xanthpi
Banned
+11|6941

Ikarti wrote:

By what you've been saying, that's impossible because they would have blown you up..
That's a stupid comment. If they COULD have killed me they would have. I've been threatened and followed, but since I am still alive, it means that they have not been able to kill me yet. They COULD kill Theo Van Gogh so they did.

Ikarti wrote:

So, while I don't believe you because you apparently have nothing to do than convince people to leave a religion, even if you did it would be those "fake" Muslims that aren't even a threat..
Some of the ones I helped leave Islam needed the help to leave. I (and others) were happy to supply it. Others were intelligent enough to realise through debate that their belief was founded on nothing more than a madman's fantasy of 7th century Arab imperialism.

Ikarti wrote:

Muhammad being a child abuser has been a topic under large debate and disproven for the most part, the only people who still tout it are people like you who for some reason or another have an out of control vendetta against Islam..
Muhammad had sex with a nine year old girl whilst claiming to be god's man on Earth and the best example of man ever to exist. If he was what he said he was then he would have known that for a 54 year old man to have sex with a nine year old child is wrong regardless of the cultural context of the time. Since he wasn't what he said he was then the conclusion can be drawn that he was a child abuser (albeit he did it to only one girl as far as is known).

Ikarti wrote:

Seriously. Like the Christians or the Jews are so much better. The Christians want to return to the Dark Ages where the sun revolved around the earth and the world was flat..
Islam is also a flat-earth religion. The Grand Mufti od Saudi Arabia proclaimed in 1998 that "the Earth is flat and anyone who believes otherwise is an apostate who deserves to be killed".

Christians and Jews do not want to return to the Dark Ages. Christianity and Judaism are in the main religions which can adapt to the times.

Ikarti wrote:

And the Jews? Look at Israel or read the Old Testament..
You don't seem to realise that Judaism had it's own reformation.

Ikarti wrote:

And your whole little "true" Muslims number is a silly little game. Nowhere else was "true" numbers discussed for anyone else. Ok, by true numbers, all the Christians I know are total frauds and so are most of the Jews..
If Christianity and Judaism were indeed black or white religions like Islam then you would be right. Since they are not, your attempts to use them to prove Islam's equivalence are a waste of your time and evidence to any reader of this thread that you have come to this argumant armed only with an empty 92FS, whilst I have a knife, an F2000, an ammo bag, a medic patch (so far unused) and a J10. And I am commander, too.

Ikarti wrote:

Even so, just being a Muslim in name gives you a closer tie to the religion and the possiblity to be more sympathetic. Same with the Christians and the Jews..
Correct.

Ikarti wrote:

So again, mazel tov to you and your lucrative conversion business. You still can't do shit.
But I already have done a hell of alot. That bothers the crap out of you, which makes me smile.

Come and find me in a game and kick my ass. You are surely the defeated loser when we fight with keyboards.
Ikarti
Banned - for ever.
+231|6930|Wilmington, DE, US
Again, more long winded pretension and misinformation. There's one thing you've said that invalidates your whole arguement but I'll leave that for you to find. Easter egg hunt.
Why would it bother me? All you do is convince kafir to leave. That's not very impressive.
xanthpi
Banned
+11|6941

B.Schuss wrote:

I don't want to take xanthpi's side here, but I guess what he is argueing is that Islam is the only one of the larger world religions that has not evolved over time and ( in theory ) still promotes that same things as it did 2000 years or so ago. In other words, our interpretation of the Bible and our value systems have changed since the middle ages, while theirs haven't. theirs always was and always will be dangerous, while ours is peaceful now.

My question to that would be when was the last time a muslim nation tried to conquer a christian nation to spread Islam and get closer to an islam-dominated world ?
The Arabian peninsular and most of Africa was once Christian. The Muslims invaded Spain and the Caucasus. The Muslims invaded Poland and Italy and Sicily.

Have you not noticed the trend that Muslim immigrants have this habit of demanding that the host country changes the laws and customs more and more to suit them? If not, then you have not been paying attention.

In my country, some councils no longer allow Christmas to be celebrated as part of council activities.
One council had to ban it's employees from displaying plastic pigs incase it offended the Muslim employee (thankfully this was overturned). Police are afraid of tackling Muslim gangs incase they are accused of "racism".
Muslims are lobbying Parliament to make critismism of Islam illegal.

The jihad takes many forms. Bit by bit we submit to Allah.

B.Schuss wrote:

has it happened lately ? I don't think so.
Not for over one hundred years. If you don't count the Armeinian genocide. And the Indonesian jihad against the Chinese ethnic group. Or the Pakistani jihad against East Pakistan (Bangladesh) in 1971. These latter invaded countries were not Christian however.

B.Schuss wrote:

Will it ever happen again ? I doubt it.
It would if it could. It will if we allow it to. If something CAN happen, it WILL happen, given enough time.

B.Schuss wrote:

We outnumber them, we have the better military forces.
Thank f*ck for that.

B.Schuss wrote:

It would require a good number of islamic nations to unite to pose a valuable threat and it is simply ridiculous (sp?) to imagine muslim forces crossing the Mediterranean Sea in an attempt to invade spain or italy.
And what is the goal of the current world jihadists? Hmmmm? To unite the Muslim lands under the flag of the Caliphate and conquer surrounding non-Muslim lands one by one.

B.Schuss wrote:

Even you must admit that this is unimaginable.
.......said the man whose future children or grandchildren had to live as slaves under imposed Sharia rule.
xanthpi
Banned
+11|6941

B.Schuss wrote:

I don't think this will ultimately be resolved here anyway...

