Jump to content
Islamic Forum
saeedalyousuf

Richard Dawkins, What He Did Fail To Answer?

Failure of Former RDF .  

8 members have voted

  1. 1. Why did the former Richard Dawkins Forum fail?

    • 1- He cannot answer the essential questions about atheism.
      1
    • 2- Atheism lacks the real objective for the human life.
      3
    • 3- Lack of courage to face the challenge from Islamic belief.
      0
    • 4- Financial problems.
      0
    • 5- Administrative problems
      1
    • 6- All of the above
      1
    • 7- Non of the above.
      2


Recommended Posts

Perhaps I did not make myself clear enough, ponder upon death

for a good few minutes, now answer the question, do you agree or not agree that death is more unpleasant for the Atheists than to the believers.? It is simple enough question..

 

I thought I already have. From past near death experiences including losing consciousness, death comes very suddenly sometimes without even having the mercy to contemplate it. I am sure it can be comforting for those who are able to contemplate on death, though no one has come back to tell us if it actually helped or not.

 

 

 

 

 

To conclude that there is no afterlife based the fact that noone has ever comes back from the death to tell us the whole story is irrational. We can establsh facts based on reason and observation. Let me ask you a question, do you have a set of greatXXX grandparents from say 1000 years ago? Of course you do, otherwise you and your parents and theirs parents would be here. Noone ever seen, heard or talked to these greatXXX grandparents of yours.. the point is, we can establish fact using reasons...
?, I wasn't proving or disproving heaven nor hell, I was saying that no one has come back to tell us imagining they were going to some better place actually helped them.

 

 

For Muslims that would be what is commanded by Allah based on His words in the Quran and as taught by His Prophets..

The west used to say killing unborn children was wrong, now they are saying it is OK, both can't be right..The golden rule for the Nazis were killing people of other races, who are you to say they were wrong?

Well the phrase unborn child is a mis nomer. The idea came from the ridiculous Christian idea that a soul entered when the sperm entered the egg. The "golden rule" of Nazis wasn't a golden rule. The golden rule is a reciprocation known as do unto others as they would do to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PropellerAds
I thought I already have. From past near death experiences including losing consciousness, death comes very suddenly sometimes without even having the mercy to contemplate it. I am sure it can be comforting for those who are able to contemplate on death, though no one has come back to tell us if it actually helped or not.

 

No you have not.

Persons A&B are both facing certain death sometimes in the future. Person A believes that death would be the ultimate end for him, he would lose everything he had worked for, he would never see his loved ones etc.Person B believes that death means the end of the temporary life in this world and the start of another, he would see his loved ones again etc. They both are aware that their moment of death is coming whether they like it or not. The question is, who, A or B, would have a more 'pleasant' experience in their moment of contemplation about death? A or B? The answer is obvious enough even though you refuse to admit it.

 

Hence, as for the wager, Atheists are really in hopeless and lose-lose situation, worse off if they are right, doom to hell if they are wrong..

 

?, I wasn't proving or disproving heaven nor hell, I was saying that no one has come back to tell us imagining they were going to some better place actually helped them.

 

I have already demonstrated how ridiculous and irrational your reasoning is, the fact is noone ever talked, seen, or knew your greatXXX grandparents that lived a 1000 years ago do not mean that they did not exist. Using reason and intellect, you can establish the fact that they were real otherwise you wouldn't be here...

 

Well the phrase unborn child is a mis nomer. The idea came from the ridiculous Christian idea that a soul entered when the sperm entered the egg. The "golden rule" of Nazis wasn't a golden rule. The golden rule is a reciprocation known as do unto others as they would do to you.

 

So abortion is OK and acceptable to you? I merely pointing out the fact that when societies gets to decide between right and wrong and contradict each other on the same issue, then they both can't be right.

As for the golden rule, how do you explain that it is a right and moral thing to do to be kind to animals? The point here is, morality goes beyond human to human interaction..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No you have not.

Persons A&B are both facing certain death sometimes in the future. Person A believes that death would be the ultimate end for him, he would lose everything he had worked for, he would never see his loved ones etc.Person B believes that death means the end of the temporary life in this world and the start of another, he would see his loved ones again etc. They both are aware that their moment of death is coming whether they like it or not. The question is, who, A or B, would have a more 'pleasant' experience in their moment of contemplation about death? A or B? The answer is obvious enough even though you refuse to admit it.

Hence, as for the wager, Atheists are really in hopeless and lose-lose situation, worse off if they are right, doom to hell if they are wrong..

