“And the servants of The Most Gracious are those who walk on the earth in humility, and when the ignorant address them, they say, “Peace!”Quran; (25:63)

“Show forgiveness, speak for justice and avoid the ignorant.” (7:199)

“O ye, who believe, do not let one (set of) people make fun of another set. Do not defame one another. Do not insult by using nicknames. Do not spy on one another. Do not backbite or speak ill of one another.”(49:11-12)

“O ye, who believe! If a wicked person comes to you with any news, ascertain the truth, lest ye harm people unwittingly and afterwards become full of repentance for what ye have done”. (49:6)

‘O mankind! We created you from a single soul, male and female, and made you into nations and tribes, so that you may come to know one another. Truly, the most honoured of you in God’s sight is the greatest of you in righteousness. God is All-Knowing, All-Aware’. (49.13)

For the Zionists and Christian Zionists and their ilk

Thank you

So, let me get this straight:
You tear my veil to free me
You jail me to rid me of my terror
You kill my beloved to liberate me
You shoot my baby to erase my misery
You starve me to show me how to vote
You threaten me to bring me to my senses
You wage war on me to help me find peace
You slay my people to teach me compassion
You humiliate me to aid me live with dignity
You insult me to illustrate freedom of speech
You crush my bones to save me from my evil
You demolish my home to elevate my morality
You uproot my tree to raise my ethical standard
You steal my resources to bring me social justice
You assassinate my leaders to bring me security
You bomb my town to train me into democracy
You destroy my history to educate me about progress
You dehumanise me to coach me into humanity
You wipe me out to push me to civilisation
You scorn my faith to bring me salvation

Thank you sir
How can I -ever- pay you back?

Dear Ted- part 1

It seems that we have something else in common as your guess is slightly off; I am not a journalist, but a mathematician.

You said: “The Ahmadi branch of the Muslim religion recently had a multi-religious get together here in Kelowna …………………….a huge percentage of Jewish Israelis are actually secularists (apparently also true to quite some extent of Muslim Israelis).  I found myself thinking:  Would it not be a huge plus if the same was true of Palestinians?”

Our problem – as Palestinians- is not with the Jewish people nor is it with Judaism; our problem is with the injustice inflected upon us for almost a century now.

For no crime (except being Palestinians) we were made to be the sacrificial lamb of Europe’s sins, we paid the price for Hitler’s crimes against the Jewish people.

We would have no problem getting along with any ethnic or religious group of people as we’ve done for centuries. In fact the golden age for the Jewish people was when they lived under Islamic rule.

But, we have serious problems with ethnic cleansing, injustice, oppression, racism, fascism, tyranny, and the claim of superiority of one nation over another.
Unless these issues are justly resolved, our world would remain in turmoil.

Ted- part 2

We are constantly been asked to recognize “Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state”; but no one seemed bothered with the fact that “Israel” never recognized “Palestine” or the Palestinians’ right to exist on their own land. No one seems to be bothered with the fact that “Israel” hasn’t and never had any defined borders that they want us to recognize.

But most importantly no one seemed to question the morality and ethical grounds on which “Israel” was founded. When the Zionists adopted Palestine as a home land for all the Jewish people they ignored the fact that Palestine had already its own native Palestinian inhabitants, with a very small Jewish minority of 2.5%.

The early Jewish refugees did not come with olive branches in their hands; rather they came with tanks and machine guns, they engaged in extensive terror attacks on the native Palestinians, they were building their armed forces ever since until it became the forth most powerful state in the world today.

Israel’s recognition as a state (by the United Nations and the International community) was conditional to Israel abiding by UN resolutions including the right of return of Palestinians; which were never implemented by Israel.

The other extremely serious implication of the Palestinians recognizing “Israel’s” right to exist as a Jewish state is that the Palestinians must give up completely on their right of return; because if that right was to be implemented, I will spontaneously erode “Israel” as a purely Jewish state, and that would contradict the precondition of Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state.

To make the problem more comprehensible I will draw on this analogy: Britain today has about 2.5% Muslim minority some are natives and some are immigrants (which was exactly the case in Palestine in the 1900’s). If Muslims started calling for establishing a homeland in the UK for all persecuted Muslims in the world on the expense of its native British will that be morally acceptable?

What if those refugees came fully armed and started murdering their hosts in order to drive them out to Europe, claiming that they are Europeans and Europe is big enough for all British people! What if those refugees claimed that God gave them this land and establishing an Islamic state in Britain is a divine right? Unfortunately this is the very grounds on which the state of “Israel” was established on the land of Palestine.

The continuous existence of such a state is morally questionable; as by definition “”Israel” is a Jewish state; in order to maintain its exclusive “Jewishness” it denies millions of exiled Palestinians the right of return to their homes and their families ignoring their basic human rights. When Hitler called for a purely Arian state the world got up in arms against such an exclusive racists regime.

How can a state be recognized when the very foundation on which it was established are immoral? How such a state should continue to exist when by its very definition it is insular, exclusive, and racist?

What Palestinians dream of is an all inclusive state on the whole land of historic Palestine where all races, religions living side by side on EQUAL grounds. A state with no walls between its peoples; where no one is denied their basic human rights for their religious or non-religious beliefs, no one is denied justice for their race; no one is prevented from returning to their homes on the basis of their ethnicity.

If that should mean an end to a racist exclusive Jewish state so be it (by the way the Jewish state is NOT the Jewish people)

dear bigjimbo

The 9/11 attack was condemned and denounce not only by me, but by Muslims, and Muslim scholars across the world:

http://www.islamonline.net/English/News/2001-09/12/article18.shtml

http://www.islamonline.net/English/News/2001-09/12/article25.shtml

(question your media why don’t they report facts, and why do they lie by omission?)
***************************************

DUBAI, Sept 12 (IslamOnline & News Agencies) - The Muslim world expressed condemnation Wednesday towards the attacks that occurred Tuesday in the United States, news agencies reported.

The Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) grouping 57 Muslim states condemned Wednesday the previous day’s attacks on the United States, Agence France-Presse (AFP) reported.

“We condemn these savage and criminal acts which are anathema to all human conventions and values and the monotheist religions, led by Islam,” OIC secretary general Abdel Wahad Belkaziz said in a statement.

Renowned Muslim scholar Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi encouraged Muslims to donate blood to the victims of the attacks and said that helping the victims with blood and money is considered a charity.

In a special interview with IslamOnline, al-Qaradawi said that any sane Muslim who abides by Islamic laws would have never caused the incident. He added that acts of terrorism are a crime regardless of the nationality or religious backgrounds of the victims.

Qaradawi said that the U.S. bias towards Israel in the Palestinian conflict, while unjust, does not provide a basis for justification for terrorist attacks, adding that the battlefield is in fact in Palestine.

“If the United States uses double standards in its judgment, Islam refuses to do so. We do not hate the American people even if we disagree with the policies of their ruling government,” he said.

Libyan leader Moamer Qadhafi condemned the “terrible” attacks and said his country was ready to send aid to the American people.

“Different policies and the conflicts with America shouldn’t be a psychological obstacle to sending humanitarian aid to the American people and all people in America who were profoundly affected by these terrible attacks,” Qadhafi said, suggesting blood donor offerings.

Iranian President Mohammad Khatami condemned what he said was the wave of “terrorist” attacks and expressed his “deep sorrow and sympathy with the American nation.”

In Egypt, President Hosni Mubarak Tuesday condemned the “attacks” and “terrorism” that struck the United States and said he was “very sad” after hearing the news.

An official source in Syria said, “Damascus condemns the destructive sabotage attacks which targeted innocent civilians in the United States, which caused serious damage to property and essential installations.”

Jordan added a similar condemnation: “The Jordanian government and its people express their feelings of sorrow and present their sincerest condolences to the American people, their government, President [George W.] Bush and the families of the innocent victims of terrorist attacks that violate all religious and humanitarian values.”
*****************************

How can one tarnish millions (the no. of Muslims in the world is 1.6 billion in 1998) of people for the actions of a few?

http://www.islamicweb.com/begin/results.htm

Dear Nahida:  If I were a Palestinian, I would be in a fury, but I am not sure where my fury would be directed.  The Palestinian leaders share a large part of the blame, maybe most of the blame. 

The US has been biased towards support of Israel, but in many cases, e.g., Carter, Clinton, Bush41, have tried to be honest brokers.  The US, under Eisenhower, halted the 1956 invasion of Egypt.  The US took the lead in the liberation of Kuwait.  The US, belatedly, help stop the bloodshed in Bosnia and Kosovo.  The US aided the Muslims during the Soviet incursion into Afghanistan.  Do you believe the 9/11 attacks on the US were in any way justified.  Do you classify these attacks as Islamic self defense?

Nahida:
“Sorry for the delay in responding to your post”. 
PART 1
No apology needed.  Will do my best to be constructive.  You and I come from very different backgrounds and belong to rather different age groups.  I am an engineer/scientist/mathematician whereas you seem to be a journalist of some kind with poetic leanings and capabilities.  I am afraid my poetic sensibilities are rudimentary at best.  There is, however, at least one aspect of our lives in which we overlap to some extent.  You have indicated that you grew up in Palestine with all the constrictions and hardship that this entails.  I grew up in South Africa and took a job at the brand new university in Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) in 1956. That is where I got married and all four of our children were born.  As a result of Mugabe’s rise to power we were effectively forced to leave and lost our home and all our life’s savings in the process—which meant we had to start from scratch in Canada at a point in time when I was already 48 years old.  So we know something about the world of hard knocks.  Mugabe has totally wrecked Zimbabwe in a manner which was completely unnecessary and he now clings to power in a country where life expectancy has dropped to 33 years of age (the lowest in the world I believe), inflation is running at 3,700% per year and the unemployment rate is a staggering 80%.  And all because of a lust for power and unbridled racism on Mugabe’s part.  Amazing how one man and his cronies can cause so much unnecessary suffering.
I am an outsider when it comes to the Israel/Palestine conflict and cannot really say too much in that context.  But I do have the sense that individual leaders can make a difference – both positive and negative.  Israel seems to have lost one of its better leaders by assassination and lets just say I don’t think Arafat was the greatest.  Whether we like it or not the conflicts that have bedevilled Canaan, The Holy Land (sic), Palestine, Israel . . .  down the years have had indubitable religious connections.  Jewish, Christian and Muslim connections to be more exact – the three pre-eminent monotheistic religions.  I am tempted to say: Go figure.  But that might be unkind.  In Mugabe’s case he is nominally a Roman Catholic but religion does not really play a role in Zimbabwe’s deplorable state.
Sorry for the long preamble but all this unnecessary suffering does have a connection with THE question: “Explaining the purpose of existence”.  And it should be obvious right away that it is a lot easier to pin down what is NOT the purpose of existence. And, most certainly, the purpose cannot be to cause unnecessary suffering – whether for religious or any other dogmatic reasons.  The Ahmadi branch of the Muslim religion recently had a multi-religious get together here in Kelowna (where I live) and I learnt from an Israeli consular representative based in Vancouver – who attended the meeting—that a huge percentage of Jewish Israelis are actually secularists (apparently also true to quite some extent of Muslim Israelis).  I found myself thinking:  Would it not be a huge plus if the same was true of Palestinians?

