Yes that is true.. I was merely explaining an aspect of enlightenment. That is why I was trying to ask Michael what he really wanted from me but he doesn't seem to understand what I meant but then he just went on an attack that I didn't learn anything which I thought was ridiculously stupid. As for your question about the standards to judge upon. I think the question is simple but the answer it too complex. Unless I can produce the complexity in words that can capture it in a post I would be premature to give you the criteria as it would be "incomplete" and then that would leave me open to attacks which I'm sure (Q) would love to participate in. And I don't have the stamina to continuously try to clarify an unlimited supply of criticism which will arise due the "incomplete" nature of the response. All I can say is that all arguments must be looked upon in a manner that is unique as many conditions that apply to 1 argument actually may not apply to another due to the difference in the topics that a philosophy deals with. I think an underlying part of this question is; why accept some particular religion over some other form of philosophy, for example one based upon science. I will start a thread about a question I have about science hopefully it will be an interesting discussion which will remain on topic (not cults Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!) that will illuminate on the subject that is related to your question (Probably post it on the weekend) Peace be unto youPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Yes I have done much repetition to explain my position (on a specific subject) to a few who simply don't understand. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Your repetition on the other hand is simply trolling as it is found in basically all the threads you participate in. Anyways I'm done talking to you, but I'm sure I'll get to hear another thing about cults Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Peace be unto you Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Sorry to say this, but you sound very very arrogant. The only thing I've read here so far is your own nausiating "repetition" of the word "cult". What makes a "cult" a cult then, since you know so much about it? Yes very sad indeed to see self-evident elitists such as yourself regurgitating vile and unclaimed assertions and self-interpretations of something you have no idea about whatsoever! Can you be so kind as to show and prove which parts of the holy Qur'an is a "myth" and a "superstition"? If you actually read the book, it totally goes against superstitions, but you know everything don't you?Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
But in order to approach such a question, you need some familiarity with some "other form" of philosophy. The parts in which the stories of Abraham's sacrifice, Noah's Ark, angelic messengers from God, Jesus's virgin birth, and so forth, are recounted, are myths. These are not core features of the Quran, as far as I can tell - the book is only sparsely populated with stories, to its detriment as a guide to understanding, in my opinion. The minor superstitions appear in the various subdeities and so forth, with the major superstition being the all-knowing and all-seeing Deity appeasable only with appropriate worship, belief, obedience, and submission.
True but familiarity doesn't have to be with "all" forms of philosophies. Anyways lets just leave this here, I will start a topic on science in which we will try to see how scientific philosophy holds up, because I find in it a problem which atheist cite for God. It may not be obvious where the similarity lies but hopefully the discussion will clarify it. Peace be unto you Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
One or two will do for starters. One or two besides a locally derived clerical treatment of the Quran, that is. First, somewhat familiarize yourself with "scientific philosophy" (?). It will help steer things away from the accusatory "cult" track.
Thanks for your own insight Iceaura. Although, I did ask to prove that these events didn't take place? There are some evidences to support these accounts, albeit debatable of course. But still, who's to say that; Abraham's sacrifice didn't occur? Noah's Ark doesn't exist? (Or even the big flood? Here are evidences that such an event "may" have occured. Here is a link: ec.gc.ca/water/en/manage/floodgen/e_noah.htm and another one here: nytimes.com/2001/01/09/science/09FLOO.html) There weren't angelic messengers from God? Mother Maryam didn't conceive as a virgin? (Parthenogenesis, is common in a wide range of creatures, from aphids to lizards and recently there have been some recent scientific breakthrough's to make this claim more viable in Human's. Here is a link: independent.co.uk/opinion/leading-articles/virgin-births-medical-breakthroughs-and-the-need-for-responsible-science-549805.html and another from Scientific American scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=virgin-births-lead-to-tra). Subdeities? Which one's would they be? Allah doesn't need to be 'appeased'. The recommendations mentioned by Allah are there for other reasons which can be missunderstood by some, but understood fully by many.