Western culture gone too far ? In light of clash...

[Sixpack]

Yep, you may be surprised but I am not without a fair share of heavy criticism regarding our own part of the world either. Yet, muslim terrorism bothers me most so that's why I tend to focus on that issue here as you may have noticed :stare: (also to have some fun to be honest)

In my view the backbone in western-European societies seems to be missing due to secularism and maximal individalism (of which I am a prime example !), in which money is basically more and more replacing God and determining our lifestyles. TV shows are getting crazier and extremer all the time, not in the least corrupting young children. Divorce numbers are staggering. Split families all over the place. Kids growing up too fast. Student girls prostituting on and off line and the list goes on. Youngsters using drugs and alcohol. Being a parent becomes more of a challenge all the time due to the 'unlimited' world outside.

It proves not to be ideal and I think many people are starting to become aware of the fundamental problems. Apart from the social and psychological problems many natives experience, it also has created a spiritual void the Islam is happy to fill more and more intensively. This is how I explain the succes of Islam among immigrants and the ever increasing number of mosqs built here. Konovalov, step in anytime when you feel like it and share your personal story of convertion with us ;)

Thesis:
To meet the challenge Islam poses on our societies, we should again somehow develop more of a spiritual/cultural backbone...

More money, more weapons and even generous basic rights/constitution clearly aren't 'superiority' enough to strike hard enough on growing islamic radicalism, here and the ME. I definitely think there's this social element as well in the global islamic challenge (and I am talking about the silent majority of moderate muslims ofcourse who disapprove of western extremism, not the minority of now influential nutters in their midst).

However, I dont want to entirely turn the clock back to the 1950ies era either. I need freedom.

But I also believe we should regain more common ground and dispose of chunks of our own cultural extremism to achieve moral superiority and a good future. This quest has to start within our OWN society, not in the ME.

Cleaning up our 'mess' should therefor also and primarily involve limiting the freedom of media and the entertainment industry. A broad common sense of good values and morals appears to be long gone in many ways, or at least western media-extremism has become far too dominating. In this respect (also immigrated) muslims deeply disrespect us and I understand.

I think we can learn from them (ME) about cultural tradition, a more spiritual attitude, and lowering our level of consumption, and they can learn from us......I wanted to say: equal rights for men and women in several ways and how to combine religion and culture as separate parts of life, but look where we have come.

Anyway, the questions to you are:

What's your take on our modern western culture and what exactly (superior cultural aspects) should muslims truely learn from us ?

My best attempt to be reasonable for a change :lol:

Cheers :hmm:

[The Avon Lady]

Is Paris burning?

[Sixpack]

I honestly dont know what you mean. I am not in a personal crisis if that's what you mean, however I could use a nice holiday :-j

[tycho102]

What's your take on our modern western culture and what exactly (superior cultural aspects) should muslims truely learn from us ?

They need to learn that stroking their egos and their peckers, by subjugating women, won't get them off this planet if Allah wills another asteroid onto the surface. They need to learn to control their sexuality. They need to have more respect for their daughters, and more discipline with their sons. And they need to wage jihad sessions with a calculator and chemistry book (physics and mathematics are also good choices, although the calculator becomes rather useless with the latter), before the mid-term exam, rather than with an AK-56 and some Koran quotes.

I think they'd learn all of this if we'd just stop paying them trillions of dollars, every year, for oil. You can fill Energon Cubes with any kind of energy that is available, and it's time to switch.

[The Avon Lady]

I honestly dont know what you mean. I am not in a personal crisis if that's what you mean, however I could use a nice holiday :-j
It's not called the city of lights (http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2005-11-02T234343Z_01_KNE228332_RTRUKOC_0_UK-FRANCE-RIOTS.xml) for nothing!

[Sixpack]

@ Tycho, thanks. Would the US sell its oil cheap ? Our industry itself has been wasting valuable time on transformation of energy. It's high time in several ways. Interesting to imagine what would happen to the ME and the world's economy if the West's need for oil would drop.

@ Avon Lady: Ok, now feel free to elaborate.

