The Qur'an

[(Q)]

Not at all. I usually address the opinions he expresses and explain why I do not consider it worth my time to read him, any more than I would Hitler or Hitchens or Wilders.

That is difference between you and us, we read, you don't, as you admitted. Hence, it is hypocritical for you to accuse others of what you admit doing yourself.

So, by self-admittance on your part, you are the one who remains ignorant and has no point of view.

[S.A.M.]

That is difference between you and us, we read, you don't, as you admitted. Hence, it is hypocritical for you to accuse others of what you admit doing yourself.

So, by self-admittance on your part, you are the one who remains ignorant and has no point of view.

Yeah I noticed how "knowledgeable" y'all are.

[GeoffP]

Ignorance is not a point of view. To exemplify this, I skipped reading the rest of your post.

Then you appear to have unwittingly succeeded in illustrating your point, but in the wrong direction.

[GeoffP]

Not at all. I usually address the opinions he expresses and explain why I do not consider it worth my time to read him, any more than I would Hitler or Hitchens or Wilders.

Actually, you often don't address why you don't read my opinions. Instead, you use tu quoque. What am I meant to draw from that? That your preferred system - inspired, purportedly, by God, I might add - is every bit as heinous as the memes you profess everyone else to hold dear?

[baftan]

Oh, when you call everyone silly (almost every paragraph of your love letter) and chain some uncoordinated sentences to each other, you think you made your argument concrete. It’s concrete, but concrete as shit…

Let’s see:

I will begin with one simple premise:
Premise :: Something cannot come from nothing.
- This is accepted as verbatum in the scientific world of academia. It is what many axioms and laws are derived from. From this one very simple premise, one can conclude and derive many things. None moreso than this:

If something cannot come from nothing, then something must have created the Big Bang epoch yes? Otherwise, you believe in nothing before it, which will violate the agreed premise. Now you don't want to go against science do you? Okay. Now we have others;

1. Something cannot come from nothing,
2. Nothing is eternal or uncreated in this universe.
3. This universe then must have been created (caused)

This logic has nothing to do with “verbatim in the scientific world of academia”. I repeat: “Something cannot come from nothing” is totally opposite to what scientific methods pursue. This idea goes back to ancient Greek philosophers, and St Thomas Aquinas, and it is part of traditional “Cosmological Argument”. But it has it flows:

As far as science has understood, everything comes –or originates- from something. That means, nothing comes from non-existence. So Big Bang, according to this logic, should also come from something. Science do not support your illogical belief which is stated as “If something cannot come from nothing, then something must have created the Big Bang epoch yes? Otherwise you believe in nothing before it, which will violate the agreed premise. Now you don’t want to go against science do you?”. What is that? Honestly, what is this?

I don’t know your perception of science, but species come from their ancestors, they come from DNA based early creatures, DNA comes from RNA type structures, RNA comes from molecular level coexistence and co-survival strategies of atoms, atoms come from cooling down process of early universe, and universe comes from Big Bang. So should science think that Big Bang came from nothing? The first expected way of thinking would ask “So Big Bang must have been originated from something else", not that "So Bing Bang must have been created". We couldn't find age of universe or DNA structure if some people had never questioned this "creation" fantasy.

Science has never proved, has never measured, and has seen no evidence that everything came from out of nothing; none of the scientific tradition has dealt with nothingness. It’s for a good reason: Because it’s not the job of science. Your following 2 statements includes the disgusting word of creation:

2. Nothing is eternal or uncreated in this universe.
3. This universe then must have been created (caused)

You can not make your argument acceptable just because you have used word “science” in your previous paragraph, and you can not legitimize the word creation with side explanation of (caused)… My existence, your existence, and the existence of galaxies are debris from Big Bang. My DNA is not working under the environmental conditions or physical power relations of early Big Bang. So whatever caused Big Bang has nothing to do with earth’s atmosphere or bacterial life. However; what we can observe in wider universe is that every type of existence also affects one another as long as they share, no matter which one came into existence first: Atoms, gravity, light, electromagnetic were all existed before life on earth had begun. Yet DNA has to depend, use, interact, and simply co-exist with all those other existences. So it’s not the duty of science to imagine some power which does not share this commonality, which is above the rules of physics, but it still exists somewhere, (where?).

Moreover, this power created everything we can observe, yet we shouldn’t ask the question of “who or what created this power then?” Since you are keen supporter of “everything comes from something, so you should be consistent and ask the same question for the creator: Where did he/she or it come? If it is “something” of course. But it is not: According to religious people “it (he) is not bound to universe’s physical rules and other type of constipations, but it exist within its own reality”. According to me, it is “nothing”, an old tale, a story for agricultural mentality. That means, there is no such a thing to which I could apply scientific thinking, nor I should. Religious people “think” and “believe” that it exist. They can not find, produce, prove or do anything about it in scientific terms. How could they?