 

Sigh. Just go to Wikipedia and read the entry on pascal's wager. I already explained it twice. And have actually agreed with you twice that believing in some form of afterlife is comforting to people. That's why all religions have something like that.

 

I have already demonstrated how ridiculous and irrational your reasoning is, the fact is noone ever talked, seen, or knew your greatXXX grandparents that lived a 1000 years ago do not mean that they did not exist. Using reason and intellect, you can establish the fact that they were real otherwise you wouldn't be here..

 

Sigh. Let me indulge you. Hell actually exists. No one has come back from it TO TELL US THAT ACTUALLY BELIEVING COMFORTED THEM AT THE MOMENT OF DEATH. Sorry for the caps but I have to emphasis the actual point I was making and not a point about the actual existence of heaven or bell.

 

So abortion is OK and acceptable to you?

 

To me yes.

 

I merely pointing out the fact that when societies gets to decide between right and wrong and contradict each other on the same issue, then they both can't be right.

 

societies don't choose what is right and wrong people do, and it didn't require a book or a prophet to tell people not to kill nor to steal nor to lie for gain. Every society has these basic rules.

 

As for the golden rule, how do you explain that it is a right and moral thing to do to be kind to animals? The point here is, morality goes beyond human to human interaction..

I treat animals like I would want to be treated with the practicality that we are all animals and have to eat to survive and that it is impossible not to some living creature in life.

 

Now a woman claims that god told her to kill her babies. Is that wrong?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I treat animals like I would want to be treated with the practicality that we are all animals and have to eat to survive and that it is impossible not to some living creature in life.

 

You missed the point, I merely demonstrating that morality goes beyond human to human interaction hence the fallacy pf your so called

'golden rule. What you're saying above proved my example on the nazis, if we equate ourselves to animals, then the nazis who think that their races is superior and eliminating other races would ensure their survival, then that is their 'golden rule'. Since you subscribe to the same rule, you have no justification whatsoever to say that the nazis were in the wrong..animals kills other animals and sometime humans all the time right?

 

 

Now a woman claims that god told her to kill her babies. Is that wrong?

 

You asked an illogical, irrational and invalid question hence not worth answering..First of, what is the evidence that this woman is of sound mind , secondly, we know as Muslims that God spoke only to some prophets pbut; in the past, and the last one of them died 1400 years ago. Our basis to determine what is right and wrong is the Quran and Sunnah..

 

Peace

Edited by RAHIMI

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You missed the point, I merely demonstrating that morality goes beyond human to human interaction hence the fallacy pf your so called

'golden rule. What you're saying above proved my example on the nazis, if we equate ourselves to animals, then the nazis who think that their races is superior and eliminating other races would ensure their survival, then that is their 'golden rule'. Since you subscribe to the same rule, you have no justification whatsoever to say that the nazis were in the wrong..animals kills other animals and sometime humans all the time right?

 

No, I think what you mean is that if you didn't have the Quran and Suannah you would think all human beings are mealy animals and then wouldn't have a basis for refusing to be killed. Of course you would be wrong. Go to a party, insult the host, throw things around, track mud on the carpets and see if you are invited to come back. You are close to the true fallacy of the argument and that is that the golden rule is only as good as the person making it. Charles Manson or the Kodiac Killer has a different concept of what is right and wrong, as do religious fundamentalists who believe that God magically granted them the property and real estate of others to take as they do wish ( think fundamentalists Christians and Muslims and Jews believed that slavery was perfectly fine, Jews who think God gave them israel, and Muslims who think the whole world is theres and the rest are mealy here to convert, die, or give them money. This seems to be a general default in religion in which murder and appropriation of property is seen as the morally right thing to do, even against other people have claim the same divine mandate telling them to do the same thing. Eastern religions are no less subtle about asking that a person give them all their possessions in order to be pure on and on. This leads to the canonizing of the golden rule as a political philosophy in that people are free to do as they wish so long as they do not harm another person. As soon as they harm another person the other person has the right to defend them self in proportion to the aggression. Golden rule instituted on the scale. Hence Nazi's think they are the best race. Awesome. They are entitled to that ridiculous notion so long as they don't act violently to towards another person. Once they do, then that other person has every right to defend them self.

 

 

 

 

You asked an illogical, irrational and invalid question hence not worth answering..First of, what is the evidence that this woman is of sound mind , secondly, we know as Muslims that God spoke only to some prophets pbut; in the past, and the last one of them died 1400 years ago. Our basis to determine what is right and wrong is the Quran and Sunnah..