[Happy Times]

It was just in the news that the rioters have shot at the police and firemen :stare: Hard measures are needed, its been a week now, and its only getting worse :doh: France will really have problems with these people. Again happy we havent taken everybody in here up north :smug:

[Happy Times]

The unrest in the northern and eastern suburbs, heavily populated by North African and black African minorities, have been fuelled by frustration among youths in the area over their failure to get jobs and recognition in French society.
This would be the politically correct version. Actually when offered to sit down and discuss the situation they werent interested.And the riot continues, what a riot :-?

[Sixpack]

This thread already derails as was to be expected.

For the record: Sixpack didnt become gay and I am all for tough and relentless action against (any) thugs but on the other hand I see room to improve our own standards (also in interaction with islam) and that's what the topic was about.

So who has a view to share OT beyond that of a Neanderthaler ? I know this is deep stuff and kind of creepy :lol:

[Type941]

Today it is a VERY demanding and VERY competive world (western), it's also extremely superficial where looks and money very often matter more than 'the usual normal' humane qualities. It's almost fashionable to be a rich arrogant pr*ck. So yes, there's definately some major negative things. I'd say it's the American Dream that's muted and gone overboard when landed here and mixed with european culture.

[Happy Times]

Sure im a conservative but everybody isnt. You cant control a free society. I would want harsher laws in some issues and all that but in a democracy majority decides and i will respect that. They say a woman must be covered. Do we say a woman must be uncovered? They say you must not drink alcohol. Do we say you must drink alcohol?

[Sixpack]

Good points, it surely is complex as hell...I mean: earth :know:

So the only general limits in a free society are in the criminal code (book), is that what this boils down to ? And the media can do whatever ?

[Happy Times]

Yes. Its starts with the constitution and the parlamentar system that draws up the laws. As the religion and state are separated this is the only way to control the society. A lot is offcourse left to the individuals choices but isnt that the idea?

[Skybird]

I face a dilemma.

I have started to write a text, a very long one that will not be posted as a thread, but as a download, and it is a work in progress, open ending. It’s named „A critical history of Islam“. By focussing on historical developements and events, and interpreting them on a psychological and event-related political level I try to raise awareness for the many inner contradictions in Islam, and define it exclusively on the basis of the historical consequences it triggered, not from the perspective of it's self-understanding and dogma.

Somewhere a bomb blows off. Some sick bastard claims to have it done in the name of Allah, and he ripplefires quotes from the Quran to proove it. Immediately socalled Western moderates in Islam communities will raise and say that it is not Muslim at all, and they will start ripple-firing quotes – from the very same Quaran, prooving it’s peacefulness, and they will point out, that the fanatics have picked their quotes out of context. Next some people will come and question the context of the quotes of the moderates. Some smart heads will insist on all religions sharing the same basic beliefs, and that we all are about a God, and love, and tolerance. Not too mention those who come up with the Muslim neighbours they happen to know „who are really nice and kind people“, so Islam cannot be that bad at all. After a while the whole business is about defending Islam, and the victims of the event in the beginning have vanished into the voids of unimportance, as if it never happened.

I AM SICK AND TIRED OF THIS. I AM AT A POINT WHERE I DISLIKE BOTH, THE BOMBER AND THE MODERATE.

Yesterday evening a man send back my first draft of the first chapter, he holds the grade of a doctor of philosophy and teaches at university, in the field of intercultural comparisons (a friend of my parents). I asked him for his opnion. He strongly advised me not to release the text once it is finished, and that I maybe better should stop pursuing it. He said that the facts that I gave are from an unusual perspective but in principle correct, I nevertheless were unusual in my approach not to allow any freedom and space for diplomatic compromise in wording and interpretation and conclusions, necessarily giving me the aura of a dogmatist that way and making the text an aggressive "bomb" that only can raise maximum hostility from Muslims, and much hostilities from Western Multikulti-fans as well.