Nahida:
PART 2
You rightly point out that cogitating about the meaning and purpose of existence is as much a philosophical question as a religious question.  I once read an essay on Wittgenstein and the writer of the essay said that when Wittgenstein was asked:  Why should we do good rather than evil?  His response was that all we can really do is tremble.  I have never been able to verify this anecdote but I think it does have a ring of truth to it.  It think it is much the same with the question:  What is the purpose of existence.?  For the most part we can only play it by ear and tremble as we do so. 
Naturally I agree with you that “the answers we are looking for cannot be found in a text book, I realized that one has to take a journey, an inner journey, to go on the quest for answers.”  And the books in which we cannot find the answers include the Bible and the Qur’an.  These books may well contain hints as to the answers but not the answers themselves.  And I agree with you also when you say that the tools we can use in struggling for answers “include our ability to reason and to comprehend, our ability to experience with our senses, and to feel with our emotions”.  But,when you say that the only place you have been able to find comfort for you troubled soul is in your faith we must perforce part company since – as you know I no longer have a faith.
Would it be helpful to split the question into two parts?  On the one hand there is the sort of cosmic level question about existence in general and human existence in particular.  On the other hand there is the practical down to earth day to day question of finding a meaning and purpose in what we do as we proceed on our way.  And this latter question is probably a lot easier to answer.  By and large we find meaning and purpose in serving others – but, I think, not only in this way.

Dear Ted Swart

Sorry for the delay in responding to your post, but I am delighted to notice that there are many points that we have in common and could agree upon

I noticed also that you are interested into taking the dialogue a step further as you said in response to one of my points (“ 4) Explaining the purpose of existence.”)
you said “Now that is THE question.  Want to talk about it? “

Now, I would love to talk about it of course, but we will be entering the field of philosophy and we’ll be tapping very much on the personal and subjective, which in turn might aggravate some people who cannot tolerate a view that differs from their own.

But, then again, this is a space where one can exercise his/ her freedom of expression, hence, I would be obliged to ask people who disagree with my views to tolerate me, and I would whole heatedly urge them to give us both the space in their hearts that allow us to share and discuss our views in this little forum.

As for the purpose of existence, and as you rightly said: that is THE question.

I had this question nagging in my head as far back as I remember, from very early childhood, as a little girl living in a tiny Palestinian village north west of Jerusalem. And as any other child questions such as: who am I? How come I exist? How and why I can comprehend that I exist? Why am I here? What is the purpose of my existence?… etc.echoed in my little head.

As you might guess dear Ted, all these turbulent questions does not get easy answers from people around you as a child, further, as I grew older, and contemplated more, I realized that the answers we are looking for cannot be found in a text book, I realized that one has to take a journey, an inner journey, to go on the quest for answers.

On that journey there are many signs on the way, and many tools that one could use.
Tools include our ability to reason and to comprehend, our ability to experience with our senses, and to feel with our emotions.

The signs are scattered all around us, and within us… from the atom to the cosmos; from the tiniest drop of water, a grain of sand, an autumn leaf, a flower, a tree, a bird, a butterfly, a mountain… a planet, a galaxy, a universe, including our own physical being.

No one can make the journey on behalf of someone else.
Besides one need all his/her equipments which includes mind and logic but also embraces heart and feelings, as at certain point the logic cease to be able to proceed, for the infinite cannot be known or experienced by the finite.

Only through the heart and feelings that one could experience something as immense and infinite such as love, hence, heart and feelings are indispensable in that journey.

My personal experiences, my logic and my feelings lead me to conclude that if everything came from nothing, if there was no purpose in the existence of the universe, if there is no purpose in the existence of life; then, it’s more reasonable to think that there is no purpose in a life full of agony such as mine, there is no point in living on to suffer more. I.e. there is no purpose in my own life. period.

I could never reconcile my agonized painful existence with futility and lack of purpose.

The only thing that could ever console and comfort this troubled soul of mine was my faith, this insight and intuition that this can’t all be in vain. This inner contentment and trust as a baby whose been held in her mother’s arms.
Hence, my journey began… and it is still going on

Injustice against an individual and collective injustice:

There are two kinds of injustice and oppression:
a) Injustice against an individual
b) Injustice against an ethnic, religious, or any other group of individuals. (Collective injustice)

From an Islamic perspective; regarding dealing with collective the collective injustice or the injustice against a group for their ethnicity, race, religion or whatever reason, they are given the right of self-defence, (view post #75054)

But dealing with the first case of injustice (against an individual); there are four things that you can respond with:

1) Demand justice, and treat the person with the same thing he/ she did to you.
If you do that there is no blame on you but that action is not a good one (very much discouraged)

2) You can control your anger and do nothing, just let it go.
That is better than the previous but still not good enough.

3) You can let it go and from your heart forgive that person. That is better yet not the best thing to do.

4) You can forgive and do something good to the person who hurt you in response, and that is the best.

“The recompense for an injury is an injury equal thereto (in degree): but if a person forgives and makes reconciliation, his reward is due from God: for (God) loves not those who are aggressors.” (42:40)

“And whoever is patient and forgiving, these most surely are actions of courage.” (42:43)

“Show forgiveness, speak for justice and avoid the ignorant.” (7:199)
“It may well be that God will bring about love (and friendship) between you and those with whom you are now at odds.” (60:7)

“Nor can goodness and evil be equal. Repel evil with what is best: if you do so, he who is your enemy will become a close friend.” (41.34)

Prophet Muhammad, Peace be upon him, once famously declared “Verily I was sent to this World to define (and live by) the Generous Temperament.”

According to him, the codes of Generous Temperament (makarem elakhlaq) are seven:

“Pardoning those who have oppressed you, Giving to those who have deprived you, Connecting with those who have shunned you, Benefiting those who have abused you, Counselling those who have deceived you, Forgiving those who have maligned you, Forbearing with those who have angered you.”

Aggression, self-defence, and revenge:

These terminologies require more attention when used.

Some peace loving people who aspire for a better world seem to confuse these terms immensely and use them as exchangeable entities as if they are one and the same, categorizing all these action in one lump and making them equally bad.

I would like to clarify my views on this:

Aggression is an act of injustice, hostility and violence where someone/ group attack an innocent party without any reason or provocation. (Ex: What US did/is doing to Iraq)
I think that all of us here agree of the total immorality of that act.

Self defence is a reaction of the victim to try to STOP their attackers/ oppressor from causing them more harm or even death… it’s an act to preserve life, and to minimize damage and to stop tyranny from causing more destruction and devastation. It is done whilst the act of aggression is continuing.(Ex: resistance movements to occupation)

Some of us here equate this act of self-defence with the one of aggression. Personally, I don’t hold that view, I see no morality in demanding that the victim should lie down and accept his/her destruction by turning the other cheek whilst being constantly crushed and attacked.

When you are constantly under attack, I think it’s criminal to tell you not to try to save your life and the lives of your loved ones by defending yourself and trying to stop the attackers.

Revenge however is something that some do when their life is not in danger. It’s a cold and calculated act that you do later, under no threat of loss of your life or property. It’s done out of hatred and malice feelings rather than to preserve and protect your life.

I don’t believe in revenge, but I do believe in self defence, many people assume that they are one and the same. They are not.

Dear bigjimbo

in your post # 75103, you were wondering about violence and Islam, and as a Muslim who hopes and prays that I know something about my faith, I can tell you that these acts of violence are not incited by the teaching of Islam as the media present to you.

If any thing, it’s the contrary, it actually happens DESPPITE and AGAINST the teachings that only allow you to defend your self, and it does not permit you to attack any innocent person who is not directly involved in attacking you.

But what has been happening in Palestine for decades now, the oppression, the tyranny, the injustice, the humiliation, the constant ethnic cleansing, also the war on Iraq, Afghanistan, and the threat to attack Iran, along with the blind support of Israel is infuriating the Muslims all around the globe.

oppression and long time subjugation, torture, injustice, and humiliation, can have an inevitable effect on the human-psychological state of mind, staying level-headed in the face of all this madness is not easy. And people react differently to all this cruelty.

Would you know how would you react if your child was shot, your home is taken away from you, your neighbour’s home has been demolished, your trees uprooted, you are imprisoned in your own neighbourhood, you are humiliated day in and day out every single day of your life?

Roots of the problem

Every action has a reaction
We’ve learned in physics

When people feel hurt
And greatly oppressed
When under occupation
For such a long time

They’re bound to react

Compressed oxygen
The life supporter
With a tiny spark
It would explode with violence

Imprisoned hens
In a box so confined
They’d start screaming
Picking each other’s feathers
And poking their flesh

If you kick a dog
Don’t wonder why
He grabs hold of your foot
Biting off your face

If you hold a knife
Against a man’s throat
Do not act surprised
If he thrusts you to the ground

I felt it myself
In the first gulf war
I felt so angry
And wanted to hit back

Thinking of what do
I came up with a plan
That was really bad

And against all the teaching
Of my own faith
Against my values
That I held up high

I started throwing
The rubbish of my car
Into the streets of Liverpool

A pitiful shameful act
Of disgrace and revenge

But I was full of anger
And wanted to hit back

I am only human
Injustice sabotaged my logic
Anger severely clouded my reason
My thinking was impaired

Before getting on your high horse
Judging people
Jumping to moralize

Think of what you’re doing
To make others lose their sanity
And violently react

Dear bigjimbo,

You said: “Please explain how the Koran leads to a huge number of largely illiterate, useless and violent arabs”

What to you say when you learn that the very FIRST revealed verse in the Quran was the word: READ;

The first verses that was revealed:

“Read!! in the name of your Lord Who created.
Created man from a “alaq” (something which clings)
Read: And thy Lord is the Most bountiful,
Who taught (the use of) the pen,
Taught man that which he knew not.
Nay, but verily man is rebellious
That he thinks himself independent and self-sufficient.
Surely to your Lord is the return” (96:1-7)

Dear Nahida, I browsed through several of the videos.  I have been to the Alhambra and it is magnificent.  About 1000 years ago, the Islamic world was the leader in science, astronomy, medicine, and mathematics.  Somehow, it stalled, whether due to the Crusades, or the Mongol invasion or whatever.  Somehow it reached a stage of no progress.  I tend to think that the problem was fanatic fundamentalist islamics.  If the fanatic fundamentalist christianists in the US were ever to gain power, they would also like to turn the clock back 1000 years.  Fundamentalists are blind to their fairy tales, regardless or maybe because of lack of evidence.  But over the last several hundred years, the christianist nuts have generally not been violent.  The islamic nuts have become more violent, and they find support for their views in the Koran.  When a fatwa was issued against Salman Rushdie, why didn’t the Islamic world condemn the fatwa?  When 19 arabs, middle class, well educated, hijacked the planes on 9/11, why wasn’t there universal condemnation in Islamic world?  Please bear in mind that as an American, I totally condemn the cruel Israeli occupation of the Palestinians, and I hate the fact that the US Government supports the Israelis in these immoral action.  I am not for the elimination of Israel.  We can’t turn back the clock.  But if I were president, I would stand up to the Israel lobby, and insist that Israel return to the pre-1967 borders.  I also believe that the Palestinians were ill-served by the vile Arafat.  But at the base of current troubles is not the poverty and lack of education in the Islamic world, it is the fact that Islam support terror and violence, and to call it a religion of peace is insane.

bigjimbo

you asked: “Please explain how the Koran leads to a huge number of largely illiterate, useless and violent arabs.”

