The bible and the quran are seen as the moral and guiding foundations of their respective religions. They contain directives for behavior, observations on god, moral guidance, and many other things. And they are viewed by their adherents as the word of god, literal or poetic.

Clearly, among all the other attributes of these books (peace be with you, love thy neighbor, don't hump goats - all good advice), violence and intolerance make up a significant part. Much of it is not even couched in philosophical terms. It is in the form of direct inducements to racism, misogyny, genocide, etc.

Why do adherents to these religions selectively edit these directives from their "interpretations"? Why do they focus on what they percieve to be the "good" parts and basically ignore the "bad" stuff?

How can anyone justify such personal and selective interpretation of the word of god? How does one justify to themselves a belief based on these books - god's words - yet take the overwhelmingly arrogant step of thinking they can just ignore or modify parts they don't like?

This is a major confusion for me in the reasoning, or lack thereof, in the christian, muslim, and jewish mind.

I do think some of the fundamentalist sects do take this stuff seriously. I say that tongue in cheek because if your a male you've got it made. This gets me thinking as to why the bible and quran don't seem to recognize women as they do men. Why any woman would want to be part of either is mindboggling at best. Perhaps they fear their husband's rath, I don't know.

Tremendous amounts of violence are exhibited by both holy books. In my job I get to enter private residences as well as buildings and I can remember being in the basement of a church once, in the Sunday school section, whereupon I picked up a book entitled the Children's Illustrated Bible. The first page I turned to was an artist's rendition of David holding a spear at his side with Goliath's head impaled on the end of it. Complete with blood, guts and a headless torso.

.........Why do adherents to these religions selectively edit these directives from their "interpretations"? Why do they focus on what they percieve to be the "good" parts and basically ignore the "bad" stuff?
...........

:)

That is a very general strategy, which is used
by almost everyone, not just Muslims, Christians,
and Jews.

As a rule, if you like something, you concentrate
instinctively on its bright side, whether that bright
side is real or imaginary. And if you dislike something,
you concentrate instinctively on its dark side, whether
that dark side is real or imaginary.

Therefore, it's the task of the critics of Islam, Christianity,
and Judaism, to make the followers of those religions see
their flaws and shortcomings. And that criticism must be
sustained and maintained for long, long, long time, in order
for it to have positive results.

:cool:

Right. And I agree. I'm interested in the christians and muslims, and jews response to this. I don't know a single one who denies that these books are the word of god (otherwise, they're not christians or muslims or jews... right?) whether literal or allegorical. So how do they justify their denial of the "dark" parts, and what they are commanded to do in gods name?

I'm tired of this...

I'm tired of this...
I can understand that.

I'm tired of this...

You shouldn't be.

If as you say, you've studied your religion and agree with it, then it would be easy for you to explain or refute any of the above without batting an eyelash.

But, if instead you're "tired of this" as in tired of people questioning religion, then you probably didn't ask very hard questions when you originally studied.

And that's prmiarily what you'll see here is the asking of hard questions about religion, whether they appear tiring or not.

Ok, its personal, as you've stated before, but it's also global, affecting the lives of millions. And if we use history to quantify the argument, we find that religion has affected the lives of millions in very negative ways.

Hence, we now have another hard question regarding religion in which our esteemed collegue, superluminal, has presented, one that appears to ponder over the reasonings of those very negative effects history has shown us.

If I were you, I'd demand some examples and then proceed to dissect supers argument to the best of your ability... if you can.

If you think he's spouting hogwash, call him on it, and be prepared to tell him why.

Surely, you can't be tired of this...

Don't restrain your consciousness to a religion, life is more than that, you know better than that.

You shouldn't be.

If as you say, you've studied your religion and agree with it, then it would be easy for you to explain or refute any of the above without batting an eyelash.

But, if instead you're "tired of this" as in tired of people questioning religion, then you probably didn't ask very hard questions when you originally studied.

And that's prmiarily what you'll see here is the asking of hard questions about religion, whether they appear tiring or not.

Ok, its personal, as you've stated before, but it's also global, affecting the lives of millions. And if we use history to quantify the argument, we find that religion has affected the lives of millions in very negative ways.

Hence, we now have another hard question regarding religion in which our esteemed collegue, superluminal, has presented, one that appears to ponder over the reasonings of those very negative effects history has shown us.

If I were you, I'd demand some examples and then proceed to dissect supers argument to the best of your ability... if you can.

If you think he's spouting hogwash, call him on it, and be prepared to tell him why.

Surely, you can't be tired of this...

I get the strangest feeling that you and super are the same... :rolleyes:

I'm in the middle of an assignment right now and this, I know is going to be time consuming; maybe after the weekend.

I get the strangest feeling that you and super are the same... :rolleyes:

If there's one thing about atheists - at least we're consistent. Right (Q) old buddy? Or am I just talking to myself? :D :m:

I doubt very much theists will directly address this issue. Everytime someone brings it up, it is conveniently left out of quotes in which they give their reply.

Are we playing chicken ?
:p

I doubt very much theists will directly address this issue. Everytime someone brings it up, it is conveniently left out of quotes in which they give their reply.
I also have my doubts. But I would really be interested to discuss the logic of this. Lately we've been having a lot of threads about the "reality" of god and how deluded theists are (and atheists, from the theists perspective). This has nothing to do with that. The tacit assumption here is, ok, fine. God is real and these are his words, as written by the great prophets and disciples of history. This is all about truth, and self deception. Logic and illogic. I'd like to get a theists views on this.

My main worry is that I'll just get a bunch of rhetoric and be buried in mile-long posts designed to do nothing more than deflect the simple question.

We'll see.

Ok here the view of a theist, not for the sake of brow beating atheists, but simply to give them a leg in to a different perspective -

Scripture is considered to be non-different from God (immediately you going to have a problem with that if you have a problem with god -lol) - in other words just as it is impossible for an unqualified person to approach God it is impossible for an unqualified person to understand scripture (they will just walk away from it in a state of confusion).

One who is properly qualified can take scripture and "reveal" it to others - in other words they are intelligent enough (by dint of their purity as opposed to academic capacity)to practically apply the instructions to time place and circumstance therefore they will give different emphasis's to different people at different times - just like for instance a mother teaches her daughter one type of knowledge when the daughter is 6, another type of knowledge when she is 12, another type when she is 16 (which the daughter probably won't listen to -lol) and another type when she becomes a mother herself - of course despite the variety there is one type of knowledge that is the same and which all the other varieties of knowledge depend on - that the daughter maintain a loving connection with her mother (if a daughter hates her mother she won't listen) - in the same way the essential knowledge in religion that remains the same is that one should maintain a loving relationship with god - this is technically called dharma - then there are what are called upadharmas which translates as "nearness to dharma". So upadharmas are things like nonviolence, freedom from envy, etc etc. Upadharmas are variable but dharma is not - Upadharmas can be helpful to dharma but are not essential - This places the essence of religion not in morals but in performing one's duty for god. Morals help one become established in that duty but are definitely not the goal of religion.

In other words there is a proper application for violence, acquiring money by strong endeavour and all sorts of things but it requires a purified and qualified person to apply the injunctions of scripture otherwise otherwise the scenario is just like a sick person going to the chemist and saying "I will have 10 red ones and 2 dozen green ones" without a prescription by a qualified doctor.

Generally people judge the value of religion by the activities of such persons - which is just like judging a genre by its worst stereotype - if theists appear in contention regarding the practical application of theology it is just because they are not properly purified to understand scripture. Therefore for the guidance of people is directed between scripture and saintly persons established with scripture - between saintly persons there are no quarrels of theology, only amongst their followers, but that is mostly due to stepping outside the guidelines of their teachers to begin with.

Hope this wasn't the ten mile long piece you were fearing :)

Thanks LG.

Unfortunately, you didn't really respond to the question. I understand your position regarding the interpretation and application of scripture as requiring a "qualified" practitioner. I get it.

What I'm after is a bit simpler than that. When the bible or quran gives you a directive to do violence, such as cleansing the earth of infidels or stoning a woman for adultery, or suggests you treat women like property, why do you not follow gods will?

Thanks LG.

Unfortunately, you didn't really respond to the question. I understand your position regarding the interpretation and application of scripture as requiring a "qualified" practitioner. I get it.

What I'm after is a bit simpler than that. When the bible or quran gives you a directive to do violence, such as cleansing the earth of infidels or stoning a woman for adultery, or suggests you treat women like property, why do you not follow gods will?

Well here is an example - there is a vedic injunction that when a person hears blasphemy of god they should either kill the offender, cut out their tongue, or in the absence of that kill themselves for it is better to die than hearing such things.

So, as you can imagine, I haven't cut the tongue off anyone or killed anyone (myself included) and its not like I live in a cave so I am open to what ever this popular culture spills out -


But the point is that such scriptural injunctions are commented on by the before mentioned qualified saintly persons and they have also elaborated (by other scriptural quotes) how there are other ways to kill people apart from ending their life- it innvolves counter argument (can you guess which one I opt for). Also cutting one's tongue out can innvolve giving the impression you will cut therir tongue out (not really my portfolio but I have seen it exhibited by 6ft people weighing more than 120kg on people who are drunk, obnoxious and looking for trouble). Also killing oneself can be interpreted as leaving the immediate company of the blasphemer - so one can apply the injunction if one is a monarch, an academic, or even a beggar on the street

- the point is that if one knows what is the principle is and what the details are (in this case "Do not sit idly while listening to atheistic arguments" is the principle and whether you are going to kill them, argue with them or leave the vicinity are details) - then you can apply it to time place and circumstance (again that is the quality of a saintly person - namely their ability to extract principles from scripture as opposed to details)

- You may be committing the error of pulling details out of the scripture and questioning them as principles, which is a mistake that not properly qualified practioners of religion sometimes do, what to speak of atheists -lol

Now we're getting somewhere. Gracias!

You know I consider myself a very moderate Muslim, but I'm not going to bang my head against a wall here.

I think I have made my views pretty clear and I doubt I can say much more that I have not said before.

So, this is my very last attempt, you should find everything you need here:

The Myth of Moderate Islam?? (http://www.islamicamagazine.com/issue-15/feature/the-myth-of-the-myth-of-moderate-islam.html)

You know I consider myself a very moderate Muslim, but I'm not going to bang my head against a wall here.

I think I have made my views pretty clear and I doubt I can say much more that I have not said before.

So, this is my very last attempt, you should find everything you need here:

The Myth of Moderate Islam?? (http://www.islamicamagazine.com/issue-15/feature/the-myth-of-the-myth-of-moderate-islam.html)
Hey sam. Nice link, but that's not what I'm after. The article explains how various verses should be "interpreted". How do you, or any believer, justify interpreting the word of god at all? Clearly there are passages in the bible and the quran that are very explicit regarding how to respect another, how to treat a person in need, etc. and that are taken very literally, and rightly so. It's pretty clear when you are told to wish peace on a guest and to love your neighbor. But many injunctions to do violence and devalue women are just as clear.

It's obvious that believers are engaged in a form of the "enumeration of favorable outcomes". Count the good stuff, reject the bad. But this is gods word we are talking about here. Why do you get to interpret the directives regarding the treatment of women differently than the quran or bible tells you to? These were perfectly reasonable directives 2000 years ago. Is the word of god sacred and inviolate or not?

I'm not trying to be aggressive here, but when it comes to the word of god, as a believer, you cannot have your cake and eat it too. How could you? Who are any of you to "interpret" what appear to be very clear directions from god as transcribed by the ancient vessels of his word?

Hey sam. Nice link, but that's not what I'm after. The article explains how various verses should be "interpreted". How do you, or any believer, justify interpreting the word of god at all? Clearly there are passages in the bible and the quran that are very explicit regarding how to respect another, how to treat a person in need, etc. and that are taken very literally, and rightly so. It's pretty clear when you are told to wish peace on a guest and to love your neighbor. But many injunctions to do violence and devalue women are just as clear.

It's obvious that believers are engaged in a form of the "enumeration of favorable outcomes". Count the good stuff, reject the bad. But this is gods word we are talking about here. Why do you get to interpret the directives regarding the treatment of women differently than the quran or bible tells you to? These were perfectly reasonable directives 2000 years ago. Is the word of god sacred and inviolate or not?

I'm not trying to be aggressive here, but when it comes to the word of god, as a believer, you cannot have your cake and eat it too. How could you? Who are any of you to "interpret" what appear to be very clear directions from god as transcribed by the ancient vessels of his word?



I don't know if this is a cultural difference between East and West or whether there are just differences in outlook; but there is a serious gap in the understanding of what religion means to the average Easterner.

In the West, religion is nominal or absent; but in the East, regardless of whether you are a Hindu, Muslim, Christian or any of the other faiths, religion is very intrinsic to daily life. Most Easterners define themselves by their religion.
Religion is a guide; it provides us with a philosophy by which to lead our life.

The Quran has an overall philosophy. Islam is derived from Salamah or peace. That is the basic philosophy; we greet other "Salaam aleikum" "Peace be with you".

There are many many lessons to learn from any religion; but the most important lesson is to live with people; the whole Quran is devoted to how, when, where, in what manner you deal with people.

Some of the Quranic verses were revealed when the first Muslims were engaged in battle; they became part of the Quran as revelations, but they were revealed in response to a particular incident at a particular point in time and they were qualified by later revelations about the right actions in general circumstances.

When we look for guidance, we read the whole Quran, not just one verse; we are familiar with the philosophy of the religion; when there is a dispute, we go to an Islamic scholar who has perhaps better knowledge of the circumstances under which the verses were revealed and can clarify them in accordance with the philosophy of the religion. What is important to understand is that there are guidelines for every situation from best case to worst case and it foolish to look at the worst case scenario and consider that to be the guideline for all situations. This would not be conducive to the welfare of the individual the community the society or the religion; and ultimately the goal of the religion is to ensure their welfare.

It's like saying, we have nuclear weapons; why bother with dialogue, one nuclear weapon will solve all the problems at once. But having the nuclear weapons and using them are two very different situations.

Samcdkey: I don't see where that is relevant to obeying the scriptures as they are read.

Christianity suffered a setback with the coming of secular law and politics. As a result it is much more civil these days as anyone who perfectly obeys their holy book - their word of God - will be slung in jail.

Muslims however still enjoy many religious laws and haven't suffered the nuicance of secularism, they are pretty brutal with their religious law. You (as a moderate) are nothing more than an infidel to them.

Do you think it's right to murder someone because they have converted to another religion? Both Christianity and Islam say you must do this. I want a theist to come out and say this is wrong...

sam,

So what you're saying is that my entire line of questioning is founded on a misunderstanding. I can accept that. I assumed that the quran and the bible were certainly much more than just philosophies to guide one through life, with conditional revelations based on circumstances specific to the times they were revealed in. Being an atheist I really don't know how a theist relates to her quran or bible. I assumed that the sacred nature of the books meant they were much more than basic guidelines.

When I hear people talk about these books being the unmistakable word of god, you'll forgive a poor atheist for assuming the monumental nature of such a thing and what it might imply for a theist.

What I'm hearing is that in actuality, a modern, enlightened theist understands that these books are not really the word of god, but more the intentions of god as transmitted through his prophets. Yes?

