fly into a flame. To us it looks like the moth is simply emo and desires to end its own life in self-immolation. In actuality, moths flying into a flame according to Dawkins is a misfire caused by its otherwise useful ability to navigate using light such as the sun or in this case a flame.

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.

Originally Posted by Chef Sean
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.
I really dislike how 'faith' is used as a multipurpose word. Faith should only be used when we're referring to the mysticism of religion. Proper usage would be: I have no reason to believe in God, but my faith enables me just that. Improper usage: I have no reason to believe my friend is telling the truth but I have faith that she is. I really do hope our expectation of promise keeping does not work like this. I don't want to have to resort to prayers when a friend promises to meet me for lunch.

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.
Hachifusa
Pre-defined Avatar~


Member 121

Level 17.12

Mar 2006


Old Jan 20, 2007, 05:29 AM Local time: Jan 20, 2007, 03:29 AM #64 of 95
I have to admit I don't have any of my own ideas of how religion came about but Richard Dawkins has an interesting theory. He says religion is a by-product caused by a misfire of some otherwise useful quality in human brains. He uses moths as an analogy. We've all seen a moth fly into a flame. To us it looks like the moth is simply emo and desires to end its own life in self-immolation. In actuality, moths flying into a flame according to Dawkins is a misfire caused by its otherwise useful ability to navigate using light such as the sun or in this case a flame.
Richard Dawkins isn't the first to suggest it. Ever since Darwinian theory came about people have been trying to figure out what the necessity is for religion in our life.
Quote:
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.
Which is why, incidentally, God can be easily substituted for the 'crowd', 'society', 'the government', 'the man', etc. People are semi-conditioned for obedience; as they grow and mature, a healthy individual should discard that. The hugely religious are still clinging onto the fact that they have parents they can rely on with their 'heavenly Father'.
Quote:
I really dislike how 'faith' is used as a multipurpose word. Faith should only be used when we're referring to the mysticism of religion. Proper usage would be: I have no reason to believe in God, but my faith enables me just that. Improper usage: I have no reason to believe my friend is telling the truth but I have faith that she is. I really do hope our expectation of promise keeping does not work like this. I don't want to have to resort to prayers when a friend promises to meet me for lunch.
No, you can't pull that. The very first definition of "faith" according to Random House is 'confidence or trust in an individual or concept'. Even though it's very easy to say, "faith is the absence of reason", that's only a secondary definition, and no matter how much you might attempt to take it back people still say they have faith in a person's ability and not mean to be going against all reason. Not to mention that sometimes people use the word faith interchangably with 'religious beliefs', which is a bit different, as well.

This word "faith" is just not a clear-enough statement to make judgments like that.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?
Casual_Otaku
Carob Nut


Member 3866

Level 4.85

Mar 2006


Old Jan 20, 2007, 10:13 AM #65 of 95
blah blah blah This has to do with their sacred text, which greatly supports violence blah blah blah
sorry, but it does not promote random acts of violence... everything is justified. i'd love for you to try and prove otherwise (show me textual evidence please).

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.
Lost_solitude
stop stealing my "me time"


Member 2164

Level 13.85

Mar 2006


Old Jan 20, 2007, 12:41 PM Local time: Jan 20, 2007, 07:41 AM #66 of 95


Exactly. The only reason faith cropped into existence is because people couldn't legitimize their beliefs rationally, so they chose instead to convince people to follow their hearts. How sweet, and how completely inconclusive.


So now your against the idea of people following their hearts? Maybe i'm stupid but could you explain what bad ever came from people convincing others to follow their hearts?

There's nowhere I can't reach.
JackyBoy
A Cinnamon Role?


Member 2219

Level 13.14

Mar 2006


Old Jan 20, 2007, 01:05 PM #67 of 95
No, you can't pull that. The very first definition of "faith" according to Random House is 'confidence or trust in an individual or concept'. Even though it's very easy to say, "faith is the absence of reason", that's only a secondary definition, and no matter how much you might attempt to take it back people still say they have faith in a person's ability and not mean to be going against all reason. Not to mention that sometimes people use the word faith interchangably with 'religious beliefs', which is a bit different, as well.