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Scientologist are are sure Xenu is out there doing something or other and Muslims are just as sure that it's Allah. Which is why I asked the question regarding the existence of Allah. There's just no point discussing Xenu (or Allah) with someone who is so brainwashed they can't even acknowledge there may not be a Xenu (or Allah). Such a conversation is therefor a waste of time. Even though I don't believe in Xenu (or Allah or a real Santa) I'm willing to agree that such fairy creatures may indeed exist. By my nature I simply need some good evidence of their existence to have any sort of belief in their existence - yet, certainly, they all may exist, even if I don't think they do. What this thread is about is summed up by 786. 786 thinks the Qur'an is a wondrous and "Perfect" book. A book authored by GOD. The creator of all. This book is just teeming with vast deep wondrous amounts of information. One should then that in the real world this wonderous resource would be utilized by academics. Yet it isn't. This is a fact of reality. It isn't. Why? Well, if you really want to know it's because the Qur'an isn't wondrous and isn't perfect and isn't really any different at all as Ron Hubbards writtings. IMO it's not even as good as a couple chapters of Harry Potter. To the brainwashed there must be another explanation. The answer 786 gives is for the past 1400 years no one in the world, from China to Europe, was smart enough to "get it". Even though these civilizations outrank Muslim nations on any measure - the people were just somehow a little to slow to "get it". The great philosophers from China to England. No one got Mohammad. Does this seem like sound reasoning? Or is it more likely the reasoning of a brainwashed cult member trying to justify to themselves why in the world no one outside of their cult finds the Qur'an all that interesting? I know ex-Muslims who have told me that when they were Muslim they thought the Qur'an was somehow magical like the voice of God. Now they think it's crap. If you were suggest to the ex-Muslims that the Qur'an be taught at University - they'd laugh in your face. It's like those Creationists who are sure there's either a conspiracy out there to discredit the 6000 year old earth or scientists are just too dim to "get" that the earth is 6000 years old. There's no point arguing with a Creationists who refuses to even consider that the earth is billions of years old. I remember one who said: That doens't make sense because why would the earth be that old? That was as deep as their logic would take them. If there were no people then why did the earth exist. If the Qur'an isn't taught in Universities from China to Europe, it's because academics are too dim to get it - unlike 786 who is just so smart and get's it (or the Creationists who sees the truth of the earth being 6000 years old, regardless what academics may think is true).
:bugeye: You have deep deeeeeeep issues matey. Seriously, for someone to go out of their way to post the garbage you have must be mentally ill... as you have clearly demonstrated. There's so many errors in your above statements that I'd need a few hours and 5 pages to respond to. In a nutshell... go get some Psychiatric help, 'cos you sure seem to need it. Your attacks on religion such as Islam is not the first because your brain has been infected by the "cults" of hate. I don't know, but I usually find that people like you usually have had a dear loved one pass away (unfortunately), or you may have had a personal negative experience whereby you questioned God and His intentions, leaving your mind cluttered with vile thoughts and nothing but hatred. Your posts clearly clarifies and proves (to a point) that religion isn't the only cause to create annimosity or war! Go get some help son!
Is that what you call them? The threats backing them are pretty heavy, for "recommendations". You were joking, right? I mean, you can't prove your left shoe isn't a werewolf, that comes alive and roams the streets seeking victims every full moon while you're asleep. Which is more likely than Noah packing the planet's animals into an Ark to survive a planetwide flood. The angels, the djinns, the various inhabitants of he spiritual realm. The "we" of the book. Minor players in the Quran, of course - most of the book consists of Allah praising and glorifying himself, and threatening any who disbelieve. And there's some good admonishments toward decent behavior, and some advice generally worth taking - most people are better off not beating their wives too much, and only if they persist in their disobedience (men are the "people" in the book, throughout) and it probably is better in some sense to sexually use one's slaves rather than go whoring around, and cheating people is trouble in the long run, so the book is not completely empty of wisdom. I dunno - it's better written than the Book of Mormon by a long shot, even in translation. So it has that going for it.
