I think it is rather foolish of you to assume a conversion based on a correspondence you've had on a forum?
Conversion?
I haven't made a case for Islam, I am not sure I was under obligation to? I'd rather cultivate the knowledge of existing Muslims than engage in vain discourse with atheists, indeed I have expressed that in an abundant manner on various threads!
Are atheists not worth talking to?
My 'cynicism' is merely at folks who wish to tread on an Islamic forum or even attack Islam on a website or a book, and yet expect to be handled with kid gloves when met with the same tone!
Why not discuss things with them in a civilised way, instead of ranting and raving all the time?
So why do you spend so much time on the forum conversing with people you clearly hold in the utmost contempt?
How much time have I spent? were you timing me?
Clearly not. Part of its definition might include not ranting and raving all the time.
Peace
I think you are ranting and raving now- No?.. does the principal of 'civility' only apply to theists? the way I see it is, I wouldn't spend $300 on a $20 skirt, and I don't go all out, for folks who define the rules for us only to neglect them... if you have something of substance to impart on the topic itself and not my own person, then by all means please do so, if you don't, then contrary to your delusions- I don't in fact have so much time to spend tit for tat with you- and you can call it a day
all the best
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
Dawkins gets up theists noses so much because of the force of his agruements.
It's hard to battle measurable fact with fanciful ideation.
If he really was talking rubbish, he wouldnt get the response from theists that he does.
Hmm...i just Ockhammed that arguement . :|
Occupation: The term of control of a territory by foreign military forces: Iraq 2003-2005 Liberation:when something or someone is freed: Operation Telic 2003
he is a tethered animal who gets into everyone's face.. I would indeed agree non-reinforcement is best for someone like him.. but what is worst than being a ranting idiot saving being the bottom feeder of a ranting idiot...
*shrugs shoulders*
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
Dawkins gets up theists noses so much because of the force of his agruements.
It's hard to battle measurable fact with fanciful ideation.
If he really was talking rubbish, he wouldnt get the response from theists that he does.
Hmm...i just Ockhammed that arguement . :|
Pat Robertson gets many peoples noses too, and his fans also believe that it is the force of their argument and measurable facts.
It is not Al-Birr (piety, righteousness, and obedience to Allâh, etc.) that you turn your faces towards east and (or) west (in prayers); but Al-Birr is (the quality of) the one who believes in Allâh, the Last Day, the Angels, the Book, the Prophets and gives his wealth, in spite of love for it, to the kinsfolk, to the orphans, and to Al-Masâkîn (the poor), and to the wayfarer, and to those who ask, and to set slaves free, performs As-Salât, and gives the Zakât, and keep their word whenever they make a promise, and who are patient in extreme poverty and ailment (disease) and at the time of persecution, hardship, and war. Such are the people of the truth and they are Al-Muttaqûn (the pious).
what is worst than being a ranting idiot saving being the bottom feeder of a ranting idiot...
*shrugs shoulders*
You talking about my posts again?
Occupation: The term of control of a territory by foreign military forces: Iraq 2003-2005 Liberation:when something or someone is freed: Operation Telic 2003
The question I asked you was: "Who designed the designer?"
lol that is jokes man, listen we know that Allah (God) is eternal and the definition of eternal is something that has no beggining or an end, now you said who designed the designer welll if Allah was to be designed then we would not be eternal, you understand, Allah can not be designed so why you asking such as thing? you cant be designed or created if you are eternal. now on to my second point, who designed the universe????????-------and we know the universe is not infinite or "eternal"...... that you can ask and the answer is Allah.
LOL i like harun yahyas work, well all of it, until couple of days ago i was hearing that he has alot of unscientific and well work which contains errors, none that i have seen so far, i think he is a great man, which defends the creationists in my opinoun
Science is based on reason and measurements and observable facts. Therefore it may be used as a critical base.
Next up: Apples versus oranges. The winner? Purple.
Which is to say that theology is more on the philosophical than the empirical side of the spectrum. Which is to say neither faith nor logic can 'prove' or 'disprove' the other.
Theology critisising this with unprovable unmeasurable unsubstaniated ideas is only as qualified as philosophy to do this.
Yes. Because it's an entirely different field.
I will clarify that it's my beleif that Human control mechanisms, many and varied as they are, invented religion. It is perhaps the earliest of such mechanisms perhaps only after the father's wooden club and throwing rocks at the tribes failures.
Okay.
The Ubermenche isnt the deity. The Ubermench is the Saved, the salvated, the chosen people, the blessed, the beleivers, the residents of national-socialist paradise.
So, rather than religion per se, your dispute (among others) is with the concept of the Chosen People, wherever and however it manifests, because of its ease of abuse?
You can disobay Gods law if you wish to be burned at a stake,imprisoned, beheaded or cast out from your society.
You can disobey man's law if you wish to be executed, incarcerated or sued into the poor house.