Such that when a verse tells me to kill unbelievers (as LG pointed out) I need to interpret it in a poetic fashion, as in "kill them with holy words of truth". But when a verse tells me to be kind to strangers, it is meant simply and literally.

Sorry, but I find this to be intellectually dishonest. LG and sam, I am not happy with you. I shouldn't have to figure all of the above out for myself. I'm just an atheist. And I find these answers unsatisfying.

LG and sam, I am not happy with you. I shouldn't have to figure all of the above out for myself.

Well I'm sorry you feel that way; unfortunately I have no easy answers for you. I doubt you were expecting them anyway.

My old English teacher told us that meaning is determined by the author and it is up to us to figure it out. I think theists have taken this as their battle cry. Only one question remains, is God the author?

Well I'm sorry you feel that way; unfortunately I have no easy answers for you. I doubt you were expecting them anyway.
You're right, I wasn't. To be honest, I'm pretty certain of the real answers already. I suppose I was hoping for something a bit different, but I really can't imagine how any believer could answer much differently than you nice folks already have. Thanks! :)

****************************
THIS THREAD FOR SALE BY OWNER

Good condition. Lots of possibilities
for the creative remodeler! Priced to
sell.
****************************

When I hear people talk about these books being the unmistakable word of god, you'll forgive a poor atheist for assuming the monumental nature of such a thing and what it might imply for a theist.

What I'm hearing is that in actuality, a modern, enlightened theist understands that these books are not really the word of god, but more the intentions of god as transmitted through his prophets. Yes?
Yes?????? I must hav e given you the wrong impression

Such that when a verse tells me to kill unbelievers (as LG pointed out) I need to interpret it in a poetic fashion, as in "kill them with holy words of truth". But when a verse tells me to be kind to strangers, it is meant simply and literally.

Actually the point is that one doesn't interpret - one accepts the interpretation of one who is qualified - and one who is qualified uses scriptural quotes to explain scripture as opposed to poetic inspiration like the artist- like for instance if a rocket scientist handed you his latest findings in a book form you wouldn't be able to see anything except sqiggles and diagrams, but in the hands of a qualified person the book of findings is non different from a rocket because they know how to apply it. In the same way scripture is non different from god.

As for scripture the vedas are quite exhaustive - in a nutshell the vedas hold that time is cyclic like seasons from spring to winter(as opposed to linear - as held by even most evolutionists) so that means the same things happen in material creation time and time again and the Vedas (sruti) are eternal - they directly emanate from god (at the beginning of each universal creation)and do not even change a single letter of sanskrit between cosmic devastations - but the Vedas is very difficult to understand (like the rocket design findings) so there are also the puranas (smrti) which are historical incidents and compilations by exalted personalities of cosmic proportions (for instance there is the Brahma Samhita which is the realisations of Brahma - the first living entity and engineer of the universe)

- and just when you started thinking you had enough books to read for the next 10 lifetimes there are commentaries by exalted sages and saints in human society on both smrti and sruti, since even the realisations of the first living entity in the universe are a bit tough going for the human mind - and all these departments of knowledge, from the vedas to the commentary on the puranas, are considered non-different from God. When the common thread is lost and one cannot see how all this information is non-different from god one ends up with the popular view that hinduism is polytheistic (just a lot of books saying a lot of different things)

Just like for the purposes of politics a diplomat is considered non different from the king he represents - and only to the degree that he represents the king - its kind of like the hierarchy of information in science - a handfull of people do an experiment, they release their finding s to the scientific community, the scientific community release it to the media and the media give it to th e guy on the street - Time magazine is only authoratative to the degree that it is in harmony with the findings of the original scientists - Now if you could imagine an edition of time magazine that could deliver whatever was lacking in your understanding to directly perceive the intentions and applications of a group of scientists that discovered something you would come close to understanding the value of scripture (to a theist of course)

lightgigantic: Enough of the bullshit. Just answer a simple question: Is the following passage right or wrong?

If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you. You shall stone him to death, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery. And all Israel, hearing of this, shall fear and never do such evil as this in your midst. (Deuteronomy 13:7-12 NAB)

Still waiting for a theist to honestly answer this question without verbal aerobatics. No doubt many more have been too cowardly to even post in this thread at all.

The difference between theist and atheist is faith, which theist living in faith upon what they are to be faith in. The rest are the same, meaning, as thinking animals, theists also make efforts on taking things logically, as the nature of human. Kind of "bad stuff" in the scriptures, as we all may agree, still have perspectives, which some see them as "bad stuff", some see them differently.

Take for example, quran verses regarding women. One may see it as a way to undervalue women, while others see them as the way to limitate/regulate men upon treating women; which we may agree statistically that men, physically stronger than women; which men then tend to oppress. Power tends to corrupt, it needs to be regulated.

lightgigantic: Enough of the bullshit. Just answer a simple question: Is the following passage right or wrong?

If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you. You shall stone him to death, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery. And all Israel, hearing of this, shall fear and never do such evil as this in your midst. (Deuteronomy 13:7-12 NAB)

Still waiting for a theist to honestly answer this question without verbal aerobatics. No doubt many more have been too cowardly to even post in this thread at all.

The main principle of Abraham religion is One God. When one is under threat against that principle, anything should be conducted to defend the principle.

Its very simple; the President of a country is just a man; but he represents the country.

If you knew that your sister/brother/wife/friend were going to shoot the President of your country, what would you do?

In principle, you have to report him/her for treason; that is what the law says; and the penalty for such treason would be death.

In practice, though, would you follow the letter of the law or the spirit of it?

Why is this so difficult to understand?

If you knew that your sister/brother/wife/friend were going to shoot the President of your country, what would you do?

We are talking about the word of God here, not presidents or law, or anything based in reality for that matter. Liveinfaith has just supported murder as it is stated in the Bible. The Quran is much worse, how can you ignore it?

My guess is that if you lived in some place or time without secular law, you would not be ignoring the nasty parts of the word of God.

The main principle of Abraham religion is One God. When one is under threat against that principle, anything should be conducted to defend the principle.

*************
M*W: Abraham was a pantheist. He believed in many gods as did his father before him. Monotheism traditionally came out of Egypt as sun worship under the rule of the biblical Pharaoh Moses (Tuthmosis IV). Egyptian Sun worship later evolved into the One God theory of the Hebrews and even later continued evolving into Sun worship by christians as they worshipped the Sun-of-God.

As far as in the scriptures, Abraham worship One God, and preached One God.

We are talking about the word of God here, not presidents or law, or anything based in reality for that matter. Liveinfaith has just supported murder as it is stated in the Bible. The Quran is much worse, how can you ignore it?

My guess is that if you lived in some place or time without secular law, you would not be ignoring the nasty parts of the word of God.


Religion is very much a reality for the people who believe in it; as the law is a reality for those who believe in it. The rules in religion are interpreted in ALL religions and they are interpreted based on the context in which they are applied. The differences in interpretation are political in origin rather than religious.

That is why over time religion adapts and changes based on the changes in society; and in every country, regardless of its religious beliefs, laws supersede the scriptures.

Actually the point is that one doesn't interpret - one accepts the interpretation of one who is qualified - and one who is qualified uses scriptural quotes to explain scripture as opposed to poetic inspiration like the artist- like for instance if a rocket scientist handed you his latest findings in a book form you wouldn't be able to see anything except sqiggles and diagrams, but in the hands of a qualified person the book of findings is non different from a rocket because they know how to apply it. In the same way scripture is non different from god.

Sorry, it doesn't work that way. You're trying to compare observed experimental results with invisible non-entities. The latter cannot possibly have anyone "qualified" to explain it as it is all complete assertion based on highly speculative interpretation.

We are talking about the word of God here, not presidents or law, or anything based in reality for that matter. Liveinfaith has just supported murder as it is stated in the Bible. The Quran is much worse, how can you ignore it?

My guess is that if you lived in some place or time without secular law, you would not be ignoring the nasty parts of the word of God.

Isn't it natural, when you are threated against your faith, you will commit anything? even one is willing die to defend one's faith.

Sorry, it doesn't work that way. You're trying to compare observed experimental results with invisible non-entities. The latter cannot possibly have anyone "qualified" to explain it as it is all complete assertion based on highly speculative interpretation.

I also have my doubts. But I would really be interested to discuss the logic of this. Lately we've been having a lot of threads about the "reality" of god and how deluded theists are (and atheists, from the theists perspective). This has nothing to do with that. The tacit assumption here is, ok, fine. God is real and these are his words, as written by the great prophets and disciples of history. This is all about truth, and self deception. Logic and illogic. I'd like to get a theists views on this

Q, if you read superluminal's posting, you'll realise that the "supernatural" is assumed to be true.

Religion is very much a reality for the people who believe in it; as the law is a reality for those who believe in it.

Unfortunately, theists don't appear to make a clear distinction between religion and laws - one is tangible. The reality of their religion is not a reality in the tangible, hence not a reality at all. That makes for a huge problem when the so-called reality of their religion begins to shape the laws of reality.

The rules in religion are interpreted in ALL religions and they are interpreted based on the context in which they are applied. The differences in interpretation are political in origin rather than religious.

That would lead one to assert that religions were perhaps created by men, since they are so easily manipulated by men, for political purposes. Would that also lead one to conclude religions were created for political purpose?

That is why over time religion adapts and changes based on the changes in society; and in every country, regardless of its religious beliefs, laws supersede the scriptures.

Changing the word of god to suit the needs of the masses? The changes in society are usually formed as a result of science, hence the word of god needs to change to suit science.

More evidence to suggest that religions were created by men, who were obviously ignorant to the yet undiscovered scientific findings.

That is why over time religion adapts and changes based on the changes in society; and in every country, regardless of its religious beliefs, laws supersede the scriptures.

In other words we simply edit the barbaric parts and keep the parts that are pretty.

Isn't it natural, when you are threated against your faith, you will commit anything? even one is willing die to defend one's faith.

Yes, like killing doctors who carry out abortions or flying planes into buildings. Yes, it's all very rational.

Unfortunately, theists don't appear to make a clear distinction between religion and laws - one is tangible. The reality of their religion is not a reality in the tangible, hence not a reality at all. That makes for a huge problem when the so-called reality of their religion begins to shape the laws of reality.

Don't they; do theists follow the laws of the country they live in or the laws of the scriptures?

That would lead one to assert that religions were perhaps created by men, since they are so easily manipulated by men, for political purposes. Would that also lead one to conclude religions were created for political purpose?

Your conclusions are based on the premise that there is only one solution to any problem; there are many guidelines in the scriptures and based on the context in which they were revealed, we are free to ddecide what our actions should be.

e.g. it says, "thou shalt not kill" but every soldier knows that this is not an all-encompassing law.


Changing the word of god to suit the needs of the masses? The changes in society are usually formed as a result of science, hence the word of god needs to change to suit science.The word of God is to enable us to be better human beings; we do not change it; the Quran is a philosophy with guidelines; we follow the philosophy and use the guidelines.


More evidence to suggest that religions were created by men, who were obviously ignorant to the yet undiscovered scientific findings.

Not as ignorant as you seem to think.

History of science in Islam (http://www.mic.ki.se/Arab.html)

Yes, like killing doctors who carry out abortions or flying planes into buildings. Yes, it's all very rational.

Those are crimes, not defending faith against who threatened.

In other words we simply edit the barbaric parts and keep the parts that are pretty.

No we don't; the Quran remains unaltered; we follow the guidelines in it as the context demands.

Q, if you read superluminal's posting, you'll realise that the "supernatural" is assumed to be true.

I understand, but that doesn't make it any less interpretive. As well, we see a variety of messages from a variety of religions, all having different interpretations, some in complete contradiction to others. A "scholar" of Christianity will not have much in common with a "scholar" of Islam, for example.

Experimental results either support the assumption or not.

In other words, the author is talking apples and oranges.

Hey everyone.

Just an observation. I think we've gotten all the answers we're going to get here. Clearly there are extremeists in every faith who will interpret the writings to suit them. If that means killing infidels by jet-missile, or killing doctors who abort a ball of cells, so be it. There are also enlightened moderates who will mentally adjust the writings to agree more with their modern moral sense.

But isn't that the whole problem here? Looking to one instance of a book, written thousands of years ago, as your immutable, eternal source of wisdom and guidance? Can the quran or the bible ever incorporate the findings of sociobiology or other human behavioral sciences?

Look at a simple instance. It is now clear to any educated person that homosexuality is not a "lifestyle choice". It's a natural genetic predisposition that some portion of humanity will alwas exhibit. And it's harmless. If you understand anything about evolutionary biology, you will understand that the frequency of this behavior will always be relatively low. I leave you to look at the absolute turmoil this is causing because of ancient, immutable writings.

Look at abortion and stem cell research. There is zero evidence for a soul, let alone "ensoulment" at the time of conception. We are talking largely about a blastocyst containing a few dozen to a few hundred cells (which is naturally aborted, by some estimates, 30% to 40% of the time without the woman even realizing it). This little ball of cells, with close to a 50-50 chance under even normal circumstances, is the source of how much anguish? And how much potential improvement in the human condition?

Ancient immutable writings, ignorant of and immune to any discovery post- dating them, declare it off limits.

Can the theists here even remotely understand why we atheist/free-thinkers find this intolerable?

I understand, but that doesn't make it any less interpretive. As well, we see a variety of messages from a variety of religions, all having different interpretations, some in complete contradiction to others. A "scholar" of Christianity will not have much in common with a "scholar" of Islam, for example.

Experimental results either support the assumption or not.

In other words, the author is talking apples and oranges.

Again you are talking about guidelines; besides, even the Christians do not deny that the Bible was altered; the basic philosophy of all religions is same.

Again you are talking about guidelines; besides, even the Christians do not deny that the Bible was altered; the basic philosophy of all religions is same.
Super! So you have just said that it all boils down to a philosophy. The "intentions" of gods word, as I said earlier. That's great!

So, why not just alter it a bit more to remove the clearly hateful and violent passages, and incorporate some modern understanding of human nature?

Then, why not just call it a book of the best tried-and-tested human approaches to living, and call it a day? Everyone goes home happy.

Hey everyone.

Just an observation. I think we've gotten all the answers we're going to get here. Clearly there are extremeists in every faith who will interpret the writings to suit them. If that means killing infidels by jet-missile, or killing doctors who abort a ball of cells, so be it. There are also enlightened moderates who will mentally adjust the writings to agree more with their modern moral sense.

But isn't that the whole problem here? Looking to one instance of a book, written thousands of years ago, as your immutable, eternal source of wisdom and guidance? Can the quran or the bible ever incorporate the findings of sociobiology or other human behavioral sciences?

Look at a simple instance. It is now clear to any educated person that homosexuality is not a "lifestyle choice". It's a natural genetic predisposition that some portion of humanity will alwas exhibit. And it's harmless. If you understand anything about evolutionary biology, you will understand that the frequency of this behavior will always be relatively low. I leave you to look at the absolute turmoil this is causing because of ancient, immutable writings.