Hmpf. I know he is right. I also know that I am on a right path with my opinion, and that a growing part of pöublic starts to raise doubts about our tolerant policies towards Islam, and that the rlease of the work of mine will raise maximum controversy and even hostility, and that it easily can turn former neutrals or friends at this board into my bitter enemies, feeling heavily offended. For my opinion on the West’s limitless tolerance is very bad, and my opnion of Islam, Muhammad and the Quran is even worse. Now, what should I do? If I continue and release the first parts of this text in two or three weeks, it will raise just hate and anger and conflict, and will not acchieve anything to substantially change the silliness in Western societies – it just calls it by it’s name and brandmarks it as the folly that it is, but does not enforce changes. Plus: it is a complete affront against Islam. If I give up, I surrender to exactly the expected tolerance that I critizise, for reasons of not attacking Islam. And that is what I do: I intentionally attack it on the basis of it’s very own history. What else is Islam if not a massive rejection of it’s violant history, a set of contradictory rules and archaic rites from patriarchalic tribal communities and a mindset that got freezed in the status of conditions 1400 years ago and that in form of the Quran has a formidable tool to opportunistically excuse and defend anything: hate or tolerance, missionizing or acceptance, killing or letting live - making tiself untouchable that way, always avoiding critizism by saying: "But look here, the Quran says:...." ? Islam cannot be realised by reading the Quran or the Hadiths, this is one of my basic conclusions, this only helps to spread confusion over it’s nature and goals. What is Islam, then? Is it the result of the history that formed it (by patterns that were imprinted into it in the first twenty years of it’s existence?) Or is it the Quran? Is the moderate, tolerant man or the fundamentalist the true Muslim? Or should Muhammad’s life be the scale of judgement? Whatever approach you pick, it leads to different conclusions – how could Islam be taken as serious, then, if it displays so much of nothing? What would you think if I say not the tolerant Muslim is the true Muslim, but the intolerant fundamentalist, and that the only difference between this sort of true Muslims is only the ammount of violance they are willing to use or accept? Such a statement is considered to be politically uncorrect. But it is one of the most basic conclusions on Islam that I came to. Am I intolerant? A rightwing, then? A racist? Those that I just defined as untrue Muslims, the moderate ones, would be heavily offended to be told that. Konovalov will just shake his head, maybe beeing dissapointed by me. Could this be a scale to judge our relations towards Islam, is this the deciding issue: the answer if our Western culture’s position towards Islam is liked by Islam, or not? Should another culture be judge of our actings, becasue we let down our own culture that far? Wouldn't it be better to concentrate back on our own historical roots and traditions and values - that made our civilization the most superior historyx has ever seen, and gave it the most developed possebilities and potentials mankind ever has seen?

I already regret that I started to write this history-text, because it troubles my mind and makes me aware of how much importance I see in these issues for our Western culture, and it let me see my former travels in a different light: that of „know your enemy“.

Neal hit the nail on top, and very much so, when he said a couple of days ago: „Muslims, this is your house, who is going to clean it?“ I almost wanted to hug him for that. :) Cannot become much more precise in just one sentence.

Tolerance of ours needs limits on the basis of clear definitions of what we are as a culture, AND WHAT NOT. Unlimited tolerance only leads to anarchy in which the stronger one takes over. I started to wonder if this, besides the use of force and open violance, may be one of the tactics of Islam expansion. Sixpack is right when saying that the cultural erosion of the West attracts Islamic expansion into the vacuum that was created that way. I have written exactly that myself just days ago.

Can we afford to be that tolerant anymore? Do we really want true Islam – or only our flawed perception of it? Do we really know what Islam is? Can we trust it?

I think I let it rest for some days. I simply became too angry by thinking of it all.

[The Avon Lady]

Skybird, why the short post? :rotfl: :rotfl:

Anyway, some food for thought: The Suicide Bombers Among Us (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=20059).

Europe, sit up and listen.

[Abraham]

I basically agree with Sixpack that Western society has lost touch with its values and has gone too materialistic. If you believe money is everything you'll find out some day that actually it is nothing.
On the other hand, Western values have not gone through the drain. They are still here and can be taken up again (and defended if necessairy) by a new generation. They have helped Europe through ages of devellopment and have themselves deepened during those ages.
I sometimes feel that the hars confrontation with fundamental Islam is a challenge for Christianity and Humanism. They are flexible enough - contrary to fundamental Islam - to adopt the those new challenges.
I'm not sure that's going to happen, but it certainly is a possibility. This thread is proof of that.

[caspofungin]

@skybird

i'll read your paper. everyone's entitled to their opinion, and i'd like to hear yours -- sounds like you put a lot of thought into it.

i'll even reserve judgement till i've seen it. if it's F.O.S, though, expect some resistance ;)

[Iceman]

I feel for your dilema Skybird....