Watching these might be a good beginning to answer your question:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-768956312207897325&q=when

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4312980342283025421&q=empire

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7502243539190558658&q=empire

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=94144204270367302&q=empire

dear bigjimbo

here are the Quranic quotation you requested:

“To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight back), because they are wronged; and verily, God is most powerful for their aid; (They are) those who have been expelled from their homes in defiance of right,-(for no cause) except that they say, our Lord is God”. (22:39-40)

‘Fight in the cause of God against those who fight you, but do not initiate aggression. God does not love transgressors.’ (2.190)

“God commands justice, the doing of good, and liberality to kith and kin, and He forbids all shameful deeds, and injustice and antagonism: He advices you, that ye may be reminded.” (16-90)

“O believers, be you guardians of justice, witness for God. Let not your dislike for a people move you away from being equitable; be equitable - that is nearer to being God-conscious.” (5:8)

“No soul shall be made to bear the burden (liability) of another.” (35:18)

“But show them forgiveness, and say “Peace!” and soon shall they know!” (43; 89)

“The recompense for an injury is an injury equal thereto (in degree): but if a person forgives and makes reconciliation, his reward is due from God; for (God) loveth not those who are wrong-doers”. (42:40)

‘If they seek peace, then seek you peace. And trust in God for He is the One that heareth and knoweth all things.’ (8.61)

“But God does call to the Home of Peace” (10-25)

“Ye who believe! Stand out firmly for justice, as witnesses to God, even as against yourselves, or your parents, or your kin, and whether it be (against) rich or poor: for God can best protect both. Follow not the desires (of your hearts), lest ye swerve, and if ye distort (justice) or decline to do justice, verily God is well-acquainted with all that ye do. Thus, have We made of you a nation justly balanced, that ye might be witnesses over the nations, and the Messenger a witness over yourselves” (2-143)

“Show forgiveness, speak for justice and avoid the ignorant.” (7:199)

“It may well be that God will bring about love (and friendship) between you and those with whom you are now at odds.” (60:7)

“Nor can goodness and evil be equal. Repel evil with what is best: if you do so, he who is your enemy will become a close friend.” (41.34)

Nahida 75001 & 75000
What a pleasure to communicate with you.  You say:
“As for my beliefs, as I said time and again, faith and belief is such a personal private and subjective matter, I am not here to debate my faith, or to convince any one with it, or to prove me right or to prove other people wrong, I am not here to argue or to win an argument… am here simply for one reason only; namely to: DEFEND MY FREEDOM OF THOUGHT. “
Of course you and every other human being has a right and duty to freedom of thought.  On that we can agree 100%.  Since I have no faith I am also not participating in order to convert anyone to my views.  When we change our views as you seem to have done and I have certainly done we do so in our own time in the right way—if the change is to be lasting an meaningful.  Nevertheless, it makes sense to attune our views to what we have learnt about the world from scientific exploration.
You go on to say:“Having said that, and because you paused your query twice; I would give a brief answer to your question about my views regarding evolution:”  For which I thank you.
“For some one like me; with this trouble-maker, fascinated, inquisitive mind of mine- who is constantly searching for meanings and answers, and who will not be satisfied with half answers;”
We may never be satisfied with half answers but we often have to live with them
“ . . .  there are strong evidences that support it (evolution) in microevolution, yet it fails miserably -as far as my limited understanding goes- in explaining vital phenomena that I seek to understand as a conscious curious being:”
Despite what you say macro evolution also has massive evidentiary support.
“1) The origin of the universe (coming into being of nothingness) “ .
Maybe it always existed.
“2) The origin of life (the mathematical probabilities of random chances offered by Evolution is near impossible- how much luck can science rely upon?) “
This is the stock in trade response of those who reject the occurrence of evolution and the best way to understand evolution is to stop calling it a “theory”.  A good analogy is the story of poor old Galileo who observed the fact that the earth revolves around the sun and reported accordingly.  When he made this observation neither Newton’s theory of gravity nor Einstein’s theory of gravity even existed but this did not mean that what Galileo observed was faulty.  So the evidence is that evolution did actually happen and the absence of a complete theory doesn’t change this.
“ 4) Explaining the purpose of existence.” 
Now that is THE question.  Want to talk about it?

“ I don’t see the predicament as Evolution VS Intelligent Design.
Accepting Evolution is not the issue for me.
The issue -that might trouble you- is: Evolution does not lead me to atheism.”
Of course the acceptance of evolution does not lead to atheism.  I accepted the occurrence of evolution long before I became an agnostic.
“To me, evolution does not explain the existence of life or the existence of the universe; “
Nor does it claim to do either of these things it merely infers – from the evidence – that it is a process that actually happened.
“In other words –to me- Evolution is not an alternative to Intelligent Design”
You are unusual.  Most believers in ID explicitly reject the occurrence of evolution.

Methinks it is better if everyone accepts the occurrence of evolution simply because it happens to be a true observation about the world.  And it is always better to live with the truth than perpetuate a falsehood.  I used to be very hung up on searching for truth but am now more interested in trying to be worthy of my existence.  Nevertheless, rejecting evolution as Christian fundamentalists do goes hand in hand with the baseless contention that Jesus will soon return and sort everything out – what they call the rapture.  And this means they have very little regard for the environment – which is an issue which needs urgent attention.

Dear Nahida,

Please indicate the verses in the Koran having to do with killing unbelievers, and apostates.  Please list the verses where the martyrs will receive their white raisins in paradise for killing innocent women and children.  Please explain how the Koran leads to a huge number of largely illiterate, useless and violent arabs.

Dear Ted,

If you are interested to read more of my views :

http://poetryforpalestine.spaces.live.com/?_c11_BlogPart_BlogPart=blogview&_c=BlogPart&partqs=cat=Dialogues

Dear Ted Swart
Thank you for your comment, and really I congratulate you for the 49 years of marriage, it is a delight to hear of such nice story of real happy marriage, and a pleasure to hear of your good children and grandchildren. May they be a joy for you and for humanity.

As for my beliefs, as I said time and again, faith and belief is such a personal private and subjective matter, I am not here to debate my faith, or to convince any one with it, or to prove me right or to prove other people wrong, I am not here to argue or to win an argument… am here simply for one reason only; namely to: DEFEND MY FREEDOM OF THOUGHT.

That should include my freedom to choose the way I perceive and comprehend my existence and the existence of the universe around me, and also my faith, my moral values, and my views about life, death, and after death.

Ted Swart -part 2

Having said that, and because you paused your query twice; I would give a brief answer to your question about my views regarding evolution:

For some one like me; with this trouble-maker, fascinated, inquisitive mind of mine- who is constantly searching for meanings and answers, and who will not be satisfied with half answers; and although Evolution does address important issues such as changes and environmental adaptation in different species, and although there are strong evidences that support it in microevolution, yet it fails miserably -as far as my limited understanding goes- in explaining vital phenomena that I seek to understand as a conscious curious being:

1)    The origin of the universe (coming into being of nothingness)

2)  The origin of life (the mathematical probabilities of random chances offered by Evolution is near impossible- how much luck can science rely upon?)

3)  Explaining the variety, the intelligence, the beauty, the purposefulness, the morality, and simultaneous coexistence of different animal and plant forms and the fact that they rely upon each other for survival, as we discussed in the garden yesterday, it’s as if some one is planning ahead seeing into the future, some one with intelligence and beautiful artistic taste.

Assuming that accidentally -as evolution proposes- apple trees (for example) evolved purposelessly and simultaneously yet independently from us, how do we develop our taste buds to enjoy the flavour of the apple when we are in fact completely different unrelated species? (Notice that it is much more than just the apple trees)

4)  Explaining the purpose of existence.
 
Evolution -for me and as it stands now- is capable of describing certain occurrences; but the significant point here is that even if Evolution had all the answers about the missing links and even if it proves in the lab that species do evolve from one another; it still falls very short from answering these above fundamental questions that my mind thirst for answers for.

This lack of coherence and comprehensiveness in Evolution and its failure to explain all the above; diminishes the weight it claims it has; presenting itself as a theory that explains life.
 
Now then, Even though I believe in an Intelligent Designer that does not necessarily mean that I utterly refuse Evolution and its entire discoveries.

I don’t see the predicament as Evolution VS Intelligent Design.

Accepting Evolution is not the issue for me.
The issue -that might trouble you- is: Evolution does not lead me to atheism.

The concept that life forms can evolve and change with time; does not prove to me that God does not exist.
 
To me, evolution does not explain the existence of life or the existence of the universe; therefore it does not necessarily lead -as many people like to conclude- to atheism.

In other words –to me- Evolution is not an alternative to Intelligent Design; simply because it does not even begin to address some of many important questions that my mind requires answers for.

Originating life out of raw elements, and originating something out of nothingness are the big dilemma for me; if you can do either, I’ll be convinced.

Amazing!  We live in a day and age of an Orwellian presidency where the very essense of our constitutional democracy and what we stand for as a people is under constant assault; where the disgusting photos from Abu Ghraib are but epidural lesions exposing a deep seated malaise within the body politic.  Yet, post an article by an atheist critical of religion and Truthdiggers blindly flock to it like moths to a flame.

Marx was right.  Religion “is” the opiate of the masses.  The emotional reaction created by criticism of religious irrationality reflects the extent to which atheists like Harris threaten to deprive the addicts of their fix.

Nahida:

Your forceful defence of you faith and your forceful defence of your husband are a pleasure to behold.  Nevertheless, you appear to cling to your particular brand of monotheism in much the same way as all other monotheists.  You still appear to believe in heaven and hell and don’t really explain why your faith is superior to other monotheistic faiths. Methinks that being a worthy person and a good husband/wife cuts right across all religions and includes also those who are non-religious. For my own part I have been happily married for 49 years with four children and 7 grandchildren and virtually all of them have no religious affiliation.  Yet they are a credit and asset to the human race. I doubt very much that if you dropped your religion you would become a different person in any really significant way.
Am afraid that you never addressed the question which I posed to you on the Chris Hedges discussion and maybe this is because you have focused on the Sam Harris discussion.
In case you feel up to responding, I attach a copy of my question below:

Nahida #73629
Mark Colby has already provided many reasons why your beliefs and attitudes are questionable and I don’t wish to or need to repeat what he has so ably said.  However, there is one sentence in your original set of messages which caught my eye and which I would like to comment upon:

“This organization, this system, this beauty, this perfection, this diversity, this love, this logic, this mind, this existence, this ability to comprehend existence, all point to an incredibly Able, intelligent, Beautiful, Artistic, Creative Designer.”

I would appear from this sentence that you believe in what is commonly known as Intelligent Design. In other words you believe that there must be some kind of Creator God who designed everything that exists.  And belief in ID commonly goes hand in hand with a rejection of the occurrence of evolution. Yet there is an enormous mountain of fossil and DNA evidence which attests to the fact that evolution on Earth did actually occur.  All the evidence available points to the fact that life has been present on earth for billions of years and gradually evolved until humans came on the scene.