Look at abortion and stem cell research. There is zero evidence for a soul, let alone "ensoulment" at the time of conception. We are talking largely about a blastocyst containing a few dozen to a few hundred cells (which is naturally aborted, by some estimates, 30% to 40% of the time without the woman even realizing it). This little ball of cells, with close to a 50-50 chance under even normal circumstances, is the source of how much anguish? And how much potential improvement in the human condition?

Ancient immutable writings, ignorant of and immune to any discovery post- dating them, declare it off limits.

Can the theists here even remotely understand why we atheist/free-thinkers find this intolerable?

Perhaps, but you have to understand that the basic premise of a religion is that you follow its guidelines if you follow its philosophy.

There is actually no verse regarding homosexuality in the Quran. The current anti-homosexuality seen in Islamists is a result of their exposure to Christian misinterpretation of the verses regarding Sodom.

I don't know about the Bible but there is no decree specifically against abortion in the Quran; however, I believe it might be considered wrong at the point where the infant is sentient ( can feel pain ).

As for stem cell research, in Islam the use of embryos for research and therapeutic purposes is acceptable from fertilization through the 40th day of development.

Super! So you have just said that it all boils down to a philosophy. The "intentions" of gods word, as I said earlier. That's great!

So, why not just alter it a bit more to remove the clearly hateful and violent passages, and incorporate some modern understanding of human nature?

Then, why not just call it a book of the best tried-and-tested human approaches to living, and call it a day? Everyone goes home happy.


Once you begin changing the word of God, whats to prevent an extremist from changing it to suit his actions?

Don't they; do theists follow the laws of the country they live in or the laws of the scriptures?

Most theists follow neither. Theists rarely, if ever, follow scriptures, most have not even read scriptures. As for the laws of the country, check out the prisons, which are full of theists.

I would suspect that theists would place the laws of scriptures before the laws of their country. There is much observed evidence in that regard.

Your conclusions are based on the premise that there is only one solution to any problem; there are many guidelines in the scriptures and based on the context in which they were revealed, we are free to ddecide what our actions should be.

Therein lies a huge problem with religion, the ability to decide an action based on (mis)interpretation. Hasn't history revealed such actions? And of course, one set of scriptures contradicts another, who are we to believe?

The word of God is to enable us to be better human beings; we do not change it; the Quran is a philosophy with guidelines; we follow the philosophy and use the guidelines.

Sorry, but the word of your god is different than the word of another god, and yet another, and yet another... The ultimate division of all mankind follows.

And of course, there are plenty of threads here and elsewhere showing that the Quran's philosophy and guidelines are flawed and contradictive. One could easily interpret the Quran as a book of warring.

Not as ignorant as you seem to think.

History of science in Islam (http://www.mic.ki.se/Arab.html)

Yes, we've also had some threads on the influence of Islam on science, mostly additions to mathematics and medicine. I'm not disputing that.

But if you notice from the very first link on that page "A Brief Chronology of Muslim History," you'll find an extensive list of campaigns and wars following the introduction of Islam.

It would appear that if you were one of those conquered by Muslims, you either accepted Islam or the sword.

Perhaps, but you have to understand that the basic premise of a religion is that you follow its guidelines if you follow its philosophy.

There is actually no verse regarding homosexuality in the Quran. The current anti-homosexuality seen in Islamists is a result of their exposure to Christian misinterpretation of the verses regarding Sodom.

I don't know about the Bible but there is no decree specifically against abortion in the Quran; however, I believe it might be considered wrong at the point where the infant is sentient ( can feel pain ).

As for stem cell research, in Islam the use of embryos for research and therapeutic purposes is acceptable from fertilization through the 40th day of development.
I didn't know that. Interesting.

Once you begin changing the word of God, whats to prevent an extremist from changing it to suit his actions?
Ahh. Exactly. You do know what a "catch 22" is?

Most theists follow neither. Theists rarely, if ever, follow scriptures, most have not even read scriptures. As for the laws of the country, check out the prisons, which are full of theists.

Not surprising since 80% of the world is theist; and everyone gets religion in prison.

I would suspect that theists would place the laws of scriptures before the laws of their country. There is much observed evidence in that regard.

The still get arrested if they break the law and are not allowed God as a lawyer.

Therein lies a huge problem with religion, the ability to decide an action based on (mis)interpretation. Hasn't history revealed such actions? And of course, one set of scriptures contradicts another, who are we to believe?


The ability to decide is what defines human beings; look around you, everyone is involved in a decision making process.

Sorry, but the word of your god is different than the word of another god, and yet another, and yet another... The ultimate division of all mankind follows.

Mankind divides itself based on differences much less significant than religion; so do you not feel sympathy with an atheist, do you not automatically consider yourself against a theist? Religion is a crutch; man is born appreciating similarities and suspicious of differences. The history of man from the savages to colonization to the war against terror is about differences between people. The fact that people cannot live together is a failure of humanity not of religion.

And of course, there are plenty of threads here and elsewhere showing that the Quran's philosophy and guidelines are flawed and contradictive. One could easily interpret the Quran as a book of warring.

It is people who are flawed since there are many peaceful guidelines which they could choose to follow. The only time violence is advocated is in defence. How people define defence is arbitrary e.g. the pre-emptive strikes against terrorists.


Yes, we've also had some threads on the influence of Islam on science, mostly additions to mathematics and medicine. I'm not disputing that.

But if you notice from the very first link on that page "A Brief Chronology of Muslim History," you'll find an extensive list of campaigns and wars following the introduction of Islam.

It would appear that if you were one of those conquered by Muslims, you either accepted Islam or the sword.


I wonder, did you even get to the other links?

If Islam spread by the sword, how do you explain that 1 in 5 people in the world is a Muslim?

in other words just as it is impossible for an unqualified person to approach God it is impossible for an unqualified person to understand scripture

One who is properly qualified can take scripture and "reveal" it to others

We seem to have a problem here. In your first statement you claim it is "impossible" for an unqualified, (an atheist), to understand scripture, but then go on to claim that a qualified person can explain that scripture to the unqualified, (even though you've already said it's impossible for the unqualified to understand).

You're making it up as you go along, aren't you? If not, why bother preaching scripture to the unqualified, because it's "impossible" for us to understand it?

Indeed I even question why you're on this forum. Some atheist raises a biblical question: "Adam and Eve had no knowledge of good or evil.. so sayeth the bible", you simply retort that it is impossible for atheists to understand that scripture and that's the end of the argument. Go live in your little world of fantasy and done with it, why waste the atheists time, it is impossible for us to understand it?

I am under the distinct impression that you're making up a load of old horse poopy for the mere sake of it.

P.S Furthermore you say it is "impossible" for an 'unqualified' person to approach god. In that instance it means to even know god, one must be qualified, but given that we're all born unqualified, and it is impossible for an unqualified person to understand scripture, it means we can never be qualified, because to get to qualified we would have to do the impossible and understand scripture.

Those are crimes, not defending faith against who threatened

So if I was a passionate Christian and someone tries to convert me to another faith, It is not a crime for me to kill him because I am simply defending my faith as it says in the Bible? That wouldn't hold up in court in the 21st century I don't think.

No we don't; the Quran remains unaltered; we follow the guidelines in it as the context demands.

Take a look at this site that has many quotes from your Quran:
http://www.blessedcause.com/Quran.htm

Please do enlighten me of the context of these quotes that explain why your religion is not barbaric.

Not as ignorant as you seem to think.

History of science in Islam

Further to the point of science in Islam.

Is it such that one can make a distinct connection between the science of the time and Islamic intervention? In other words, were the additions to science by Muslims of that era a direct result of the teachings of Islam, were they inspired and under process of some Islamic tenet, were they revealed by Allah directly as dictated by their authors? A number of scenarios present themselves as to how these discoveries could have come about, and how they were claimed to have come about.

Interestingly enough, we find that much of those mathematical discoveries were from the works of the early Greeks and that much of medical discoveries were a result of the teachings from the original physicians in Muslim societies; Christians.

Perhaps it was such that those Muslims involved in the discoveries were not so interested in Islamic teachings at all and considered them nonsense, but were simply 'playing the game' so to speak, to further their goals in science under a strict regime of mysticism?

For example, from the link provided, Ibn Sina had studied the Quran as a child, but was well emersed into science by the age of 17 and devouted his life to it. He was a brilliant Russian living in an Islamic state, conquered by Muslims. Why would the mysticisms of Arabs be of any interest to him?

'Science' and 'Islam' in the same sentence need be analyzed carefully for connectivity.

So if I was a passionate Christian and someone tries to convert me to another faith, It is not a crime for me to kill him because I am simply defending my faith as it says in the Bible? That wouldn't hold up in court in the 21st century I don't think.



Take a look at this site that has many quotes from your Quran:
http://www.blessedcause.com/Quran.htm

Please do enlighten me of the context of these quotes that explain why your religion is not barbaric.

Most of the "fighting" verses were revealed during war.
Here read this:
http://www.islamicamagazine.com/issue-15/feature/the-myth-of-the-myth-of-moderate-islam.html

Further to the point of science in Islam.

Is it such that one can make a distinct connection between the science of the time and Islamic intervention? In other words, were the additions to science by Muslims of that era a direct result of the teachings of Islam, were they inspired and under process of some Islamic tenet, were they revealed by Allah directly as dictated by their authors? A number of scenarios present themselves as to how these discoveries could have come about, and how they were claimed to have come about.

Interestingly enough, we find that much of those mathematical discoveries were from the works of the early Greeks and that much of medical discoveries were a result of the teachings from the original physicians in Muslim societies; Christians.

Perhaps it was such that those Muslims involved in the discoveries were not so interested in Islamic teachings at all and considered them nonsense, but were simply 'playing the game' so to speak, to further their goals in science under a strict regime of mysticism? .

You are losing my point;

You wrote:
More evidence to suggest that religions were created by men, who were obviously ignorant to the yet undiscovered scientific findings

and I gave you a link to explore that.

For example, from the link provided, Ibn Sina had studied the Quran as a child, but was well emersed into science by the age of 17 and devouted his life to it. He was a brilliant Russian living in an Islamic state, conquered by Muslims. Why would the mysticisms of Arabs be of any interest to him?

I don't know. Do you?

'Science' and 'Islam' in the same sentence need be analyzed carefully for connectivity

Islam is not against science; which is all I wanted to indicate.

Most of the "fighting" verses were revealed during war.

What the hell difference does that make even if it is true?

If it is only relevant to war, then terrorism is completely justified as they are currently at war with infidels, and they are following the Quran pretty well.

What the hell difference does that make even if it is true?

If it is only relevant to war, then terrorism is completely justified as they are currently at war with infidels, and they are following the Quran pretty well.

Are they; were they attacked? Was the religion in danger? From who? how? why?

Did the innocent civilians who were killed have anything to do with the religion AT ALL?

You are thinking like a terrorist.

Not surprising since 80% of the world is theist; and everyone gets religion in prison.

They were every bit a theist when they went in, and they'll be every bit a theist when they re-offend and return.

The still get arrested if they break the law and are not allowed God as a lawyer.

Of course, but what were their priorities in the first place? They wouldn't be standing in front of a judge notwithstanding.

The ability to decide is what defines human beings; look around you, everyone is involved in a decision making process.

Yes, but it's those who base their decision making process on their religious beliefs that is disturbing, and with so many contradicting and misinterpretive beliefs to make it all the worse.

The fact that people cannot live together is a failure of humanity not of religion.

The humanity that has been governed and dictated entirely by theist based decision making processes. When has the world ever been run with the interest of humanity as its priority?

It is people who are flawed since there are many peaceful guidelines which they could choose to follow. The only time violence is advocated is in defence. How people define defence is arbitrary e.g. the pre-emptive strikes against terrorists.

Clearly a case in which the guidelines failed as guidelines. And of course, a religion is not a religion if it advocates violence for any reason. Islam does so knowingly and blatantly, stating that people will act violent regardless of the guidelines. That would be admittance to having flaws in the original design of Allah's universe. It would also facilitate the need to have distinct societies other than Islamic states, else why the need to defend oneself? From other Muslims, perhaps?

The whole thing smacks of human creation, not devine.

If Islam spread by the sword, how do you explain that 1 in 5 people in the world is a Muslim?

A result of the former coupled with childhood indoctrination over generations.

Islam is not against science; which is all I wanted to indicate.

Neither is it aligned, which was my point.

They were every bit a theist when they went in, and they'll be every bit a theist when they re-offend and return.


I doubt they were thinking of God while committing their crimes


Of course, but what were their priorities in the first place? They wouldn't be standing in front of a judge notwithstanding.


Exactly


Yes, but it's those who base their decision making process on their religious beliefs that is disturbing, and with so many contradicting and misinterpretive beliefs to make it all the worse.

as compared to.....?



The humanity that has been governed and dictated entirely by theist based decision making processes. When has the world ever been run with the interest of humanity as its priority?

Never; its against human nature.



Clearly a case in which the guidelines failed as guidelines. And of course, a religion is not a religion if it advocates violence for any reason. Islam does so knowingly and blatantly, stating that people will act violent regardless of the guidelines. That would be admittance to having flaws in the original design of Allah's universe. It would also facilitate the need to have distinct societies other than Islamic states, else why the need to defend oneself? From other Muslims, perhaps?


So you would advocate, no defence is the best defence?

The whole thing smacks of human creation, not devine.

Thea is being maligned here... ;)

I doubt they were thinking of God while committing their crimes

Unless they were doing so in the name of their gods. Where have I heard that one before?

as compared to.....?

Reason and rationale, grounded in reality.

Never; its against human nature.

That makes no sense.

So you would advocate, no defence is the best defence?

I never said that. All I was pointing out is that Islam was created from the thoughts of man, not gods, else what need for defence?

Thea is being maligned here... ;)

How so? If Allah created everything and his message was peace for all people, why the need to include defensive and violent alternatives?

Did he err in his creation?

Unless they were doing so in the name of their gods. Where have I heard that one before?


So all people who are in prison are there for religious reasons?

Come on, you can do better than that.


Reason and rationale, grounded in reality.

.......if only everyone had an IQ of 160.......


I never said that. All I was pointing out is that Islam was created from the thoughts of man, not gods, else what need for defence?

as against attack....?



How so? If Allah created everything and his message was peace for all people, why the need to include defensive and violent alternatives?

Did he err in his creation?

You live on the same planet as I do; do you think his creation should have free will or would you rather have all your decisions made for you?

PS. Thea Devine is a writer ( it was a joke!)

So all people who are in prison are there for religious reasons?

Some perhaps are, not all of course. But they certainly claimed to believe in gods when they went in, regardless of the reason.

.......if only everyone had an IQ of 160.......

All the is required is education, instead of dogma.

as against attack....?

You seem to be missing the point entirely, either unwittingly or purposely. What would be the need to defend oneself in a world of Islam. It should be absolutely nothing, right? Then, what of the need for putting defensive violence as tenets of the religion?

You live on the same planet as I do; do you think his creation should have free will or would you rather have all your decisions made for you?

The question of free will in religion is a moot point, it simply doesn't exist under supernatural control.

PS. Thea Devine is a writer ( it was a joke!)

Sorry, missed that one. :)

Some perhaps are, not all of course. But they certainly claimed to believe in gods when they went in, regardless of the reason.



