Heartland

My brain is being slowly and agonizingly cleaved into pieces.

I smell censorship and it stinks!


http://asia.news.yahoo.com/061010/3/2r5bp.html

sultan2075 wrote:This is why you can't have nice things.

well if this thread is your idea of nice things i think we can probably manage without.

As a practicing Muslim I can see you all have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. It is this kind of uneducated debate that fuels further ignorance about religion and culture.

a.r.kane wrote:As a practicing Muslim I can see you all have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. It is this kind of uneducated debate that fuels further ignorance about religion and culture.

Well in that case, I'm very glad we've got you now to teach us all about everything.

a.r.kane wrote:As a practicing Muslim I can see you all have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. It is this kind of uneducated debate that fuels further ignorance about religion and culture.

Hold on, aren't you the guy who threatened to physically harm me because I told you to f**k off for acting like a pratt? And you're a practicing Muslim, huh?

DarkAngel wrote:(For example, in the USA, pharmacists are allowed to refuse to dispense birth control prescriptions if they have "religious grounds" for such refusal.) - Mark

Say what?!!

I don't think so Mark.

OK, I found this information in a post on another forum, and repeated the claim without checking it.

Bad Marky.

As the truth of it is, at best, debatable I'll withdraw the claim.

canon docre wrote:

a.r.kane wrote:As a practicing Muslim I can see you all have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. It is this kind of uneducated debate that fuels further ignorance about religion and culture.

Well in that case, I'm very glad we've got you now to teach us all about everything.

Religion can't be taught it must be learnt and felt. Googling Islam is like Googling Budhism - it will tell you nothing.

a.r.kane wrote:Religion can't be taught it must be learnt and felt. Googling Islam is like Googling Budhism - it will tell you nothing.

How can you learn something without being taught it, whether by yourself or someone else?

Your brains interpretations of what your senses feel can deceive you to no end. You’ve felt God, Hindus have felt God, Christians have felt God, Judaists have felt God. Are you so arrogant as to say you are 100% correct and that they’re interpreting what they felt wrongly?

There are no 100% truths, and I accept that. I think that there are more logical, realistic, reasonable, evidence back-up claims for how the universe started than “God did it�, and until I see some substantial evidence, because the burden of proof is with those making the positive claim, I choose not to believe.

Using arguments such as “you can’t know cause you have to feel it and have faith!� will get you nowhere. If that’s what makes you happy, fine. But those who are asinine enough to inflict their morals on people and murder people and oppress people over what a dusty old book says simply cause they “feel it� can f**k right off and are simply idiots.

Ethics should be made through contemplation of the consequences of actions, damage control, and consensus; not beating a book and saying “cause God says so, and what he says so goes cause I can feel him!� and following arbitrary rules such as praying five times a day.


</rant>

Now, where's me stick of tea.

nick the stripper wrote:

a.r.kane wrote:Religion can't be taught it must be learnt and felt. Googling Islam is like Googling Budhism - it will tell you nothing.

How can you learn something without being taught it, whether by yourself or someone else?

Your brains interpretations of what your senses feel can deceive you to no end. You’ve felt God, Hindus have felt God, Christians have felt God, Judaists have felt God. Are you so arrogant as to say you are 100% correct and that they’re interpreting what they felt wrongly?

There are no 100% truths, and I accept that. I think that there are more logical, realistic, reasonable, evidence back-up claims for how the universe started than “God did it�, and until I see some substantial evidence, because the burden of proof is with those making the positive claim, I choose not to believe.

Using arguments such as “you can’t know cause you have to feel it and have faith!� will get you nowhere. If that’s what makes you happy, fine. But those who are asinine enough to inflict their morals on people and murder people and oppress people over what a dusty old book says simply cause they “feel it� can f**k right off and are simply idiots.

Ethics should be made through contemplation of the consequences of actions, damage control, and consensus; not beating a book and saying “cause God says so, and what he says so goes cause I can feel him!� and following arbitrary rules such as praying five times a day.


</rant>

Now, where's me stick of tea.

Nick, rather than blowing him away with all of your righteous facts, it might have been helpful to hear more from him.