But I will try to get a hold of a copy of the Qu'ran ( If I can find one in german ) and see if there is anything to xanthpi's interpretation of it.
I haven't interpreted it!!!

B.Schuss wrote:

I I have read a little bit about it on wikipedia, and I wonder which translation xanthpi got to read. As he has said himself, interpretation of the Qu'ran itself is not allowed in classical islamic teachings, as those are the words of muhammad himself. Every translation is an interpretation of some sort, some are closer to the original arabic text, others are more loose. I suppose he did not read the original text.

I will give you the wikipedia link later, but I would like to quote from it this passage:

"Some modern-day Muslim scholars touch on the doctrine of the eternal Qur'an when they question common conceptions of Islamic law. Reza Aslan has argued that such laws were created by God to meet the particular needs and circumstances of Muhammad's community. Likewise, Nasr Hamid Abu Zaid has claimed that the verses of the Qur'an that talk about Islamic law cannot be understood outside their historical context. This suggests that the Qur'an was in fact created in response to specific historical circumstances, and that it is not an eternal document containing rules applicable at all times and places."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qur%27an
Those in Islam who wish to alter the religion are the ones you sometimes hear about in the news, having been assassinated for their heresy. We need more people like them though, to drag Islam out of the 7th century.
xanthpi
Banned
+11|6941

Ikarti wrote:

Again, more long winded pretension and misinformation. There's one thing you've said that invalidates your whole arguement but I'll leave that for you to find. Easter egg hunt.
Why would it bother me? All you do is convince kafir to leave. That's not very impressive.
It's funny. For someone who knows little about Islam, you seem very sure that my posts are full of misinformation. And yet you haven't been able to prove me wrong. How odd.

Your second to last sentence has at last confirmed about you what I suspected all along. You even used the "k" word. Naughty, naughty

Muhammad said "war is decepetion". It seems that you have tried to take his advice. And failed. I hope you're better at BF2 than you are at your personal little jihad
Ikarti
Banned - for ever.
+231|6930|Wilmington, DE, US
I'm guessing you think I'm Muslim. Well, that wouldn't be the first time you're wrong. Continue on with your sillyness. Believe what you want. If the truth was in front of you yet contradicted what you've been spouting you'd deny it. As I said in the other thread, why waste the time?
xanthpi
Banned
+11|6941

Ikarti wrote:

I'm guessing you think I'm Muslim. Well, that wouldn't be the first time you're wrong. Continue on with your sillyness. Believe what you want. If the truth was in front of you yet contradicted what you've been spouting you'd deny it. As I said in the other thread, why waste the time?
Because you wasted the time making the post anyway.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that you're Muslim* now. You refered to the people who left Islam as kafirs. No non-Muslim would do that. The cat is out of the bag.

*Seeing as you play BF2, and information from other things you've said, you're not a real Muslim, so you'll be going to hell like all the other dirty kafirun
B.Schuss
I'm back, baby... ( sort of )
+664|7062|Cologne, Germany

xanthpi wrote:

The Arabian peninsular and most of Africa was once Christian. The Muslims invaded Spain and the Caucasus. The Muslims invaded Poland and Italy and Sicily.
shifts of power are nothing unusual in history, even among different religions. we tried to capture their land ( and our reasons were no better than theirs, catholicism was in a barbaric state back then ), they tried to capture ours. We beat them back, they beat us back. it was the usual struggle for predominance back then.

xanthpi wrote:

Have you not noticed the trend that Muslim immigrants have this habit of demanding that the host country changes the laws and customs more and more to suit them? If not, then you have not been paying attention.

In my country, some councils no longer allow Christmas to be celebrated as part of council activities.
One council had to ban it's employees from displaying plastic pigs incase it offended the Muslim employee (thankfully this was overturned). Police are afraid of tackling Muslim gangs incase they are accused of "racism".
Muslims are lobbying Parliament to make critismism of Islam illegal.
I don't know where you live, but I suppose it is a democracy with laws sufficient enough to counter violence or crimes, religiosly (sp?) motivated or not. You'd be better off supporting your local community and make sure that your police enforces the existing laws. Are you trying to blame the muslims for the shortcomings of your police force ? If they break the law, they should be treated as criminals, regardless of their religion or ethnic basis.
And if you are afraid that your country might loose its identity or loose its cultural heritage ( which I suppose is western/christian ) because of muslim lobbying, I guess it all depends on how strong your democracy really is. Either your cultural basis will prevail, or it won't.
The important question to me is what measures your country will be willing to take to preserve its heritage.
your stance on that is quite obvious ( some would say radical ). You are surely not supporting western values or the democracy you live in by demanding that basic human rights should be taken away from a selected religious minority.  I wonder what your government's stance on this issue is. where do you live ?

As far as the Qu'ran is concerned:

xanthpi wrote:

I haven't interpreted it!!!
no, but you most likely read a translation of the original arabic text, which by definition is an interpretation.
I you indeed read the arabic original, please accept my apologies.

Nevermind, I believe we have made our views on this issue clear enough. I must admit I know nothing about scientific pantheists, but a little bit of googling will help.

I wonder though, what your values are based on. you say they come from your brain. That basically means you have created yourself your own set of moral values which you follow. nothing special so far. that is what everyone does. and as long as your values don't contradict with the laws ( legal expressions of values ) of the country you live, you should be fine.

Apart from your personal efforts to talk people out of their religion of choice, what else have you done to promote your ideas ?
xanthpi
Banned
+11|6941

B.Schuss wrote:

shifts of power are nothing unusual in history, even among different religions. we tried to capture their land ( and our reasons were no better than theirs, catholicism was in a barbaric state back then ), they tried to capture ours. We beat them back, they beat us back. it was the usual struggle for predominance back then.
The point is that Islam claims to be a religion of peace and yet it was spread by the sword, with the sole exception of Indonesia.