But I would claim them ignorant of the philosophy of their religion; but its interesting, wy would they claim to be theists?
Were there (dis)advantages to beiing (a)theists?

All the is required is education, instead of dogma.

I agree that education is important; I'm all for more and better education.



You seem to be missing the point entirely, either unwittingly or purposely. What would be the need to defend oneself in a world of Islam. It should be absolutely nothing, right? Then, what of the need for putting defensive violence as tenets of the religion?

Well I'm not doing it purposely so maybe I'm not getting what you are asking; like I've said before, most of the verses which relate to violence were revealed when the Prophet and his followers were fighting the people who were trying to kill them; the Prophet was unsure whether it was right to kill them because they were People of the book and the verses told him that it was in self defence, he was fighting for his life and his religion so yes, he could.

Am I missing something here?



The question of free will in religion is a moot point, it simply doesn't exist under supernatural control.

But everyone has it nonetheless; we are always free to choose; the consequences may be unpleasant but the choice is ours. Ask any woman.


Sorry, missed that one. :)

Ya, you need to loosen up once in a while.... :D

But I would claim them ignorant of the philosophy of their religion; but its interesting, wy would they claim to be theists?
Were there (dis)advantages to beiing (a)theists?

Nope, it was merely statistical information of religious preference.

I agree that education is important; I'm all for more and better education.

Great! However, it must also be applied in order to work.

Well I'm not doing it purposely so maybe I'm not getting what you are asking; like I've said before, most of the verses which relate to violence were revealed when the Prophet and his followers were fighting the people who were trying to kill them; the Prophet was unsure whether it was right to kill them because they were People of the book and the verses told him that it was in self defence, he was fighting for his life and his religion so yes, he could.

Am I missing something here?

Of course, the whole free will/supernatural control thingy. Can't have both.

It also admittance to flaws in the "perfect" design created by Allah. Do you remember me mentioning contradictions? Don't you see that as blatantly contradictive?

But everyone has it nonetheless; we are always free to choose; the consequences may be unpleasant but the choice is ours. Ask any woman.

Cute. But of course, if we have free will, then there are no gods controlling our destinies, as was claimed by Muhammad.

Nope, it was merely statistical information of religious preference.



Great! However, it must also be applied in order to work.



Of course, the whole free will/supernatural control thingy. Can't have both.

It also admittance to flaws in the "perfect" design created by Allah. Do you remember me mentioning contradictions? Don't you see that as blatantly contradictive?



Cute. But of course, if we have free will, then there are no gods controlling our destinies, as was claimed by Muhammad.

Hmm I think we are back to philosophical differences again; I see no incompatibility with having a God who gives me free will and you do.

I guess because I had the same thing with my parents? Do pretty much as you like, these are the rules which it would be nice if you did not break, but aside from a few rants on both sides, not much to complain about.

I guess that would be idea of God; maybe its...no wait you don't believe in God :eek:

How can we resolve this?

Seems like a stalemate to me.

Are they; were they attacked? Was the religion in danger? From who? how? why?

Did the innocent civilians who were killed have anything to do with the religion AT ALL?

You are thinking like a terrorist.

Why don't you look at that url I gave you and you will see exactly what reason terrorists give you.

Still, it is nice you can ignore all of the barbaric quotes within the Quran. You are a fraud.

Why don't you look at that url I gave you and you will see exactly what reason terrorists give you.

Still, it is nice you can ignore all of the barbaric quotes within the Quran. You are a fraud.

Thanks; nice talking to you too;

I'm glad you found the terrorists more convincing.

Obviously the <1% of people who are fundamentalist Islamists can speak more clearly to you than the 99% who are not.

I wonder why?

Hey everyone.

Just an observation. I think we've gotten all the answers we're going to get here. Clearly there are extremeists in every faith who will interpret the writings to suit them. If that means killing infidels by jet-missile, or killing doctors who abort a ball of cells, so be it. There are also enlightened moderates who will mentally adjust the writings to agree more with their modern moral sense.

But isn't that the whole problem here? Looking to one instance of a book, written thousands of years ago, as your immutable, eternal source of wisdom and guidance? Can the quran or the bible ever incorporate the findings of sociobiology or other human behavioral sciences?
The challenge I think is to bring ALL one's knowledge and values to the process of understanding. Discerning the "gold" from the "crap" is very difficult in a book like the Bible. There IS much crap (as Kenny has quoted). However, even in the worst, most bloodthirsty verses, there may be a valuable principle that the author is trying to convey, that is worth digging for.

St.Augustine believed that the most difficult verses were the best, as wrestling with them inflamed his desire to understand and made him think and evaluate his own beliefs. However, for me, I just ignore the bits that don't speak to me directly, and await their elucidation at some future time.

Can the theists here even remotely understand why we atheist/free-thinkers find this intolerable?
...and why many atheists reject religion as "dangerous and deluded". It seems to bring out the worst OR the best in people. What makes the difference? Is it passion vs. fanaticism.

Obviously the <1% of people who are fundamentalist Islamists can speak more clearly to you than the 99% who are not.

Huh? Do you even have any idea of the scale of terrorism or the support of terrorism in the Muslim world?

Take a look at this website and you will see that quite a bit more than "<1%" support terrorist tactics... And that's not even counting countries like Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia etc..:
http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?PageID=814

I'm finding the length you will go to defend this barbaric religion rather sickening.

Hmm I think we are back to philosophical differences again; I see no incompatibility with having a God who gives me free will and you do.

If you have free will, then a god cannot control your destiny If a god controls your destiny, you have no free will.

How can we resolve this?

Seems like a stalemate to me.

I take it you don't wish to discuss the contradictions of your religion?

Has anyone ever considered religon to be a "safe switch" seperating us humans from other species on this world? Is is just because we cannot come to terms with our own mortality, so we throughout history have invented religons as a means of giving us a sense of accomplishment in our short life span to compensate for the mortal burdens of everyday life . The whole concept of after life or immortality has been written into most religon's dogma as a ultimate reward for following and accepting their faith.

If religon were not to exist as a integral part of human society, then we as humans would not be able to function as a collective tool in building order into a civilization.

If you have free will, then a god cannot control your destiny If a god controls your destiny, you have no free will.



I take it you don't wish to discuss the contradictions of your religion?


Go ahead, I'm all yours! :rolleyes:

Huh? Do you even have any idea of the scale of terrorism or the support of terrorism in the Muslim world?

Take a look at this website and you will see that quite a bit more than "<1%" support terrorist tactics... And that's not even counting countries like Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia etc..:
http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?PageID=814

I'm finding the length you will go to defend this barbaric religion rather sickening.


You are right! I don't !! Thanks for sharing!!!

How about you read the whole report?
http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=248

If religon were not to exist as a integral part of human society, then we as humans would not be able to function as a collective tool in building order into a civilization.

Not true. Animals learn relative morals based on how social they are. If they didn't then there would be chaos and wouldn't be able to live in a group.

In human terms, religion stems from superstition as we start asking questions and when we don't have answers invent sky fairies. We also learn of our own mortality which doesn't go down well with many people. In any practical sense, it's not required to form a functioning society and today, we would be better off without it.

Not true. Animals learn relative morals based on how social they are. If they didn't then there would be chaos and wouldn't be able to live in a group.

In human terms, religion stems from superstition as we start asking questions and when we don't have answers invent sky fairies. We also learn of our own mortality which doesn't go down well with many people. In any practical sense, it's not required to form a functioning society and today, we would be better off without it.

Animals learn morals? What morals are they? Are some dogs more moralistic than others? I think you better examine your use of words a bit closer ....

Religion stems from superstition? If we accept your statements without you giving any evidence or reasons then that would also be akin to superstition.
For instance your argument was just this.....

It has been revealed by literature studies that there were some cultures who at some times upheld the existence of fairies. Apparently nobody has seen these fairies - this indicates that if most people at most times can not see something it is false - Congratulations - you just gave an argument for the abolishment of atoms, electrons and people's minds.

As for bettering society you see that a large percentage of charitable organisations have a theistic foundation. Its not exactly clear what the damage being done by a notion of religion in society that you are alluding to.

Go ahead, I'm all yours! :rolleyes:

Then, could you begin with the contradictions already mentioned?

Supernatural control over human destinies and free will?

Advocating violence in defence and a perfect creation?

It has been revealed by literature studies that there were some cultures who at some times upheld the existence of fairies. Apparently nobody has seen these fairies - this indicates that if most people at most times can not see something it is false - Congratulations - you just gave an argument for the abolishment of atoms, electrons and people's minds.

Since atoms, electrons and people's minds have been detected and observed while fairies have not, I'm puzzled as to your conclusion?

Then, could you begin with the contradictions already mentioned?

Supernatural control over human destinies and free will?

Advocating violence in defence and a perfect creation?

One at atime :

Al-Qadr (The destiny): These are the challenges you will face in your life; you are destined for these challenges and they will test you faith and strength of character.

There is a Night of Destiny every year on the 27th day of Ramadan; when your past performances are re-assessed and your future challenges are decreed( or adjusted).

Free will is of course how you deal with the challenges that life ( i.e. God) places before you; but it is important to remember that no challenge will be greater than the strength required to face it; so if you feel you are not upto a challenge, it means you need to strengthen your faith and character.

How about you read the whole report?

I did read the whole report. It highlights that a significant number of people in the Muslim world support violence in defence of Islam. What do you think I missed?

Animals learn morals? What morals are they? Are some dogs more moralistic than others? I think you better examine your use of words a bit closer ....

What we call morals is in reference to behavior towards others in our society. This is no different to the animal kingdom. The way a dog learns not to shit on your carpet, or a monkey shares food with a fellow monkey who helped him obtain it.

Religion stems from superstition? If we accept your statements without you giving any evidence or reasons then that would also be akin to superstition.
For instance your argument was just this.....

When people think the sun is God, they are being superstitious. When a farmer thinks the rains have failed because God is angry, he is being superstitious. The origins of religion are no less rooted in superstition than they are in present day.

Congratulations - you just gave an argument for the abolishment of atoms, electrons and people's minds.

No, the discovery of atoms and electrons was found by scientific hypothesis.

As for bettering society you see that a large percentage of charitable organisations have a theistic foundation. Its not exactly clear what the damage being done by a notion of religion in society that you are alluding to.

I think with modern secularism, charity would continue just fine.

One at atime :

Al-Qadr (The destiny): These are the challenges you will face in your life; you are destined for these challenges and they will test you faith and strength of character.

There is a Night of Destiny every year on the 27th day of Ramadan; when your past performances are re-assessed and your future challenges are decreed( or adjusted).

Free will is of course how you deal with the challenges that life ( i.e. God) places before you; but it is important to remember that no challenge will be greater than the strength required to face it; so if you feel you are not upto a challenge, it means you need to strengthen your faith and character.

9:116. To GOD belongs the sovereignty of the heavens and the earth. He controls life and death. You have none beside GOD as a Lord and Master.

10:3. Your only Lord is GOD; the One who created the heavens and the earth in six days, then assumed all authority. He controls all matters. There is no intercessor, except in accordance with His will. Such is GOD your Lord. You shall worship Him. Would you not take heed?

10:31. Say, "Who provides for you from the heaven and the earth? Who controls all the hearing and the eyesight? Who produces the living from the dead, and the dead from the living? Who is in control of all things?" They would say, "GOD." Say, "Why then do you not observe the commandments?"

10:34. Say, "Can any of your idols initiate creation, then repeat it?" Say, "GOD initiates the creation, then repeats it."

# 13:31. Even if a Quran caused mountains to move, or the earth to tear asunder, or the dead to speak (they will not believe). GOD controls all things. Is it not time for the believers to give up and realize that if GOD willed, He could have guided all the people? The disbelievers will continue to suffer disasters, as a consequence of their own works, or have disasters strike close to them, until GOD's promise is fulfilled.GOD will never change the predetermined destiny.

9:116. To GOD belongs the sovereignty of the heavens and the earth. He controls life and death. You have none beside GOD as a Lord and Master.

10:3. Your only Lord is GOD; the One who created the heavens and the earth in six days, then assumed all authority. He controls all matters. There is no intercessor, except in accordance with His will. Such is GOD your Lord. You shall worship Him. Would you not take heed?

10:31. Say, "Who provides for you from the heaven and the earth? Who controls all the hearing and the eyesight? Who produces the living from the dead, and the dead from the living? Who is in control of all things?" They would say, "GOD." Say, "Why then do you not observe the commandments?"

10:34. Say, "Can any of your idols initiate creation, then repeat it?" Say, "GOD initiates the creation, then repeats it."

# 13:31. Even if a Quran caused mountains to move, or the earth to tear asunder, or the dead to speak (they will not believe). GOD controls all things. Is it not time for the believers to give up and realize that if GOD willed, He could have guided all the people? The disbelievers will continue to suffer disasters, as a consequence of their own works, or have disasters strike close to them, until GOD's promise is fulfilled.GOD will never change the predetermined destiny.


OK I have this translation of 13:31 ( which is why translation is not acceptable by itself in Islam):

And if there had been a Quran with which mountains could be moved (from their places) or the earth could be cloven asunder, or the dead could be made to speak ( it would not have been other than this Quran). But the decision of all things is certainly with Allah. Have not then those who believed yet known that had Allah willed, he could have guided all mankind? And a disaster will not cease to strike thiose who disbelieved (or) because of their deeds, or it (the disaster) settles close to their home, until the promise of Allah comes to pass. Caertainly, Allah does not break His promise.

9:116. To GOD belongs the sovereignty of the heavens and the earth. He controls life and death. You have none beside GOD as a Lord and Master.

Verily Allah! Unto him belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth, He gives life and He causes death. And besides Allah, you have neither any wali ( guardian/protector) nor any helper.



10:3. Your only Lord is GOD; the One who created the heavens and the earth in six days, then assumed all authority. He controls all matters. There is no intercessor, except in accordance with His will. Such is GOD your Lord. You shall worship Him. Would you not take heed?

Surely your Lord is Allah, who created the heavens and the earth in six daysand then rose over the Throne, disposing the affair of all things.No intercessor can plead with Him except after His Leave. That is Allah, your Lord, so worship Him; then will you not remember?


10:31. Say, "Who provides for you from the heaven and the earth? Who controls all the hearing and the eyesight? Who produces the living from the dead, and the dead from the living? Who is in control of all things?" They would say, "GOD." Say, "Why then do you not observe the commandments?"

Say ( O Muhammed) "Who provides for you from the sky and the earth?Or who owns hearing and sight?Or who brings out the living from the dead and brings out the dead from the living? And who disposes the affairs?" They will say" Allah!" Say: "Will you not then be afraid of Allah's punishment?"

10:34. Say, "Can any of your idols initiate creation, then repeat it?" Say, "GOD initiates the creation, then repeats it."

Say: "Is there of your ( Allah's so-called) partners one that originates creation and repeats it?" Say: "Allah originates creation and then He repeats it. Then how are you deluded?"

Since atoms, electrons and people's minds have been detected and observed while fairies have not, I'm puzzled as to your conclusion?