We even know (from DNA evidence) that on the all female branch of our genealogical tree we have a shared common female ancestor (so-called mitochondrial Eve) who lived on earth some 200 thousand years ago. Likewise we all have a shared common male ancestor (Y-chromosoe Adam) who lived some 100 thousand years ago.

So how can anyone in their right mind reject the occurrence of evolution?  Surely it is the duty of all of us to accept the findings of science regarding the age of the earth the occurrence of evolution and so on. Science is by no means the source of all truth but it is a valid source of truth and to reject its findings out of hand makes no sense. And, whatever beliefs we hold must surely not contradict the findings of science.

Are you able to comment on this apparent contradiction in your beliefs?

Dear Mr. Harris,

I see you have added a response to what you would like to characterize as “the fine art of selective quotation.”  But in truth you practice that which you preach against.  These comments include several excerpts from your book, the net effect of which is a clear and convincing portrayal of a man hiding religious bigotry (not to be confused with racism or sexism or classism, yawn) behind a smoke screen of disingenuous concern about religion in general.  Were you consistent with your own logic then, as has been said here before, you would be equally concerned about extant nuclear players who are also beholden to blood-soaked scriptures, both in the Middle East (i.e., Israel) and our own nation (at least to the extent that apocalyptic Christians influence, or sit in, the Oval Office.)

You are a bigot, preaching a dangerous religious persecution of Moslems.  Some slopes are slippery, such as the one you blithely barrel down.

Almost as evil, in my eye, is the illegitimacy of your manner of argumentation.  You are skilled at the subtle put-down, the casual dismissal of your opponents.  You aren’t scientist enough to say “my opponent quotes me selectively”, but you are sophist enough to say, “my opponent practices the fine art of selective quotation.”  Much of your shtick at Royce Hall was of the same style of argumentation by plausibly deniable character assassination.  Even as you claimed atheism isn’t an arrogant belief you belied your claim.  Your remarks never rose to the level of debate but were instead a mere string of clever put-downs intended to discredit anyone holding a position other than yours.  And at that your barbs were mostly hurled at straw-men, all apparently in service of keeping you from ever answering for your blatant open calls for religious persecution of Moslems.  Nor are you intellectually honest enough to admit that “war on Islam” categorically is religious persecution of Moslems, including the Moslem women for whom you so breathlessly claim to speak.

Sadly the level of discourse and critical thinking in our nation today is so low that many in the crowd of ostensibly intellectually competent liberals assembled at Royce Hall lacked the sophistication to resist your sophistries.  The audience chuckled and tittered all through your remarks.  And it appears your notions of scientific truth are sufficiently ill-formed that best-seller status and chuckles from the audience will, in your mind, serve as adequate check of your “scientific” reasoning.

I don’t imagine you are still following this thread.  But if you are, well, please address one simple issue: If the Nazis, whom you invoked at Royce Hall, are the archetypes of evil committed in the name of religious persecution, and you hold that no one would say it was just the extreme religious persecutors we needed to fear back then, pray tell how are we to conclude that your allegedly moderate and necessary religious persecution of Islam, and granting of a free pass to Israel and the United States, doesn’t put you on the same couch as Goebbels?  Until you at least attempt a public answer to that question I, and others like me, will be unable to see you as other than a bigoted sophistical hack.

Edward Said Lecture The Myth of ‘The Clash of Civilzations’

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6705627964658699201&q=The

A World Where Womanhood Reigns Supreme
(The Seeds of My Own Re-evaluations)

By MARY WALKER

http://muslim-canada.org/bbcwoman.htm

(see below)

http://muslim-canada.org/bbcwoman.htm

Mary Walker was the Production Coordinator on the BBC2 series “Living Islam”.  Article courtesy of Impact Magazine.

When I joined the team of “Living Islam”, my perception of Islam was dominated by prejudice and ignorance, and I found its treatment of women abhorrent. To me the veil symbolized the oppression of women, making them invisible, anonymous and voiceless, and the cause of this oppression lay in the will to perpetuate the family and maintain a patriarchal framework - the very basis of an Islamic Society. I thought women were entirely submerged by divine justification of their role as wife and mother.
“Living Islam” was filmed over two years in 19 different countries and on location I was a lone female in an otherwise male team. I was aware that I especially should behave appropriately. In my mind, women were to be neither seen nor heard. My first trip took me to Mali - to an untypical Muslim community in the bush. Making sure to cover every bit of naked flesh while the men wandered around in short sleeves, I wondered what rooms I was permitted to enter and who I was permitted to talk to. But I also wondered whether my new-found meekness was not in part a reaction to the overpowering atmosphere of the patriarchal society I found my self in. Was this how Muslim women felt - resignation in the face of impossible odds?

The first Muslim woman I met in Mali was far removed from my preconception about the Muslim female. She was the wife of a Shaikh dedicated to converting pagan villagers to Islam. A sophisticated, well-educated woman, previously married to a diplomat, she had renounced a Western lifestyle for a life in purdah. In my eyes she had sentenced herself to life imprisonment. But here was no prisoner, no poor downtrodden slave. A sharp intelligent and influential woman stood before me, clearly the one “who wore trousers” round here. Her seclusion gave her a status of honour and allowed her to exercise control from behind closed doors without confrontation. She was the bargainer, the head of the household, and the manager of her husband’s affairs and schedule.

The emancipated woman in the West faces the conflict between confirmation of her femininity and the privileges that she associates with it, and repudiation of the confines of her female role and all the limitations that men want her to assume. From where I stood, this woman had transformed those limitations into privileges.

On my next trip to northern Nigeria I met two more women who would alter my views even further. These were two women from the household of Shaikh Zakzaky, a fervent preacher of Jihad who urges his supporters to follow the example of Iran and replace the imperialistic western regime with an Islamic state. Zeenah Ibraheem, Zakzaky’s wife and Fatima Yunus, her friend, had agreed to be interviewed about the role of women in Islam. They were in purdah and would only speak to another woman. The producer asked me to interview them. I was nervous apart from the fact that I had never interviewed anyone before. I was worried that my feminist sympathies would antagonize the women. But it was precisely those sympathies that Zeenah and Fatima themselves were questioning.

Once again, the women were educated and articulate. And once again they had rejected the Western lifestyle which I considered so superior to Islam in its treatment of women.

http://muslim-canada.org/bbcwoman.htm

As I took my seat on a carpet in the courtyard, the invisible boundary between men and women was a welcome partition, and within this boundary womanhood reigned supreme. This was a sharp contrast with the feelings from the previous days in locations where my presence had been acceptable only as an “honourary man”. We had been filming the medieval theatrics of the ‘Salla’ celebrations that marked the end of Ramadan. Men, men, men everywhere: 500,000 men gathered for prayer on the morning of the Salla, men pouring into the inner courtyard of the Emir of Kano’s inner courtyard to pay homage - I was grateful to be allowed to witness these events but at what price? The complete annihilation of my female identity?

But now I was taking the reins because of my sex. No more the feeling of inferiority and exclusion, as a novice in things Islamic surrounded by a team of experts, as a woman in a patriarchal society. Now the men were excluded. Apart from the cameraman and sound recordist, they were encouraged to stand well back. The cameraman covered his head and the camera with a black cloth - his very own veil. I was now in a world where the men had no voice.

The women talked and in their answers I saw the seeds of my own reevaluations. They argued that the veil signified their rejection of an unacceptable system of values which debased women while Islam elevated women to a position of honour and respect. “It is not liberation where you say women should go naked. It is just oppression, because men want to see them naked.” Just as to us the veil represents Muslim oppression, to them miniskirts and plunging necklines represent oppression. They said that men are cheating women in the West. They let us believe we’re liberated but enslave us to the male gaze. However much I insist on the right to choose what I wear, I cannot deny that the choice is often dictated by what will make my body more attractive to men. Women cannot separate their identity from their appearance and so we remain trapped in the traditional feminine world, where the rules are written by men.

By choosing to wear the veil, these women were making a conscious decision to define their role in society and their relationship with men. That relationship appeared to be based more on exchange and mutual respect (a respect that was often lacking in the personal relationships I saw in the West), than the master/servant scenario I had anticipated. The veil to them signified visual confirmation of their religious commitment, in which men and women were united, and for Zeenah and Fatima an even stronger commitment to a political ideal.

So were my notions of oppression in the form of the veil disqualified? If my definition of equality was free will then I could no longer define that oppression as a symptom of Islam. The women had all exercised their right to choose. To some extent, they were freer than me - I had less control over my destiny. I could no longer point at them and say they were oppressed and I was not. My life was influenced by male approval as theirs - but the element of choice had been taken out of mine. Their situations and their arguments had, after all, served to highlight shortcomings in my view of my own liberty.

To all those who know nothing about my faith, would they kindly stop lecturing me about it!

This is what the Qur’an says about women:

“O mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that you may know each other. Verily the most honoured of you in the sight of God is (one who is) the most righteous of you. And God has full knowledge and is well acquainted (with all things)” (Qur’an 49:13)

“O mankind! Reverence your Guardian-Lord, Who created you from a single soul, created, of like nature, its mate, and from them twain scattered (like seeds) countless men and women-reverence God, through Whom you demand your mutual (rights), and (reverence) the wombs (that bore you): for God ever watches over you” (Qur’an 4:1)

“It is He Who created you from a single soul and made its mate of like nature, in order that he might dwell with her in love”… (Qur’an 7:189)

“Never will I suffer to be lost the work of any of you, be he/she male or female: you are members one of another…” If any do deeds of righteousness, be they male or female, and have faith, they will enter paradise and not the least injustice will be done to them” (Qur’an 4:124)

“Whoever works righteousness, man or woman, and has Faith, verily, to him will We give a new Life, a life that is good and pure and We will bestow on such their reward according to the best of their actions”. (16-97)

“The Believers, men and women, are protectors one of another: they enjoin what is just, and forbid what is evil: they observe regular prayers, practise regular charity, and obey God and His Messenger. On them will God pour His mercy: for God is Exalted in power, Wise”. (9:71)

“If any do deeds of righteousness, be they male or female - and have faith, they will enter Heaven, and not the least injustice will be done to them”. (3-124)

“Then shall anyone who has done an atom’s weight of good, see it! And anyone who has done an atom’s weight of evil, shall see it”. (99:7-8)

“And among His Signs is this: He created for you soul-mates from among yourselves that ye may dwell in tranquillity with them, and He plants love and mercy between your (hearts): verily in that are Signs for those who reflect. (30-21)

“Glory be to Him Who created all the pairs: of what the earth produces, as well as their own (human) kind and (other) things of which they have no knowledge of”. (36; 36)
 
“For Muslim men and women, for believing men and women, for devout men and women, for truthful men and women, for men and women who are patient and constant, for men and women who humble themselves, for men and women who give in Charity, for men and women who fast (and deny themselves), for men and women who guard their chastity, and for men and women who engage much in God’s praise; for them has God prepared forgiveness and great reward”. (33:35)

Some of Muhammad’s sayings:

“Women are but shaqa’iq (twin halves or sisters) of men”

“I commend you to be good to women”

“Heaven lies at the feet of mothers”

“The best of you are the kindest to their wives”

“Seeking knowledge is mandatory for every Muslim male and female”

Nahida,

Perhaps you should read Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s “Infidel”, a piercingly brave denunciation of Islam’s treatment of women.