This word "faith" is just not a clear-enough statement to make judgments like that.
1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
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.
StarmanDX
Muad'Dib!


Member 354

Level 20.96

Mar 2006


Old Jan 20, 2007, 03:49 PM Local time: Jan 20, 2007, 02:49 PM #68 of 95
Yes, a rational world is based on proof. NOT unprovable things, as you so adamantly cling to. Proving something true or proving something is false is the foundation of a rational world, and faith has no place in it. Why? Because faith is unprovable. It will go into the same categories that Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny go into. It will only gain importance in a rational world when it can be proved or disproved.
Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny don't exactly have sacred texts or people who claim to have had spiritual experiences with them. Until you have conclusive proof to discredit those, your belief that religion is just fairy tales is still irrational. Now, I don't personally have a problem with that, but I'm not the one advocating that irrationality is the primary cause of wrongdoing in the world.

Quote:
Exactly. The only reason faith cropped into existence is because people couldn't legitimize their beliefs rationally, so they chose instead to convince people to follow their hearts. How sweet, and how completely inconclusive.
See above.

Quote:
And this is the exact scenario why faith fails. You aren't stopping them because of the rational, factual reality that killing people is painful and brings sorrow, you're stopping them because a Bible or a government tells you it's bad. Faith verse faith, the ultimate battle of imaginary forces, with both sides thinking God fights for them.

Yes, one owns happiness is more important. However, it is also in our self interest that the others around us are happy. And if we view the others around us as purely equals, which only rationality brings, destructive selfishness will hardly have legs to stand on. Rationality will provide justice due to our social dependence on each other.
And you're still taking it on faith that causing pain and sorrow is wrong. "Because people don't like it" is irrelevent, because one can rationally come to the conclusion that doing anything to increase one's own happiness is justified. Increasing the happiness of others is irrational, since in order to do that you have to decrease your own happiness. Men have been happier than you in your wildest dreams through oppression, and not giving a second thought to equality.

Quote:
Then you don't know much about how surveys work.
I know plenty well how they can easily be manipulated, thank you very 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.


Last edited by StarmanDX; Jan 20, 2007 at 04:49 PM.
FallDragon
Good Chocobo


Member 2657

Level 14.90

Mar 2006


Old Jan 20, 2007, 04:56 PM Local time: Jan 20, 2007, 11:56 PM #69 of 95
Originally Posted by Casual_Otaku
sorry, but it does not promote random acts of violence... everything is justified. i'd love for you to try and prove otherwise (show me textual evidence please).
Fighting is obligatory for you, much as you dislike it. But you may hate a thing although it is good for you, and love a thing although it is bad for you. God knows, but you know not. 2:216

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.

Originally Posted by Lost_Solitude
So now your against the idea of people following their hearts? Maybe i'm stupid but could you explain what bad ever came from people convincing others to follow their hearts?
"Rudolph Hess, when swearing in the entire Nazi party in 1934, exhorted his hearers: "Do not seek Adolph Hitler with your brains; all of you will find him with the strength of your hearts." - The True Believer

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.

Originally Posted by StarmanDX
Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny don't exactly have sacred texts or people who claim to have had spiritual experiences with them. Until you can conclusively disprove those, your belief that religion is just fairy tales is just as irrational as religious faith.
Sacred texts have unproven prophecies, but those are ignored because you can always "reinterpret" them. Sacred texts with grammatical errors and edits throughout. You do realize that none of our current Bible or Koran or anything, is based off original texts, right? They use copies of copies of copies, and who knows what the copiers wanted to put in there themselves. The only way we can accept anything Religion says as true is if the entire text itself was perfect, which it obviously isn't to those who've actually studied it. If the sacred texts are fallible, so are their messages, and thus prove no solid foundation for their beliefs. The texts themselves actually contradict what happened in real world history, whether it be time line wise or prophecy wise, and if that isn't enough proof to show it's false I don't know what is.