No honest Westerner would claim that the West has always been peaceful. But ask a Muslim how Islam was spread and they will almost always say that it was spread through mass voluntary conversion (totally false). Only a few very honest jihadi types will admit that it was spread through war.

B.Schuss wrote:

I don't know where you live, but I suppose it is a democracy with laws sufficient enough to counter violence or crimes, religiosly (sp?) motivated or not. You'd be better off supporting your local community and make sure that your police enforces the existing laws.
How can they enforce the law if they are going to be accused of "racism" and sued the moment they target a Muslim gang?

B.Schuss wrote:

Are you trying to blame the muslims for the shortcomings of your police force ?
The fault lies with:

a) Muslims for constantly accusing everyone who targets a Muslim, or who critisises Islam in any way, as being an "Islamophobe" or "racist" and threatening legal action.

b) The idiots who go along with them out of political correctness.

B.Schuss wrote:

If they break the law, they should be treated as criminals, regardless of their religion or ethnic basis.
And if you are afraid that your country might loose its identity or loose its cultural heritage ( which I suppose is western/christian ) because of muslim lobbying, I guess it all depends on how strong your democracy really is. Either your cultural basis will prevail, or it won't.
We are not allowed to have our own culture in my country. At least, not in the cities. It is "racist" to do so, apparently. We are told that we are "enriched" by diversity. Whilst this is true when it comes to choosing a restaurant in which to eat, it fails when you have one bunch of people who don't think it is right to beat their wives and one bunch who think it is. Mutil-culturalism can only exist under a dictatorship.


B.Schuss wrote:

The important question to me is what measures your country will be willing to take to preserve its heritage.
Absolutely none.

B.Schuss wrote:

your stance on that is quite obvious ( some would say radical ).
Some would indeed say radical, but it would not be helpful to listen to those people. It would be more helpful to listen to the opinion of a frog or a piece of wood.

B.Schuss wrote:

You are surely not supporting western values or the democracy you live in by demanding that basic human rights should be taken away from a selected religious minority.
On the contrary. It is the MUSLIMS who are at fault, not myself or the people in my country who abide by secular ideals.

 

B.Schuss wrote:

I wonder what your government's stance on this issue is.
They need the Muslim vote so go figure.

B.Schuss wrote:

where do you live ?
London, UK.

B.Schuss wrote:

As far as the Qu'ran is concerned:

no, but you most likely read a translation of the original arabic text, which by definition is an interpretation.
I've read two different translations of the Qur'an, both of which said the same thing.

B.Schuss wrote:

Nevermind, I believe we have made our views on this issue clear enough. I must admit I know nothing about scientific pantheists, but a little bit of googling will help.
Scientific Pantheism: A Manifesto.

Scientific pantheism is not atheism, for it acknowledges the existence of a supreme power responsible for creation. However, the choice to label that power “god” rests entirely with the individual, and bears no substantive implications to the character of that power other than to acknowledging its transcendence. For the purpose of this document, I will use the word “god” as shorthand for that supreme power; the “god” that is the sum total of all the natural laws in the universe.

Scientific pantheism is also not agnosticism, although it acknowledges that a conclusion of “god” is at least as much a leap of faith as it is a logical inference. But in contrast to the “intellectual punt” of agnosticism, scientific pantheism holds that “god” is essentially knowable, even if our knowledge at this time is incomplete. It further presumes that the quest for more perfect knowledge is by definition good, and that no avenues of inquiry are proscribed, forbidden, illegitimate or wrong.

Scientific pantheism is more than anything else a philosophy of mankind’s place in the universe, our relationship with the rest of creation and the natural law that constrains, conforms, guides and makes possible our existence. It is humanism with humility, concerned fundamentally with humanity and the human condition, but without assuming human centrality in any cosmic scheme.

And it is deeply personal, dependent upon each person’s ability and interest in observing and understanding and reaching his or her own conclusions.

On the Knowledge of “God.”

The scientific pantheist does not believe that the universe “is” god, as if there were small pieces of god dwelling within the trees, rocks, water and other components of creation.

Scientific pantheism understands god to be the sum total of all natural laws in the universe. “Creation” is not god, it is OF god, in the sense that all “created” things are the current results of unvarying natural law. This natural law is only incompletely understood by man, and may ultimately consist of the very simple and comprehensive “Theory of Everything” that is the ultimate grail of cosmologists. But whatever its most profound and sublime form, such law preexisted the occurrence of the “big bang” and will exist long after “heat death.”

As such, it is not coexistent or coterminous with the universe in which we dwell. There may be other universes, earlier universes, or universes of the future not yet in existence. All of these conceptual possibilities are subsumed within and guided by the same ultimate natural law that is god.

Our knowledge of god comes only from observing the results and affects of that law. As this same law constrains and conforms the senses with which we observe the creation and the brains with which we interpret that sensory input, such observation can be trusted to yield information that is at some level a reflection of objective reality. There are no other intermediaries between the law that is god, and our ability to perceive directly the results of that law.

There are no prophets sent from god with messages, or rules, or salvation schemes, or other esoteric “gnostic” knowledge. There are no revealed texts, no divinely prescribed rituals or prayers, no appointed priests or priestesses, and no structures of authority or coercion. There is only natural law, its results, our senses with which to perceive them, and our mind’s ability to analyze and understand them.