Now you have to prove that god is in the same catergory as fairies - a bit more difficult since there there is tons of literature by people qualified in the field of religion who attest to detecting god's presence.

The point is that atoms and molecules are only perceivable by people who are trained in the field - even if you stuck your eyeball on a microscope you wouldn't know what you were looking at unless you had been trained in knowledge - and what to speak of electrons - electrons are invisible and are imaged by examining the trail they leave when passing through a field of gas - in otherwords electrons , on top of only being perceivable by qualified persons, are only visible by their symptoms

This probably explains why more people believe in atoms and god than fairies, even though it may appear that faries and atoms have quite a lot in common

When people think the sun is God, they are being superstitious. .

Why? If they think god is the sustainer and the sun actually sustains them. Even a scientist would have a hard time if the sun suddenly went out.

When a farmer thinks the rains have failed because God is angry, he is being superstitious. .

Why? Its not like rain is dependant on human ingenuity or can be turned on or off like a water faucet, and if there is no food grain what are you going to eat? Nuts and bolts?

If you want to say that the sun and the rain are incomplete impressions of god I will agree, after all religion is the pursuit of the supreme absolute so approaching the supreme absolute in one's perceivable world is a humble beginning.

The origins of religion are no less rooted in superstition than they are in present day..

What you call superstition is actually common sense at the limitations of human capacity - of course there are plenty of wild claims about what science will be able to do in the future, but if you want to talk about science as it exists in science, you have to agree that the sun and rain operate on superior principles that humans cannot interfere with - otherwise there would be no such things as drought and flood.



No, the discovery of atoms and electrons was found by scientific hypothesis..


But the point is that if most people have not seen god therefore god does not exist you can say the same thing about atoms- how many people in the world have actually directly perceived an atom? Just a few scientists. In the same way just a few saintly people have perceived god. Its obvious that there is a process to perceiving subtle phenomena - the ability to apply that process is what distinguishes a qualified from an unqualified person - all the evidence you have laid that "no one has seen god" is only pertinent to unqualified persons who

Now you have to prove that god is in the same catergory as fairies

They're both fictional. That's a category.

a bit more difficult since there there is tons of literature by people qualified in the field of religion who attest to detecting god's presence

Interesting. Hear voices and you're mentally ill, call that voice god and you're "qualified".

You go on to say that it's "obvious there is a process to perceiving subtle phenomena". How is such thing "obvious", and how do you know people have this process, rather than just a good imagination? Further to which, it could simply be argued that theres an "obvious process to perceiving subtle phenomena" with regards to fairies as well - and thus your earlier statement falls apart and the two remain in the same category.

Now you have to prove that god is in the same catergory as fairies - a bit more difficult since there there is tons of literature by people qualified in the field of religion who attest to detecting god's presence.


That's a good one! So what instruments did these qualified persons use to detect God's presence, and how was this recorded for others to observe? Please, give me some information so that I can detect God's presence for myself. :m:

If religon were not to exist as a integral part of human society, then we as humans would not be able to function as a collective tool in building order into a civilization.

Go tell that to the extinct people of Easter Island.

god is an invention of mankind to compensate for our mortal demise as a species.

They're both fictional. That's a category..

You are yet to actually put up an argument why god is fictional - you haven't given any reasons beyond "God is in your imagination - I just proved it becasue I just said it was in your imagination"



Interesting. Hear voices and you're mentally ill, call that voice god and you're "qualified". .

Again, another wild statement - I don't think you have compiled an exhaustive list of personalities who have attested to a firm conviction of god's existence - and frankly nor do I think you are likely too -

Off the top of your head, tell us how many saintly persons, philosophers or even scientists (in other words people who hold credible positions in fields of knowledge, whether historical or contemporary) you can think of who attest to a firm conviction of th e presence of god??
- exactly who is on the list that you draw from to make your claims?
- it appears to me that you are just running on cliche and stereotype
- its just like a person using a bespectacled skinny old man with fuzzy hair and a lab coat as the prototype for contemporary science.

Snake man, the problem of discussion is that you have no idea of what the process is to approach god, and you just imagine it is something like sitting on your butt and reading books (which is the way that most mundane knowledge is acquired) - This is equivelant as squinting at the sky to make atronomical calculations. Spiritual life is actually dependent on practical application

Being freed from attachment, fear and anger, being fully absorbed in Me and taking refuge in Me, many, many persons in the past became purified by knowledge of Me—and thus they all attained transcendental love for Me.
-BG 4.10

In otherwords if you are attached to temporary things, fearful (symptom of ignorance) and angry (mature stage of lust) you have not moved an inch in the name of spiritual life and your attempt to know god is like a moth's attempt to understand the sun.

You go on to say that it's "obvious there is a process to perceiving subtle phenomena". How is such thing "obvious", and how do you know people have this process, rather than just a good imagination? Further to which, it could simply be argued that theres an "obvious process to perceiving subtle phenomena" with regards to fairies as well - and thus your earlier statement falls apart and the two remain in the same category.

How do I know there is a process? Well what do you think scripture is?
If you don't apply the process you don't get the result. In otherwords if you begin from the very onset with the conviction that you will not be submissive to scripture (or saintly people) then you won't get the result of the knowledge that it offers - just like if you go to university with the conviction that all the text books are uselss and the lecturers don't know what they are talking about, you won't get the result because you don't apply the process.
I don't know what process you are alluding to to perceive faries, except perhaps to take lots of hallucinogens, which would be obviously quite different to processes reccommended in scripture

That's a good one! So what instruments did these qualified persons use to detect God's presence, and how was this recorded for others to observe? Please, give me some information so that I can detect God's presence for myself. :m:

wsion,

you make the error of thinking that god is something that you can dig up in an archeological site or slide under a microscope.
Suppose you wanted to directly perceive George Bush, how would you go about it?

The instruments are faith, sincere intention, and determination.

Neither is it aligned, which was my point.


You have not been reading my links :)


Islam and Science:

http://www.muslimheritage.com/topics/default.cfm?TaxonomyTypeID=106&TaxonomySubTypeID=121

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/hmd/arabic/catalog_tb.html



As to the Prophet and his beliefs, these are his most well known quotes:

“Seek knowledge from the cradle to the grave”

"Seeking knowledge is a duty upon every Muslim, male and female."

“Four things support the world: the learning of the wise, the justice of the great, the prayers of the good, and the valor of the brave”

“The ink of the scholar is more sacred than the blood of the martyr”

“He who leaveth home in search of knowledge, walketh in the path of God”

“One hour's meditation on the work of the Creator is better than seventy years of prayer”

“The most excellent jihad (struggle) is that for the conquest of self”

“If a man finds himself with bread in both hands, he should exchange one loaf for some flowers of the narcissus, because the loaf feeds the body, but the the flowers feed the soul”

“No man is a true believer unless he desireth for his brother that which he desireth for himself”

“He dieth not who giveth life to learning”

“All actions are judged by the motive prompting them”

“Love of the world is the root of all evil”

“Women are the twin halves of men”

“Shall I not inform you of a better act than fasting, alms, and prayers? Making peace between one another: enmity and malice tear up heavenly rewards by the roots”

“The creation is as God's family; for its sustenance is from Him: therefore the most beloved unto God is the person who doeth good to God's family”

“Philosophy is the stray camel of the faithful; take hold of it wherever ye come across it”

“Especially if you are well-to-do, see that no one goes hungry or naked”

“Give the laborer his wage before his perspiration be dry”

“God enjoins you to treat women well, for they are your mothers, daughters, aunts”

“Who does something, then he or she must do it presicely!”

“That person is not a perfect Muslim who eateth his fill, and leaveth his neighbors hungry”

Why? If they think god is the sustainer and the sun actually sustains them. Even a scientist would have a hard time if the sun suddenly went out.

Except the Sun won't suddenly go out. At least not at a point that is different to the time-frame estimated by scientists for when the hydrogen supply runs out. Oh and an intelligent being who guides the Sun IS superstition.


Why? Its not like rain is dependant on human ingenuity or can be turned on or off like a water faucet, and if there is no food grain what are you going to eat? Nuts and bolts?

What does this have to do with an intelligent being guiding the weather?

If you want to say that the sun and the rain are incomplete impressions of god I will agree, after all religion is the pursuit of the supreme absolute so approaching the supreme absolute in one's perceivable world is a humble beginning.

Well if they are incomplete impressions then I'm afraid today's impression in religion remain totally inadequate as they are rooted in superstition and not fact.

I will reply to these two quotes later if I have time...

But the point is that if most people have not seen god therefore god does not exist you can say the same thing about atoms- how many people in the world have actually directly perceived an atom? Just a few scientists. In the same way just a few saintly people have perceived god. Its obvious that there is a process to perceiving subtle phenomena - the ability to apply that process is what distinguishes a qualified from an unqualified person - all the evidence you have laid that "no one has seen god" is only pertinent to unqualified persons who

What you call superstition is actually common sense at the limitations of human capacity - of course there are plenty of wild claims about what science will be able to do in the future, but if you want to talk about science as it exists in science, you have to agree that the sun and rain operate on superior principles that humans cannot interfere with - otherwise there would be no such things as drought and flood.

Now you have to prove that god is in the same catergory as fairies - a bit more difficult since there there is tons of literature by people qualified in the field of religion who attest to detecting god's presence.

They are lying or delusional or both, of course.

The point is that atoms and molecules are only perceivable by people who are trained in the field - even if you stuck your eyeball on a microscope you wouldn't know what you were looking at unless you had been trained in knowledge - and what to speak of electrons - electrons are invisible and are imaged by examining the trail they leave when passing through a field of gas - in otherwords electrons , on top of only being perceivable by qualified persons, are only visible by their symptoms

Yet, they are detectable and observable while gods and fairies are not.

This probably explains why more people believe in atoms and god than fairies, even though it may appear that faries and atoms have quite a lot in common

No, you're confused between the observable universe and invisible non-entities.

You have not been reading my links :)

Islam and Science:

Still trying to align Islam and science? In vain, I see.

Sorry, none of those quotes have any relevance to alignment, unless you can clearly show they do.

Further to the point of science in Islam.

Is it such that one can make a distinct connection between the science of the time and Islamic intervention? In other words, were the additions to science by Muslims of that era a direct result of the teachings of Islam, were they inspired and under process of some Islamic tenet, were they revealed by Allah directly as dictated by their authors? A number of scenarios present themselves as to how these discoveries could have come about, and how they were claimed to have come about.

Interestingly enough, we find that much of those mathematical discoveries were from the works of the early Greeks and that much of medical discoveries were a result of the teachings from the original physicians in Muslim societies; Christians.

Perhaps it was such that those Muslims involved in the discoveries were not so interested in Islamic teachings at all and considered them nonsense, but were simply 'playing the game' so to speak, to further their goals in science under a strict regime of mysticism?

For example, from the link provided, Ibn Sina had studied the Quran as a child, but was well emersed into science by the age of 17 and devouted his life to it. He was a brilliant Russian living in an Islamic state, conquered by Muslims. Why would the mysticisms of Arabs be of any interest to him?

'Science' and 'Islam' in the same sentence need be analyzed carefully for connectivity.

Here are some links which explore your questions:



http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/med/nasr.html

http://www.omarfoundation.org/Culture/History%20Science.htm

http://www.ishim.net/articles.htm

Still trying to align Islam and science? In vain, I see.

Sorry, none of those quotes have any relevance to alignment, unless you can clearly show they do.

Maybe you could clarify what exactly you mean by alignment?

I'm thinking of alignment in terms of being parallel; i.e. co-existing, but I'm guessing that's not what you are trying to ask.

You are yet to actually put up an argument why god is fictional - you haven't given any reasons beyond "God is in your imagination - I just proved it becasue I just said it was in your imagination"

Until such time where there is evidence to suggest the existence of something, it belongs on the fiction shelf. If we were to assume the positive, we'd be in big trouble. Some guy could come up and say; "I saw a flying pig", and we'd assign it the positive without him needing to establish that claim as reality in any form whatsoever.

Now I most certainly did not deny belief in gods before someone made the claim that they existed, and as such the onus is on those making the claims to substantiate those claims. Until they can do that, gods belong on that same shelf along with minotaurs, leprechauns, worzel gummidge, catweazle, the teletubbies and everything else that stems from the imagination of man.

Again, another wild statement

Nonsense. You made the claim that there are people who can 'detect god's presence' and thus are "qualified". As a man that deals with those that hear voices and 'detect presences' on a frequent basis, I thought it amusing that you would, (I assume without the required qualification), think you're in a position to make such a judgement concerning their 'abilities'. From a professional standpoint, I can say it doesn't "qualify" them for much more than a straight jacket - and yet you, the unqualified, think you can justify a 'get out of the institution' free card.

Off the top of your head, tell us how many saintly persons, philosophers or even scientists (in other words people who hold credible positions in fields of knowledge, whether historical or contemporary) you can think of who attest to a firm conviction of th e presence of god??

I can tell you of 60+ people that have heard voices telling them to kill people, hurt themselves, steal hamburgers.. you name it. I suppose in your unqualified opinion, you'd call these people "qualified" too?

- exactly who is on the list that you draw from to make your claims?

It's a part of my job to deal with those that hear voices. You would probably be the first telling me how insane these people are, and yet, in your unqualified opinion, completely ignore others that have those same issues for no valid reason whatsoever.

- it appears to me that you are just running on cliche and stereotype

Nonsense. I am giving you the opinion of a qualified individual in response to your unqualified opinion that these people are 'top notch'. A few pills and god wouldn't talk to them anymore.

- its just like a person using a bespectacled skinny old man with fuzzy hair and a lab coat as the prototype for contemporary science.

To get into the stereotype argument briefly: They work, otherwise they would never have made it to stereotype level. That's not to say they apply to all, but they have an actual basis.

Snake man, the problem of discussion is that you have no idea of what the process is to approach god

Of course not. You yourself told me that, and I quote: "it is impossible for the unqualified to approach god" and that the unqualified can't understand scripture. I notice you haven't responded to it, but it certainly seems to cause problems with your statement about practical application - which I cannot do because as I am unqualified it is impossible for me to approach god - and there you are trying to get me to take a practical approach to do that which you yourself have already told me is impossible. It's daft beyond belief.

Undoubtedly you'll ignore that little issue and then go on to say that to find god one must simply be honest and humble and ask if he's there. Tried and tested pal, you're wrong. Oh wait, no you're not.. I'm unqualified and as such it's impossible for me to manage a way to find god.

and you just imagine it is something like sitting on your butt and reading books (which is the way that most mundane knowledge is acquired) - This is equivelant as squinting at the sky to make atronomical calculations. Spiritual life is actually dependent on practical application

Dude, what you're saying is irrelevant and inconsequential. It is impossible for me, the unqualified, to find god.. remember?

Being freed from attachment, fear and anger, being fully absorbed in Me and taking refuge in Me, many, many persons in the past became purified by knowledge of Me—and thus they all attained transcendental love for Me.
-BG 4.10

It's like an exam. Picture this from a human perspective.. I love my daughter more than anything on the planet - and yet when she looks for me I refuse to go near unless she passes a thousand tests. If she does those tests but I'm not there, everyone just tells her it's because she didn't try hard enough - and so on down the line until some plonker comes along and tells her it's impossible for her to find me.