 

Peace

Of course she is of sound mind. She is hearing the word of God telling her to kill her children. This would be the greatest act of faith a person could do, or at least it was to Abraham. He heard a voice as well commanding him to kill his child and he most aggressively tried. That is the rub though. When you base the greatest act on of a faith, as the three monotheistic religions do, that involve hearing a voice telling you to kill your children and then being very willing to do it, it raises eyebrows when those same people tell you that they know what is right and wrong better than you. Edited by xocoti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, I think what you mean is that if you didn't have the Quran and Suannah you would think all human beings are mealy animals and then wouldn't have a basis for refusing to be killed. Of course you would be wrong. Go to a party, insult the host, throw things around, track mud on the carpets and see if you are invited to come back. You are close to the true fallacy of the argument and that is that the golden rule is only as good as the person making it. Charles Manson or the Kodiac Killer has a different concept of what is right and wrong, as do religious fundamentalists who believe that God magically granted them the property and real estate of others to take as they do wish ( think fundamentalists Christians and Muslims and Jews believed that slavery was perfectly fine, Jews who think God gave them israel, and Muslims who think the whole world is theres and the rest are mealy here to convert, die, or give them money. This seems to be a general default in religion in which murder and appropriation of property is seen as the morally right thing to do, even against other people have claim the same divine mandate telling them to do the same thing. Eastern religions are no less subtle about asking that a person give them all their possessions in order to be pure on and on. This leads to the canonizing of the golden rule as a political philosophy in that people are free to do as they wish so long as they do not harm another person. As soon as they harm another person the other person has the right to defend them self in proportion to the aggression. Golden rule instituted on the scale. Hence Nazi's think they are the best race. Awesome. They are entitled to that ridiculous notion so long as they don't act violently to towards another person. Once they do, then that other person has every right to defend them self.

Of course she is of sound mind. She is hearing the word of God telling her to kill her children. This would be the greatest act of faith a person could do, or at least it was to Abraham. He heard a voice as well commanding him to kill his child and he most aggressively tried. That is the rub though. When you base the greatest act on of a faith, as the three monotheistic religions do, that involve hearing a voice telling you to kill your children and then being very willing to do it, it raises eyebrows when those same people tell you that they know what is right and wrong better than you.

 

Although religion teaches toleration and acceptance of all races and religions. Although it is social Darwinism that motivated Hitler to "evolve" the perfect race. Why is it Darwinism and evolution that made Hitler the man he was. There would be no other reason for him to isolate his races genes to make the perfect on if the notion of Darwinism didn't exist. Show me scriptures from any religion saying they have the right to kill deviants or anyone who doesn't follow their religion or race. And please don't take verses out of context from the Quran, Bible, etc. You can't show me verses because you have biased notions and you judge religions based on adherents who have human flaws and characteristics that cause them to act out violently against others. This has nothing to do with said religion. YOU CANNOT JUDGE A RELIGION BY IT'S ADHERENTS.

 

How about communism..the system which banishes religion. AN ATHEIST INSTITUTION. how many countless deaths have come as a result of this atheist regime? The great purge of Stalin ring a bell?

"Stalin followed the position adopted by Lenin that religion was an opiate that needed to be removed in order to construct the ideal communist society. To this end, his government promoted atheism through special atheistic education in schools, massive amounts of anti-religious propaganda, the antireligious work of public institutions, discriminatory laws, and also a terror campaign against religious believers. By the late 1930s it had become dangerous to be publicly associated with religion."

 

Fire with fire my friend, you show me wrongdoings as a result of religion ill show you WORSE crimes against humanity perpetrated by ATHEISTS.

 

And your point on the woman talking with God. We know this is no longer possible so she would not be of sound mind. Muhammad was God's last prophet and messenger and any others that come after him are false prophets our just crazy.

 

You got anything else I can refute you on my friend?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to interrupt.....

 

The choice to be atheist does require an act of courage. To believe in a God who can watch over you and help you is a conforting thought. A nice idea.

 

Then again it is a nice idea to think that playing roulette is going to make you rich. It wont.

 

Just because you want something to be true it does not make it true. No matter how much you want it to be so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just to interrupt.....

 

The choice to be atheist does require an act of courage. To believe in a God who can watch over you and help you is a conforting thought. A nice idea.

 

Then again it is a nice idea to think that playing roulette is going to make you rich. It wont.

 

Just because you want something to be true it does not make it true. No matter how much you want it to be so.