This is a valid question though:

nick the stripper wrote:How can you learn something without being taught it, whether by yourself or someone else?

Also, what does "feeling" a religion mean? Your religion makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside? Some people say the same thing about heroin, still I wouldn't recommend it.

markfiend wrote:This is a valid question though:

nick the stripper wrote:How can you learn something without being taught it, whether by yourself or someone else?

Also, what does "feeling" a religion mean? Your religion makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside? Some people say the same thing about heroin, still I wouldn't recommend it.

Yes, it is a good question, but the timing and delivery- uh, not so good.

a.r.kane wrote:As a practicing Muslim I can see you all have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. It is this kind of uneducated debate that fuels further ignorance about religion and culture.

Well, I learned a lot more about islam in the recent years than I ever wanted to. I do so as I do want to understand why people do what they do and I am generally interested in what´s going on. But then, I am a bit sickened by the self implied superiority of the "faithfull".
A few years ago I was reading a book about Nostradamus, and there was a note about a star the ancient babylonian astologists called "sheratan". This bore attributes of evil and destruction. The name lives on in astronomy. Note that Sharatan is part of the sign Aries. According that book the words "Shaitan" and "Satan" descended from that name. (I hope that there are people arround who can confirm this..?)
Now, if there is anybody surprised that Satan is pictured with Horns on his head and a with cloven-hoof (as rams are by nature...), hands up. So we have a trace where we can find the source of all evil. Luckily, it´s 60 lightyears away from us.
Well, It´s a double star, two big balls of hydrogen turning to helium. Do I believe them babylonians were right about it? Nope.
Do I believe God spoke to Moses through a burning bush? If the right kind of bush was on fire, he may have seen collours and may have heard angels, but for me, feckin nope, he may have impressed ancient sheepherders with his tale. Not me. And, being grown up in a faithfull christian familly, it took me more than twenty precious years of my life to find the pieces of information that formed this picture.

nick the stripper wrote:How can you learn something without being taught it, whether by yourself or someone else?

because there is more than one type of learning i believe you're still thinking of school type propositional learning, but there is also practical, by doing, and experiential, by refinement through being

I think the learned mr.kane is suggesting that merely googling things is remote, is propositional. only by being and doing can you have the experiential knowledge suggested


circumstance / belief / values : a well known triangle

religion is often called a belief but rarely valued, until you're old and decide oh s**t, i'd better go to church just in case

boudicca wrote:My brain is being slowly and agonizingly cleaved into pieces.

I saw that pre edit. You might want to get the tubes replaced on your Sarcasm Detector.


The same probably goes for RicheyJames.

paint it black wrote: I think the learned mr.kane is suggesting that merely googling things is remote, is propositional. only by being and doing can you have the experiential knowledge suggested

... and I'm so happy to see, that Mr. arkane brought back his own Spokesperson.

So, how can we dumb ignorants get a glimpse of that enlightment?

sultan2075 wrote:

boudicca wrote:My brain is being slowly and agonizingly cleaved into pieces.

I saw that pre edit. You might want to get the tubes replaced on your Sarcasm Detector.


The same probably goes for RicheyJames.

perhaps you'd be so kind as to point out what i've obviously missed...?

Nice to see you back, Mr. Kane

paint it black wrote:

nick the stripper wrote:How can you learn something without being taught it, whether by yourself or someone else?

because there is more than one type of learning i believe you're still thinking of school type propositional learning, but there is also practical, by doing, and experiential, by refinement through being

I think the learned mr.kane is suggesting that merely googling things is remote, is propositional. only by being and doing can you have the experiential knowledge suggested


circumstance / belief / values : a well known triangle

religion is often called a belief but rarely valued, until you're old and decide oh s**t, i'd better go to church just in case

So he had an experience and automatically knew that the Muslim God is the true God? He didn't learn all about the Muslim God through reading the Koran and other muslim texts, eh?

nick the stripper wrote:So he had an experience and automatically knew that the Muslim God is the true God? He didn't learn all about the Muslim God through reading the Koran and other muslim texts, eh?