Okay, then let's call them rules perhaps? You don't have to obey rules now do you? But even you would know that in a secular society, one can't dissobey rules such as 'no-killing' without being punished? Now hang on a minute mate! I provided you with links to credible scientific evidences which support the claims mentioned and you couldn't even refute them. So who are you to say that? Besides.. there was no mention of a "worldwide flood" in the Quran. Awww pllleaaaasee!!! They are not deities at all. Do you even know what a deity is? And when He mentions "we" He is reffering to Himself. This is a subject I also asked scholars about years ago and is a common missunderstanding due to ignorance in the use of the term. The term "We" in the Bible and in the Quran is the royal "We" - as an example when the king says, "We decree the following declaration, etc." or, "We are not amused." It does not indicate plural; rather it displays the highest position in the language. English, Persian, Hebrew, Arabic and many languages provide for the usage of "We" for the royal figure. It is helpful to note the same dignity is given to the person being spoken to in English. We say to someone, "You ARE my friend." Yet the person is only one person standing there. Why did we say "ARE" instead of "IS"? The noun "you" is singular and should therefore be associated with a singular verb for the state of being, yet we say, "are." The same is true for the speaker when referring to himself or herself. We say, "I am" and this is also in the royal plural, instead of saying, "I is." He doesn't praise or glorify Himself. He demands us to glorify Him, as He deserves to be. And yes, He does threaten anyone who doesn't believe in Him, rightfully. Why? Do you feel threatened? Thank God you managed to see that.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Actually the discussion will be about a core aspect of science, so not so much about the philosophy as it is the actual science that I will question- in which case it will question all philosophies based upon science (i.e materialism), the particulars of which do not need to be known, at least for the purpose of the discussion, only the foundational tenets of science of which only one I will try to discuss. As for general familiarity with science, I think I already am familiar, at least I hope Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!, since I am a Biology (concentration- Physiology) major. And like I said only very basic is needed to be known for the discussion. Hope it will be interesting, lets just wait a day or two, I'm really busy with some University work so don't want to put forth a thread without putting some thought into it first. Peace be unto you Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Hello Bizza, Please say hello for me to Xenu, Santa, Allah or whomever you happen worship at your next meeting of like-minded people. Second, I already stated the logical fallacy is appeal to authority. I'm simply pointing out that this happens to be the case not making a "formal" indictment of the Qur'an ... sure, it may be a swell read that most civilization ignored for well over 1400 years. funny that. Cheers, Michael As an aside, and to humor a simple person such as myself, could you answer me this: Is it possible there is no Xenu? Is it possible there is no Allah?
It's only a matter of time before Allah is forgotten, and joins all of the other dead gods that have accumulated over the millennia. H.L. Mencken, Where is the graveyard of dead gods?
In my translation, he spends a good third of the book bragging and boasting and praising himself. Nothing "rightful" about it. I should worship somebody's ideas, or suffer punishments ? - besides, people putting threats in the mouth of their deity, and believing them to be his will, are dangerous. And I refuted your argument, by demonstrating its absurdity. You are asking for proof of the unprovable, when the issue is the evidence and likelihood of bizarre claims. Sorry about misleading with my comment. I was asserting, not deriving, the plural "we". And yes, those angels and djinns and such inhabit the supernatural realm, carry messages from the head God, and so forth - if you were an anthropologist, you might call them minor deities or subgods and no one would complain. You can't do that - you don't know what a "philosophy based upon science" would be, what the "foundational tenets of science" are, and so forth.
I meant repetition in the way of brainwashing. Actually, it is you who is trolling as you continue to make baseless, unfounded claims of your cult, none of which you're able to demonstrate. No, it is most certainly you who is the troll.
Are you unable to access a dictionary or other reference materials that would explain a cult? You may call Islam a religion, but it most certainly is well within the boundaries of a cult. I'm well aware of what the cult of Islam has to offer. It is easily one of most dangerous cults ever to plague mankind. It's always entertaining to see newbie cult members like yourself raving about the same thing every other cult member claims when they sign on here. "If you actually read the book" Duh. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! That's quite funny, actually. A book of myths and superstitions that claims to be against myths and superstitions. The gullible rarely think. That's like a real estate agent that claims to be honest as he sells you swamp land.
Yeah, you are right- I'm just a member of a cult called the "Department of Biology of the University of Washington" Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Peace be unto you Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I'm not here to humor you mate. You seem to be doing just fine in that area. I've been pissing myself for the last few days reading your "cult driven views of hate" in your posts. Like I said... go get that help you so desperately need.