On the Nature of “God”

Unlike “revealed” religions, scientific pantheists must depend entirely on inference from creation for our understanding of the nature of god. The closest that mankind can come to a face–to-face encounter with god is the exploration and definition of the natural law that constrains and conforms the universe. The characteristics of that law are the characteristics of god.

Natural law does not vary with time.

The more we learn about our universe, the clearer it becomes that the fundamental laws of existence are constant with time. The ability to view across space historic events that took place millions or billions of years ago verify that even as the universe evolved, is has unrolled within the guiding context of the same natural law that guides it today.

From this we can infer that god is eternal. God is not arbitrary, does not tinker with creation, does not change or break “the rules” at whim, and does not perform “miracles” which would be violations of his very godhead.

Natural law does not vary with place.

As the extremes of the universe have come more clearly into our sphere of observation with the creation of larger telescopes of all kinds, we see that all other galaxies in existence appear to follow the same laws as this one. There is only one set of laws and those same laws function everywhere in the universe without variation.

From this we can infer that god is unitary, omnipresent, and universal.

Natural law does not vary with species.

In spite of mankind’s awesome technological achievement, we remain subject to the same requirements for existence and survival as all other living organisms. We must metabolize, we must consume, we must be born, live our lives, and eventually die. Our biology is a shared one, and our connection with the rest of the natural world is as intimate and complete as that of any other living thing. We have no special dispensation from natural law over other living things, even as we learn to take advantage of our unique understanding of that law.

From this we can infer that mankind holds no special place in “god’s plan,” that we are neither the purpose nor the paragon of creation. To the extent that we have quantitative abilities that seem superior to those of other species, there are others in which we are markedly inferior. And there is no clear evidence of qualitative abilities unique to humanity.

In converse, we can also infer that there is no part of creation that takes precedence over mankind because of particular divine preference. All of creation is an inevitable result of the action of natural law, and no part of creation is special in comparison with any other.

Natural law does not vary with person.

While equality of opportunity remains an elusive goal for mankind, each of us remains subject to the same natural constraints and capabilities as dictated by natural law. We are organisms with varying biological and environmental potential, true. But no disparity of wealth, power, intelligence or natural ability renders any individual more or less subject to natural law than any other.

From this we can infer that god does not play favorites with individuals or particular human groups, and that he provides all of creation with the same potential for “success” or “failure” (as those created beings conceive the terms). And certainly, we all achieve the same eventual conclusion to our respective existences. There is no “qualification test” for salvation, no punishment or reward in an afterlife, no distinction between believer and infidel. There is no “true” religious faith capable of excluding members of any other faith from either the perils or benefits of existence.

There are no “chosen” peoples, no national divine providences, no divine participations in the rise and fall of peoples or nations. God is not on the side of “justice,” or “righteousness” or the “bigger battalions.” Human conflict is entirely an internal human issue with no cosmic significance whatsoever.

Natural law does not vary with respect to moral outcome.

Natural law operates. The results of that operation can redound to either good or ill for humans and humanity, with no obvious preference one way or the other. All outcomes are mixed. Every truth forces a compromise with human interests. There is no natural moral difference between the spring rain that nourishes crops and the drought that kills them. There is no natural moral difference between the bird that lavishes care on its nestlings, and the parasite that eats its living host from the inside out.

There is neither unalloyed virtue, nor unalloyed vice. There is neither obvious good, nor obvious evil. There is only the unvarying operation of natural law, and the constrained consequences of the choices we make within those boundaries.

It is only through the agent of human choice that a consideration of morals or ethics becomes relevant. There is no moral or ethical component to the outcome of natural law. There is only a moral or ethical component to the outcome of human choice. To the extent that such outcomes are personal and private, the choices are equally personal and private. To the extent that such outcomes are communal, the individual making them is responsible to that community for them. Responsibility and accountability for the eventual “goodness” or “badness” of those outcomes rests squarely with the individual who made the choices.

From this we can infer that god is not a moral agent. God neither prescribes nor proscribes, neither approves nor forbids. There are no “sins,” no transgressions of divine law, no arbitrary rules of ritual or conformance.

The social contracts we adhere to are of human convention, and we are responsible as humans for their rationality, their utility, and their enforcement. God does not care about them.

Summary thoughts on the “nature” of God:

In final measure we can infer that god is not personal. God is not in our image, nor are we in his. God does not have a body or a mind. God does not have emotions, feelings, longings, desires or intentions. God is neither angry, nor jealous. God does not demand worship or homage, sacrifice or prayer. God does not help his creation, nor does he hinder it beyond the operation of his law. God does not hear our supplications or respond to our requests.

God simply is, and all of creation is simply the result of his existence.

On the Issue of “Human Purpose”

Throughout much of history, those human beings who were afforded the luxury of leisure have wrestled with the philosophical idea of “human purpose.” These considerations were enabled only by the ability of humanity to reach a point in socioeconomic evolution where effort and energy were no longer exclusively required for securing subsistence and survival. While there can be great disagreement as to the driving mechanism of this “need for purpose,” there can be no doubt that most modern religions and philosophies pertain at least some measure to the identification, codification and fulfillment of “human purpose.”

Religious faiths, particularly modern ones, have tended to define “human purpose” as something externally imposed on mankind by the creator god. But from the viewpoint of the scientific pantheist, there can be no external imposition of either purpose or meaning.

Humanity is only one of the many current results of the operation of unvarying natural law. As such, man can be expected to have no more or no less extrinsic purpose or meaning than any other entity, from mangrove to manatee. However, blessed with a seemingly unique combination of intelligence, consciousness and self awareness, humans are able to define and develop an intrinsic “purpose” which no other organism obviously enjoys.