In otherwords if you are attached to temporary things

You're not? (Pm me, I'll give you my address. Send me your tv, clothes, car, house, money, books, dvds, computer, internet modem). K?

fearful (symptom of ignorance)

Know how many times god says he wants man to fear him in the bible? Several hundred. He puts it above love and everything else. See, you agree the religious are ignorant.

and angry (mature stage of lust)

Anger/lust aren't generally the same thing.

Needless to say, I did not give myself these emotions - they were instilled in humans at the time of creation - and even god himself suffers from them.

you have not moved an inch in the name of spiritual life and your attempt to know god is like a moth's attempt to understand the sun

I can't! You said it was impossible. However, you're wrong in your statement. Not that there's anything wrong with assumptions, but you could have asked first and then you wouldn't have made the blunder you have.

Well what do you think scripture is?

A collection of texts written by early man who thought the world was a pancake that had a sun revolving around it. They needed to provide whatever answer they could from their (complete lack of) understanding.

The nile turning red with blood.. god's hand or pfisteria? Answer me honestly: Do you think these ancient people would have been able to diagnose pfisteria?

Once you've answered that ask yourself why you, (if you're one of those), deny modern day understanding and science, (evolution? what nonsense), and yet accept without question the word of some ancient fool that believed the world rested on the back of a giant turtle, (or whatever other various bit of bullshit).

If you don't apply the process you don't get the result. In otherwords if you begin from the very onset with the conviction that you will not be submissive to scripture (or saintly people) then you won't get the result of the knowledge that it offers

Again.. YOU said it was impossible.

I don't know what process you are alluding to to perceive faries, except perhaps to take lots of hallucinogens

Look, you're not qualified and so can't approach fairies.

So easy to spit on any other bit of fiction and not even notice the idiocy in accepting your own.

I did read the whole report. It highlights that a significant number of people in the Muslim world support violence in defence of Islam. We're in danger of gross hipocracy here:
A significant number of people in the Western world support violence in defence of democracy...
A significant number of people in the Western world support violence in defence of our National interests...
Is it so different Kenny? What were we (US/UK) doing invading Afganistan and Iraq if not 'supporting violence in defense' of what we value?! (oil?)

What we call morals is in reference to behavior towards others in our society. This is no different to the animal kingdom. The way a dog learns not to shit on your carpet, or a monkey shares food with a fellow monkey who helped him obtain it. I think you would struggle to prove kin selection or reciprocity as the sole motives for human "morals". Humans often sacrifice themselves, or their own interests for their ideals.

That's a good one! So what instruments did these qualified persons use to detect God's presence, and how was this recorded for others to observe? Please, give me some information so that I can detect God's presence for myself.
The instrument is Yourself! The method, results and conclusions are recorded in various scriptures among other places. How do you "detect God's presence for yourself". Here's a clue...

Revelation 3:20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.

"A Course in Miracles Ch18.4.1"
The desire and the willingness to let it come precede its coming. You prepare your mind for it only to the extent of recognizing that you want it above all else. It is not necessary that you do more; indeed, it is necessary that you realize that you cannot do more.

You just require a little willingness to find out...

What were we (US/UK) doing invading Afganistan and Iraq if not 'supporting violence in defense' of what we value?! (oil?)

I think we've been over this before.

Firstly, Afganistan was sparked when fanatic Muslims flew planes into buildings and killed thousands of people, and the Taliban were in cahoots with Bin Laden and refused to give him up. Both the Taliban and Bin Laden were clearly motived to violence as a result of religion, as were the hijackers.

The 'retaliation' of the United States (particularily in the case of Iraq) was secular? I think not. Despite the fact that oil was obviously a prime motive, there is no way they would have been able to go to war in Iraq if it was not for the overwhelming support from the Christian right with a fundamentalist Christian at the helm. No way, no how.

Every step of the way you have the irrationality of religion pointing to war. How on Earth you can call this a secular war I don't know.

I think you would struggle to prove kin selection or reciprocity as the sole motives for human "morals". Humans often sacrifice themselves, or their own interests for their ideals.

All human morals stem from those which can be seen in simpler form in the animal kingdom.

I think we've been over this before.

Firstly, Afganistan was sparked when fanatic Muslims flew planes into buildings and killed thousands of people, and the Taliban were in cahoots with Bin Laden and refused to give him up. Both the Taliban and Bin Laden were clearly motived to violence as a result of religion, as were the hijackers.

The 'retaliation' of the United States (particularily in the case of Iraq) was secular? I think not. Despite the fact that oil was obviously a prime motive, there is no way they would have been able to go to war in Iraq if it was not for the overwhelming support from the Christian right with a fundamentalist Christian at the helm. No way, no how.

Every step of the way you have the irrationality of religion pointing to war. How on Earth you can call this a secular war I don't know.



All human morals stem from those which can be seen in simpler form in the animal kingdom.


You are really ignorant about history; who funded the Taliban and the Mujahideen? Who put Saddam in power? Read a little bit more about where these "terrorists" came from.

You are really ignorant about history; who funded the Taliban and the Mujahideen? Who put Saddam in power? Read a little bit more about where these "terrorists" came from.

Yes I am well aware of how the Taliban and Saddam got started. What does this have to do with the cause of religion in the conflict I stated in my last post?

I think we've been over this before.

Every step of the way you have the irrationality of religion pointing to war. How on Earth you can call this a secular war I don't know.



Its very easy to blame religion;

Why don't you go through these and tell me where religion played a role?

http://www.ghostchild.com/media_archive/files/Genocide%20Related/ChronologyofTerror2.html

Its very easy to blame religion;

You deny that it wasn't a prime motive (on both sides) in terms of the Iraq invasion?

Why don't you go through these and tell me where religion played a role?

http://www.ghostchild.com/media_arc...yofTerror2.html

It's not as if I am not known to criticize American policies. Their religion is obviously a prime motive in cases like these up till the present day. As I said, if it wasn't for the Christian right in America, I have no doubt America would be more peaceful like secular Europe has become.

If history is anything to go by, the more secular a nation becomes the less likely the need or want for war. America or the Middle East are hardly secular seeing as politics and foreign policy on both sides is corrupted by religion.

You deny that it wasn't a prime motive (on both sides) in terms of the Iraq invasion?

You think Bush wanted Saddam because he is a Muslim? Really? And Saddam hated Bush because he's a Christian?????

And he killed the Kurds because...?

And he wanted to attack Kuwait beacuse...?




It's not as if I am not known to criticize American policies. Their religion is obviously a prime motive in cases like these up till the present day. As I said, if it wasn't for the Christian right in America, I have no doubt America would be more peaceful like secular Europe has become.

If history is anything to go by, the more secular a nation becomes the less likely the need or want for war. America or the Middle East are hardly secular seeing as politics and foreign policy on both sides is corrupted by religion.


You are in la-la land !

Here is the most comprehensive list of world wide massacres I could find:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres

People kill each other for too many reasons all of them related to POWER.

* don't forget to look at the number of people killed*

You just require a little willingness to find out...

Ok. God just spoke to me, he had a lot of very interesting and important things to say. He said the Bible is full of lies and I should ignore it completely.
Do you believe me Diogenes' Dog?

Disband organized religion, is causes more trouble than it "fixes"

You think Bush wanted Saddam because he is a Muslim? Really? And Saddam hated Bush because he's a Christian?????

More to the point, would they want mutual destruction if they were both of the same religion? Or that Bush would sling Christians in a concentration camp? I think not.

People kill each other for too many reasons all of them related to POWER.

Of course they do, however, you have still not addressed my point as to why highly secular countries are missing the degree of conflict that is seen in highly religious countries like the USA and Middle East.

More to the point, would they want mutual destruction if they were both of the same religion? Or that Bush would sling Christians in a concentration camp? I think not.




Of course they do, however, you have still not addressed my point as to why highly secular countries are missing the degree of conflict that is seen in highly religious countries like the USA and Middle East.

Who fought in the two World Wars?

Who gave soldiers to fight in Afghanistan and Iraq ( Both Desert Storm and War on Terror) Were there no secular countries involved?

And you seem to forget that these countries in Africa and the Middle East ( and also the US) were originally colonized and the genocides committed there were by the same people who belong to the secular countries! Do you mean to say that the basis for all these was religion?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocides_in_history

Here are some links which explore your questions:

And from your links, I gleaned this quote:

"The Western world has since concentrated its intellectual energies upon the study of the quantitative aspects of things, thus developing a science of Nature, whose all too obvious fruits in the physical domain have won for it the greatest esteem among people everywhere, for most of whom "science" is identified with technology and its applications. Islamic science, by contrast, seeks ultimately to attain such knowledge as will contribute toward the spiritual perfection and deliverance of anyone capable of studying it; thus its fruits are inward and hidden, its values more difficult to discern."

Maybe you could clarify what exactly you mean by alignment?

I'm thinking of alignment in terms of being parallel; i.e. co-existing, but I'm guessing that's not what you are trying to ask.

did you see this post?

Maybe you could clarify what exactly you mean by alignment?

I'm thinking of alignment in terms of being parallel; i.e. co-existing, but I'm guessing that's not what you are trying to ask.

A set of values is assigned, for example, whether they be principles, morals, or business mission statements, that is irrelevant. The values must be shared by all those who are jointly working towards the same goals in order for the organization to be aligned.

A set of values is assigned, for example, whether they be principles, morals, or business mission statements, that is irrelevant. The values must be shared by all those who are jointly working towards the same goals in order for the organization to be aligned.

But isn't that rather a constricted view of scientific thinking? After all, all science essentially begins with a theory, which is turn is restricted by available knowledge and the tools available to test that theory. As knowledge grows the possibilities of exploring the theory also grow, with a greater chance of reaching to a conclusion with better more exact tools. Science being what it is however, no conclusion can be absolute, as it would then lead to the error of not seeing what is because you are so certain what it should be.

I think it is alright to have a misson statement but one that is so exclusive that it ignores other possibilities? How is that beneficial? Can we really say with absolute conviction that we know all that was to be known about the physical world?

But isn't that rather a constricted view of scientific thinking?

I don't understand the question - is what a constricted view?

After all, all science essentially begins with a theory

Actually, it begins with an observation followed by a hypothesis to explain the observation, the hypothesis is used to make a prediction, which is then tested with the repeatable results making the hypothesis a working theory.

which is turn is restricted by available knowledge and the tools available to test that theory.

What do you mean by 'restricted'?

I think it is alright to have a misson statement but one that is so exclusive that it ignores other possibilities?

How about a mission statement which seeks only to find answers?

How is that beneficial?

We can learn everything there is to learn.

Can we really say with absolute conviction that we know all that was to be known about the physical world?

Of course not, that will take some time.

Science will get us there, religion will not, since religion claims to have all the answers.

I don't understand the question - is what a constricted view?



Actually, it begins with an observation followed by a hypothesis to explain the observation, the hypothesis is used to make a prediction, which is then tested with the repeatable results making the hypothesis a working theory.

Yes but the hypothesis is based pretty much on what knowledge is already available.


What do you mean by 'restricted'?

In the sense of not being open to new interpretations of old theories or alternative explanations for the same observations



How about a mission statement which seeks only to find answers?

Is that true science? I would consider a mission statement to explore the possibilities more productive; because less certainty means more doubt and doubt is very important because it prevents you from taking the obvious explanation as the absolute one. Isn't it better to have an answer that leads to more exploration and further questions?



We can learn everything there is to learn.

We can also reject perfectly good possibilities that may be connected because we are so certain that we have resolved the question to our satisfaction.



Of course not, that will take some time.

Science will get us there, religion will not, since religion claims to have all the answers.

Does it; how? Isn't the primary requirement of religion faith?

Nonsense. You made the claim that there are people who can 'detect god's presence' and thus are "qualified". As a man that deals with those that hear voices and 'detect presences' on a frequent basis, I thought it amusing that you would, (I assume without the required qualification), think you're in a position to make such a judgement concerning their 'abilities'. From a professional standpoint, I can say it doesn't "qualify" them for much more than a straight jacket - and yet you, the unqualified, think you can justify a 'get out of the institution' free card.


I haven't got the time at the moment to respond to this in detail - and it would probably be way too long (and i have a funny feeling this will be quite long already) and drawn out to read so rather than attempt to approach everything you said i will try and re-clarify what i said by touching on a few of your main issues-

Regarding qualification and knowledge - its not such an esoteric thing - persons who undertake the process to be qualified have the opportunity to become qualified - its common sense - wouldn't you agree that it impossible for a carpenter to be a neurosurgeon - the reason is that the carpenter didn't apply the process to become a neurosurgeon.
The process of religion is basically a process of emancipation - your statements about anger, attachment and fear indicate you have no knowledge of practically applying emancipation - obviously in this world we don't own anything (born with nothing and die with nothing) but at the same time it is constitutionally impossible for us to renounce this world either (since we depend on it to survive) - the proper application of emanicipation is utilization, the middle path between the diametricly opposed extremes of renunciation and sense enjoyment. Duality is the enemy of spiritual endeavour

Why someone would want to do this (get free from duality) is to purify the consciousness - in other words in spiritual life there are existential conditions for knowledge. You have to act in a certain way to know something - because the knowledge of spiritual life pertains to consciousness and not dull matter ( consciousness is superior to dull matter we can bring dull matter within our direct perception - telescopes, controlled atmosphere lab experiments etc - but how do you propose to perceive what you are perceiving with? This is why science cannot locate the source of consciousness - or at the very least they can not assemble consciousness from reconstructing the gross elements of a living organisms body)

.... In other words by purified consciousness you can actually perceive the nature of consciousness - epistomologically that may sound like a contradiction, until of course you introduce the idea that god is also there in the equation (God being possessed of a superior level of consciousness that doesn't fluctuate between illusion and liberation like the living entity's). So religion is the process to bridge the gap between the living entity's consciousness and god's consciousness (Latin root relgia - connection - same with sanskrit Yoga - yoke or connect).

Anyway if you think it is something like "hearing voices" that is as crude as piling firewood under a nasa rocket set for outer space

"Just as those with ordinary vision see the sun's rays in the sky, so the wise and learned devotees always see the supreme abode of Lord Visnu. Because those highly praiseworthy and spiritually awake brähmanas can see that abode, they can also reveal it to others. [Rg Veda]"

And that avenue of connection is catalysed by accepting the instruction of a qualified person, just like the connection to knowledge for a neuroscientist is catalysed by going to university and studying under qualified persons.






I can tell you of 60+ people that have heard voices telling them to kill people, hurt themselves, steal hamburgers.. you name it. I suppose in your unqualified opinion, you'd call these people "qualified" too?