Originally Posted by StarmanDX
And you're still taking it on faith that causing pain and sorrow is wrong. "Because people don't like it" is irrelevent, because one can rationally come to the conclusion that doing anything to increase one's own happiness is justified. Increasing the happiness of others is irrational, since in order to do that you usually have to decrease your own happiness. Men have been happier than you in your wildest dreams through oppression, and not giving a second thought to equality.
I'm taking it on faith that causing pain and sorrow is wrong? What kind of bullshit mentality is that? Because people don't like it is extremely relevant, because we should be the judges of what harms us in a rational way. The mentality of "fuck everybody except myself" is NOT rational. We are a social society and must live with each other, and it's easy to reason that we need to depend upon each other to live the most enjoyable life. It's also irrational to think we decrease our own happiness when making others happy. In almost all cases, when we do something good for somebody else, we feel proud of ourselves and happy about ourselves.

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.
StarmanDX
Muad'Dib!


Member 354

Level 20.96

Mar 2006


Old Jan 20, 2007, 05:28 PM Local time: Jan 20, 2007, 04:28 PM #70 of 95
Sacred texts with have unproven prophecies, but those are ignored because you can always "reinterpret" them. Sacred texts with grammatical errors and edits throughout. You do realize that none of our current Bible or Koran or anything, is based off original texts, right? They use copies of copies of copies, and who knows what the copiers wanted to put in there themselves. The only way we can accept anything Religion says as true is if the entire text itself was perfect, which it obviously isn't to those who've actually studied it. If the sacred texts are fallible, so are their messages, and thus prove no solid foundation for their beliefs. The texts themselves actually contradict what happened in real world history, whether it be time line wise or prophecy wise, and if that isn't enough proof to show it's false I don't know what is.
Discrepencies alone are not proof, considering they are a result of the fallacy of men, not the god of their religion. Sacred texts are still secondary to personal spiritual experience, since with that one could theoretically discern what is wrong and right with the book.

"Real" world history is subject to the same possible fallacies that any sacred text is.

Quote:
I'm taking it on faith that causing pain and sorrow is wrong? What kind of bullshit mentality is that? Because people don't like it is extremely relevant, because we should be the judges of what harms us in a rational way. The mentality of "fuck everybody except myself" is NOT rational. We are a social society and must live with each other, and it's easy to reason that we need to depend upon each other to live the most enjoyable life. It's also irrational to think we decrease our own happiness when making others happy. In almost all cases, when we do something good for somebody else, we feel proud of ourselves and happy about ourselves.

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.
But the mentality of "fuck everybody but myself" sure worked well for the perpetrators of oppression. And there is a vast difference between oppressing people for greed and power, and oppressing people because you don't believe them equal. Since the latter rationally serves no purpose, it is likely that it is a side-effect of the former. As if there's any rationality behind coming to the conclusion that feeling proud and happy for themselves would be compensation for giving up their wealth and power.

How ya doing, buddy?

Bless the Maker and His water. Bless the coming and the going of Him.

FallDragon
Good Chocobo


Member 2657

Level 14.90

Mar 2006


Old Jan 20, 2007, 06:34 PM Local time: Jan 21, 2007, 01:34 AM #71 of 95
Originally Posted by StarmanDX
Discrepencies alone are not proof, considering they are a result of the fallacy of men, not the god of their religion. Sacred texts are still secondary to personal spiritual experience, since with that one could theoretically discern what is wrong and right with the book.

"Real" world history is subject to the same possible fallacies that any sacred text is.
Incorrect. Discrepancies are proof enough considering sacred texts claim to be holy and without error, inspired by God, and preserved for all time by God himself. Therefore it proves itself invalid because it cannot sustain all of it's self-claimed attributes. The gods of today's religions are wholly based off of and inspired from texts, therefore proof is wholly dependent upon the provability of texts. Unfortunately for them, the texts fail it's own litmus test.

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.