I try to understand and even ask for clear,precise examples or quotes from this book the Quaran and only one who seems to know em pretty good is Avon Lady....any way I go on my day and turn on the news at night and see a group of peoples in Iran ...burning American flags chanting Death to Isreal and America....I think to myself...Is there some group of Americans,Isrealis,Aussies,Chinese or whoever chanting Death to Muslims...death to Iraq...Death Arabs...and burning these countries flags?If there is and someone knows about it please post the link to it so I can see the justifiaction or at least the reason for an Eye for an Eye.

I already know the truth my Muslim friends though and being human it is hard to accept...being a "New" Teatament Christian.


Revelation 13
[10] He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints


Daniel 12
[4] But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.

[10] Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand.

You want my head?....You want to crucify me?..I will consider it an honor ..a great honor..to die like my Fathers Son did.

Was looking for some pics and came across this...maybe we all get a little to cought up in things myself included...
http://www.masada2000.org/Terror-Cat.html

One final note from another site...was an intresting thought...

Christians & Jewish martyrs say; "I will die for what I believe".
A Muslim martyr says; "you will die for what I believe"....

[CCIP]

Personally, I think it's the lack of real individualism and secularism (and yet the mistaken illusion of the presence thereof) is the real problem we're facing here. There is an illusion of freedom where there is none.

Dogmatism in any form is ultimately destructive. And it doesn't solve anything. I don't see how our problems with 'drugs and violence' can be solved by what's ultimately another violent drug.

I've had the 'wonderful' experience of, in my rather brief life, of experiencing the East and the West in a very direct and unrestricted fashion. In both, there were illusions of freedom; in both, and I hesitate to say in which more so, I felt/feel severely repressed as an individual.

No anti-individualist dogma will lead to anything good if people can't even so much as properly value themselves. People are cheap; real individuals are not. I don't know what it takes to beat it into others' heads that people are cheap in the eyes of society. You look around, and these "freedom-minded individualists" are being bought and sold by the pound, left and right, often voluntarily so. As long as you and everyone around you are just 'people', nothing is possible. Because you're a cheap commodity, to yourself as to everyone else.

Anyway, back to my basement of politics-avoidance :roll:

[Kissaki]

It was just in the news that the rioters have shot at the police and firemen :stare: Hard measures are needed, its been a week now, and its only getting worse :doh: France will really have problems with these people. Again happy we havent taken everybody in here up north :smug:

We have. And when we have trouble with them, it's usually because we've stupidly placed opposing refugee groups in the same asylums. There are of course those who have deep mental scars from having been in the middle of war zones, and may act erratically as a consequence. But this is understandable, and something one can observe in war veterans of any country.

Their main problem in Norway though, is distrust. Norwegians don't trust them, and so there's often a cold front between Norwegians and immigrants. It's not like the West welcomes them with open arms and offer them the best of everything. It's more like smashing a food tray down in front of them, and ordering, "here, eat! And shut the F up". How is anyone supposed to react to that kind of attitude? Circumstances considered, their behaviour has for the most part been exemplary.

[Kissaki]

I feel for your dilema Skybird....

I try to understand and even ask for clear,precise examples or quotes from this book the Quaran and only one who seems to know em pretty good is Avon Lady....


She's being awfully selective about them, though.


any way I go on my day and turn on the news at night and see a group of peoples in Iran ...burning American flags chanting Death to Isreal and America....I think to myself...Is there some group of Americans,Isrealis,Aussies,Chinese or whoever chanting Death to Muslims...death to Iraq...Death Arabs...and burning these countries flags?If there is and someone knows about it please post the link to it so I can see the justifiaction or at least the reason for an Eye for an Eye.

I see a lot of that in this very forum. Besides, I can certainly understand why Muslims in countries like Iraq and Palestine burn US flags and chant slogans. The US is in obvious support of Israel, making them their enemies. And the US has waged an illegal war against both Afghanistan and Iraq. I say illegal because that's what they were according to the UN charter - so-called "pre-emptive strikes" are unlawful, as were (is) the retaliatory action against Afghanistan. But after 911, how could the US be stopped? They were chanting, "USA! USA!" and swearing death to all "towel-heads" and what-not.