It will point out to you just how few rights your religion provides you.

Your religion should be outlawed for human rights abuse.

Nahida,

from todays news:By DIAA HADID

GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip (AP) - An Islamic group threatened to behead female TV broadcasters if they don’t wear strict Islamic dress, frightening reporters and signaling a further shift toward extremism in the Gaza Strip.

The threat to “cut throats from vein to vein” was delivered by the Swords of Truth, a fanatical group that has previously claimed responsibility for bombing Internet cafes and music shops. The new threat was the first time the organization targeted a specific group of people.

In many parts of the Muslim world, conservative policies keep women out of TV anchor positions or dictate they wear headscarves on air.”

I understand they are fanatics. But did you happen to notice the last part about women not being able to even be TV anchors, or that they force them to wear headscarves on the air.

That’s some religion you have there. How can you defend your lack of human rights?

Nahida, your faith dehumanizes you. I’m only pointing out that men rule your life through your religion, and you really have no choice in the matter.

Believing that you are happy with men ruling your life may make it livable, but that certainly isn’t freedom, and it is truly quite sad.

BlueBoy

You said “Subsequent doctrinal choices, however, did put an end to that.  So, it may be true that many may be Muslim because they don’t know anything else, but the same can be said of at least some portion of the faithful in any form of religion.  To stereotypically dismiss all adherents to any belief system as intellectually and educationally challenged is in itself intellectually dishonest.”

The hundreds of years that Muslims have lost out on advances in the world have seen the greatest changes in all history.

I didn’t dismiss all adherents as intellectually and educationally challenged. That said, it is a fact that the vast majority of muslims in the world have had nothing but religious education, and also what would be considered less than a grade school education here in the U.S.

This is in response to the claim that 1/4 of the worlds population are muslim and that the point proves its validity. Vast numbers of poorly educated people says nothing about the value of Islam.

I think we all are aware that you likely end up with the religion of your parents. That isn’t proof of their validity either.

Faith is belief without evidence. It is dangerous to accept the mindset that belief without evidence is a proper intellectual pursuit.

Harlon57
Does it make you feel better when you dehumanize me and my Muslim sisters?
Does it make feel superior?

Quote from:  #74539 by Harlon57 on 6/01 at 9:03 am:

“The vast majority of the Islamics in the world come from countries where education, other than religious, is almost non-existent.

If you only count those with an education, you don’t approach anything near one quarter of the world’s population.”

While I won’t waste my breath defending the excesses of radical Muslims and their tortured misinterpretation of their own faith, and while I have pointed out elsewhere that there are hundreds of places in the Qu’ ran that exhort death and mayhem on “infidels,” I think we should take a broader view of the intellectual capacity of those of Muslim faith.  With Europe in the throes of the so-called “Dark Ages,” the Islamic world had one of the most flourishing intellectual, scientific, mathematical, literary, and artistic cultures the world has ever seen.  Subsequent doctrinal choices, however, did put an end to that.  So, it may be true that many may be Muslim because they don’t know anything else, but the same can be said of at least some portion of the faithful in any form of religion.  To stereotypically dismiss all adherents to any belief system as intellectually and educationally challenged is in itself intellectually dishonest.

As for atheism, theism, or whatever, it seems to me that attacking people for their beliefs based on the inability of the attacker to prove a “factual” basis for them is oxymoronic.  That’s why they are called “beliefs” instead of “facts.”  If one finds it impossible to exist without faith, that person should be allowed to have that faith, so long as it does not lead to harm of others.  Naturally, the many crimes and terrorisms committed in the name of one or another belief system are reprehensible and should be punished.  On the other hand, if one finds it unnecessary to subscribe to a belief system in order to deal with life, then that should be allowed them.  It is at the interstices between belief and non-belief, or between two different beliefs for that matter, that frictional dynamic creates competitive antagonism and conflict.  Much of the world’s ills can be attributed to that.

lexslime

Muslims respect their women by treating them as chattle.
Rape is punished by death. That is quite a deterrent.
American women wear what they wish, if they wish to attract men, they dress as they chose.
Muslim women can’t worship with the men, are told what to wear (pretending that it is choice to accept what is being forced upon you is intellectually dishonest), in many countries are not allowed an education, are frequently given as wives at ridiculously early ages (= rape of the too young to be willing).
Yeah, tell us all about the many forward thinking muslims and their beneficent treatment of women.
I’ve known all too many muslim men who treat their women as second class citizens. They believe it is their obligation to beat their wives if the commit some perceived wrong. Yeah, they respect their women all right, only to the extent that the women do just as they are told.
Every society has problems, Muslims rule with an iron theocratic fist.
I’ll take freedom and its associated problems any day.

Billy the Dik.

you said “Atheism is as ridiculous as any other religion”.
While it may be less than intellectually honest to say there is no god, that would be the end of the comparison.
I doubt atheists spend much of their lives worrying about; sin, faith, ritual, praising dead guys, etc.
While I don’t believe in god, I don’t say one couldn’t exist.
That said, I live my life as though there is no god.
A defacto atheist.

Thank you thank you thank you Phaedral.

You’re onto the real issue: Sam Harris is a dangerous bigot.

There is nothing wrong with atheism UNLESS IT IS USED TO RATIONALIZE OPPRESSION AND DOMINATION OF OTHERS.

There is nothing wrong with religion UNLESS IT IS USED TO RATIONALIZE OPPRESSION AND DOMINATION OF OTHERS.

Jason!  I disagree with you!  Your condescension is epic.  The presentation of your arguments is rude and repetitive.  You call names!

I think I love you.  Never give up!  Don’t let these guys get you down! Watching your struggle is inspiring.  You got the music in you. Sir, you have grit! 

Sorry, just an empirical observation.  It’s all I have.

Gary: Jason and Phaedral, no more excuses.  Whistle up this god of yours and get him down here.

Methinks, friend Gary, you have not read the whole thread as deeply as you could, else you might have seen where I wrote: Actually, I’m more the agnostic with a taste for Taoist thought.  I’m not, as a rule, terribly interested in arguing religion.  I’m more concerned with busting Harris’s self-righteous bigoted chops than arguing the anti-religion trappings with which he tries to hide his bigotry.

Can’t speak for Jason, wouldn’t if I could.  He may have learned to type the word “epistemology” but he clearly doesn’t understand what he’s talking about, more’s the pity.

Still, I’m curious what it was that you read which caused you lump me with Jason.  Feel free to respond priavtely if you like, beau ( a t ) oblios-cap ( d o t ) com; I’ve found such private notes can go along way toward establishing a tone of mutual respect even in the face of strong substantive disagreement.

Peace.

On the subject of the CONTRADICTORY nature of the “triune” godhead.

A thing cannot be A and non-A at the same time and in the same respect.

A thing cannot be, simultaneously, one entity and three entities.

An entity cannot be, simultaneously, its own father and its own son.

When Jesus prays in the Garden of Gethsemane, he has to be praying to an entity separate from himself. If this is true, then God is separate from Jesus. If there is only one God, and Jesus prays to him as a separate entity, then Jesus cannot also be God. If Jesus prays to a separate entity that is God, and he is also God, then there is more than one God. You can’t have it both ways.

Early Christians “solved” this problem by actually admitting the doctrine of the Trinity was absurd! From their perspective, it took no great faith to believe in something logical, but to believe in the absurd: now THAT’S a true leap of faith.

See Tertullian and Augustine for more details.

So, Jason Bradfield: here is your assignment. Tell me exactly how a being can be simultaneously its own father and its own son. Tell me how Jesus simultaneously prays to an entity that is separate from himself, yet also IS himself. Are Jesus, God the Father, and the Holy Spirit THREE entities, or ONE? You can’t have it both ways.

An optional approach is to simply agree with Tertullian and Augustine.

Oh, and by the way, saying “you’re a moron” does not qualify as an argument.

Hi Jason Bradfield,

Why, I thought you had given up. So good to have you back again!

Didn’t Jesus say that those who say unto their neighbor, “thou fool,” shall be in danger of hellfire? I think that goes for “thou moron,” as well. It just might be that you are not displaying very Christian behavior.

If you find you have to engage in namecalling, that is a sure sign you need to improve the quality of your argument.

On the question of the Bible contradicting itself. My point in discussing Leviticus and the early Christians was not to provide an illustration of the law of contradiction (dear boy—you really need to get that bug out of your head), but to point out that early Christians claimed “the law and the prophets” had been superseded by Christ. But—this was my main point—the early Christians did not tell us precisely which laws were now obsolete, and which should still be followed. That being the case, it’s a matter of “pick and choose.” The larger point I was making was that you cannot base an epistemological system on the Bible “taken as a whole,” because there are a lot of gaps (and yes—contradictions) in the Bible. The fact that we have two and seventy jarring sects all claiming to have received their wisdom from “the Bible as a whole” indicates this formula is flawed.

As you pointed out, Paul did not say it is both lawful and unlawful, at the same time, to eat shellfish. The point is, he didn’t address shellfish at all. He also didn’t address stoning homosexuals, walking around the altar flinging lamb’s blood (not even the Jews do that anymore), or forbidding cripples from entering the temple. In effect, he left application of religious law wide open to interpretation. If we are to “take the Bible as a whole,” the New Testament certainly left out a lot of details we would have to know.

Now, see if you can reply to this post without name-calling. I know it’s hard, but do try: it’s the Christian thing to do. Hope it doesn’t rankle you too much to have this agnostic point that out to you.

J Bradfield,

Your hypocrisy, for starters, is astounding. You cannot decry your opponents in a debate as being morons, and then implore them to embrace your “love thy neighbor” belief system. It demonstrates a disdain for the process of debate and a fundamental misrepresentation of your position, if we are to use Jesus Christ’s biblical representation as a frame of reference. As an ambassador of Christianity, you are in need of censure in that regard.

You deny the very possibility of consensus by your deconstructionism, however, which makes any communication in this forum impossible. Everything in your belief system is reduced to formalized axiomatic constructs like “God=Bible=Logic” that gain their supposed credence from a very human book that calls for some rather drastic metaphysical trapeze work. All your capital-L logic is corollary to the fundamental presupposition that your leap-of-faith is justified, ultimately, by your relationship to one set of ideas - your interpretation of one book.

You fail to recognize that you argue your points in the same uncertain universe as the rest of us. There is nothing about your position that breaks free from the problems of formal philosophy or uncertainty. Your willingness to resort to deconstructionism without pointing the wrecking ball at the flaws in a metaphysical belief system that chases its own axiomatic tail is curious, but very convenient for someone as unwilling to accept the consequences of an absolutist position as yourself.

You are not exempt from uncertainty, or from the spacetime we inhabit. Your logic is not special, nor is it perfected by some supernatural force that you believe exists based on texts that you read in many-times-over translated and interpreted editions. Again, you are the party laying claim to a perfected belief system, so the burden of proof rests with you to properly make your case here in the physical world, subject to the same ultimate philosophical problems of certainty that we all share.