Originally Posted by StarmanDX
But the mentality of "fuck everybody but myself" sure worked well for the perpetrators of oppression. And there is a vast difference between oppressing people for greed and power, and oppressing people because you don't believe them equal. Since the latter rationally serves no purpose, it is likely that it is a side-effect of the former. As if there's any rationality behind coming to the conclusion that feeling proud and happy for themselves would be compensation for giving up their wealth and power.
The perpetrators of oppression used many more factors beyond "fuck everybody but myself." They still had to convince many others in lower levels to keep them in power, lest an overthrow occurs. This shows that even the most ruthless people have dependence on others, and need help from others, and thus try to keep others happy. Don't grossly generalize things to win your points when you haven't thought them through.

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
Casual_Otaku
Carob Nut


Member 3866

Level 4.85

Mar 2006


Old Jan 20, 2007, 06:44 PM #72 of 95
Fighting is obligatory for you, much as you dislike it. But you may hate a thing although it is good for you, and love a thing although it is bad for you. God knows, but you know not. 2:216
surah 2, known as 'the cow'. this was revealed at a time when prophet muhammad (pbuh) was fighting in wars and oppression against the pagan arab tribes. these pagans were hell bent on wiping out islam because its concept of monotheism went against their idol worship. it also threatened their livelihoods because idol worship made them prosperous due to the pilgrimages and tourism of idol worshippers thoughout arabia who would visit each year (at the time mecca was the centre of idol worship in arabia). this verse was telling muslims that they must fight back when oppressed even though they were scared/outnumbered/etc. i don't see a problem with it.

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
surah 3, known as 'the family of imran'. it doesn't say "don't take non-muslims as friends", but rather "don't take non-muslims as friends IN PREFERENCE to muslims". it also doesn't say not to associate with non-muslims at all, because if this were the case then muslims wouldn't be able to propogate the religion to non-muslims. again, i don't see a problem with it.

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, but greater is the hatred which their breasts conceal.
same surah as before, except this time it talks more specifically about the pagan arab tribes who were oppressing the muslims. many of these pagans wished for the muslims to turn away from the new religion and back into idol worship, so the surah serves as a warning to the muslims because it explains the true, hidden intentions of the pagans. again, i don't see a problem with it.

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
same surah as before, and same points apply.

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
surah 6, known as 'cattle' or 'livestock'. let's look at this in a little more context:

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:

You do realize that none of our current Bible or Koran or anything, is based off original texts, right? They use copies of copies of copies, and who knows what the copiers wanted to put in there themselves.
i didn't have a lot of time to write this response so i'm going to re-use this article:

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.
Bradylama
Banned


Member 18

Level 51.14

Feb 2006


Old Jan 20, 2007, 07:50 PM Local time: Jan 20, 2007, 07:50 PM #73 of 95
Quote:
If you can rationalize this into some kind of theory of relative cultures, go right ahead, but it's sad to think there are people like you who succumb to that liberal propaganda of non-action. You're the kind who will sit on their asses while Germany kills jews and say "well, they're from a different culture, we should hope they see the virtues of our society to change because war is bad."
Leave it to a Neo-Conservative to use strawmen and debating ad-Hitlerum when he feels cornered.

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?

Quote:
Why did they become that way? Because there was huge amount of evidence that overwhelmed and contradicted previously held notions and people found virtue in rationality. Can we say the same will happen to the Arab community? Possibly. But how long are you willing to wait while they have nuclear bombs in their lockers? 10 years? 100? 1000 years for a revolution in their culture? You think somebody isn't going to get nuked before then?
No, I don't think anybody is going to get nuked before then, because nuclear weapons are weapons which are ultimately extensions of national pride. The actual use of nuclear weapons is inconceivable, even to men like Ahmadinejad, because the result of their use is always mutual annihilation. Yet you want to go start wars and create more enemies for America instead of playing nuclear hardball and ending these programs through hard diplomacy. Iran and North Korea are nations with big talk and no power, yet you want to depose their regimes by force and consequently force our own values upon a people who is conditioned to be resistant to them because of the very fact that they're being forced upon them. You're satisfied with the notion that we should encourage freedom in Iraq through oppression and socialist oligarchy.