And still there is the injustice of Guantanamo Bay, where people have been held and are being held without a charge. Reminds me of the internment camps for Japenese-Americans during the war - because the average Joe was unable to see the difference between Japanese and Chinese, a lot of Chinese were also confined to such camps. Funny how no internment camps were prepared for German-Americans...

But in any case, there is never a way to justify "an eye for an eye". It worked in feudal Japan, because there revenge was a matter of honour and had to be mathematically perfect. Avenge to little, and there was still a stain on your honour. Avenge too much, and the other party was entitled to get you back for the surplus ammount of revenge. And all acts of revenge that included bodily harm had to be sanctioned by the Shogunate.

In the west, though, "an eye for an eye" tends to escalate things to no end. And to quote Gandhi: "An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind."

Conflict will never be solved so long as we refuse to accept any responsibility for ourselves. Everything happens for a reason, and to say that Muslims hate the West because they hate our way of life and want a world of chaos and destruction -- that's just propaganda, and I'm ever astonished at how effective it still is. We have learned nothing from history.


Christians & Jewish martyrs say; "I will die for what I believe".
A Muslim martyr says; "you will die for what I believe"....

Is that what you think? In every faith, what describes a martyr is someone who themselves yield their lives. The terrorists, for example, view the Muslims among their victims as martyrs. They also view themselves as such, provided they die. I do not approve of this sort of martyrdom, unless it's against strictly military targets like the Kamikaze. However, I won't paint them in just one colour out of sheer spite. If we simply say, "they're the bad guys, and they're evil", we fail to understand them. And if we don't understand our enemy, how can we fight him?

[Kissaki]

I AM SICK AND TIRED OF THIS. I AM AT A POINT WHERE I DISLIKE BOTH, THE BOMBER AND THE MODERATE.


Then you are in no position to write critically.

I also know that I am on a right path with my opinion

Everybody knows that their opinion is on the right path. What makes your case so special?

[The Avon Lady]

Kissaki's world: nobody's right and nobody's wrong. We're all in this big middle, you see. Think equivalence.

Rhetoric.

[Sixpack]

Gaining support for the islamic cause and building on spiritual (and then political; do I have to ask ?) supremacy in the West: Work in progress.

In a couple of regions in Holland young Dutch children were invited and have yesterday visited (end of ramadan) several mosqs to gain knowledge and appreciation for the 'islamic experience'.

Yesterday hundreds of willing na(t)ive Dutch kids showed up. Next year 3,000 ? In 2 years institutionalized on a national level as part of a political 'friendship' program: 100,000 ? Etc... ?

In the West:
-Do muslim kids visit Christian churches ?
-Do muslims convert to Christian or whatever ?
-Do muslims marry non-muslims ? Do muslim men f*ck non-muslims ?

It's about principles, filling the spiritual void and reli-political goals.

We have got to beat them.

[Sixpack]

[quote=Happy Times]
It's not like the West welcomes them with open arms and offer them the best of everything. It's more like smashing a food tray down in front of them, and ordering, "here, eat! And shut the F up". How is anyone supposed to react to that kind of attitude? Circumstances considered, their behaviour has for the most part been exemplary.

Their homelands were glad they left. Most of them were the bottom level/losers of their own societies. They however ended up in fairy-tale land.

But they introduced massive social security fraud in my country.
Like stealing gypsies.
They corrupted the original Dutch hard working mentality.
They kept on speaking their own languages.
They did not (want to) become Dutch.
They did not learn our history and they frankly dont give a f*ck.
They introduced the social unrest in my country.

When I project the same stuff on Norway, I understand your fellow Norwegians to a very large extent.

[Sixpack]

I
On the other hand, Western values have not gone through the drain. They are still here and can be taken up again (and defended if necessairy) by a new generation. They have helped Europe through ages of devellopment and have themselves deepened during those ages.


Our churches are empty, Abraham, yet mosqs are loaded with believers.
I kind of feel guilty for not being a church-goer for I feel I am abandoning my forefathers who once made this land great. Think of our golden 17th century, on which our current wealth is still largely based. Our forefathers would probably kick our asses. Admiral Michiel de Ruijter was the kind of Dutchman this land needs in large numbers. Firm in his principles, big in action.