If it requires courage you don't actually believe it is the truth. If you know something is the truth it requires no bravery, fear, etc. to accept it.

 

Similarly if everyone believed rubbing a mossy rock in the Black Forest gave you everlasting life, It would require no courage on my part to deny this since I know this cannot be true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I mean by courage to decied to be an atheist is that my parents are semi-christian and a little upset with my outlook.

 

If I was to join in with say the Hari Christna's then they help me to hypnotise myself happy, all my difficult decisions would be gone as I would not need to try to do anything other than the hypnotising myself stuff.

 

This would work in as much as if somone wants to be hypnotised then it is easy for them to achieve that state.

 

Not putting pressure on myself to achieve would make my life less demanding.

 

Sod that! I stand on my feet. I am responsable for my life, for my decisions for my sucess or failure. Bring on the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What I mean by courage to decied to be an atheist is that my parents are semi-christian and a little upset with my outlook.

this is true for any convert to any religion they weren't born into

 

If I was to join in with say the Hari Christna's then they help me to hypnotise myself happy, all my difficult decisions would be gone as I would not need to try to do anything other than the hypnotising myself stuff.

 

 

This would work in as much as if somone wants to be hypnotised then it is easy for them to achieve that state.

 

Not putting pressure on myself to achieve would make my life less demanding.

 

Sod that! I stand on my feet. I am responsable for my life, for my decisions for my sucess or failure. Bring on the world.

what Abrahamic religion says that the follower of said religion is not responsible for his own life, decisions, and success or failure?

 

I didn't address the posts about hypnotism because they have no relevance to monotheistic religions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All prayer is an act of hypnotisim.

 

The classic method of a stage hypnotist is to use a single phraise repeatedly. The one I saw performing in a pub used "deeper and deeper" to get people under his spell. He had people seeing a belt as a snake. One man was trying to stop the water gushing out of the centre of the pool table.

 

For longer term hypnosis the best way is to use three ( normally ) phraises or mantras. In Christian churches these are often "Hallelouya"/"Amen", "Peace of the Lord be upon you" and the Lords prayer. Small medium and long.

 

A christian service will generally take the form of an intro priming of the mind by using a few small mantras then a long and utterly meaningless sermon in which the moral of the story is obscure. This is to put the mind in a state where it is groping for meaning. Then the longer and smaller mantras are uesd together with songs to distract everyone from what is going on. The worst thing that can happen is for a member of the audience to say "I don't understand what you mean by that, can you explain?" this will always break the spell.

 

To get somone to see somthing that is not there at all is hard. If anyone asks that person what he is doing the spell will be broken. In the pub when the hypnotist is on this does not happen, everyone just laughs. For religious hypnosis to be effective the recipient must not be awair of it and the questioning of the sermons must be avioded for as long as possible especially during the initial stages. Questions are typically met with long boring reading of an irrelevant passage from the holy book. This serves as a punishment for the mind and to get the recient into a groping for meaning state again. Failure to understand the verses is blamed on the reader of course.

 

How does an Islamic friday prayer function?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
All prayer is an act of hypnotisim.

 

The classic method of a stage hypnotist is to use a single phraise repeatedly. The one I saw performing in a pub used "deeper and deeper" to get people under his spell. He had people seeing a belt as a snake. One man was trying to stop the water gushing out of the centre of the pool table.

 

For longer term hypnosis the best way is to use three ( normally ) phraises or mantras. In Christian churches these are often "Hallelouya"/"Amen", "Peace of the Lord be upon you" and the Lords prayer. Small medium and long.

 

A christian service will generally take the form of an intro priming of the mind by using a few small mantras then a long and utterly meaningless sermon in which the moral of the story is obscure. This is to put the mind in a state where it is groping for meaning. Then the longer and smaller mantras are uesd together with songs to distract everyone from what is going on. The worst thing that can happen is for a member of the audience to say "I don't understand what you mean by that, can you explain?" this will always break the spell.

 

To get somone to see somthing that is not there at all is hard. If anyone asks that person what he is doing the spell will be broken. In the pub when the hypnotist is on this does not happen, everyone just laughs. For religious hypnosis to be effective the recipient must not be awair of it and the questioning of the sermons must be avioded for as long as possible especially during the initial stages. Questions are typically met with long boring reading of an irrelevant passage from the holy book. This serves as a punishment for the mind and to get the recient into a groping for meaning state again. Failure to understand the verses is blamed on the reader of course.

 

How does an Islamic friday prayer function?