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.

Quote:
It's no longer practiced out of faith based reasons, no, but it's a relic of our religious past. It's where it originated from. Why do doctors still recommend it? Probably mostly due to medical reasons, since it's easier to catch diseases with the foreskin on. If you'd like to disagree and say that doctor's don't know what they're talking about, go right ahead, but your war on foreskin cutting is the most ridiculous way to argue for moral relativity so I'm going to stop responding to posts about it. It's wasted space.
Then wallow in your ignorance and hypocracy.

Quote:
Incorrect. Is this some kind of magical bullshit theory you pulled out of your ass? I'm not going to respond to this point until you make some kind of legitimate claim that the concept of faith, as I've defined it, is interlinked with trust. I've defined faith as belief in the irrational how many times now, yet you're still trying to wiggle out other definitions to prove I'm "wrong". How about you start paying attention? I already addressed confidence in others with Sass. The faith I'm speaking of is faith in the irrational - which is what these societies had when following their respective leaders.
It's irrational to presume that you can trust people, even with relative histories of reliability and good faith. Kids have turned in their own parents for drug charges, and you think that trusting people isn't irrational?

Quote:
You think they would have gone ahead with it even if they had no justification for their actions?
They were a technologically inferior people who may have possessed vast amounts of wealth. That's essentially all the justification they needed.

Quote:
If they wouldn't be able to degrade the natives through use of faith-based labels it would have been terribly more difficult.If they wouldn't be able to degrade the natives through use of faith-based labels it would have been terribly more difficult.
"Stupid" and "warlike" are not faith-based labels.

Quote:
They sugar-coated their actions in faith. This sugar-coating is what makes these actions acceptable in their consciousness. There was also faith that their culture and government was superior to the natives as well. If you remove all these faith based principles and justifications and leave them simply with "we want money and women, so we're going to go rape and pillage these humans who are equally intelligent and legitimate as we are" it would've been nearly impossible.
Which is wrong, because the Spaniards knew that what they were doing was inhuman. The application of faith gave them Casus Belli to do as they pleased in relation to other Spaniards and Europeans, yet there was no denying at the individual level that raping and murdering people was wrong. The greatest critic of Spanish imperialism, Bartolomé de Las Casas, was himself a man of God and understood first-hand the immorality (faith-based even) of slavery, first for Native Americans, then for Africans.

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?

Quote:
You can HARDLY convince people to attack others without lowering the other group to sub-human standards. I'd make the case you never can, not counting individual sociopaths. I'm talking group theory. You're saying you can just convince a group of people to go out to steal and murder without needing to make them impassioned for an irrational cause, and I say you're full of shit.
It's not a matter of lowering them to sub-human standards, but of presenting them as a competitive "other" which seeks to gain prosperity at their own expense. The British and French did not consider each other inhuman, yet that still didn't discourage both peoples from continually attempting to subjugate the other. The Mongols had no illusions concerning the humanity of their enemies, they merely played ball harder than anybody else. The Turks essentially did the same thing, until Vlad Dracula.

Quote:
All these examples you give of atrocities have non-faith based roots. Power, money, political gain. But all of them use FAITH to justify their actions. Once faith is removed from the picture, there are no more excuses to make you seem good and righteous, and people will see you for what you truly are; a thief, a murderer, etc.
Fascist and Communist atrocities weren't performed using faith in order to justify their actions, because they didn't need to justify their actions. The Boss starved millions of Ukrainians to death because he ruled the USSR through fear. What they did have to justify and attempt to reason for, was their rise to power, but after that point it didn't matter what people thought of their actions.

Quote:
No, they don't have to come out of it naturally. You seem to think the only options are killing and converting, or doing nothing at all. That's ridiculous. There could be many methods to turning the Arab culture into a moderate secular society by way of religious doctrine. Start with the more moderate countries to begin with, and start up religious campaigns for moderate Islam and try to work it into the core of their beliefs. Yes, this is basically hijacking their religion to turn it into a secular, rational based one, but that's fine with me. If we can twist their fairy tales into ones that don't justify murder so easily, just as we've twisted our own, all for the better.
So because an ideology is foreign-backed, you don't think that Wahabiists wouldn't capitalize on that? Any movement towards secularization has to be purely Arab, otherwise it'll be easily delegitimized. The only realistic alternative is a forced change.