There are consequences to breaking rules. Those who are particularly good at it manage to avoid the consequences, whether the rules are said to be divine or man-made.
Hard though some things may be consitutionally to amend, they can be amended. You cant "amend" the Koran, it dosnt need amending.
Ever.
Apart from the odd abrogation here and there in its early history. But now, it does not need amending. Same as the American Constitution, as it stands, does not need amending. Or the Magna Carta. Does that mean some will never attempt to amend it, however misguidedly? Who can say?
Sorry if I diddnt address it: Hitler and Stalin diddnt claim to be Gods. Their people would have expected miracles in an age of Photography and radio.
They made themselves Gods on earth in the eyes of their people by the age old methods of religion.
So, when we have two non-religious, arguably atheistic tyrants, their vile methods are only condemned with qualifications? 'Yes, what they did was bad, but they were only following the template set by religious people!'
That is what I object to. That sort of scapegoating or buck-passing. I don't care if you claim to be Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu, Sikh or atheist, we all agree the oppression of innocents is wrong, and if you indulge in it, we will condemn you.
Baney, If I have jumped to the wrong conclusion, as I am wont to do, I do apologise.
format_quote Originally Posted by barney
Dawkins gets up theists noses so much because of the force of his agruements.
As opposed to the strength of them.
It's hard to battle measurable fact with fanciful ideation.
Except that Dawkins himself believes in the concept of an overlording master intelligence. He just doesn't like the term 'God' because it implies something supernatural.
Given that, I find Mr Dawkins' personal dispute with religion rather puzzling. It needn't be framed in confrontation for one thing.
If he really was talking rubbish, he wouldnt get the response from theists that he does.
What kind of argument is that?
In the information age, anyone can get a response. Just visit YouTube. The mere existence of a response does not imply the strengths or weaknesses of the initial argument. That's rather circular. That's like saying, 'If God didn't exist, we wouldn't be on an Islamic forum debating His existence, would we? Hmm?'
Next up: Apples versus oranges. The winner? Purple.
Which is to say that theology is more on the philosophical than the empirical side of the spectrum. Which is to say neither faith nor logic can 'prove' or 'disprove' the other.
Yes. Because it's an entirely different field.
Okay.
So, rather than religion per se, your dispute (among others) is with the concept of the Chosen People, wherever and however it manifests, because of its ease of abuse?
You can disobey man's law if you wish to be executed, incarcerated or sued into the poor house.
There are consequences to breaking rules. Those who are particularly good at it manage to avoid the consequences, whether the rules are said to be divine or man-made.
Apart from the odd abrogation here and there in its early history. But now, it does not need amending. Same as the American Constitution, as it stands, does not need amending. Or the Magna Carta. Does that mean some will never attempt to amend it, however misguidedly? Who can say?
So, when we have two non-religious, arguably atheistic tyrants, their vile methods are only condemned with qualifications? 'Yes, what they did was bad, but they were only following the template set by religious people!'
That is what I object to. That sort of scapegoating or buck-passing. I don't care if you claim to be Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu, Sikh or atheist, we all agree the oppression of innocents is wrong, and if you indulge in it, we will condemn you.
Baney, If I have jumped to the wrong conclusion, as I am wont to do, I do apologise.
As opposed to the strength of them.
Except that Dawkins himself believes in the concept of an overlording master intelligence. He just doesn't like the term 'God' because it implies something supernatural.
Given that, I find Mr Dawkins' personal dispute with religion rather puzzling. It needn't be framed in confrontation for one thing.
What kind of argument is that?
In the information age, anyone can get a response. Just visit YouTube. The mere existence of a response does not imply the strengths or weaknesses of the initial argument. That's rather circular. That's like saying, 'If God didn't exist, we wouldn't be on an Islamic forum debating His existence, would we? Hmm?'
The correct simaler would be, Apples? Are they a Fruit or a thing of grace and splendour?
Theology is a "Field" which is simply a collective interpretation of others ideas, which rests on its substance as provable by itself. You start with nothing you may debate nothing for 4000 years and end up with....?
I Dispute both. The ubermenche is an effect. Theism is the cause.
Wonderful, yet by mans law you cant now get burned as a witch. By Gods law, you must for now and ever.
Would you advocate abrogating something from the Quran? Thats impossible, the only person with that power was Mohammed.
Well they werent following an Atheistic template. There isnt one. Also, as you have agreed, the methods they used were identical to.....?
Force to include strength
Dawkins argues against an overlording intelligence debunking it simply by the truth that the complex needs the supercomplex to create. Perhaps I'm getting your meaning wrong? Dawkins definatly dosnt argue that!
Its a poor arguement. People can get very very worked up by beleifs. Perhaps its natural that he draws such fire. Even if he wrote a series of books saying the world was made from a fine french cheese, he would be hated by theists.
Nice debate BTW, and apologies for not multiquoting...its so blinking time consuming!
Cheers.