Using your same logic the media has hypnotized you in all aspects of life.

 

Your argument fails when because even when Islam is brought under scrutiny and is examined for error the "hypnosis" is not broken, therefore under your definitions it is not hypnosis. Also questioning is encouraged in Islam..why would this be if as you say it is a form of mind control? Why would asking questions which go against the very nature of the hypnotist be encouraged?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And since you dont have the least bit of knowledge about what hypnosis is I'll help you out.

 

"When you hear the word hypnosis, you may picture the mysterious hypnotist figure popularized in movies, comic books and television. This ominous, goateed man waves a pocket watch back and forth, guiding his subject into a semi-sleep, zombie-like state. Once hypnotized, the subject is compelled to obey, no matter how strange or immoral the request. Muttering "Yes, master," the subject does the hypnotist's evil bidding.

 

This popular representation bears little resemblance to actual hypnotism, of course. In fact, modern understanding of hypnosis contradicts this conception on several key points. Subjects in a hypnotic trance are not slaves to their "masters" -- they have absolute free will. And they're not really in a semi-sleep state -- they're actually hyperattentive."

 

It is a trance state characterized by extreme suggestibility, relaxation and heightened imagination. It's not really like sleep, because the subject is alert the whole time. It is most often compared to daydreaming, or the feeling of "losing yourself" in a book or movie. You are fully conscious, but you tune out most of the stimuli around you. You focus intently on the subject at hand, to the near exclusion of any other thought.

common everyday examples of "hypnosis" include reading, driving, mowing the lawn, watching a movie, etc.

 

"In conventional hypnosis, you approach the suggestions of the hypnotist, or your own ideas, as if they were reality. If the hypnotist suggests that your tongue has swollen up to twice its size, you'll feel a sensation in your mouth and you may have trouble talking. If the hypnotist suggests that you are drinking a chocolate milkshake, you'll taste the milkshake and feel it cooling your mouth and throat. If the hypnotist suggests that you are afraid, you may feel panicky or start to sweat. But the entire time, you are aware that it's all imaginary. Essentially, you're "playing pretend" on an intense level, as kids do."

 

No-one following religion is aware that it is all imaginary. Nice try but it seems you and psychiatrists have very different definitions of this phenomena, yours stems from preconceived notions while theirs is backed up by empirical scientific data.

Edited by Skenderbeu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Although religion teaches toleration and acceptance of all races and religions.

 

A cursory glance at history says that this isn't true, or the modern world for that matter.

 

Although it is social Darwinism that motivated Hitler to "evolve" the perfect race. Why is it Darwinism and evolution that made Hitler the man he was. There would be no other reason for him to isolate his races genes to make the perfect on if the notion of Darwinism didn't exist.

 

Motivated Hitler? No. Made Hitler the man he was? No. Supremeness and racism has existed for long before Darwin, and genocide based on supremeness and racism has long roots and history. But never fear, social Darwinism or eugenics are it is called is not absolved from any blame. Eugenics was a purely evil creation born of long held racism and supremism. It attempted to use a pseudo scientific veneer based off of Darwin evolution to prove that a race ( Caucasian, who would have guessed???) was scientifically superior. I say pseudo scientific because when the data comes out there is no evidence even from their own data that there was any psychological traits that indicated "superiority" ( a word itself hugely subjective). Also using that same science it has been determined that race is a relatively new characteristic and that intra-race variability is far larger than inter race variability. In other words, race is pretty meaningless in determining a lot of things, especially a holistic characteristic of superiority. What Hitler was looking for was a "scientific veneer" for his beliefs. You'll find the same thing when you hear that a person gains the characteristics of what they eat so people who eat pork become filthy, sloven animals ; or that there is archeological evidence that the Book of Mormon happened in Latin America; or that Mecca has been proven to be the center or the world.

 

But what does Darwinism say? It says that those genes that are less fit will reproduce less and so their genes will eventually fade out. It doesn't mention putting down the infirm or the mentally handicap; it doesn't mention anything about forcing people to selectively breed or the denying of people to chose their life partners. Those who want to make that connection are not espousing Darwinism because Darwinism isn't a political or ideological belief it is a description on how the world works and what we do with that falls into politics, morals, ethics etc. People are free to believe that Darwinian evolution means euginics but we are free to call them the inhuman monsters they are, or people are free to not believe it and we are free to call them scientists.