“Eternal” things are not subjects of science; they are subjects of fairy tales. Science looks for “relationships” between things. And every single time it discovers age, history, environmental conditions, evolution and transformation. Do your prophetic speeches, make your archaic arguments, repeat yourselves as much as you like, but don’t put the “science” sticker onto them… You are making a fool out of yourself.

By the way, Infinity has also nothing to do with science... Science deals with finite systems.

[S.A.M.]

Actually, you often don't address why you don't read my opinions. Instead, you use tu quoque. What am I meant to draw from that? That your preferred system - inspired, purportedly, by God, I might add - is every bit as heinous as the memes you profess everyone else to hold dear?

Actually, I usually respond to people based on how they act towards me. So when you constantly repeat hasbara and hitchenisms and neocon propaganda after I have shown nonpartisan refutations for them, I treat you like a mindless moron.

[GeoffP]

"How's that working out for ya?"

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...eelandphil.jpg

[S.A.M.]

Its quite entertaining to see so called leftists valiantly defending war crimes, apartheid, segregation and making comments which reveal their inability to distinguish fact from fiction.

[GeoffP]

Which leftists are defending these things? Do you have a link? A specific accusation, maybe?

[(Q)]

Yeah I noticed how "knowledgeable" y'all are.

How does your ignorance and refusal to read anything on the topics presented to you have anything to do with our knowledge?

The fact remains that you don't read. It has nothing to do with anyone else.

[(Q)]

Its quite entertaining to see so called leftists valiantly defending war crimes, apartheid, segregation and making comments which reveal their inability to distinguish fact from fiction.

Since you refuse to read anything on those topics, why would any of your claims and accusations be valid? How could you possibly tell the difference between fact and fiction. You are indoctrinated to believe gods are facts, for example.

[S.A.M.]

Since you refuse to read anything on those topics, why would any of your claims and accusations be valid? How could you possibly tell the difference between fact and fiction. You are indoctrinated to believe gods are facts, for example.

Now try reading it slowly:

Its quite entertaining to see so called leftists valiantly defending war crimes, apartheid, segregation and making comments which reveal their inability to distinguish fact from fiction.

Note that you are not a leftist or a secular humanist. The kindest thing I could say about your political position would be that you are a hardcore neocon.

[(Q)]

Now try reading it slowly

Unlike you, Sam, I get what I read. The only time I don't is when the author is using another language, like 'gibberish' for example.

You can label me all you want, Sam. It's merely pointless gibberish.

[S.A.M.]

You can call yourself a pinko commie liberal for all the difference it makes, I was merely pointing out that you are not included by ME in that statement.

[Michael]

Oh so you know.... When you are popping out of existence?



Great, and and "scientific" evidence is no disproof for God's existence.

Now I would like to correct you, as you almost always are wrong- Joseph Smith is NOT a "Last" Prophet- Mormons have a living prophet all the time- right now its is Thomas S. Monson. Its kind of like a corporation, whoever is the head of it (President) is the current prophet. You should really study the facts before saying things about religions (in this case Mormonism) that are utterly incorrect.

But who cares- you don't need to know facts for an intelligent debate now do ya

Peace be unto you

Yes, you may be correct about the Mormons. Perhaps Smith wasn't the "Last" Prophet for them. I didn't know they added to their Book of Mormon? Do they? (are there various secs of LDS?). Regardless that wasn't my point.

Prove a negative huh? We've had threads on this.


Something from nothing? You mean except God right? But if you're going to postulate God as that something that didn't come from nothing then I'd say why go beyond what we know - the Universe. Secondly, I particles pop into and out of existence. Talk to the physicists.

[quadraphonics]

Not at all. I usually address the opinions he expresses and explain why I do not consider it worth my time to read him,

You'd have to have read him, in order to be able to address the opinions he expresses in the first place. Otherwise what you're addressing is a strawman.

any more than I would Hitler or Hitchens or Wilders.

Why wouldn't you read them?

You should spend a lot less time reading material that agrees with you, and more time figuring out what people you disagree with are actually thinking. Especially Hitchens; agree with him or not, he puts considerable effort into formulating and presenting his positions, and is terribly witty to boot. It would improve your rhetoric by leaps and bounds to anchor it with actual familiarity with different points of view. If only by putting your criticism on the actual target, for a change.

[CheskiChips]

Have you been to Khajuraho?




There isn't. Statues are littered all over the world from the earliest human civilisations to the latest. There is no argument that anyone can carve a statue. If any society chooses to do something unique instead by taking focus off the human body [a much commercialised product, especially that of women] and use a different method of self expression, one which requires greater attention to details and advances knowledge at the same time, this is hardly classified as being a deficiency.

Can you honestly look at something like this and say, there is something lacking in the arts of this civilisation?

http://www.vaastuinternational.com/a...hitecture1.jpg

No, and I wouldn't ever claim the Earliest Indus Valley civilizations were barbaric or backwards either. I actually would consider Indian and Greek culture near equals in their innovations, I don't know enough to favor one over the other. I also don't think anyone could make an argument that the Greeks were lacking in their scientific prowess.