Each individual human being maintains ultimate responsibility for determining, defining, accepting and fulfilling their own “purpose” according to the dictates of their conscience and the shared values of their community. Whether such “purpose” is directed inward or outward, whether it is measured by personal or community benefit, whether it is trivial or profound… all of these are individual and personal choices.

But each individual human being likewise maintains ultimate responsibility and accountability for the tangible affects of that purpose as expressed through any resulting action. And it is such action that extends the sphere of personal responsibility into the realm of community responsibility.

On Ethics and Morals

“Purpose” implies action, though it does not demand it. But it is the outcome of action, not unemployed ideas, that is subject to social contract. Any community of individuals possesses shared communal interests of stability, security, justice and opportunity. And any community of individuals will experience events and instances where individual prerogatives and desires compete, impinging on those interests.

A community can be anything ranging from two consenting adults negotiating a sexual encounter, to the family, to the economic business organization, to the city, to the nation/state, to the global community with shared interests in global assets such as clean water and the ozone layer. Each individual operates within overlapping and different sets of morals and ethics relevant to the communities to which that individual belongs.

Human ethics and morals are codified agreements among the members of a community designed entirely to secure those shared communal interests, at the least possible violence to the individual. They are not eternal. They are not “sacred.” They are not absolute. They can and must evolve along with knowledge, technology and the specific circumstances of existence in time and place.

As they are absolutely communal by nature, ethics and morals can only be evaluated on a communal basis. Their ultimate “goodness” or “badness” rests entirely on a utilitarian assessment of their outcomes, not on the specific impact to the individual. There can be no ethical or moral implication to the private act of an individual, but there is always an ethical or moral implication of any act that involves or affects two or more.

To this end, communities can and will define “norms,” or laws for the purpose of securing the shared communal interests of stability, security, justice and opportunity. And the community has full recourse to enforce such norms in that pursuit. But the presumption must always remain with the individual freedom of choice in the absence of any competing community interest, and coercion to conform would theoretically only be proportionate to community risk.

Scientific pantheism recognizes the reality and authority of community structures designed to enforce the morals and ethics of those communities. But it also holds a presumption of individual freedom, maintaining an essentially “libertarian” prejudice. “Moral” or “ethical” frameworks that exceed their rationale of community interest are illegitimate, and are ironically neither moral nor ethical.

If there is no real community interest, there is likewise no moral or ethical component to an individual’s behavior.


B.Schuss wrote:

I wonder though, what your values are based on. you say they come from your brain. That basically means you have created yourself your own set of moral values which you follow. nothing special so far. that is what everyone does. and as long as your values don't contradict with the laws ( legal expressions of values ) of the country you live, you should be fine.
I'm lucky in that they are "honourable" values to have, I suppose.

B.Schuss wrote:

Apart from your personal efforts to talk people out of their religion of choice, what else have you done to promote your ideas ?
I do next to nothing to promote "Scientific Pantheism" (by the way, don't confuse us with Pantheists, as many of those guys like to hug trees). Why really promote it? It's just a logical conclusion to come to.

Every time there is a Muslim terrorist attack I simply give more money to the anti-jihad (yes, there is one!) and I'd like to think that my money has helped kill jihadis in Israel and Kashmir

I've been approached by several political parties to consult on this issue of the global jihad but have declined since agreeing would entail me going public (and hence coming to the attention of Iranian intelligence, who are active in hunting down and assassinating criticisers of Islam in the West).

You see, Islam is so sure of itself that it can handle criticism from all quarters Or rather, Muhammad decreed that the penalty for anyone who criticises Islam is death.
Sh1fty2k5
MacSwedish
+113|6931|Sweden
How do you get the time to write that shit ?
B.Schuss
I'm back, baby... ( sort of )
+664|7062|Cologne, Germany

Sh1fty2k5 wrote:

How do you get the time to write that shit ?
well, I suppose there is literature on it, I don't think he invented it..

he probably has a series of texts to quote from if necessary.
xanthpi
Banned
+11|6941

B.Schuss wrote:

Sh1fty2k5 wrote:

How do you get the time to write that shit ?
well, I suppose there is literature on it, I don't think he invented it..

he probably has a series of texts to quote from if necessary.
The main text was written by someone I met online back in 2001 who happens to share the same kind of brain that I have, except that he is far more charming than I.

I don't have the patience to write something of such length. My version would have been much, much shorter with less long words and more slang.

In terms of the rest of the stuff I have spouted in this forum, 99% was from memory. I don't have a pre-prepared "Islam-criticism text" to quote from, although I know that such things do exist.

But remember folks, Google is your friend (at least for now).
B.Schuss
I'm back, baby... ( sort of )
+664|7062|Cologne, Germany

xanthpi,

I am not going to quote everything you "copy and pasted" on scientific pantheism. just a couple of questions which your short introduction into SP didn't cover:

1. SP clearly is either a religion or a philosophy. Does PS acknowledge and accept the existance of other religions / faiths / philosophical views of the universe ?
2. If yes, does SP imply that it is superior to those other beliefs ? Or are they all the same, as they are merely creations of the human mind, and therefore not good or evil, better or worse than others ?
3. you do realize that SP is nothing more than just another way to describe the way humans look at the universe ? Moreover, that SP itself was created / invented by man and could eventually be totally wrong ?
4. how does SP shape your views on the community you live in ? Obviously, Great Britain has a christian background. Is SP considered an "official" religion in the UK ?
5. does SP have an "official" stance on issues like gun control, abortion, murder, freedom, terror, etc.. ?
It doesn't look like it does, as it has no codified laws, no official scripture. ( at least according to the german site http://www.pantheismus.de/
6. most importantly, when and under which circumstances did you become a follower of SP ? were you raised with a different religion / faith / belief / philosophy ?
7. did it never occur to you that when your moral values ( together with your view of islam and the suggestions you make ) don't concur with those of the community you live in, you might be the one at fault ?