 

 

 

 

Show me scriptures from any religion saying they have the right to kill deviants or anyone who doesn't follow their religion or race. And please don't take verses out of context from the Quran, Bible, etc. You can't show me verses because you have biased notions and you judge religions based on adherents who have human flaws and characteristics that cause them to act out violently against others. This has nothing to do with said religion. YOU CANNOT JUDGE A RELIGION BY IT'S ADHERENTS.

 

(you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetyoutube(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/watch?v=7XRCYlZ4XOQ"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetyoutube(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/watch?v=7XRCYlZ4XOQ[/url]

 

(you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_en.wikipedia(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_en.wikipedia(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam[/url]

 

(you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_pewglobal(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/2010/12/02/muslims-around-the-world-divided-on-hamas-and-hezbollah/"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_pewglobal(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/2010/12/02/muslims-ar...-and-hezbollah/[/url]

 

I do agree with you that apostasy isn't religious only thing. Any kind of dogmatic thinking can produce group think in which outsiders and other ways of thinking are seen as threats.

 

 

How about communism..the system which banishes religion.

 

Communism itself doesn't banish religion.(you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_en.wikipedia(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/wiki/Christian_communism"] you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_en.wikipedia(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/wiki/Christian_communism[/url], but I think this is being nit picky. I know what you mean. You mean the Russian Leninist Stalinist regimes

 

 

AN ATHEIST INSTITUTION.

 

No. There is no such thing as an atheist institution. Atheism has no clergy, no church, no dogma, no scripture, not even a theory. It states that theist arguments are false or haven't matched the burden of proof. If Communists want to impose atheism so that they don't have to compete with other power centers that religions provide that is on that communist regime. There are capitalist atheists, anarchist atheists, etc.

 

how many countless deaths have come as a result of this atheist regime? The great purge of Stalin ring a bell?

 

Lots. Stalin was a ruthless tyrant.

 

 

"Stalin followed the position adopted by Lenin that religion was an opiate that needed to be removed in order to construct the ideal communist society. To this end, his government promoted atheism through special atheistic education in schools, massive amounts of anti-religious propaganda, the antireligious work of public institutions, discriminatory laws, and also a terror campaign against religious believers. By the late 1930s it had become dangerous to be publicly associated with religion."

 

Well not exactly true. The Orthodox clergy quickly renounced Christianity and began painting Lenin and Stalin with halos around their heads and attributing miracles to them. Trading one dogmatic thinking for another. I would suggest reading the whole quote from Lenin, as the simple phrase religion is the opiate of the masses belittles the actual nuance and poetry of the quote

 

Religious distress is at the same time the expression of real distress and the protest against real distress. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions.

 

Fire with fire my friend, you show me wrongdoings as a result of religion ill show you WORSE crimes against humanity perpetrated by ATHEISTS.

 

Im sorry you feel that there needs to be some kind of scale to balance the wrongs of the unbelievers with the believers. I don't think they guy who kills his wife and happens to be a Muslim did it because of his religion, not do I believe that the man who returns money because it is his Islamic duty is really doing it because he is a nice guy and religion has nothing to do with it. I do think things in various religions that do lean a believer to commit immoral actions or explicitly command for it to be done. Nor that religion is needed for a person to be a good person. If the religion think I am good, but am doomed to hell and that is the best I get, I'll take it.

 

And your point on the woman talking with God. We know this is no longer possible so she would not be of sound mind. Muhammad was God's last prophet and messenger and any others that come after him are false prophets our just crazy.

 

I find it strange at something can be so repugnant today and yet same action in the past is gloried in the present day. Never mind that it a person who supposedly talked to an angel to tell people it wasn't ok to do that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Using your same logic the media has hypnotized you in all aspects of life.

 

Your argument fails when because even when Islam is brought under scrutiny and is examined for error the "hypnosis" is not broken, therefore under your definitions it is not hypnosis. Also questioning is encouraged in Islam..why would this be if as you say it is a form of mind control? Why would asking questions which go against the very nature of the hypnotist be encouraged?

 

I presume that you and I would agree that the Druid's religion which was all the rage here in Britian when the Romans invaded was a false religion. Wrong.

 

The Druids sacrificed children. Utterly evil but it shows a high commitment to thier beliefs. They were killed by the Romans and died fighting. Fighting to the last.

 

Was it God who wanted them to believe thier false gods or had they sucessfully mind washed themselves to believe in thier faith?

 

When hypnosis is done over a long period and repeated often with the correct level of supporting retoric it is extreemly powerful.

 

5 times a day every day. For all your life. Powerful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I presume that you and I would agree that the Druid's religion which was all the rage here in Britian when the Romans invaded was a false religion. Wrong.