Quote:
Yes, considering we won't KILL you for being another religion and they WILL. Again you love to blame America for shit but refuse to admit that we are a more rational and thus more just system. You, for some reason, refuse to make that connection. You say that systems of irrational justice may be equally legitimate as rational ones. This is a terribly liberal argument. Beating a human causes pain. Pain is not happiness to the one being beaten. Therefore, we can draw the rational conclusion that we shouldn't BEAT people. But the Arabs do, and why? Because they sugar-coat it in their faith to make it seem like they're doing the right thing. Do you really think Arabs would continue to beat their women if they no longer held faith-based, irrational principles like inferiority of women and religious rules?
I'm not going to say that the American system isn't the superior one, yet the quality of one system doesn't delegitimize another, especially when the issue of quality is itself subjective. Would Arab societies no longer continue beating women if all elements didn't believe in it? It's a self-resolving question, though in Islam there is quite a bit of controversy on the part of scholars claiming that wife beating has no real Qu'ranic basis, and that Muhammad himself condemned the act of wife beating, even though he made exceptions in cases of "disobedience" to use non-harmful striking as a last resort of disciplinary action.

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.

Quote:
And what is homosexual intolerance? A FAITH-based principle for Christ sake. Are you not fucking pay attention to what I'm saying?? I'm saying our SECULAR.RATIONAL.BELIEFS should be spread, for like the third time now. For fuck's sake, Brady. And your argument makes no sense. "Curb stompers" I assume are people who beat homosexuals? If we prosecute them, we're saying they're doing wrong. If we don't prosecute them, we're saying they're doing right. We prosecute them. Just as Arabs should prosecute wife beating, but don't, because their irrational faith-based system makes it OK.
One does not require a faith-based conclusion to understand that homosexuality is genetically unproductive, and therefore should be squelched. Arabs are actually supposed to prosecute wife beating, the problem is that the male-dominant cultural traits they inherited from conquered peoples has encouraged the adoption of clothing that hides the bruises which are forbidden according to Sharia. When you couple that with battered wife syndrome, there's very little room within the culture for the act to be contested by women. They can make arguments based on faith which eliminate the practice entirely, yet are presently incapable of having much effect because of the massive ignorance of the Islamic populace concerning their own religion. The wearing of body-covering articles is itself oddly perceived as a liberating tool by women, because they feel it protects them from the leering gaze of men who are incapable of controlling their own desires, even though Muhammad encourages them to do precisely the opposite. It's even gotten to the point where they've lobbied for female-only facilities so that they can expose themselves to the sun without being visually violated by the leering gaze of evil men. It's something which has even been oddly adopted by some radical European feminists who feel that it allows them to isolate themselves from the corrupting influence of men.

I think it's dumb as shit, but you can't end stupid.

Quote:
Buzzwords? WTF. Dependability means they deliver a product consistently. Efficiency means they can get the job done in a short amount of time while producing a quality product. Friendliness means the welcoming of pleasant conversation, etc. Oh, and what does your magical word Honor mean in context of business? Absolute bullshit. Hmmm, I wonder why we don't see marketing campaigns based around which companies are most honorable to buy from? I suppose it's because the word is bullshit.
I suppose the concept of "friendly business practice" is also foreign to you, and how the practice of businesses according to lobbying to reduce competition (Wal-Mart) makes those businesses less desirable to people who value free markets and fair play.

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.

Quote:
Then they're ignoring the possibilities of a rational world, and the possibilities of a rational morality. They gave up and decide to believe in nothing.
Yet, believing in nothing also lets them operate outside the bounds of morality. If morality cannot apply universally, then there can never be such a thing as "universal morality."