[Hitman]

Personally I sit in an intermediate position and can't identify myself nor with the ones who need more spirituallity, nor with the ones who are too materialist.

First of all, I must say that I believe that there is a God, a creator of all the universe. But then I also deny to any church, be it christian, jew or Islam, the pretended right to interpretate and determine the "correct" doctrine that shall guide our behaviour.

As a former law student, I believe in a universal "natural" law that has been valid in all civilizations that have ever existed, and that shall guide our behaviour towards the rest of the society: Don't steal, don't kill, respect the others, be true to your word, etc. Any law that must rule in any country should just regulate the minimum necessary to ensure the peaceful coexistance of people in it, and it shall be completely separated from the religion.

Religion must be a personal matter, something truly spiritual that guides part of your behaviour, specially your attitude towards God and your relation with him. But it must be entirely disconnected from the basic rules of the state and in no case there shall be any attempt to change the basic rules to fit any religion's ones.

In our western culture it is true that people have progressively fallen into a kind of drugged state, where consuming goods and pleasing the body is the final purpose that guides their lifes. That is sad, and I regret it much, and I believe that the social organization in a democracy is a part of the reason (Politics tend to work for the four year periods between elections, and avoid difficult decissions that can anger the population, but that might be necessary). But in my opinion we shall not fill that vacuum with religion or spirituallity. Too dangerous!

The first big error I can see in all religious doctrines comes at the very start: You are not free to think about God and about what he wants from you. You are instead to accept what the chosen religion says, no matter if that was first established in the middle age or in the era of the Romans, and in a country and situation thousands of miles away from where you live today.

Here do some terrible errors appear, like for example the will to make of the Islam a law for the state. That was logic in a middle-age north africa, where no precisely defined Kingdoms existed, and where many tribes simply roamed around the desert, not willing to accept the authority on any minor king. Same goes for eating pig....by the time that rule was established, pigs in the warm north africa had often triquinoseae (And illness) and could kill humans that ate their flesh. I can find also many examples like these in the Bible, and history shows how the christian church has tried always to influence in the laws of the state. Some very delicate points like abort and similar show it well.

So coming back to your question after this long introduction:

What's your take on our modern western culture and what exactly (superior cultural aspects) should muslims truely learn from us ?


In my opinion, the best the western culture has done is to be able to separate in most cases (Not all, unfortunately) the religion from the state, and to corner the religion in the private and personal dimension of the citizens, never allowing an imposition of religious dogmaes to the rest. In that aspect we are far more advanced than the Islam, and probably if the Islamic countries were able to adopt a similar attitude towards religion, they would become surprisingly quick modern and tolerate states.

True this separation of religion and state tends to weaken the spiritual part of the citizens, and there does a problem appear when that vacuum has to be filled with consumism and ambition for money. But even so I believe it should be easier and more reasonable to try to lead actions focused in that problem, based in moral and ethics, rather than to fill the gap with religion. The ancient greeks succeded in having peaceful democracies ruled by ethics more than by religion, and the huge leap forward they made in philosophy and science has not been matched yet by any other civilization.

My two cents :up:

[The Avon Lady]

First of all, I must say that I believe that there is a God, a creator of all the universe. But then I also deny to any church, be it christian, jew or Islam, the pretended right to interpretate and determine the "correct" doctrine that shall guide our behaviour.
Did G-d reveal himself to humanity or not? If not, then your belief is (almost) unfounded.

If yes, then to whom? All of the above? Some? None? Someone else? What did G-d say? Any concrete obligations required of us mortals or are we just in G-d's big sandbox and have been told to play nice with each other?

If you're not sure, shouldn't you check it out?

I'm not questioning your instinctive assumptions. I just don't understand how you can let them stagnate like that.

[Sixpack]

Well spoken, Hitman, so gracias !

Our positions (intermediate) are in fact much the same (i also did law school btw).

Yet, christian religion as the main culture determining factor doesnt bother me for it's basically a peace~ and freedom promoting religion emphasizing personal responsibility (which it can be nowadays), but based on a firm belief in a single creator of heaven, earth and men.

This religion (which has a lot of similarities with 'universal law' you mentioned) could be key to world peace, but I now start sounding like a missionary and that's not what 'Sixpack' is about ;)

[Kissaki]

Kissaki's world: nobody's right and nobody's wrong. We're all in this big middle, you see. Think equivalence.