When making extraordinary claims about the nature of the universe, its supposed creator, and its creator’s human incarnation, it is not at all irrational to operate from a position of skepticism. You have done much to try to point out the flaws of induction as irrational, but you yourself use inductive reasoning all the time. Learning through experience is integral to human experience - in fact, we are wired for it. You are wired for it. You cannot escape its influence over human thought anymore than any of us. You use induction as much as the rest of us, but you presuppose that anyone not inclined to believe as you do places absolute faith in induction. Not everyone is a worshipper and an absolutist.

I make no claims to perfect knowledge, and I make no claims to certainty about anything. I simply operate from the position of the skeptic on matters utterly alien to my experience. Your harping on induction is a parlor trick and a parrying of the burden of proof for your position. Otherwise, you are engaging in denial and obfuscation of the highest magnitude, and once again, your involvement in a debate on these matters is a fundamental contradiction based on your absurd deconstructionism.

If you deny the uncertainty at the heart of all our experience for the sake of your own ideological agenda, but use it as a weapon against those who ask you for evidence for your extraordinary claims, you are fundamentally dishonest and have no place in this discussion. We are all dependent on experience. We all exist in a fundamentally uncertain universe. Again I’ll say it: doctor, heal thyself.

Nahida, interesting little poem about your desire to dress in a way that allows you freedom.

I don’t think it is freedom which caused you to adopt your choice of dress, I think it is forced upon you by men.

To prove me wrong, go out into public in an Muslim country not fully covered, and try to keep from being jailed or stoned.

Doesn’t sound like a choice, other than you have made the choice to wear what the men demand.

You have decided to be accept being completely subjugated to men’s will. Thats too bad.

The choices you have are the choices men allow you to have. Some freedom.

Hello Nahida,

You asked “why do one quarter of the world chose Islam as a faith??”

The vast majority of the Islamics in the world come from countries where education, other than religious, is almost non-existent.

If you only count those with an education, you don’t approach anything near one quarter of the world’s population.

Beyond that, I would say most educated people who believe in religion are the weak who require some false purpose in life. They also fear death to the point they will believe in a bronze age myth to make themselves feel better.

Religion = Ignorance, and Ignorance knows no bounds.

Paolo says, “The many authors of the Bible often contradict one another. For example, the early Christians were fond of saying that Jesus had superseded the laws of Leviticus.”

Again Paolo, the simple law of contradiction completely escapes you. And that is why I will continue calling you a moron. I have answered you and I have placed the challenge before you. And instead of dealing with the challenge, you twist my quote of what I actually said about the law of contradiction and make it something that it is not. You’re a moron.

Let’s try this one more time:

“The law of contradiction states that “one cannot say of something that it is and that it is not in the same respect and at the same time”.

You claim that the early Christians contradict the Scriptures by pointing out the cessation of certain laws in Leviticus.

Uh…hello? That is NOT a contradiction. One more time: IN THE SAME RESPECT AND AT THE SAME TIME.

One more time: AT THE SAME TIME.

When Paul wrote and when Moses wrote were two different TIME periods genius.

A contradiction would exist if Paul had written something like, “Eating Shell fish is currently a sin. Eating Shell fish is currently not a sin.” But he never says anything even remotely close to that.

Please, take time off the internet, purchase a textbook on formal logic, study it, and then comeback to me in a couple of months or so.

Taproot;

You also said: “It’s laughable and ironic that Muslims are so worried all the time that if a woman does’nt show “modesty” and keep herself wrapped in a tent (showing arms is a hiddious act of vulgarity ! )she is going to be a shameless whore who will attract the men to violate her.”

I would kindly invite you to look:

Beyond the veil

My modest dress that you see
As a sign of oppression
For me, is the symbol of ultimate liberation

It urges you to look beyond the veil
To peel the skin
To peep through the physical
The limited… the confined
Straight into the essence
The infinite … the boundless

It’s a glaring statement
I am more than just a body
I am a mind… a heart
And a soul

Don’t just stop there
At the door
Come in
Get to know me
For what I really am

It gives me contentment
And great satisfaction
With my femininity

It gives me dignity
As I refuse to be portrayed
As a sex object

It gives me freedom
To choose my dress
Not only wearing what men desire

It gives me protection
From all undesired attention
For my intimacy I only share
With the one I love

Does that make any sense to you?

I don’t think I have ever seen so many hateful, vicious, vitriolic words packed into such a small space, as in the 198 comments below pursuant to Sam’s article. It is absolutely astonishing.  Unfortunately, I guess that is not unexpected in any “discussion” about religion.

Billy the Dik: Yes, Arabs are Semitic peoples, just not Harris’s particular hateful tribe.

You are probably on target here, and it’s possible Harris just lacks the maturity to recognize what really motivates him.

But to be clear, he’s not a racist.  Nor a sexist.  When Chris Hedges made the mistake of calling Harris’s position racist Sam acted like a chess junkie confronted with the one opening he knows well enough to play credibly.  “How dare you call me a racist, when I’m the one pointing out how it’s Muslim women who suffer most under Islam!”  He was quite breathless about it, and managed to imply, deftly, that in opposing Harris it is Hedges who is complicit in the plight of the oppressed.  (Nahida’s comments about the accuracy of Sam’s views, obviously, notwithstanding.)

So, be clear, Sam Harris is not a racist, per se.  He is, however, by the words he has written, an unrepentant religious bigot, and an arrogant one at that, hiding behind efforts to earn credentials completely unrelated to the subject matter at hand and a gift for, like all sophists, emotional argument, reductionism, and the raising of straw men.

But I was equally disappointed with Hedges and Scheer.  Scheer at one point flatly said, “I’m not going to put you on the spot” with regards to Harris’s whine that Hedges misrepresented Harris.  When later Hedges pulled chapter and verse from Harris’s own book Harris tried to deflect.  And then Hedges blew the whole thing by feeding Harris one of Harris’s preferred gambits, the accusation of racism, after which Sam deftly moved to his intellectually illegitimate Nazi allusions.  Hedges should have known better.  And even after gifting Sam with such a slow-pitched softball, Hedges should have simply said, “My mistake, the word is ‘bigot’.”

nahida: ...try to answer the simple question: why do one quarter of the world chose Islam as a faith?

I apologize for not knowing a proper greeting—-I keep wanting to write, “Shalom,” and I know that’s from the wrong pew.  I don’t know that it’s fair to say all Moslems “choose” Islam, anymore than it is fair to say all Christians “choose” Christianity, nor even that all Atheists “choose” atheism.  But I can say this, the Moslems I have had the privilege to know have uniformly been such delightful people that I can’t help but be attracted to their faith.  Likewise, I’ve yet to see a religious position or tradition free of the brutal evils perpetrated in the name of atheism at the hands of Stalin, in the name of Christianity at the hands of Torqemada, or in the name of Islam at the hands of al Qeada.  Seems to me then that the human capacity for good and evil transcend these beliefs.

Peace.

Looks like Jason has left the building. Pity. Let me just offer another response to his methodology. He says:

“The bottom line is that neither you nor anyone else deals with what the Bible actually says in its entirety.”

Wow! The Bible doesn’t “say” anything “in its entirety.” A little history lesson: the Bible was written by probably hundreds of now-anonymous people, over a period of perhaps two thousand years, give or take five hundred or so.

The many authors of the Bible often contradict one another. For example, the early Christians were fond of saying that Jesus had superseded the laws of Leviticus. But I ask you: which laws? I guess, post Jesus, it’s okay to eat shellfish—but do we still kill the homosexuals? I guess we don’t have to march around the altar anymore, sprinkling pigeon and lamb blood while praising God—but heck, even the Jews dropped that one ages ago. We all agree the law against theft should be kept on the books, but should we really bar people with physical defects from entering the temple? (I guess the sight of them would offend God somehow).

I could list many logical contradictions, such as where Cain got his wife, but that might get boring.

In summation, dealing with the Bible “in its entirety” is a logical impossibility.

This, by the way, does not in any way reduce the Bible’s stature as a fascinating source of history, mythology, and philosophy. I like reading the Bible, about as much as I like reading the Greek classic myths. Both are very revealing of the cultures that produced them.

By the way, calling an intellectual opponent a “moron” is the same as saying, “I can’t answer you.” That is a sure sign that you need to lower your voice, and improve your argument.

Jason, Thanks a lot. You helped me a lot.
Could you please tell me how virgin giving birth is possible?  I am just confused.

Taproot;

you said:

(“THERE ARE MORE RAPES IN THE MUSLIM SOCIETIES THAT AMONGST ANY OTHER PEOPLE !  Your “beloved” men are weak and cowardly, because if they see a woman’s uncovered body they will fall all apart and lose thier will-power. They don’t know wrong from right ? Well, they just can’t help themselves——the woman MADE HIM DO “IT” !!!
You and other women like you are a bunch of captives sitting around trying to convince each other that being a captive “isn’t so bad after all “).

Dear Taproot, before you raise you voice so loud to liberate me as a Muslim women, and as you dare to come with such claims about me and my life, would you kindly present to us your research papers and conscientious studies that prove your claims.

Would you kindly offer to show me the scientific evidence that proves to me that we –Muslim women- are brainwashed captives, forced into marriage, and live a life of slavery?

Would you answer me if Islam is such a bad ideology, and if it degrades women as you claim, why is it that 4 out of 5 converts to Islam are women (of your folks), knowing that Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world?

I would urge your conscious and your human integrity to trouble yourself with some investigation and to do a bit of homework before you make such Hollywood movie-based fantasies?

A good point to start might be by watching this elementary introduction about Islam.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-768956312207897325&q=when

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4312980342283025421&q=empire

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7502243539190558658&q=empire

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=94144204270367302&q=empire

I am appealing to every person of integrity, to every peace loving and harmony seeking human; to set their prejudice (that was picked up from Hollywood and tabloid newspapers) aside and to try to answer the simple question: why do one quarter of the world chose Islam as a faith?
Is it not worth real investigations and honest research?

To believe in God or not believe, to have a faith or not is not the issue, it will forever be matter of disagreement, it is the individual’s choice of how he/ she perceive the world; but what is of crucial importance for the survival of our world is: are we able to learn to live together -as compassionate human beings- with those differences by putting into practice our high principles of tolerance and respect of those who chose a different view of the world?

is that too much to ask?

http://poetryforpalestine.spaces.live.com/

Jason,

you have converted me, i fully believe everything you have said about induction and deduction and formal fallacies and all that.  In fact, i will spot you the truth of the entire essay that you pointed to. 

With the exception of the last paragraph. 

can we get on with it now?

will you actually attempt to answer some questions?

you could start with defending how the last paragraph in that essay makes the rest true.

And, while your at it, can you prove to me that the scripture you site, john 1:1 will be the same the next time you open your bible?

Just thought I’d make one more effort to get back to the topic of Sam Harris’s unsupportable bigotry and open calls for persecution of Islam.  I admit to being as guilty as any of getting side-tracked, but Harris’s bigotry and willingness to engage in religious persecution is the real story.

At Royce Hall Harris trotted out a line, “No one would say, ‘It is just the extremist Nazis that we have to worry about.’”  Apparently the wag has never heard of Godwin.  Harris’s willingness to play the Nazi card inappropriately is all the more damning in that, if consistently applied to his own statements supporting “war on Islam” and “creation of ‘benevolent’ dictatorships” by means of economic sanction or military occupation, then Harris has in fact cast his lot with the Nazis rather than their opponents.  However, despite Harris’s inapt Nazi allusion, it is the case that we don’t need to be too worried about the moderate atheists.  But we very much need to fear extremist atheists like Harris who would use their sophistries to support “just a little” religious persecution, “because this religious group is different.”