 

The Druids sacrificed children. Utterly evil but it shows a high commitment to thier beliefs. They were killed by the Romans and died fighting. Fighting to the last.

 

Was it God who wanted them to believe thier false gods or had they sucessfully mind washed themselves to believe in thier faith?

 

When hypnosis is done over a long period and repeated often with the correct level of supporting retoric it is extreemly powerful.

 

5 times a day every day. For all your life. Powerful.

You missed the explanation on what hypnosis actually is i take it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whatever you wish to call the process by which people came to believe in the power and holyness of the Druids is the same as that used in all religion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Whatever you wish to call the process by which people came to believe in the power and holyness of the Druids is the same as that used in all religion.

 

God. then their religion got distorted after many years until it became that which was not like the original that God passed down.

Same with all religions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So all religions start out as the same thing and become distorted.

 

.......?........

 

An interesting idea but surely such a bold and strong statement must have some evidence in support for it. Can you show me any?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So all religions start out as the same thing and become distorted.

 

.......?........

 

An interesting idea but surely such a bold and strong statement must have some evidence in support for it. Can you show me any?

I would consider the M-Theory quite bold. Can you show me some evidence to support it?

I would consider spontaneous generation quite bold. Can you show me some evidence to support it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A cursory glance at history says that this isn't true, or the modern world for that matter.

What people do has nothing to do with religious teaching how many times do I have to stress this.

Motivated Hitler? No. Made Hitler the man he was? No. Supremeness and racism has existed for long before Darwin, and genocide based on supremeness and racism has long roots and history. But never fear, social Darwinism or eugenics are it is called is not absolved from any blame. Eugenics was a purely evil creation born of long held racism and supremism. It attempted to use a pseudo scientific veneer based off of Darwin evolution to prove that a race ( Caucasian, who would have guessed???) was scientifically superior. I say pseudo scientific because when the data comes out there is no evidence even from their own data that there was any psychological traits that indicated "superiority" ( a word itself hugely subjective). Also using that same science it has been determined that race is a relatively new characteristic and that intra-race variability is far larger than inter race variability. In other words, race is pretty meaningless in determining a lot of things, especially a holistic characteristic of superiority. What Hitler was looking for was a "scientific veneer" for his beliefs. You'll find the same thing when you hear that a person gains the characteristics of what they eat so people who eat pork become filthy, sloven animals ; or that there is archeological evidence that the Book of Mormon happened in Latin America; or that Mecca has been proven to be the center or the world.

 

But what does Darwinism say? It says that those genes that are less fit will reproduce less and so their genes will eventually fade out. It doesn't mention putting down the infirm or the mentally handicap; it doesn't mention anything about forcing people to selectively breed or the denying of people to chose their life partners. Those who want to make that connection are not espousing Darwinism because Darwinism isn't a political or ideological belief it is a description on how the world works and what we do with that falls into politics, morals, ethics etc. People are free to believe that Darwinian evolution means euginics but we are free to call them the inhuman monsters they are, or people are free to not believe it and we are free to call them scientists.

So when people take the teachings of darwinism and distort them and use them for violence it has nothing to do with darwinism, but when people take religious teachings and distort them for violence then it DOES have to do with religion? Double standards my friend.

(you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetyoutube(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/watch?v=7XRCYlZ4XOQ"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetyoutube(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/watch?v=7XRCYlZ4XOQ[/url]

 

(you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_en.wikipedia(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_en.wikipedia(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam[/url]

 

(you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_pewglobal(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/2010/12/02/muslims-around-the-world-divided-on-hamas-and-hezbollah/"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_pewglobal(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/2010/12/02/muslims-ar...-and-hezbollah/[/url]

So now your a muslim scholar? What is your bringing links especially ones such as wikipedia prove? It proves that conservative christians or anyone else trying to distort Islam is taking verses out of context using awful translations and making a mockery of the scared text. Unless you are well educated on the subject dont try to talk about it. You come across as ignorant to those who do understand said subject.

 

I do agree with you that apostasy isn't religious only thing. Any kind of dogmatic thinking can produce group think in which outsiders and other ways of thinking are seen as threats.