[Michael]

http://www.vaastuinternational.com/a...hitecture1.jpg

Islamic Architecture Follows a Change

In the 14th century under the Timurid rulers, Islamic architecture underwent a change. The narrow horseshoe arch of the Suljuqs was replaced by the true arch, an idea imported directly from Persia, later to become the hallmark of Islamic architecture. However, Indian masons weren’t completely convinced of its holding power. They began using wooden beams as supports, and eventually the four-centered arch minus the beam support came into vogue. The darwaza or gate was a standard feature in every Islamic monument, be it the entrance to a citadel, city, palace, mosque or simply a gate leading to nowhere.

From Wiki:

Arches were known by the Mesopotamian Urartian, Harappan, Egyptian, Babylonian, Greek and Assyrian civilizations, but their use was infrequent and mostly confined to underground structures such as drains where the problem of lateral thrust is greatly diminished. The oldest arched city gate in the world, eight feet wide, was found in Ashkelon, Israel, and is dated to the middle bronze age. The ancient Romans learned the arch from the Etruscans, refined it and were the first builders to tap its full potential for above ground buildings: The Romans were the first builders in Europe, perhaps the first in the world, fully to appreciate the advantages of the arch, the vault and the dome.

So yes, I agree by the time of the 14th century Islamic countries had developed the use of the arch. My point is this developmental process was extremely slow - they had from 700BCE and considering examples of the arch and the dome were everywhere in the Roman and Persian worlds. The shape of the domed Mosque is based on Sophia Hagia which is itself based on, amongst others, the domed Roman Pantheon.


Why were things slow? Could it be that artistic expression was strangled by the new cult of Islam? Was there something in the tenets of this new cult that crushed innovation? This doesn't mean that innovative things didn't happen at all - just at a slow pace due to ebb and flow of fundamental Islam and the restrictions on thought that periodically occured.

Seems like a reasonable hypothesis.

During times when people took the Qur'an literally society stalled and during times when they didn't (or in places where it wasn't of great importance - say in European Spain) things moved forward again. Spain is a great example as it is often touted by Muslims as an epicenter of creativity. It was also pretty much free of Islam. Spain wasn't an Islamic culture like in Arabia or Iraq or even Iran - it was ruled by an Islamic elite and they had eye on multiculturalism.

The same as my way of thinking today actually. Only of course religion must be drastically reworked.


So, in the heart the land of Islam, the so-called "Golden Age of "Islam" - where the hell IS the Human Form in sculpture? Where are the Stage Plays? What new Sports were invented? What about Opera? The Ballet? The Symphonies? Orchestras? The "Islamic" Aeneids? I am sure, or would hope, there are some examples of these, but so few and given 800 YEARS - nearly a millenia well, it's pretty slack that's for sure.


Muslims pillaged Xian Monasteries in Egypt and all along the coast including in Arabia - they carted off not only the educated Monks but unknown numbers of their works - many to Baghdad. Well, one would expect after stealing so much and hording it in their Capitol (which itself was all of about 20min from the Persian Capitol - - which also mysteriously dried up and died). Well why aren't Muslims flying to the Moon? Inventing electricity? Where's Islam's Renaissance?

That's my point in the complete loss of the Human Form. Islam, like many other superstitions, strangles society - not free them. This is reflected in history and that is one of many examples. All you have to do it to look at what Fundamental Islamic has done to countries in the ME to see the effects even today.

[John99]

No, and I wouldn't ever claim the Earliest Indus Valley civilizations were barbaric or backwards either. I actually would consider Indian and Greek culture near equals in their innovations, I don't know enough to favor one over the other. I also don't think anyone could make an argument that the Greeks were lacking in their scientific prowess.

probably the roman empire was unsurpassed afa inventions and discoveries.

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

[S.A.M.]

Why were things slow?

You're forgetting a giant catastrophe that befell the world. Western "civilisation". It wiped out several nascent and established societies [and continues to do so] and has been a huge wound on the earth in terms of raping its resources and restricting access and hampering normal development in societies that do not invest in WMD. Its a society obsessed with power and racism and uses violence to keep other societies under its control.

Fast is not always better. Ask the Aboriginals. Or the Africans, who were the bread basket of the world before the west got their greedy paws on them. Genocide works. Being ahead is a matter of context, why is the west still so behind in getting along with other societies? Why are they still so neanderthal in their problem solving abilities? Why is western civilisation still so tribalistic in its policies and politics, breeding divisiveness wherever it goes? Why are people like you so incapable of understanding all this? With all your education and "progress" you're unsophisticated as a culture and have no lasting value to offer any society. Everything that the west "gives", it will require centuries to repair and recover from the after effects of it. If it doesn't destroy the world completely first.

As for artistic expression in Muslims, well Islamic civilisation is known for its grandeur and colour and excessive celebration. Maybe one day, you'll move out of the colonies you inhabit [where the natives really have been strangled by western "civilisation"] and see a world where people have very different value systems.

The Romans are a page in history, the Americans will be another. Some societies are in it for the long haul. We'll be around long after you have destroyed yourselves.