rgds,
B.
xanthpi
Banned
+11|6941

B.Schuss wrote:

I am not going to quote everything you "copy and pasted" on scientific pantheism. just a couple of questions which your short introduction into SP didn't cover:

1. SP clearly is either a religion or a philosophy.
It's a philosophy.

B.Schuss wrote:

Does PS acknowledge and accept the existance of other religions / faiths / philosophical views of the universe ?
It's down to the individual whether or not to accept the existence of other religions / faiths / philosophical views. It has nothing to do with SP.

B.Schuss wrote:

2. If yes, does SP imply that it is superior to those other beliefs ?
Superiority has to be established by what is most true, yes? An ideology which stated that god hates homosexuals (ie. mumbo jumbo) will be inferior to SP in this sense. If SP was wrong and another ideology was right then SP would be the inferior one.

B.Schuss wrote:

Or are they all the same, as they are merely creations of the human mind, and therefore not good or evil, better or worse than others ?
It would appear that the god-as-sum-total-of-all-natural-laws idea is at present the best explanation of creation.

All established religions are creations of the human mind and all are false. This can be proved logically.

Of course there are "better" and "worse" religions, but you'd have to define some categories to work with, as religion A may be better in one sense than religion B, but in another category the inverse may be true.

You can see good and evil within each religion. Since all claim that their gods are good, it is possible to disregard their validity just on this point.

Bear in mind though that good and evil are human inventions. In SP, there is no good or evil as god is not able even to think, and is not therefore able to favour one group over another. There is only equality - every single atom in the universe is subject to the same natural laws as every other atom.

B.Schuss wrote:

3. you do realize that SP is nothing more than just another way to describe the way humans look at the universe ?
Yes. It is not a religion. It is one logical step further than atheism. It provides a basis for those who are interested in life, nature and the entire universe, how it all works and interacts and what is the place of Homo Sapiens Sapiens in the grand scheme of things.

B.Schuss wrote:

Moreover, that SP itself was created / invented by man and could eventually be totally wrong ?
It may be that over time, a better explanation can be obtained. For the present, this would appear to be the best we have to work with.

Realise also that humans discovered that pi=3.1415927. Pi is the same throughout the universe. Equations which use pi have the same result wherever in the universe they are applied. So, since we have established that not everything which comes from the human mind is in error, it may be implied that SP could also be true.

The concept of SP has been tested and has so far stood up to scrutiny.

B.Schuss wrote:

4. how does SP shape your views on the community you live in ?
It doesn't. SP is a realisation about god, god's relationship with creation and man's relationship with creation and god. It has no bearing whatsoever on my local community. That is what man-made laws are for.

B.Schuss wrote:

Obviously, Great Britain has a christian background. Is SP considered an "official" religion in the UK ?
No. It is not a religion. Scientific Pantheism may not even be it's correct name. SP is something personal.

B.Schuss wrote:

5. does SP have an "official" stance on issues like gun control, abortion, murder, freedom, terror, etc.. ?
Lol, no. As far as I know, there is not a community of Scientific Pantheists. In any case, SP is not able to have any stance on those issues. That is for each community to decide for themselves.

There are conservative, liberal, fascist and communist SPs, I am sure. Anyone can be one. It's all about sitting down for ten minutes and thinking. The SP conclusion is not a difficult one to come to. I became a SP when I was 6, whilst I was thinking about Santa Claus and whether he was real (it went from is Santa real to is god real). It wasn't until about 4 years ago that I finally discovered that I was a SP. Before that I called it "romantic atheism".

B.Schuss wrote:

It doesn't look like it does, as it has no codified laws, no official scripture. ( at least according to the german site http://www.pantheismus.de/
I've never visited a site to do with SP. I wouldn't know if there was great movement behind it. All I know is that Einstein and Spinoza were both SPs.

B.Schuss wrote:

6. most importantly, when and under which circumstances did you become a follower of SP ?
See above.

B.Schuss wrote:

were you raised with a different religion / faith / belief / philosophy ?
I was Christened as a Protestant but into a non-religious family (the Christening was to appease my Christian grandmother, a thoroughly decent woman).

B.Schuss wrote:

7. did it never occur to you that when your moral values ( together with your view of islam and the suggestions you make ) don't concur with those of the community you live in, you might be the one at fault ?
Yes. Which is why I spent so much time researching. I've been proven correct about Islam, just as those in the 1930s were proved correct about the Nazi intentions, even in the face of so many people who thought that appeasement/ ignoring the signals/ not being able to see the signals were the best way forward.
It's important to be able to learn from history. I'd kick myself when if, on my deathbed, I could see that my country or the world had been enslaved by Islam, knowing full well that I and others could have done something about it.

But, I sometimes wish that I knew nothing of Islam. Life would be easier. I prefer the ignorance I had before September 11th 2001. Life was "fluffier" then. But then I think, if all the capable people decided on apathy in the face of the threat, who would be there to protect us?
I liken this to being the Good Samaritan. I won't walk on by whilst something worth defending is attacked. And nor should anyone else.
Ikarti
Banned - for ever.
+231|6930|Wilmington, DE, US

xanthpi wrote:

Ikarti wrote:

I'm guessing you think I'm Muslim. Well, that wouldn't be the first time you're wrong. Continue on with your sillyness. Believe what you want. If the truth was in front of you yet contradicted what you've been spouting you'd deny it. As I said in the other thread, why waste the time?
Because you wasted the time making the post anyway.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that you're Muslim* now. You refered to the people who left Islam as kafirs. No non-Muslim would do that. The cat is out of the bag.