But they are crazy people - sounds like you work with the mentally insane - Imagine if I took a selection of crazy people with ideas about cia cover ups and ufos and genetics and used them as a control group to establish the credibility of genetical reserach - I am sure if you gave such a group the same medication they wouldn't talk so much about genetics too

- I am talking about persons who actually have credibility in th e field of religion - like for instance do any of these 60+ people have students or a congregation? (not that a following is evidence of qualification, but it can be initially helpful) Have they pulished anything in the field of religion that has born an influence on practioners? are they accepted as leaders in the field of religious knowledge?
And most importantly who is their teacher? There is no question of being qualified in ANY field unless you can indicate the historical continuum you are coming from (unless of course you just want to be a qualified slinger of groundless opinions)






To get into the stereotype argument briefly: They work, otherwise they would never have made it to stereotype level. That's not to say they apply to all, but they have an actual basis.


Stereotypes work? Well does that mean I can also judge genetical reserach by a collection of the before mentioned conspiracy concocting lunatics?
There is a statement of fallacious conclusion "To judge a genre by its worst stereotype" Why should I have to justify the credibility of religion with the lowest denominator? Would you justify science by the same means?



Of course not. You yourself told me that, and I quote: "it is impossible for the unqualified to approach god" and that the unqualified can't understand scripture. I notice you haven't responded to it, but it certainly seems to cause problems with your statement about practical application - which I cannot do because as I am unqualified it is impossible for me to approach god - and there you are trying to get me to take a practical approach to do that which you yourself have already told me is impossible. It's daft beyond belief.


Its not that you cannot become qualified it is that you choose not to - just like the carpenter chose not to be a neuroscientist.

Undoubtedly you'll ignore that little issue and then go on to say that to find god one must simply be honest and humble and ask if he's there. Tried and tested pal, you're wrong. Oh wait, no you're not.. I'm unqualified and as such it's impossible for me to manage a way to find god.


Lets begin from the point that god is a person - I know that you don't accept that god is a person (how could someone who does not accept the concept of a president accept the idea that george bush is a president?), but for the sake of argument just accept that god is a person so you can understand something about the nature of how he is and how he is not approached ....

Finding god is similar to finding the president of the united states - suppose you want to "directly perceive" the president just to make it clear in your mind that all these media presentations and newspapers you hear about someone called the president actually exists - you wouldn't be able to get past the first the first of his 10 000 secretaries - If you want to meet an important person you have to be qualified - Would you expect the president to visit a person just to prove that he existed - Surely he would think "If he cannot detect my presence by the results of my activities" (In otherwords that the country is actually being managed - the streets are clean, no bands of thugs blowing things up in tanks etc) "what business do I have with such a person." But if there is a person who had something that was parrallel to the president's interest (like say finacial capital or something) then the president would be eager to meet such aperson - in otherwords you can only see the president if he wants to see you, so to switch the comparison, the best way to see god is to act in such a way that god wants to see you - if you don't want to act in such a way that is your decision - in other words it is an epistomological choice for a reduced ontological perspective

Now you may argue that science grants a greater ontological perspective , but that is just a result of your choices and is only an opinion you cannot validate - you haven't applied the existential conditions to understand the religious ontology, and instead imagine what are its length and breadth and then proceed to debunk the imagined religious paradigm which you are not qualified to even enter.
Or in other words you are straw targeting
I could do the same thing and just imagine what goes on in the name of science, even quote a few incidents that actually happened, and jump up and down on the smouldering ashes of my cinders of imagined science but it would prove nothing, except that I wasn't qualified to enter the field of scientific enquiry

Who fought in the two World Wars?

Who gave soldiers to fight in Afghanistan and Iraq ( Both Desert Storm and War on Terror) Were there no secular countries involved?

And you seem to forget that these countries in Africa and the Middle East ( and also the US) were originally colonized and the genocides committed there were by the same people who belong to the secular countries! Do you mean to say that the basis for all these was religion?

Firstly: I am not concerned with wars in the past as only recently has secularism gained any power.

Secondly: I have already gave my reasons why I think wars such as the recent war in Iraq are due to religious beliefs. There would have been no invasion of Iraq if the USA was a secular country. The Bush administration is not stupid despite popular opinion - They know what they can get away with due to the support of the Christian right. In no way would liberal voters or secularists agree with such a war. Why on earth do you think someone like Bush would come into power in the first place? Take a look at the Christian right...

Firstly: I am not concerned with wars in the past as only recently has secularism gained any power.

Secondly: I have already gave my reasons why I think wars such as the recent war in Iraq are due to religious beliefs. There would have been no invasion of Iraq if the USA was a secular country. The Bush administration is not stupid despite popular opinion - They know what they can get away with due to the support of the Christian right. In no way would liberal voters or secularists agree with such a war. Why on earth do you think someone like Bush would come into power in the first place? Take a look at the Christian right...

So you are not concerned with the past? Presently, the WHO has released a world violence report, in which it claims that over half of the people who died in 2002 under violent circumstances were suicides one-third were homicides and one-fifth were due to armed conflict ( war).

Those who died in the suicide/murders fell mostly in the category of child abuse, partner abuse, youth aggression and elder abuse.

The toal number of people who died was 1.6 million or 28.8 per 100000.

Would you care to comment on that?

Yes but the hypothesis is based pretty much on what knowledge is already available.

Knowledge that is available and useful to us. What is your point?

In the sense of not being open to new interpretations of old theories or alternative explanations for the same observations

Sorry, but whatever interpretations and alternative explanations one has, they should demonstrate they're better than what's already understood. Science will not stop anyone from doing that.

Is that true science?

Not really, it's just an example of a mission statement.

Isn't it better to have an answer that leads to more exploration and further questions?

Isn't that what already occurs in science?

We can also reject perfectly good possibilities that may be connected because we are so certain that we have resolved the question to our satisfaction.

That is not science.

Does it; how? Isn't the primary requirement of religion faith?

Yup. That should answer your question.

[QUOTE]Knowledge that is available and useful to us. What is your point?

Isn't the usefulness of the knowledge also based only on how far we are able to predict the consequences of that knowledge?


Sorry, but whatever interpretations and alternative explanations one has, they should demonstrate they're better than what's already understood. Science will not stop anyone from doing that.

I did not claim that it would; but being open to alternatives or not can limit the usefulness of the knowledge.



Not really, it's just an example of a mission statement.

Yes and a mission statement should be broad enough to embrace all possibilities or it is short-sighted and only valuable or effective in the short-term.


Isn't that what already occurs in science?

Does it? Isn't science presently driven by the immediate, material gain to be had from it?


That is not science.

Yes, but since in the present climate only results matter and especially only the expected results, what are the chances of negative results making their way into the literature? How many scientists are "trained" to focus on the data that will be profitable?



Yup. That should answer your question

And you completely missed the point.

Isn't the usefulness of the knowledge also based only on how far we are able to predict the consequences of that knowledge?

It's an ongoing process, I still don't understand what you're getting at.

Science gives us useful knowledge, and continues to do so each day with more knowledge.

I did not claim that it would; but being open to alternatives or not can limit the usefulness of the knowledge.

Religion is not open to alternatives, if that's what you mean, nor does it provide us with any useful knowledge.

Yes and a mission statement should be broad enough to embrace all possibilities or it is short-sighted and only valuable or effective in the short-term.

Ok.

Does it? Isn't science presently driven by the immediate, material gain to be had from it?

Such as what?

Yes, but since in the present climate only results matter and especially only the expected results, what are the chances of negative results making their way into the literature? How many scientists are "trained" to focus on the data that will be profitable?

I'm at a loss as to where you're going with all this? What exactly are you asking here?

And you completely missed the point.

I suppose so. But then, perhaps you did too.

It's an ongoing process, I still don't understand what you're getting at. Science gives us useful knowledge, and continues to do so each day with more knowledge.


Just that science is limited by available tools and knowledge and it is presumptuous (? not the exact word I'm looking for but close), to conclude that it is currently fully equipped to test for any and every phenomena.


Religion is not open to alternatives, if that's what you mean, nor does it provide us with any useful knowledge.

The very fact that religion is interpretative means that it is open to alternatives.

Which begs the question, if religion is useless and only leads to war and segregation, why has it been present in each and every society in some form or another?

Such as what?

You tell me - what is the main force driving scientific research today? How much is basic and how much applied? What drives applied research in most fields?

I'm at a loss as to where you're going with all this? What exactly are you asking here?


I am asking you to consider the possibility that not everything is so black and white that we can ignore the shades.

The process of religion is basically a process of emancipation - your statements about anger, attachment and fear indicate you have no knowledge of practically applying emancipation

No, it shows I have knowledge concerning what emotions are.

the proper application of emanicipation is utilization, the middle path between the diametricly opposed extremes of renunciation and sense enjoyment. Duality is the enemy of spiritual endeavour

Please, this kind of senseless tripe bothers me.

until of course you introduce the idea that god is also there in the equation (God being possessed of a superior level of consciousness that doesn't fluctuate between illusion and liberation like the living entity's).

At which stage you are still talking senseless tripe unless you can provide some evidence. It's no different to someone 'introducing' the idea that leprechauns are there. It has no value whatsoever.

(Latin root relgia - connection - same with sanskrit Yoga - yoke or connect)

Truly fascinating. While I fail to see the worth in giving me the latin and sanskrit words, it was wonderful nonetheless.

Anyway if you think it is something like "hearing voices" that is as crude as piling firewood under a nasa rocket set for outer space

Sorry, that's my job. What do you know about "hearing voices"? Or are you just trying to find some difference between the two because any similarity and you'd realise how utterly fucked up it is?

"Just as those with ordinary vision see the sun's rays in the sky, so the wise and learned devotees always see the supreme abode of Lord Visnu. Because those highly praiseworthy and spiritually awake brähmanas can see that abode, they can also reveal it to others. [Rg Veda]"

Again, truly fascinating.

And that avenue of connection is catalysed by accepting the instruction of a qualified person

Fine, so you have to accept that I am qualified when it comes to "detecting presences" and "hearing voices" and so must accept my instruction that when I tell you these people have problems, not gods talking to them.

But they are crazy people - sounds like you work with the mentally insane

So are those that claim they hear gods - and yet you dare call them 'qualified'. There are levels of course - those that simply hear gods, those that get orders from gods, those that undertake those orders and stone their children to death, preach to zoo animals, or blow up abortion clinics. All very qualified god listeners I guess.

- I am talking about persons who actually have credibility in th e field of religion - like for instance do any of these 60+ people have students or a congregation? (not that a following is evidence of qualification, but it can be initially helpful) Have they pulished anything in the field of religion that has born an influence on practioners? are they accepted as leaders in the field of religious knowledge?

Certainly. I treated David Koresh, (I didn't really, it's just an example). He had a congregation, followers, influence, has published things in the field of religion, and had students.

Next.

And most importantly who is their teacher?

god, apparently.

No, it shows I have knowledge concerning what emotions are.



Please, this kind of senseless tripe bothers me.



At which stage you are still talking senseless tripe unless you can provide some evidence. It's no different to someone 'introducing' the idea that leprechauns are there. It has no value whatsoever.

Actually i was trying to illustrate how your interpretation of attachment (previously quoted "being freed from attachment fear and anger") is not correct - you defined that to mean that one must be detached and just dump everything they have in the way of material to prove they are detached - I was trying to indicate that that's a dualistic concept because we neither own anything (we die empty handed) or renounce anything (how are you going to renouce food and water or the earth?).

Anyway, as you can see it is quite an innvolved topic, and one not so conducive to this thread - the simple fact that emmotions are such a difficult thing to comprehend and often get us in to trouble should indicate enough about the difficulty of being free from their implications (a unique quality that a saintly person possesses - they are not disturbed by lust, wrath, greed etc like an ordinary person)





Sorry, that's my job. What do you know about "hearing voices"? Or are you just trying to find some difference between the two because any similarity and you'd realise how utterly fucked up it is?

(On a side note snakelord, please try and refrain from coarse language - good manners is an essential ingredient to any intelligent discussion and makes it easier to examine the ideas of a person as opposed to just focusing on insulting the person :) )
Don't misunderstand me - I don't doubt that the people you deal with are crazy - What i do doubt is whether the people you deal with are the right persons to judge the qualities of a saintly person by. Just like I mentioned earlier, would it be reasonable to ask you to prove the credibility of genetic research by using a group of people who believed their lounge chair received secret messages from the CIA? If you don't expect science to be proven by the lowest denominator, why do you expect religion to be proven by the same class of lunatic?




Fine, so you have to accept that I am qualified when it comes to "detecting presences" and "hearing voices" and so must accept my instruction that when I tell you these people have problems, not gods talking to them.

Yes I don't doubt that god is not talking to them - I am sure, as you are, that it is in fact their mind talking to them - I don't doubt that you are qualified in psychiatric nursing but i do doubt that you are qualified in the field of religion - I mean suppose you suddenly got a cartload of crazy people who thought they were genetic scientists - would that suddenly make you an expert in understanding the nature of genetics?



So are those that claim they hear gods - and yet you dare call them 'qualified'. There are levels of course - those that simply hear gods, those that get orders from gods, those that undertake those orders and stone their children to death, preach to zoo animals, or blow up abortion clinics. All very qualified god listeners I guess.


No - i didn't say that all - i said that a person must be intelligent enough to know who is qualfied and who is not - its not all or nothing - its not like the credibility of genetics rests on either everyone who speaks about genetics being correct otherwise no one is correct - the credibility of genetics depends upon qualified persons



Certainly. I treated David Koresh, (I didn't really, it's just an example). He had a congregation, followers, influence, has published things in the field of religion, and had students.

- I said these were initial indications of qualification - I mean they can straight away help you distinguish whether you are dealing with a street vagrant or someone who has actually applied themself to a field of knowledge. I even declared in my previous statement that these qualities (congregation, influence through publishing etc) were not fallible so i don't know what you are trying to prove by saying they are fallible here - no need to convince me - I already know! Lol
The main quality, however, I gave emphasis to was to examine the historical continuum a person is coming from - in other words who is their teacher (This can help you pick out personalities like Mr Koresh). Your answer was

god, apparently.

If a person thinks that there is nothing between themselves and god, and have not studied under someone who teaches them by practical example how to approach god, and if their teacher of their teacher also doesn't have the same link to such a personality and so and so, then immediately you can disreagard them. whatever they are speaking is nonsense and the only benefit you can get from listening to them is the understanding that there is no benefit listening to them (a benefit you seem to have acquired - congratulations!!:D!!)

Just that science is limited by available tools and knowledge and it is presumptuous (? not the exact word I'm looking for but close), to conclude that it is currently fully equipped to test for any and every phenomena.

hehe - science is 'presumptuous,' too funny.

Where does science make the claim it is currently fully equipped to test for any and every phenomena? Are you just making this stuff up or something?

The very fact that religion is interpretative means that it is open to alternatives.

And it is open to misinterpretation too. What alternatives do you refer?

Which begs the question, if religion is useless and only leads to war and segregation, why has it been present in each and every society in some form or another?

So has myth and mysticism. Which begs the question, why do you believe in your religion and not those others?

You tell me - what is the main force driving scientific research today? How much is basic and how much applied? What drives applied research in most fields?

Availble funding.

I am asking you to consider the possibility that not everything is so black and white that we can ignore the shades.

I assure you, good science is based on rigor, very little is ignored, if at all.

Considering possibilities is one thing, accepting them is another.

hehe - science is 'presumptuous,' too funny.

the 'it' does not refer to science, as you well know.