Well, Jason, I did just now look at your website (found it thru google) and did enjoy many of articles regarding our esteemed president.  I will continue to be a visitor.  I have no doubt that you are a bright young man, but I suggest you tone down the pomposity. As for religion, most people I know don’t really care if a person wants to throw oatmeal at the moon, and speak in tongues.  I regard it as akin to a freak show at the carnival.  But what I most strongly object to is the concept that it is OK to impose one’s fairy tales on others. Most religious nuts take it as a given that if you are arguing with them, then you are aguing with God, and are evil and wrong by definition.  Of course most religious people must fall back on faith, because the evidence is surely lacking.  I was raised in a main stream faith (Presbyterian) and really have no problems with it because it has never embarassed me.  I once attended a revival tent show in Georgia conducted by Oral Roberts—need I say more.  I guess the enlightenment somehow passed by the bible belt.

bigjimbo,

another irrational leap in lumping all “faiths” into one. sheeesshhh.

The bottom line is that neither you nor anyone else deals with what the Bible actually says in its entirety.

Instead, you make generic, blanket statements about all us religious folks and throw us into one barrel.

Please don’t refer to yourself as a rational person.

Oh, and by the way, if you would actually spend some time on my site, you’ll see that i defend the Biblical teaching of a fulfilled eschatology which refutes the idea that millions of Christians will disappear into thin air at some future time when Jesus supposedly comes to end planet earth. I have sponsored conferences/debates in combating such silly “Left Behind” nonsense.

Yet, you make some ridiculous comment about me awaiting the rapture.

Another example of your ignorant comments and disinterest in a honest conversation.

I’m done with you morons. At least Bertrand Russell put more effort into it.

Most scientists and engineers would acknowledge that what are called scientific principles are approximations to the workings of the physical world.  Newton’s laws of motion are not as good an approximation as Einstein’s theories of relativity, but Newton’s work was good enough to get us to the moon and back.  The approximate scientific principles have resulted in great advances in the quality of life, but also great advances in terrible weaponry.  But, science cannot disprove the existence of God.  So what?  Does the knowledge that the existence of God can not be disproved result in something useful? I do believe that acceptance of spirituality can provide comfort or the basis of communal spirit.  But you can get all that without the unreasonable burdens imposed by bureaucratic religion.  Religion is the problem, and has a bloody history to prove it.

Frank,

Once again, you dodge the problem of induction and empiricism and imply that i am playing some semantic game.

How lazy of you.

Ever read Hume? Ever read Bertrand Russell?

When you have an opportunity, run over to Barnes and Noble and pick up Bertrand Russell’s “The Problem of Philosophy” and read especially chapter 6, “On Induction.”

In that chapter you will find the atheist logician stating that the “general principles of science” are “completely dependent upon the inductive principle” and that simply because experience may produce probability, it “affords no evidence for their truth in the future, unless the inductive principle is assumed.”

“The inductive principle, however, is equally INCAPABLE of being PROVED by an appeal to experience.” (p. 46)

You can call the justification of induction problem semantics all you want. Russell called it the one of the “most difficult and most debated problems in philosophy.”

Gordon H Clark, deceased philosopher/theologian, answered Russell years ago. He destroyed the empirical foundation of Russell and most every other atheist.

The debate has long been over. It’s not a problem for us who refuse to deny the omniscient Creator and His revelation.

But you won’t find the “Rational Response Squad” or Sam Harris engaging in debates with men like Clark.

That would be the death of them…they are scared as hell.

nice comeback bigjimbo. Did it take you all day to think of that one?

I saw a great bumper sticker which seems to say it all:

ALL GODS ARE CREATED EQUAL

The interpretation is up to you.

Jason, you have already amply demonstrated that you are a religious wingnut and a pompous ass.  Where did you get your training in logic: from some diploma mill bible school, alongside Monica Goodlin and nearly all talibangelists.  Calm down, drink your koolaid, and await the rapture.

Jason Bradfield wrote: “I am not attacking science, per se. I am attacking atheist morons who take science further than they should and insist on it being a means to “knowledge”...the gateway to “truth”... “

If you think science is not a means to knowledge and truth, (the most demonstrably successful means to knowledge in human history for that matter),  you must be using some arbitrarily limited definition of the words ‘knowledge’ and ‘truth.’ The idea that these things are outside the realm of science is absurd. Perhaps you are more interested in a game of semantics than in useful conversation.

Example: “Water molecules are a compound of hydrogen and oxygen.”  This statement is in accordance with fact, ergo it is a Truth. My awareness of this fact constitutes Knowledge.  Science was the path to humanity’s discovery of this bit of truth, and the knowledge gained as a result.

Why do you attack claims such as this?

Jason

<>

As you suggested, I went back and read Deutoronomy 13:7-11 again.  It seems to me that it is very specific.  It says that non-believers must be killed, and if I discover a non-believer, be it my brother, my son or daughter, my spouse, or my most intimate friend, I must strike the first blow.  What exactly is out of context?  It also seems that God himself is confirming that he really means everything in the Bible to be taken literally: Deuteronomy 13:1 “Whatever I am now commanding you, you must keep and observe, adding nothing to it, taking nothing away.”  Please explain to me, without sarcasm or insults, where I am mistaken and how I am taking this out of context.  Where in the Bible does it say that Deutoronomy should be read metaphorically?

Jason: phaedral…20% Taoist, 100% fool.

My prior attempt to reply seems to have gotten itself lost in the ether.

I don’t know that I’d agree to the 20% Taoist part, that might overstate the case.  The fool part, clearly you are correct on that or I wouldn’t bother to engage the likes of you, eh?

I see you’ve avoided my challenge about the sin of pride, and likewise are unable (are insufficiently stocked with chutzpah) to acknowledge my answer to your death/burning paper challenge.  You weren’t even able to do other than repeat your “I don’t mean the Three are One that way; I mean it some idiosyncratic way that allows me to look, at least in my own eyes, slightly less foolish.”  Pity.

Don’t worry, I’m not the change-my-name type.  Quite the contrary.  Feel free to email me directly at beau ( a t ) oblios-cap ( d o t ) com if you want to try to make a personal connection of the type that allows vigorous debate but with a modicum of respect.

Meanwhile, thanks again for thinking of me.  Wanna turn this back to the substantive issue, that Sam Harris openly calls for religious persecution?

Jason: phaedral…20% Taoist, 100% fool.

Quite possibly, especially the fool part, as evidenced by my poor judgment in engaging the likes of you.

No answer on that “pride of sin thing” I see, nor the death/burning paper challenge.  Pity.  All you can do is prattle “I don’t mean the Three are One that way; I mean it my own special private way which allows me to, at least in my own mind, look a little less foolish.”

Still, thanks for thinking of me.  Care to change focus to the substantive issue here: Sam Harris’s position on religious persecution?

Hi Jason,

Well, it seems everyone is ganging up on you. Your dedication to your ideas in the face of this is admirable.

Nonetheless, let me gently and kindly point out a few other things. I personally don’t think Jesus viewed himself as the son of God at all (except in the metaphorical sense in which all are sons and daughters of God). Observe that, when asked if he was the son of God, he answered with an enigmatic, “Thou sayest.” When Jesus refers to God as “my father,” was he being literal, or was he being metaphorical? I would argue metaphorical, in the same sense he referred to God as “our (that is, everyone’s) father.”

The way I look at Jesus, from what we can piece together from scriptures (which were mostly written long after his death), is that he was a stunningly original thinker. I don’t think he was divine, and I don’t even think he thought he was divine (again, except in a symbolic sense). But he did challenge the conventional thought of his time, and paid the usual price for doing so that original thinkers have had to pay throughout the ages.

Observe also that the Gospels devote a lot of time tracing Jesus’ lineage back to David, since the Messiah was supposed to be his descendant. But if Jesus was the literal son of God, born of a virgin, isn’t all this tracing of who begat whom a waste of time? If Joseph did not father Jesus, what’s the point?

If the trinity is such an important idea, don’t you think the scriptures would define it? As I pointed out, it took three centuries to even codify the doctrine at the Council of Nicaea. And even then, the doctrine (rightly so) was hotly disputed. I can see how one might “read into” the scriptures such a doctrine, but I think you can read a lot of opposing viewpoints into scripture. 

I frankly don’t see much difference between the way I described the law of non-contradiction, and the way you did. Whatever difference there is, is mere hair-splitting.

Just so I know where you’re coming from: do you accept the Bible as literal, infallible truth? Or are you willing to admit that much of it is metaphorical? Reading the Bible (which I encourage) is a lot more interesting when you approach it from an open minded perspective.

phaedral…20% Taoist, 100% fool.

Phaedral, I’m done wasting my time with you. Of course, you’ll probably change your log in name again and i’ll unknowingly wasted more time with you, but it won’t take long for your nonsense to rear its head.

1 = 3 is not the same thing as saying One God, Three Persons.

One God, Three Persons is no more contradictory than saying One basketball team, Five Players.

You’re a moron. Contact whoever taught you logic and slap them upside the head.

i’m done.

Jason: If you want to believe that 1 is the same as 3, then go ahead.

Actually, I’m more the agnostic with a taste for Taoist thought.  It’s you, Jason, saying 1 = 3 with your embrace of the doctrine of the Trinity.  Yes, I’ve seen your disingenuous disclaim of the Trinity as 1 = 3.  Oh well.  One doesn’t really expect intellectual honesty any more than one expects intellectual rigor from the likes of you.

Still, thanks for thinking of me.

phaedral says,

“I’m sure you recall from Logic 101 that accepting a contradiction as a premise, say, for instance the premise that 1 = 3, allows one to thereafter prove whatever they like.”

B - I - N - G - O!

There you have it folks. Make non-believers talk long enough and their insanity finally comes out.

Phaedral, it’s quite simple. I would never accept your premise that 1 = 3 because saying that 1 = 3 immediately violates the law of contradiction!

Maybe you live in some insane, irrational, la la land where 1 is the same as 3, but not here on planet earth. Not among us folks who insist on being logical people.

Try telling the tax collector 1 is the same as 3 and see where that lands you.

If you want to believe that 1 is the same as 3, then go ahead.

And let us know who have visitation rights and when we can stop by and bring you food.

Paolo,

I’m “touchy” because you twist words with almost every post. You did it again in your last one.

You said that I said, “a thing cannot be itself and something else at the same time and in the same respect.”

That is NOT what I said. I quoted: “one cannot say of something that it is and that it is not in the same respect and at the same time”

Big difference. Stop twisting my words.

And what do suppose you accomplish by pointing out that the word “Trinity” is not in the Bible? Of course it’s not. I’ve read through the Bible cover to cover multiple times. The actual word itself does not have to be in the Bible in order for the Bible to teach the MEANING behind the word.

I don’t care what you call it. It’s the meaning that is important, not the label. And Scripture clearly teaches that God is ONE in one sense and THREE in a different sense.