*Seeing as you play BF2, and information from other things you've said, you're not a real Muslim, so you'll be going to hell like all the other dirty kafirun
Yep. You took the bait there. All I had to do was use kafir and you'd have another ejaculation of stupidity.

And I already knew I was going to hell. All us atheists are.
xanthpi
Banned
+11|6941

Ikarti wrote:

xanthpi wrote:

Ikarti wrote:

I'm guessing you think I'm Muslim. Well, that wouldn't be the first time you're wrong. Continue on with your sillyness. Believe what you want. If the truth was in front of you yet contradicted what you've been spouting you'd deny it. As I said in the other thread, why waste the time?
Because you wasted the time making the post anyway.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that you're Muslim* now. You refered to the people who left Islam as kafirs. No non-Muslim would do that. The cat is out of the bag.

*Seeing as you play BF2, and information from other things you've said, you're not a real Muslim, so you'll be going to hell like all the other dirty kafirun
Yep. You took the bait there. All I had to do was use kafir and you'd have another ejaculation of stupidity.

And I already knew I was going to hell. All us atheists are.
You twist and turn like a...... twisty turny thing.

So are you "Muslim" or atheist, and if you're atheist then why are you sticking up for the religion of Islam? It is your mortal enemy. If Islam got power then you'd be one of the first for the chop.
Vilham
Say wat!?
+580|6987|UK
Ban religeon...
xanthpi
Banned
+11|6941

Vilham wrote:

Ban religeon...
Now there's an idea. But what about all the bad people who have no religion? What do we do about them?

I think perhaps there's no answer and we are destined to endure conflict forever.

If man were made by god, I would think that god would be kicking himself by now. Or perhaps sitting back with a crate of beer and a cigar, enjoying the show.
B.Schuss
I'm back, baby... ( sort of )
+664|7062|Cologne, Germany

banning religion ? interesting concept, but impossible to pull off, I guess. you cannot force people to follow a certain religion of philosophical belief. well, you can, but only in non-democratic societies. And we don't want that, do we ?

One of the downsides of free, democratic societies is that we will have to live with those who attack our values to a certain extent. for example, freedom of speech is one of the most important aspects of a democratic society. But this will also allow our enemies to freely speak their mind.

Another aspect is the protection and reckognition of ethnic / religious minorities. this has of course been greatly influenced by WWII and the way the Nazis handled ethnic minorities. since that time, free, democratic societies have been known to be very tolerant towards ethnic / religious minorities.

That alone would not be a problem if the rule of law would still be applied against all members of a community, whatever origin or religion. But as many here ( including xanthpi ) have indicated, this is not always the case. Even if police action against ethnic minorities is justified, accusations of racial motivation usually are being brought up. As you might imagine, this is not very helpful.

the question is, how many of those rights are you willing to take away or limit to protect your society ?

This has been subject to a big discussion lately, especially in the US ( patriot act ). Just last month, the US President admitted to having ordered wire-tapping of suspects without a court order. To me, this is an outrage. You cannot justify every action by saying "it is in the nation's interest, war on terror requires it..", etc..
How are you supposed to convince people that you are defending freedom and democracy when you are breaking the law in the process ? Same goes for the illegal CIA prisons, which seem to be spread all over europe..

The more rights you take away from your people to protect them, the more you become a police state.

In the end, it turns out to be more a philosophical question than a practical. If you decide to stick to the principles of an open, free society, you will have to live with the downsides, even if they are as big as 09/11.

this, of course, doesn't mean that you cannot and should not improve the work of your intelligence branches.
xanthpi
Banned
+11|6941

B.Schuss wrote:

banning religion ? interesting concept, but impossible to pull off, I guess. you cannot force people to follow a certain religion of philosophical belief. well, you can, but only in non-democratic societies. And we don't want that, do we ? .
Of course, banning religion is impossible. It is possible, however, to ban adherence to certain ideologies, such as Nazism in your country. Although I don't know for sure, that has largely been a success has it not?

B.Schuss wrote:

One of the downsides of free, democratic societies is that we will have to live with those who attack our values to a certain extent. for example, freedom of speech is one of the most important aspects of a democratic society. But this will also allow our enemies to freely speak their mind..
We should accept and refute criticism. There is a boundary though where free speech becomes hate speech. The boundary though is very difficult to define and should certainly NOT be left up to left wing people to decide.

B.Schuss wrote:

Another aspect is the protection and reckognition of ethnic / religious minorities. this has of course been greatly influenced by WWII and the way the Nazis handled ethnic minorities. since that time, free, democratic societies have been known to be very tolerant towards ethnic / religious minorities..
Remember, we can only tolerate the tolerable.

B.Schuss wrote:

That alone would not be a problem if the rule of law would still be applied against all members of a community, whatever origin or religion. But as many here ( including xanthpi ) have indicated, this is not always the case. Even if police action against ethnic minorities is justified, accusations of racial motivation usually are being brought up. As you might imagine, this is not very helpful.

the question is, how many of those rights are you willing to take away or limit to protect your society ?.
Whatever is necessary.

B.Schuss wrote:

This has been subject to a big discussion lately, especially in the US ( patriot act ). Just last month, the US President admitted to having ordered wire-tapping of suspects without a court order. To me, this is an outrage. You cannot justify every action by saying "it is in the nation's interest, war on terror requires it..", etc...