Does not thee learned Mr. P.Orridge and his merry gang ov Psychick cohorts not also stress thee benefits ov spiritual experience, as opposed to simply grinding through weighty tomes?

boudicca wrote:

nick the stripper wrote:So he had an experience and automatically knew that the Muslim God is the true God? He didn't learn all about the Muslim God through reading the Koran and other muslim texts, eh?

Does not thee learned Mr. P.Orridge and his merry gang ov Psychick cohorts not also stress thee benefits ov spiritual experience, as opposed to simply grinding through weighty tomes?

Yes, but what I'm arguing against is religion, not spirituality. Spirituality is, imo, fine until it starts affecting your morals in a dogmatic - i.e. religious - way. I have problems with religions that have unbending, arbitrary, morals and those that faithfully - i.e. blindly - follow the religion and because they believe the religion attempt to impose these rules upon others and oppress others. That is why I do not like Christianity, that is why I do not like Judaism, that is why I do not like Hinduism, and that is why I do not like Islam.

I remember saying to my mother once that it's not always wrong to lie. I gave her an example: a beaten woman comes to your door asking for shelter, later on in the night her husband comes to the door with a knife asking where she is, is it morally right to tell him? The obvious answer is no, it is not. But my mother said that it'd be morally right to tell him because God says so, and that everything will be alright if you truly believe in God, but things will go wrong if you don't have true faith. I was stunned, silent, in shock, and from the day I had nothing but utter disgust for dogmatic, extremist, 100% certain, morally unbending religions.

Edit - I really shouldn’t get into these conversations because I feel very passionate about it and see religion - not spirituality - as a scourge of society.

The distinction you are drawing between the two (spirituality and religion)... where does this lie, specifically?

It all seems to be very black and white to you. Spirituality ok, religion bad. Personally, I don't feel one can make such sweeping statements without taking a very simplistic view.

Firstly, is religion not something which will inevitably exist in human society as long as human beings have any kind of "spiritual" bent? People who share ideas gravitate to one another, and hierarchies of some sort tend to form. Those can be groovy hierarchies which simply keep things organized and are not unchallengeable, or they can be dangerous and oppressive - but we are but one of many species who have evolved societies based on these kind of structures, and there are good reasons for it.

When people talk about not liking "organized religion" I just always wonder - what kind of alternative do you propose, how would you see a world without it? How would it be prevented from forming or continuing?

I dislike unquestioning adherence to dogma as much as the next liberal democrat voting, organic food eating hippy, but I think what human beings ought to do is keep a check on the more extreme examples of brainwashed, drone-like non-thinking, rather than try to stop people ever "following" without really thinking for themselves. Apart from anything else this would likely necessitate a new kind of authority - one which prohibits people from ever being lazy and just blindly going along with what their culture/society/religion tells them.
The human race does need "followers" to some extent.

Secondly - People unthinkingly follow all kinds of dogmas. Political, cultural and social. Even those of us who possess a quiet sense of smug self-satisfaction that "I have a mind of my own" (and I include myself in that number), even those of us who attempt to fight convention, are still affected to some degree at least by the conventions of their society and time. Show me a human being who isn't and I'll show you George Bush's brain. Religion is merely one of the many areas in which the flaws of our nature can manifest themselves.

So - I don't think religion is a bad thing at all per se.
At it's best it is the human attempt to know reality, the point at which it is inseperable from science or philosophy or any other discipline which has been born of man's desire to understand.

At it's worst, it can be used to bring out the very worst in mankind.
What I think we have to do - rather than rail against religion - is recognise the weaknesses and risks within our human nature, and keep the dangers posed by these in check. Virtually everything is dangerous if it is taken to it's unlimate conclusion, and of course the structures that keep our societies together, even our hunger for knowledge and comprehension, are no different.

I'd compare it to water, if I was predisposed towards cheesy analogies. You can drink it and it's good, you can drown in it and it's bad. The truth is it's neither, it's other factors that determine what it does.

boudicca wrote:The distinction you are drawing between the two (spirituality and religion)... where does this lie?

I'd normally say "the moment it becomes dogmatic" but I'm going to have to think about that.

Now you've had time to think, I just wrote an essay ferchissakes!

BTW - you do know that the delightful cheekbones chap in yer avatar is another of those Allah-bothering types?