Occupation: The term of control of a territory by foreign military forces: Iraq 2003-2005 Liberation:when something or someone is freed: Operation Telic 2003
Read more philosophy, then, and make up your mind. I'd particularly recommend reading Kant, Hume, Russell, and Popper.
Reading what about them?
I don't see any pattern or logic in your recomendations it seems like you were just name dropping. I mean Kant reacted against Hume so I can kind of see the reasoning for that but Popper's main contributions were in political philosophy and overcomeing epistemological problems posed by naturalism and falsifiability. Russell fits with Hume and Popper but a lot of his really important work is outdated. I mean I guess there is "On Denoting" but I don't see how referentialism and identity theory really fits in. I mean the biggest problem is he wrote on a huge ammount of topics, what exactly do you want her to read from Russell?
Should she crack open a fresh copy of Principia Mathematica? Because "read Russell" could fit into anything from technical mathematical papers to Vietnam.
Dawkins gets up theists noses so much because of the force of his agruements.
It's hard to battle measurable fact with fanciful ideation.
If he really was talking rubbish, he wouldnt get the response from theists that he does.
Hmm...i just Ockhammed that arguement . :|
I think his reaction is largely due to his reputation as a scientist. I have never heard him advance any particularly interesting or powerfull argument outside the biological sciences. Quite honestly I really doubt "The God Delusion" would have been published if it didn't have the "Dawkins Brand" on it.
I don't have any problem with Dawkins. He deserves credit for his scientific reaserch, but I don't think his non-scientific writtings will survive, at least on their merits, beyond this latest wave of "New Atheism".
Mc Grath brings up Russia and Hitler indeed. But Dawkins covered them too. Hitler and Stalin, (and Mao and Pot and Sung) all created new religions (National socialism, Juche etc)as the perfect control mechanisms from history are religious. They all borrowed the fundements of religion, deity worship, scripture symbology, gathering and observance, doctine and song, to make their religion with them as the deitey.
Good question, but since this is a debate about atheism vs. theism, perhaps you can guess?
I don't see any pattern or logic in your recomendations it seems like you were just name dropping.
Thanks for your confidence. Those philosophers have all offered interesting arguments on the god question. It's a pity more people aren't aware of them.
Good question, but since this is a debate about atheism vs. theism, perhaps you can guess?
If one is somewhat aquainted with them then that that would not be to cryptic a recomendation. However you are assuming that she is not aquainted with the authors in question which would make the recomendation hopelessly ambiguious.
Kant's magnum opus was "Critique of Pure Reason" which does contain criticisms of natural theology and classical arguments for God's existance however I am not sure how keen Islam is on natural theology. The Qur'an makes a lot of teological appeals but that is the only direct relivance Kant would have.
Russell seemd to primairly focus on Christianity, He made some general critiques of religion that wern't specific to religion but given the scope and size of his work one would really need to know where to look.
Hume all that comes off the top of my head is his argument against miricles which is interesting enough but I don't think you would have to "read him" to get that. I would think more readable and brief versions would be avaliable.
Popper I guess that's more obvious given the nature of his work.
That's all that comes off the top of my head that would relate here. Unless you mean in a more conceptual sense but again I don't know that the systems are conceptually consistant.
Thanks for your confidence. Those philosophers have all offered interesting arguments on the god question. It's a pity more people aren't aware of them.
If one is somewhat aquainted with them then that that would not be to cryptic a recomendation. However you are assuming that she is not aquainted with the authors in question which would make the recomendation hopelessly ambiguious.
I don't see what you're getting at with this at all.
Kant's magnum opus was "Critique of Pure Reason" which does contain criticisms of natural theology and classical arguments for God's existance however I am not sure how keen Islam is on natural theology.
But you may well be aware of how keen Islamic scholars are on classical arguments for the existence of god, despite Kant and many others.
Russell seemd to primairly focus on Christianity, He made some general critiques of religion that wern't specific to religion but given the scope and size of his work one would really need to know where to look.
Or, miracle of miracles, one could do some research!
Hume all that comes off the top of my head is his argument against miricles which is interesting enough but I don't think you would have to "read him" to get that. I would think more readable and brief versions would be avaliable.
That's all that comes off the top of your head? Well, I guess that settles that, then.
I don't see what you're getting at with this at all.
That the advise was unrealistic.
But you may well be aware of how keen Islamic scholars are on classical arguments for the existence of god, despite Kant and many others.
Sure
Or, miracle of miracles, one could do some research!
Obviously you don't know enough about this, you should read Aquinas, Sartre, Kierkegaard, Godel, Dummett, and Wittgenstein.
If you find this adivse somewhat cryptic perhapse you should do some reaserch!
That's all that comes off the top of your head? Well, I guess that settles that, then.
Peace
Given how brief my response was I don't know much about the subject, I was obviously not implying that because thats all I can think of thats all there was about the subject.
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
Array
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Posting Permissions
Quote
Bookmarks