Rhetoric.

The problem is, the alternative is everybody's right, and by consequence everybody's wrong. Because opinions are like children: We are most fond of our own. And what, objectively, makes anyone's opinion more valid than anothers? There is no black and white. Yin and Yang, neither can exist without the other.

[Kissaki]

[quote=Happy Times]
It's not like the West welcomes them with open arms and offer them the best of everything. It's more like smashing a food tray down in front of them, and ordering, "here, eat! And shut the F up". How is anyone supposed to react to that kind of attitude? Circumstances considered, their behaviour has for the most part been exemplary.

Their homelands were glad they left. Most of them were the bottom level/losers of their own societies. They however ended up in fairy-tale land.


If they are refugees they often come with their families. And the reason they come is to escape persecution. If they are not persecuted in their homeland, they don't get refugee status, simple as that.

[quote]
But they introduced massive social security fraud in my country.
Like stealing gypsies.

We have that problem here in Norway too, but immigrants can't be said to be the main contributors.

They corrupted the original Dutch hard working mentality.
They kept on speaking their own languages.
They did not (want to) become Dutch.
They did not learn our history and they frankly dont give a f*ck.
They introduced the social unrest in my country.

When I project the same stuff on Norway, I understand your fellow Norwegians to a very large extent.

But the list you mention has nothing to do with Muslims. They have the same integration problem in the US with illegal aliens from the south. That's why you have major Spanish speaking parts in states like Florida, where they get a lot of immigrants from Cuba. So why blame Muslims for the similar situation in Europe? Should Americans blame Catholics?

[The Avon Lady]

Kissaki's world: nobody's right and nobody's wrong. We're all in this big middle, you see. Think equivalence.

Rhetoric.

The problem is, the alternative is everybody's right, and by consequence everybody's wrong. Because opinions are like children: We are most fond of our own. And what, objectively, makes anyone's opinion more valid than anothers? There is no black and white. Yin and Yang, neither can exist without the other.
No. There are absolutes in this world. And while it's rare to be 100% absolutely correct 100% of the time, there's nothing wrong with being 85% correct when arguing with someone who is 15% correct and 85% full of buba-meises.

And yes there is black and white. You must have a unique color blindness problem.

[Kissaki]

Our churches are empty, Abraham, yet mosqs are loaded with believers.
I kind of feel guilty for not being a church-goer for I feel I am abandoning my forefathers who once made this land great.

Who would you be worshipping? Your god, or your forefathers? Religion should be a matter of personal faith, not familial obligation. My parents are devout Christians, and I love and respect them like none other, yet I cannot be a Christian for their sake. If I don't believe, I don't believe. I am still officially a member of the State Church, however, because I know it would pain my father to see me leave it. To me it's just a piece of paper anyway, and I have no need to demonstrate my actual beliefs.


Think of our golden 17th century, on which our current wealth is still largely based. Our forefathers would probably kick our asses. Admiral Michiel de Ruijter was the kind of Dutchman this land needs in large numbers. Firm in his principles, big in action.

Like several Muslim leaders today, then. Good job civilization isn't about survival of the fittest.

[Sixpack]

I have no personal experience with poor Mexican immigrants seeking a better life in the USA but at least their agenda is clear and strictly economical. Also, the descendants of Spanish and native Mexican indians possibly do have a fair claim there :-j

We have an influx of Roman-Catholicism from Poland (immigrants). Fine by me. Wish they could have come sooner, say 25 years ago. :up:

You missed my point of our many (not all !) islamic immigrants not motivated to adapt and fully live by our rules and habits: "When in Rome do as the Romans". And even abusing our system in undenyable proportions.

I also dont compare USA and Europe: 2 different worlds culture wise.

[Kissaki]

I have no personal experience with poor Mexican immigrants seeking a better life in the USA but at least their agenda is clear and strictly economical. Also, the descendants of Spanish and native Mexican indians possibly do have a fair claim there :-j


And Muslim immigrants don't come to Europe seeking a better life for strictly economical reasons? They certainly don't come here for religious reasons. Not exactly Mekka over here.