Where does science make the claim it is currently fully equipped to test for any and every phenomena?

Agreed.

Are you just making this stuff up or something?

:rolleyes:

And it is open to misinterpretation too. What alternatives do you refer?

You have to work with me here; remember what I said about philosophy vs action?


So has myth and mysticism. Which begs the question, why do you believe in your religion and not those others?

Actually, I've studied most of the religions, Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity ( not Judaism cos I didn't know any Jews back home). I've attended mass, confirmation, poojas, satsangs, etc.

Islam however is the religion I found most attractive because the focus in Islam is on the individual; There are no head priests, no Pope, no temple, no church.

Availble funding.

Right


I assure you, good science is based on rigor, very little is ignored, if at all.

Considering possibilities is one thing, accepting them is another

Yes of course but considering them is important.

Actually, I've studied most of the religions, Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity ( not Judaism cos I didn't know any Jews back home). I've attended mass, confirmation, poojas, satsangs, etc.

Islam however is the religion I found most attractive because the focus in Islam is on the individual; There are no head priests, no Pope, no temple, no church.

Then, you accept and believe everything there is about Islam?

Yes of course but considering them is important.

So what? Religion has been considered and found to be completely unacceptable. Each one claims to be the one religion, yet there are thousands of them, hence they all can't be right.

You yourself claim to have chosen Islam over the others as you felt it attractive due to the focus on the individual, and of course because you were brought up with it. In other words, you've "designed" your own religion.

Then, you accept and believe everything there is about Islam?

You're repeating yourself.

So what? Religion has been considered and found to be completely unacceptable. Each one claims to be the one religion, yet there are thousands of them, hence they all can't be right.

Considered by whom?

You yourself claim to have chosen Islam over the others as you felt it attractive due to the focus on the individual, and of course because you were brought up with it. In other words, you've "designed" your own religion.

Last time I looked I had a right to my beliefs.

The three great strategies for obscuring an issue are to introduce irrelevancies, to arouse prejudice, and to excite ridicule.... ---Bergen Evans, The Natural History of Nonsense

Actually i was trying to illustrate how your interpretation of attachment (previously quoted "being freed from attachment fear and anger") is not correct - you defined that to mean that one must be detached and just dump everything they have in the way of material to prove they are detached

You defined it that way: "attached to temporary things". TV's and everything else I mentioned are temporary things.

When concerned with just emotions, I have yet to see someone that doesn't have them, (including god), and can't really say from a realistic instead of wishful thinking perspective, that many people would really be better off without them.

With no fear, people wouldn't even look when they crossed the road etc.

Of course some people are a bit over the top, but a lobotomy would generally help that.

the simple fact that emmotions are such a difficult thing to comprehend and often get us in to trouble should indicate enough about the difficulty of being free from their implications

They're not "difficult to comprehend", but hey.. you did state it was a fact, and a simple fact at that, so I'll leave it to you to back that statement up. Yes, they do sometimes 'get us into trouble' - but more often than not they actually help.

(a unique quality that a saintly person possesses - they are not disturbed by lust, wrath, greed etc like an ordinary person)


So saintly people are unlike god as well. From a biblical standpoint, even god has a range of emotions, (including wrath), and thus are you trying to tell me that saintly people are better than god?

(On a side note snakelord, please try and refrain from coarse language - good manners is an essential ingredient to any intelligent discussion and makes it easier to examine the ideas of a person as opposed to just focusing on insulting the person )

I'll certainly try although I do enjoy my freedom of speech, and of course it is worth pointing out that a swear word is not really relevant to whether a discussion is "intelligent" or not and it wasn't "insulting a person". If you read it once or twice, you'll learn there was no personal insult there at all.

Still, as this is request time, I might as well ask if you could refrain from claiming I said things I never did and stop making up answers and conclusions for me, (something other people have had to ask you to stop doing). Thank you. {insert smiley face here with the pretence that you're being friendly}.

Don't misunderstand me - I don't doubt that the people you deal with are crazy - What i do doubt is whether the people you deal with are the right persons to judge the qualities of a saintly person by

Well, some claim to be saints, or kings, or gods for that matter - but I don't really see where this has come from. Originally you simply mentioned people that could "detect god's presence", and I said I knew many of them. I didn't say they were saintly, or that they were used to judge saintliness.

would it be reasonable to ask you to prove the credibility of genetic research by using a group of people who believed their lounge chair received secret messages from the CIA?

Probably not, but then you simply stated that the "qualified" were those that could "detect god's presence".

Yes I don't doubt that god is not talking to them - I am sure, as you are, that it is in fact their mind talking to them

Same goes with everyone else - whether you call them saintly or not.

- I don't doubt that you are qualified in psychiatric nursing but i do doubt that you are qualified in the field of religion

I have studied religious education, yes. If you mean "qualified" as in being able to "detect god's presence", (your original claim), then no, certainly not. But then if I had have said yes, I can detect god's presence, what method exactly would you employ to check I am being honest or am not mentally ill?

I mean suppose you suddenly got a cartload of crazy people who thought they were genetic scientists - would that suddenly make you an expert in understanding the nature of genetics?

Certainly not, but how exactly would you determine that these 'crazy people' were not 'genetic scientists'?

How many of these 'saintly people' that you assume are "qualified" have you actually met and questioned? What methods did you use to ensure they were not ill, were telling the truth? Who has the final say on who is qualified and who is not? You? Why?

- I said these were initial indications of qualification - I mean they can straight away help you distinguish whether you are dealing with a street vagrant or someone who has actually applied themself to a field of knowledge. I even declared in my previous statement that these qualities (congregation, influence through publishing etc) were not fallible so i don't know what you are trying to prove by saying they are fallible here - no need to convince me - I already know! Lol

? You asked me a list of questions. I answered them. Nothing more:

"do any of these 60+ people have students or a congregation? (not that a following is evidence of qualification, but it can be initially helpful) Have they pulished anything in the field of religion that has born an influence on practioners? are they accepted as leaders in the field of religious knowledge?
And most importantly who is their teacher?"

See how many question marks there are? (They're called questions). I didn't try to "prove" anything, I simply answered what you asked me. K?

If a person thinks that there is nothing between themselves and god, and have not studied under someone who teaches them by practical example how to approach god, and if their teacher of their teacher also doesn't have the same link to such a personality and so and so, then immediately you can disreagard them.

So long Jesus, bye bye Mohammed *yawn*

whatever they are speaking is nonsense and the only benefit you can get from listening to them is the understanding that there is no benefit listening to them

Aye, tell that to the christians.

(a benefit you seem to have acquired - congratulations!!!!)

Oh please, you ask a question and then get all pissy because the answer doesn't please you.

You're repeating yourself.

No, I'm not, I'm asking you a question, another hard question you didn't answer or acknowledge. It has been evident that you continue to deflect or ignore the hard questions that have been presented to you and all you seem to be doing is tossing out every tired old argument every other Muslim has done so far. Tedious, really.

Considered by whom?

Considered by those who don't believe in myths and fairy tales, of course.

Last time I looked I had a right to my beliefs.

And you think you should have the right to believe in myths and fairy tales all the while offending every thinking human being on the planet?

The three great strategies for obscuring an issue are to introduce irrelevancies, to arouse prejudice, and to excite ridicule.... ---Bergen Evans, The Natural History of Nonsense

Yet, another deflection to a hard question. Nice. :rolleyes:

No, I'm not, I'm asking you a question, another hard question you didn't answer or acknowledge. It has been evident that you continue to deflect or ignore the hard questions that have been presented to you and all you seem to be doing is tossing out every tired old argument every other Muslim has done so far. Tedious, really.

What can I say? Either you are being deliberately obtuse, or we are on different planets.



Considered by those who don't believe in myths and fairy tales, of course.

You mean the people who agree with your beliefs; not surprising considering they are atheists? :confused:



And you think you should have the right to believe in myths and fairy tales all the while offending every thinking human being on the planet?

The implication being that only atheists can think?



Yet, another deflection to a hard question. Nice.

You mean a reply which did not fit with your opinions; hardly likely with opposing beliefs, don't you think ? :cool:

Ah yes! obviously my only desire in this entire pointless (to me) exercise is to obfuscate you with inanities!

No, just the same old tired arguments already refuted. I was hoping you were going to offer a fresh look and answer some hard questions, but it appears that didn't happen.

I could write you a half page on my views on Islam but it seems to me that you are less interested in my views ( or else you would comprehend that I have. already. expressed. them. ad. nauseum.) If there is a nasty question you want to ask me, why beat around the bush? Go for the jugular, I say.

Your views might be somewhat different than other Muslims, but that's due to the designing of your religion. The arguments are the same.

By the way if your "hard questions" are just another attempt to portary yourself as a hard core rationalist, I would suggest you take a look at one more word:"perspective". If you cannot appreciate that there are differences in pespective between people then you need to reconsider your definition of secularism.

The perspective is that of reality, one which you don't appear to share with reality. The hard questions have nothing to do with me and everything to do with your religion.

By the way, this is equally if not more tedious for me; seems to me you just need an excuse to revert to your theist bashing. Well, I challenge you to a discourse without invective; is that possible for you?

But, as I already stated, your arguments lack anything new that hasn't already been refuted before. And I don't bash theists, only their religions.

To be fair, your disbelief in spirituality, leads me to the conclusion that you are "spiritually challenged" and hence some aspects of my dialogue ( in addition to tedium, of course) are so unacceptable to you that you simple refuse to consider them.

And your 'reality' challenged. And you make the huge mistake in assuming one must believe in myths and fairy tales in order to be spiritual. Complete nonsense.

I could also accuse you of having a one track mind; if you are in science, it amazes me that you see things in such a linear perspective; surely you've heard of alternative models of thought?

Of course I have, but the only alternative models of thought in regards to religion stem from the imagination. I have an imagination too, I just don't allow it to rule my worldview.

See above. Your continued attempts to lump everything in the basket you deem most feasible simply indicate that you are resistant to the idea that there are beliefs other than your own; is this your idea of an evolved mind?

I completely understand that there are many beliefs, hence many religions. It is those minds that hold those beliefs that have yet to evolve.


Been there, done that.


So you consider it inconsequential that a person has the right to his/her own beliefs? I wonder, perhaps you might like to expand further on YOUR idea of the future where everyone will be atheist ( or else!!); yes, I wonder you can miss the fact that your notions of equality very closely resemble those of people who want to convert everyone to their own world view?

Clearly, you have a problem with reality. What is it about reality you detest and would much rather not have anything to do with?

The future will be devoid of religion as it will take its rightful place alongside all the other myths. Everyone will have access to information and education, and we will use it for the betterment of mankind, to cure diseases, end wars and famine, and bring an end to ignorance once and for all.

Since I presume you don't expect that an anti-religion virus will conveniently wipe out all theists, what do you presume to achieve by this constant dialogue of hate and intolerance?

Uh, escuse me, but it is religion that breeds hate and intolerance. That is clearly evident, hence I am intolerant to religion.

If your aim is to let others see the value of rationality as defined by atheism, you might as well give up. The attitude you portray does nothing more than arouse disgust which is not the state of mind you might want to aim for.

Yes, to a theist, I would appear disgusting. And since theists haven't a clue what rationality is, they would find no value in anything that is rational. You have exhibited the lack of rationality in many of your posts, and I called you on it, only to be ignored, of course, but that was expected as you are unable to answer the hard questions aimed at your religion.

What can I say? Either you are being deliberately obtuse, or we are on different planets.

I'm actually a head in jar floating far out in space. But I do consider my home the planet Earth, in which reality exists.

You mean the people who agree with your beliefs; not surprising considering they are atheists?

Funny how we all agree with each other on religion and theists don't.

The implication being that only atheists can think?

Theists can think too, they simply refuse to do so when it comes to the supernatural.

You mean a reply which did not fit with your opinions; hardly likely with opposing beliefs, don't you think ?

Sorry, I forgot you base your beliefs on fairy tales and myths.

No, just the same old tired arguments already refuted. I was hoping you were going to offer a fresh look and answer some hard questions, but it appears that didn't happen.



Your views might be somewhat different than other Muslims, but that's due to the designing of your religion. The arguments are the same.



The perspective is that of reality, one which you don't appear to share with reality. The hard questions have nothing to do with me and everything to do with your religion.



But, as I already stated, your arguments lack anything new that hasn't already been refuted before. And I don't bash theists, only their religions.



And your 'reality' challenged. And you make the huge mistake in assuming one must believe in myths and fairy tales in order to be spiritual. Complete nonsense.



Of course I have, but the only alternative models of thought in regards to religion stem from the imagination. I have an imagination too, I just don't allow it to rule my worldview.



I completely understand that there are many beliefs, hence many religions. It is those minds that hold those beliefs that have yet to evolve.


Been there, done that.




Clearly, you have a problem with reality. What is it about reality you detest and would much rather not have anything to do with?

The future will be devoid of religion as it will take its rightful place alongside all the other myths. Everyone will have access to information and education, and we will use it for the betterment of mankind, to cure diseases, end wars and famine, and bring an end to ignorance once and for all.



Uh, escuse me, but it is religion that breeds hate and intolerance. That is clearly evident, hence I am intolerant to religion.



Yes, to a theist, I would appear disgusting. And since theists haven't a clue what rationality is, they would find no value in anything that is rational. You have exhibited the lack of rationality in many of your posts, and I called you on it, only to be ignored, of course, but that was expected as you are unable to answer the hard questions aimed at your religion.

Frankly, I don't get your hard questions at all; I don't understand what it is that you think I'm avoiding or evading.

Maybe we just cannot see it from each other's perspective.

I am trying to answer your questions to the best of my ability only I get the feeling we're going around in circles. Maybe I'm unable to communicate my perspective effectively. I've followed the philosophy of Islam for over a decade now and I do not find anything uncomfortable or contradictory in it.

Maybe you're right and I'm wrong. Maybe I'm right and you're wrong. Ultimately we all have to live with the results of our assumptions and expectations.

Frankly, I don't get your hard questions at all; I don't understand what it is that you think I'm avoiding or evading.

How convenient.

Maybe we just cannot see it from each other's perspective.

Swing by reality some time and have a look see from my perspective.

I am trying to answer your questions to the best of my ability only I get the feeling we're going around in circles. Maybe I'm unable to communicate my perspective effectively. I've followed the philosophy of Islam for over a decade now and I do not find anything uncomfortable or contradictory in it.

Irregardless of all the contradiction presented and ignored by you.

Maybe you're right and I'm wrong. Maybe I'm right and you're wrong. Ultimately we all have to live with the results of our assumptions and expectations.

If you're right, then every other person in the world is wrong, past, present and future. That is, unless someone else has a carbon copy of your tailored beliefs imprinted on their mind.

If I'm right, there are millions that are also right, with more appearing each day. And some day, we'll all be right.

How convenient.



Swing by reality some time and have a look see from my perspective.



Irregardless of all the contradiction presented and ignored by you.



If you're right, then every other person in the world is wrong, past, present and future. That is, unless someone else has a carbon copy of your tailored beliefs imprinted on their mind.

If I'm right, there are millions that are also right, with more appearing each day. And some day, we'll all be right.


Got it.