You erroneously twist the Bible to make it teach that God is THREE and ONE in the same sense. It does not say that. You have provided no Scripture(s) whatsoever to back your claim – NONE whatsoever.

Jason: Thirdly, I didn’t think you would take the “death” and “combustion” challenge. Fact is, you have no answer without resorting to the fallacy of induction UNLESS of course you act like a good atheist and behave yourself and admit you can’t really “know” these things.

But, you probably won’t. You have too much pride to stop there.

Hmm.  This sin of pride.  Care you, brother, to look to the beam in your own eye on that score?

Your death, the combustion of paper, all could be figments of my imagination if all I’m allowed is the evidence of my demonstrably unreliable senses.  Indeed, I find no way to prove I myself am other than a figment of your fevered brain.

Thanks for thinking of me.

Jason: The law of contradiction states that “one cannot say of something that it is and that it is not in the same respect and at the same time”.

Jason, having spoken well of you first I feel honor bound to point out when you yourself engage in cheap rhetoric or sophistical confounding.  Formal deductive logic treats only of propositions which are either absolutely true or absolutely false, thus ruling out all contradiction (and ambivalence and multi-valued nuance.)

I’m sure you recall from Logic 101 that accepting a contradiction as a premise, say, for instance the premise that 1 = 3, allows one to thereafter prove whatever they like.

niloroth,

1. You can’t establish a universal law regarding every single person, past, present, and future, based on the experience of a limited number of people in the past. You are committing a fallacy. i thought you understood logic?

2. I asked for the premise that necessarily leads to the conclusion that paper will always burn. Timmy said it would.

You just said it will, “most times”. “Most” of the time and “all” of the time are two different things.

You still haven’t met the challenge.

I’m asking for the justification of universal truths based on experience. You argued for “probability”. At least you were a little more consistent, but you still haven’t answered the question unless that was your way of saying, “No, i can never say with certainty that it will burn.”

Somehow, i don’t think you’ll leave it at that.

Vipul,

Yes.

phaedral,

You say logic is limited and flawed - how so? How is the law of contradiction, for example, flawed?

Are you saying that 2 can be 3? When? Where? How?

Limited? Yes. Logic is merely a tool for analyzing the relationships between propositional statements.

Logically, it is impossible to deduce that “my car is green” from the premise “Jill’s cat is fat.”

But logic itself doesn’t tell me anything about my car or Jill’s cat or what a cat even is. It merely analyzes the relationship between the two propositions and concludes that one can not follow from the other.

So yes, it is limited in that sense. Logic is useless without propositional truth. That is why i promote faith AND reason. Revelation and Logic.

Logic is like a skeletal system that keeps the meat together and structures it. But without the meat, you have nothing but bones on the floor.

Atheists are attempting to construct a body, if you will, with nothing but bones.

Many, like the logical positivists, attempt to start with logic alone and construct a worldview, rejecting revelation from a omniscient creator. But here is the problem. How can you LOGICALLY reason from experience to absolutes? From experience to universal law? You can’t.

So, i agree. Logic, in and of itself, is limited. Logic alone will not get us very far.

But how can you say that it is flawed? How are you defining logic because to say that it is flawed makes me questions whether we are even talking about the same thing.

Chancelot,

You said that my discussion of logic “seems to be a little off point” and then turn right around and lump all religions together and call them irrational. ***deep breath***

Make up your mind…do you want to talk about rationality or not? If you want to talk about logic, then let’s talk logic.

I’ve already presented the challenge. I have linked to another article that lays it out further. Atheists can not live up to the demands of logic because logic is deductive.

You can’t conclude absolutes based on an empirical axiom. “Probability” is not the same thing as “necessary inference”.

Telling the problem to go away doesn’t make it go away. You’re living in denial.

Jason: Face it - your view, if consistently follow out, leads to skepticism. However, skepticism itself is self-contradictory. Either way you run into contradictions and reject logic.

Amen.  But, please, don’t make the baby-out-with-the-bathwater mistake.  Logic is limited and flawed, as when Zeno “proves” Achilles can never catch the tortoise.  But this is not the same as rejecting logic.  I know when to use a spoon, when a fork, when a knife.  I reject none, but use each in their proper place.

At Royce Hall Harris outlined three ways to support religion.  In typical sophist manner he listed the three to which he has prepared answers and implied his list was exhaustive.  But he missed at least one important support of religion: it is an unavoidable fact of human life, be the form a simple animism like Shinto or a complex and contradictory mysticism like Zen or a politically powerful force like the Roman Catholic church.  Like it or not, humans are religious, arguably from the same drive as that which moves science, to wit, the desire to understand, to orient within the larger universe, to predict and control and achieve favorable outcomes.

Cavil as much as he may like (there’s a two-syllable word for your detractors <smile> ) Harris can do nothing to stem the tide of religiosity.  And you rightly point out that Harris’s ideological kettle cannot contain itself.

I don’t know that Harris’s views on religion are really worth the bother to discuss.  His conclusion that his views justify religious persecution, by way of contrast, should be very much at the forefront.  Harris considers “us” to be at war with Islam.  Not with a nation.  Not with perpetrators of some crime.  With a religion.  I suspect this is what comes of asking questions with great socio-political impact of a neuro-scientist-in-training, about on a par with asking Durkheim about an aneurysm.  But the truly dominant religions in our culture are scientism, from which comes such oxymorons as “Christian Science”, and cebebritism, in which a manufactured “religion” like Scientology actively recruits the Tom Cruises and John Travoltas of the world.  Harris currently benefits from the blind worship of both science and celebrity, despite the vacuity of what I’ve seen of his writing and presentation.

Jason, Could you please tell me if Jesus was born of virgin or not? Please give me a simplae answer to my simple question. Thanks…

Parabolic,

Try again. Read the context. Read the whole Bible. Learn the difference between the “Israel according to flesh” and “Israel according to Spirit”. Learn the ideas of covenant community. Learn the difference between the “evil age” and the “age to come”. Learn Biblical typology. Learn about the change in law that took place with the advent of Christ.

Scripture explains all this. You take a verses out of context and claim it teaches that Christians are supposed to kill non-believers.

Try again.

Question: Is it a rule that in order to maintain atheism, you’re not allowed to actually read books you criticize in their entirety and in context? Sheessshh.

Rowdy,

You’re another ignorant one who lies about what the Bible actually teaches. The Bible does not predict the world being “cooked” and coming to an end. Perhaps you pulled a Niloroth here and only read the first 20 pages.

Niloroth,

1.)  You did not address the issue of deduction and empiricism. Instead, you created a mock version of Christianity and then asked a question…that’s not an argument.
2.)  What does a hundred year difference in age have to do with providing original source material for establishing the Christian foundation of America? Furthermore, why would I waste time referring you to more books? You did not even read the one I did refer to you yet had the nerve to criticize it. What an amateur.
3.)  No, you’re wrong. The Bible does not present “multiple” views of the Trinity. And simply pointing out that there are thousands of sects doesn’t prove your false assertion that the Bible is confusing.

Your reasoning here is atrocious. Simple math is confusing and misunderstood by many – does that mean math is contradictory and presents multiple views? No. Is there more than one answer to the question: What is 2 times 2? A person can say 23 all they want. They would be the one confused and wrong; not the multiplication tables.

There is nothing here for me to answer. You haven’t established any rational argument yet. You merely gave one reference to a verse and claimed it is contradictory. You have not established that it is. And then you ramble on about different sects of Christians…whatever.

Give me something worthy to respond to and quit wasting my time. And read the rest of that book, the one you criticized, while you’re at it.

“.......and the beat(ing) goes on, ‘n’ on ‘n’ on ‘n’ on.” 

Mike (#74021) might like to know (or maybe not) that he’s “sign(ed) up” already….from birth.  And that “....our first (and last and only) mission” is to fulfill, with all the integrity we can bring-to-bear, the organic function of humanity within the living body of our Mother Earth.  Us Two-leggeds are vital components in Her auto-immune system (We are not, as so many’ve been misled to believe here in these latter days, the “brains” of the outfit….sorry!).

The “good news” is we DO (organically) what we ARE, as best we can, whether we will it or not….even whether we “know” it or not….just like the organs in our own bodies do.  The not-so-good news is humanity has been severely compromised (also just like so many of the organs in so many of our own bodies), in its capacity to do what we are, by the “global” immuno-suppression process called “civilization,” in a vain attempt to graft-on to the living arrangement here a kind of retro-viral not-quite life-form designed and intended by our tormentors to degrade the natural vitality of our Mother Earth (and all who “sail” in Her, including us human beings) into the various forms of degenerate “energy” upon which they’ve so stupidly come to depend for the maintenance of their own sorry half-lives (of which they’ve lately become terminally sick-and-tired, theirownselves). 

This retro-virusoid faux-living form is itself commonly called a “corporate entity.”  There are a bunch of ‘em active in Norway, too, at last report.

Mike Mid-City (#74022) can feel pretty safe in just going with what he’s got, native Turtle Islander-wise.  According to the homeopathic principle, no amount of “dilution” can entirely erase the essential properties of any given “substance,” (which is why everybody who lives anywhere “downstream” these days is drinking shit tea….bottled, filtered, or whatever). 

Turtle Island naturally raises-up free wild human beings.  So beneath the thin and fraying surface of civilization’s “veneer” there lives in all who’ve been born and/or nourished here for seven years (the time it takes to “replace” all the cells in our bodies) another of us “ickche wichasha.”

Our Mother Earth also can and will tolerate, finally, only the free and wild among her many children.  So, again, the abuses our tormentors have inflicted on the domesticated among us, and through them upon each other and so many of our relations, might temporarily suppress but can never actually destroy what is, by virtue of Her own essential nature, essentially ours as well.

It is ironic(?), or maybe not, that the tormentors are themselves acutely aware of all this.  Much of their “project” here has been meant to’ve first clouded and then erased, among those Two-leggeds lured into the contraption, the knowledge (and finally even any vague memory) of what it is we are and do here….not that it would’ve mattered anyhow, in the end. 

In this they have nevertheless failed….miserably.  Now we can see failing catastrophically, too, their grand scheme for sucking the native vitality from Earth, as they have from a long line of Her Sisters over aeons of “time” and vast reaches of “space,” before moving on to yet another living “victim”....a move some of their co-opted tame two-leggeds are working desperately to engineer for them even now, all-the-while expecting to go on keeping their exploiters company, in their mutual misery. 

One way or another, though, their ruthless and idiotic “shuck” stops here….once and for all.

HokaHey!

The roots of Christianity, as of many other religions, lay in fertility cults; and cultic practices, such as ingesting hallucenogenic drugs to perceive the mind of god. This persisted into Christian times. Detailed and coded intructions for scraping the soft upper layer away (harmful strichnine) from the top of a mushroom and letting it fall to the ground becomes the story of the initial shearing a young lambs wool and 100 years latter comes out ‘the meek shall inherit the earth’.

the only way to end this stupid debate,is to end the so called “human race”. thermonuclear holocaust across the entire planet. it would be glorious. the KKKristians would get their promised rain of fire and brimstone,the earth would be cooked just like the book of fantasies predicts. the rest of us not believing this crap would only die a little sooner and the world would be rid of religious idiots of all persuasions.