Communism itself doesn't banish religion.(you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_en.wikipedia(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/wiki/Christian_communism"] <a href="you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_en.wikipedia(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/wiki/Christian_communism" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_en.wikipedia(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/wiki/Christian_communism[/url]</a>, but I think this is being nit picky. I know what you mean. You mean the Russian Leninist Stalinist regimes

No. There is no such thing as an atheist institution. Atheism has no clergy, no church, no dogma, no scripture, not even a theory. It states that theist arguments are false or haven't matched the burden of proof. If Communists want to impose atheism so that they don't have to compete with other power centers that religions provide that is on that communist regime. There are capitalist atheists, anarchist atheists, etc.

so let me get this straight. Communism doesn't banish religion. In Theory this is true, however almost every single form of communism around the world has been derived from Marxism which does banish religion. In fact I cannot think of any communist regimes that existed that did not banish religion. Albania included which I grew up.

 

 

 

Lots. Stalin was a ruthless tyrant.

Well not exactly true. The Orthodox clergy quickly renounced Christianity and began painting Lenin and Stalin with halos around their heads and attributing miracles to them. Trading one dogmatic thinking for another. I would suggest reading the whole quote from Lenin, as the simple phrase religion is the opiate of the masses belittles the actual nuance and poetry of the quote

 

Religious distress is at the same time the expression of real distress and the protest against real distress. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions.

Im sorry you feel that there needs to be some kind of scale to balance the wrongs of the unbelievers with the believers. I don't think they guy who kills his wife and happens to be a Muslim did it because of his religion, not do I believe that the man who returns money because it is his Islamic duty is really doing it because he is a nice guy and religion has nothing to do with it. I do think things in various religions that do lean a believer to commit immoral actions or explicitly command for it to be done. Nor that religion is needed for a person to be a good person. If the religion think I am good, but am doomed to hell and that is the best I get, I'll take it.

I find it strange at something can be so repugnant today and yet same action in the past is gloried in the present day. Never mind that it a person who supposedly talked to an angel to tell people it wasn't ok to do that.

How about homosexuality? pretty repugnant today...ancient greeks had no problem with it. And the reason you believe that is because you dont believe in the Quran, this is not a logical disagreement this is whether you believe in Islam or not

Edited by Skenderbeu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the sad clown (Aug 18 2010, 12:22 AM):

 

I don't know if you can consistently believe in anything without a creator, but I am fairly sure that if you abandon attempts at logical consistency, that you can believe all sorts of things without a creator.

 

S:

Well, this means that you cannot "consistently believe in" atheism without belief in "the creator of the universe".

 

Saeed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The answer to the question regarding the existence of God having reality or not is very simple it seems to me, at this moment in history.

 

Either there is creation ex-nihilo i.e. something comes out of nothing OR that creation arises from something.

If it comes out of nothing then this is obviously logically impossible and the idea of God or magic must be invoked.

If it comes out of something then this is logical (as according to our rational minds) and science should be able to provide the answer to the question: WHAT IS THE ORIGIN OF MATTER?

BUT, if matter comes from something then HOW did it come into being in the first place? From where did it come?

 

NO ANSWER IS POSSIBLE. CANNOT COMPUTE!

 

THEREFORE no further thought is possible, hence blind BELIEF is the only reality possible! Either in reason or in the immensity of the perpetually UNKNOWN.

 

 

kb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The answer to the question regarding the existence of God having reality or not is very simple it seems to me, at this moment in history.

 

Either there is creation ex-nihilo i.e. something comes out of nothing OR that creation arises from something.

If it comes out of nothing then this is obviously logically impossible and the idea of God or magic must be invoked.

If it comes out of something then this is logical (as according to our rational minds) and science should be able to provide the answer to the question: WHAT IS THE ORIGIN OF MATTER?

BUT, if matter comes from something then HOW did it come into being in the first place? From where did it come?

 

NO ANSWER IS POSSIBLE. CANNOT COMPUTE!

 

THEREFORE no further thought is possible, hence blind BELIEF is the only reality possible! Either in reason or in the immensity of the perpetually UNKNOWN.

kb

 

Since matter is a form of energy and energy is stored work then, combining science with religion, isn't it possible to say that matter is the work of the creator of the universe?

 

Saeed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well now we're into the realms of atomic/sub-atomic physics!

 

One of the laws of the Universe is that energy cannot be created nor can it be destroyed. Or so Science tells us.

Therefore we seem to have an infinite situation on our hands.

It could be that people are worshipping energy therefore - from whence everything develops. God as energy.

It seems entirely possible that men, not being able to understand the concept of pure energy (can we do so today?), therefore, described the 'creator' as having an anthropomorphic form and possessing human-like qualities.

 

The question still remains: where did this 'pure energy' come from?

 

Regards,

 

KB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×