Quote:
Incorrect. You're neglecting the possibilities of a rational world. Moral subjectivity exists today due to development alongside faith. Punishment of wrong doing may always be subjective, but the degree to which any given action is wrong or right is not. Remove the faith and stick in rationality, and everyone will come to the same basic conclusions. And don't bullshit me with saying moral truth requires faith. I'm talking about rational moral truth based on individual freedom. If you think individual freedom is under the category "subjective truth", I call it complete bullshit. You're denying others the right to individual freedoms because of an illusory world. That should be a crime in and of itself.
The possibility of a rational world is itself flawed, because reasoning is a subjective behavior. There are no objective conclusions which may be reached through the application of reason, there may only be consensus or majorities. Reason itself, may also be fundamentally flawed if it is based on criteria which prove to be false, in the same way that logicical conclusions may also be false. It is impossible to disprove the existence of a god, for instance, because most of the legitimate religions of the world are based on traditions which pre-date written history. Hell, even concerning our own immediate history it's impossible to establish what is and isn't fact. In order to establish that the concept of a god is the pure product of imagination, you would need a time machine with which to observe the genesis of the concept. This isn't like Scientology where it's obvious that people are just making this shit up.

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.

Quote:
It's a controversy because of irrationality. Because of belief in God, belief in Allah, belief that group A should have more rights than group B. All irrational.
Right. So come up with a rational conclusion concerning abortion. Even in classical liberal circles, people are divided on the issue. If there are issues which don't have a position determined by objective rationality, then such a thing cannot exist.

Jam it back in, in the dark.
StarmanDX
Muad'Dib!


Member 354

Level 20.96

Mar 2006


Old Jan 20, 2007, 11:03 PM Local time: Jan 20, 2007, 10:03 PM #74 of 95
Incorrect. Discrepancies are proof enough considering sacred texts claim to be holy and without error, inspired by God, and preserved for all time by God himself. Therefore it proves itself invalid because it cannot sustain all of it's self-claimed attributes.
Inspired by God, but written, translated, and copied by men. How do you know that any of the self-claimed attribute of being preserved for all time was not an error added to the book?

Quote:
The gods of today's religions are wholly based off of and inspired from texts, therefore proof is wholly dependent upon the provability of texts.

Originally Posted by StarmanDX
Sacred texts are still secondary to personal spiritual experience, since with that one could theoretically discern what is wrong and right with the book.
Personally, I tend to rip the entirety of The Song of Solomon out of every Old Testament I own, because I feel that it was not inspired by God in any way.

Quote:
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.
Just because different interprations are convenient, that doesn't invalidate them.

Quote:
World history is not subject to claims without evidence.
Evidence? So do you happen to have a photograph of Washington crossing the Delaware? A video of Hannibal Barca crossing the Alps? Just like sacred texts, history was written, translated and copied, and those men may or may not have done so accurately.

Quote:
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.
My major qualm is not over the validity or invalidity of religion, it's over your claim to know that religion is invalid. If you merely said that you think religion is invalid based on likely evidence, I wouldn't be posting in this thread.

Quote:
The perpetrators of oppression used many more factors beyond "fuck everybody but myself." They still had to convince many others in lower levels to keep them in power, lest an overthrow occurs. This shows that even the most ruthless people have dependence on others, and need help from others, and thus try to keep others happy. Don't grossly generalize things to win your points when you haven't thought them through.
Oppression requires one thing and one thing alone to exist: greed. Other factors, such as faith, make it easier, but they do not generate oppresion.

Quote:
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.
And you apparently can't grasp the concept that moral absolutes may not exist. Faith is not needed to justify anything if you don't care about justifying it.

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.
Bradylama
Banned


Member 18

Level 51.14

Feb 2006


Old Jan 20, 2007, 11:09 PM Local time: Jan 20, 2007, 11:09 PM #75 of 95
Well, technically oppression also requires power. =/

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.
Closed Thread

Thread Tools

Exploding Garrmondo Weiner Interactive Swiss Army Penis > Garrmondo Network > Political Palace > The end of faith.

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:02 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.