How are you supposed to convince people that you are defending freedom and democracy when you are breaking the law in the process ? Same goes for the illegal CIA prisons, which seem to be spread all over europe...
Well, most people have not noticed that there is a world war going on at the moment. During time of war, it is necessary to take special steps to protect the citizens.

B.Schuss wrote:

The more rights you take away from your people to protect them, the more you become a police state..
I don't think that the US has much to worry about, with about 100 million armed citizens, the poilce and government may get something of a shock if they ever overstepped the mark.
Here in Europe though where weapon ownership is largely banned, the governments could step in at any time to enforce their will.

B.Schuss wrote:

In the end, it turns out to be more a philosophical question than a practical. If you decide to stick to the principles of an open, free society, you will have to live with the downsides, even if they are as big as 09/11..
Living with 911 is not an option. Although freedom comes at a price, events like 911 are an outrage. Even if we had to kill every Islamist on the planet, it would be worth it to save the life of just 1 innocent, peaceful citizen.

B.Schuss wrote:

this, of course, doesn't mean that you cannot and should not improve the work of your intelligence branches.
B.Schuss
I'm back, baby... ( sort of )
+664|7062|Cologne, Germany

no remarks on my last sentence ? I am disappointed...

it is true that nazism is banned in germany ( for obvious reasons ). Still, neo-nazism exists, as the basis for the ideology behind the third reich wasn't so new anyway ( superiority of one race over the rest, extermination of the weaker races, etc.. ). One could even argue that parts of this ideology exist in islam.

The government cannot ( and should not ) control the minds of people. Let them believe in whatever they want, I say, as long as they keep them to themselves and don't commit crimes against the community they live in based on their belief. If they follow the rule of law, I am fine.

Problematic are those who act according to such beliefs and undermine the rule of law or the integrity of the nation they live in. such behaviour should not be tolerated.

Interestingly, other nations tend to not take the neo-nazi issue very seriously, even those who fought the nazis in WWII.

Well, you know how the saying goes: "those who do not learn from history are bound to repeat it."
xanthpi
Banned
+11|6941

B.Schuss wrote:

no remarks on my last sentence ? I am disappointed...
I didn't remark on it because I agree with it. Intelligence plays a huge role in the current war. Intelligence has and will play a greater role in this war than in any other.

B.Schuss wrote:

it is true that nazism is banned in germany ( for obvious reasons ). Still, neo-nazism exists, as the basis for the ideology behind the third reich wasn't so new anyway ( superiority of one race over the rest, extermination of the weaker races, etc.. ). One could even argue that parts of this ideology exist in islam.
Well it's funny you should mention that, because there were Muslim divisions in the SS, who as it happened, pursued their objectives with such rigeur that they became "too hot to handle" even for their German SS masters. Muslim SS crimes in Yugoslavia surpassed those of the regular SS.

The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem (Arafat's uncle, if memory serves), spent the war in Berlin studying the methods of the "Final Solution" with the intention of using the techniques to solve the Islamic world's own "Jewish Question".

Both ideologies state what one group has the right to rule the world, with everyone else either killed or enslaved, which is why Hitler himself stated that if Germany had been Muslim, they wouldn't have lost. He admired the fanaticism and brutality of the Muslim soldier.

B.Schuss wrote:

The government cannot ( and should not ) control the minds of people. Let them believe in whatever they want, I say, as long as they keep them to themselves and don't commit crimes against the community they live in based on their belief. If they follow the rule of law, I am fine.
Have you noticed though that here in Europe (and also elsewhere), the governments hava been controlling minds for quite some time. I'm talking about political correctness of course, and the campaign has been so successful that we have seen here in this thread and others, a bunch of Western people who have come to defend an ideology which would actually murder them should it gain control of their land.
I'm all for honest government and as it happens, it's the only successful way to govern.

B.Schuss wrote:

Problematic are those who act according to such beliefs and undermine the rule of law or the integrity of the nation they live in. such behaviour should not be tolerated.
But it is tolerated. It is even encouranged. No European nation made any attempt to "Westernize" the Muslim immigrants. On the contrary, those immigrants were encourage to stay separate. And now we have bombings in London and Madrid and riots in the Netherlands and France.

B.Schuss wrote:

Interestingly, other nations tend to not take the neo-nazi issue very seriously, even those who fought the nazis in WWII.
It's all about moral equivalence and not being judgemental. If we forget what the Nazis did, then it will happen again.

B.Schuss wrote:

Well, you know how the saying goes: "those who do not learn from history are bound to repeat it."
Lol, I was trying not to use that phrase, but I wanted to. That's perhaps the most important lesson anyone can learn.
Hero764
Member
+0|6905
Muhammad had sex with a nine year old girl
Dear xanthpi, this is a groundless allegation that has been proved wrong time and time again. Look at the Prophet's character before and after his prophethood... How could the Prophet who was around fifty years old suddenly alter and succumb to lust? When he had so many opportunities as a young man to follow his lust? =\

Could you give me any un-biased quotes which aren't ripped of from faithfreedom.org that support your allegation xanthpi?

Last edited by Hero764 (2006-01-13 18:23:34)

SFCCDailey
Banned
+106|6937|USA
I thought Muhammad just banged little Islamic Alter Boys! Oh well, You guys need to get a damn life. And don't forget to read my previous post about the Muhammad picture. Anyone want to buy some of my ass Jihad toilet paper? It's on sale!
Hero764
Member
+0|6905
SFCCDailey, your latest post does not contribute to anything to the topic, this board here is for serious debate not for your entertainment out of getting people to buy your toilet paper.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard