Heartland

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

Aye, but it will help me fall asleep later

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

That post was one sentence when I read it.

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

Yep.

After reading your post, Bou, it is very clear that I haven’t put much thought into it, am still rather ignorant on the subject, and arrogant in my generalisations. I tend not to remind myself that not all religious people are like the cronies at my mother’s church and I would like to say sorry for offending anyone.

canon docre wrote:

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?

you're in the wrong thread, you f**king stupid german bitch

in answer to your question: turn east: 60W usually does the trick

paint it black wrote:you're in the wrong thread, you f**king stupid german bitch

I know I’m not in any position to say this, but civil discourse, please.

paint it black wrote: you're in the wrong thread, you f**king stupid german bitch

No, you're in the wrong thread. This is not the "insult the previous poster"-thread.

nick the stripper wrote:I would like to say sorry for offending anyone.

You may need to say that a bit louder, some very nice people near Mecca couldn't hear you.

Nick, I'm disappointed in you! The standard procedure in these situations is not to back down or indeed admit anything other than Being Absolutely Right - instead you are obliged to start numerous threads on the topic in question and get increasingly aggressive towards those who disagree with you, whilst maintaining the attitude of persecuted victim.

Pay attention in future, young man

(Seriously, I don't think you're ignorant in the least and I hope my lengthy post didn't insinuate that. We're always learning, and our views are always evolving - at least they should be.)

paint it black wrote: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

I wondered when Pascal's Wager would get dragged in.

It doesn't work. For several reasons.

1. Many people find it difficult to "decide to believe" something at will.
2. If there is a God, is he really going to be fooled by a "well, I had better believe just in case" wager?
3. The wager says nothing about which God to believe in.

There is a hypothetical counter-example to the wager too:

1. God has created the universe in such a way that reasonable people could conclude that He doesn't exist.
   (This proposition is compatible with the universe we do in fact observe)
2. Humans, as the most intelligent species we know, are intended by God to use this intelligence.
   (I very much doubt that any theologian would have a problem accepting this)
3. Using intelligence, it is in fact possible rationally to argue that there is no God.

Now what if God actually rewards with heaven those who, reasoning from the evidence, conclude that He doesn't exist? And hell is for all the people who relied on faith rather than reason?

markfiend wrote: Now what if God actually rewards with heaven those who, reasoning from the evidence, conclude that He doesn't exist? And hell is for all the people who relied on faith rather than reason?

Good points there mark, I'm only focusing on the last one you brought up as it seems to follow the part where the main 3 monotheistic religions fall apart.

According to all 3, God gave us humans Free Will to exercise as we see fit. Then in the same breath says that, as long as we exercise that Free Will to worship God we'll get eternal reward, if not then we get infernal damnation. All 3 majors say pretty much the same thing: "Submit to My Will. Do not think for yourself. Do not exercise the Free Will I gave you. Serve only Me. OR ELSE!"

That kind of Catch 22 really just shows how much of a tyrant God (as described in the relevant texts) really is.

I always liken God to the analogy of a gunman who says “you have freewill so it’s your thought if I shoot you for choosing to not do as I say.�

Also, a lot of religious people believe that God is omniscient - i.e. all-knowing. If God knows everything, then he knows what’s happened, what’s happening right now, every possible outcome for the future, and the outcome that’s to happen. Therefore the future is set in stone before it happens, therefore those who sin are condemned to sin, therefore God created men with the knowledge that they would cause suffering and burn in hell for eternity.

a.r.kane wrote:

nick the stripper wrote:I would like to say sorry for offending anyone.

You may need to say that a bit louder, some very nice people near Mecca couldn't hear you.

Some very nice people in mecca have become a pain in the ass, and I for my part, would dearly like them to shut the f*ck up.
I won´t attack Islam, for I learnt that you can live this belief in a peacefull way from one of my closest friends who is a faithfull muslim, and I am convinced that all the noise made is the product of ethnical hatred, in other words racialism.
But I really would like to have my litle part of the world to be my little part of the world and this without being playground of some people who try to push me into their set of ideas. Especially when they massively offend what I have understood about how the world works, so I don´ have to believ in anything. I do trust my eyes and my experience as well as I trust in my fellow humans as beeing mendacious. </rant>
I have an allergy against arrogance, did I ever mention that?

In the Adam and Eve story, the sin is eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. If they didn't know good from evil before eating the fruit, how were they to know it was wrong to eat the fruit?

Heads I win, tails you lose.

This relates back to the Problem of Evil:

Epicurus wrote:Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil?

The traditional "Omnimax" properties of God (omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence) are logically incoherent anyway.

• The problem of evil as stated by Epicurus ~2300 years ago defeats omnibenevolence.
• Omnipotence is a logical impossibility: Can God create a rock too heavy for him to lift? (Or as Homer Simpson phrases it, "Could Jesus microwave a burrito so hot that he himself could not eat it?"
• Omniscience is a little more tricky, but it's possible to construct a set-theoretical proof that the "set of all true things" is impossible to construct, and therefore an omniscient being (which must know "all true things") is also impossible.

Well it depends if by omnipotence you mean anything logically possible or anything, including everything illogical.

nick the stripper wrote:Well it depends if by omnipotence you mean anything logically possible or anything, including everything illogical.

Well, OK, but then I would argue that it's logically impossible to:

• Turn water into wine
• Bring someone back from the dead
• Feed 5000 people with 5 loaves and 2 fishes

(some random examples completely off the top of my head )

[quote="eotunun"
I have an allergy against arrogance, did I ever mention that? [/quote]

You must be suffering constantly

markfiend wrote:

paint it black wrote: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

I wondered when Pascal's Wager would get dragged in.

never heard of him, so thanks for that mark. however i do know i've seen plenty of lil' old ladies with blue rinse popping down that way...which was my point.

i disagree with

It doesn't work. For several reasons.

1. Many people find it difficult to "decide to believe" something at will.
2. If there is a God, is he really going to be fooled by a "well, I had better believe just in case" wager?

belief is fickle, belief is there to be questioned. belief is, yeah, okay, 'till you show me something better, something more tangible. ‘till my circumstance change.

value, now value is deep, value is ingrained, value is not easily swayed, value is not changed by circumstance.

to me, other faiths, more than christian religion, seem to have their basis in value and thus are ‘felt’ more. People are more likely to be offended when values are questioned than belief.

So, there ya weirdo meerkat

paint it black wrote:never heard of him, so thanks for that mark. however i do know i've seen plenty of lil' old ladies with blue rinse popping down that way...which was my point.

OK. Fairy nuff. Agreed.

I'm not really sure I understand the rest of your post so I'll refrain from commenting.

a.r.kane wrote:

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.

So, now that you are back you can give us your perspective. Is Islam a peaceful religion? Does Islam believe it is the law? And finally, is it acceptable to you to hear some who follow Islam making terroristic threats in Mosques?

Round and round it goes, where it stops, nobody knows.

markfiend wrote:Round and round it goes, where it stops, nobody knows.

with a big bang

a.r.kane wrote:

markfiend wrote:Round and round it goes, where it stops, nobody knows.

with a big bang

Where it started then?

of course.

Once again Mr. Kane, I'm observing a genetic link on this topic...

markfiend wrote:In the Adam and Eve story, the sin is eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. If they didn't know good from evil before eating the fruit, how were they to know it was wrong to eat the fruit?

Heads I win, tails you lose.

This relates back to the Problem of Evil:

Epicurus wrote:Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil?

The traditional "Omnimax" properties of God (omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence) are logically incoherent anyway.

• The problem of evil as stated by Epicurus ~2300 years ago defeats omnibenevolence.
• Omnipotence is a logical impossibility: Can God create a rock too heavy for him to lift? (Or as Homer Simpson phrases it, "Could Jesus microwave a burrito so hot that he himself could not eat it?"
• Omniscience is a little more tricky, but it's possible to construct a set-theoretical proof that the "set of all true things" is impossible to construct, and therefore an omniscient being (which must know "all true things") is also impossible.

O.K. So now we have heard (yet again) your take on the failings of religion, it is now Mr.A.R.K.A.N.E.'s opportunitiy as a practicing Muslim, to explain to the rest of us whether or not he believes Islam is a peaceful religion. I would also like to know his stance on whether or not he perceives Islam as a law unto itself, superceding all other law, and if he feels it is appropriate for Muslims to make terroristic threats in their churches and on the streets. (That is the topic here after all.)