We have an influx of Roman-Catholicism from Poland (immigrants). Fine by me. Wish they could have come sooner, say 25 years ago. :up:


And why is that, exactly?


You missed my point of our many (not all !) islamic immigrants not motivated to adapt and fully live by our rules and habits: "When in Rome do as the Romans". And even abusing our system in undenyable proportions.


I think you missed mine. I pointed to similar behaviour in another country by different groups, thereby refuting your claim that this has anything to do with religion.

I also dont compare USA and Europe: 2 different worlds culture wise.

But with the same trends, at least in respect to the list you brought up.

[Sixpack]

Our churches are empty, Abraham, yet mosqs are loaded with believers.
I kind of feel guilty for not being a church-goer for I feel I am abandoning my forefathers who once made this land great.

Who would you be worshipping? Your god, or your forefathers? Religion should be a matter of personal faith, not familial obligation. My parents are devout Christians, and I love and respect them like none other, yet I cannot be a Christian for their sake. If I don't believe, I don't believe. I am still officially a member of the State Church, however, because I know it would pain my father to see me leave it. To me it's just a piece of paper anyway, and I have no need to demonstrate my actual beliefs.


Think of our golden 17th century, on which our current wealth is still largely based. Our forefathers would probably kick our asses. Admiral Michiel de Ruijter was the kind of Dutchman this land needs in large numbers. Firm in his principles, big in action.

Like several Muslim leaders today, then. Good job civilization isn't about survival of the fittest.

You seem to be the kind of person who is prepared to throw everything of proven value away just to look smart and enlightened. Not to me tho'.

This extreme liberalism is actually just about youth and being still naive. We all have been there once when we were younger.

But one day you'll remember this thread. Even Skybird sees his past (travels) in a different light now, or so he shared with us recently :yep: Developing a good degree of rational awareness and intuition often takes a lifetime and even then most people dont get it.

[Kissaki]

Kissaki's world: nobody's right and nobody's wrong. We're all in this big middle, you see. Think equivalence.

Rhetoric.

The problem is, the alternative is everybody's right, and by consequence everybody's wrong. Because opinions are like children: We are most fond of our own. And what, objectively, makes anyone's opinion more valid than anothers? There is no black and white. Yin and Yang, neither can exist without the other.
No. There are absolutes in this world. And while it's rare to be 100% absolutely correct 100% of the time, there's nothing wrong with being 85% correct when arguing with someone who is 15% correct and 85% full of buba-meises.

And yes there is black and white. You must have a unique color blindness problem.

Au contraire, it is those who fail to see the full spectrum of colours on the scale who suffer from colour blindness. Nothing is either all good or all bad, or naturally people would flock to the all good. No culture in this world perceives itself as evil. And in fact, when a Muslim claims to be every bit as right as you, how am I as a third party supposed to tell who is right or who is wrong? The thing is, a Muslim doesn't judge himself by your criteria. Nor do you judge yourself by his. I can look at things from your point of view and say, "yes, you certainly have grievances". Or I could look at things from the Muslim's point of view and come to the same (but opposite) conclusion: "Yes, you certainly have grievances". Can you name me but one absolute, where both sides agree on the facts, but strangely still in conflict?

Or are you saying that they hate you for no good reason whatsoever? You guys are as pure as the driven snow? That is a bit shortsighted, and simply won't cut it. Of course you're going to perceive yourself as being at LEAST 85% correct if you only see things from your side, and refuse to see things from the other side.

You seem to think that Muslims are the scum of the earth, just like so many people have thought about Jews over the course of history. Were they right? Surely so many people can't be wrong, right?

But of course they can. Because there is nothing more dangerous than hate. Hate is blind, even more so than love, and hate begets hate. It is so easy to fuel hatred, because anything bad is readily believed about an object of hate - it takes a lot more to convince such a person of the truth of a positive rumour.


A rumour that bandits are ravaging the countryside must be repeated three times before it is believed. A rumour that a ruler is deficient does not need to be repeated that often.

[Kissaki]

Our churches are empty, Abraham, yet mosqs are loaded with believers.
I kind of feel guilty for not being a church-goer for I feel I am abandoning my forefathers who once made this land great.

Who would you be worshipping? Your god, or your forefathers? Religion should be a matter of personal faith, not familial obligation. My parents are devout Christians, and I love and respect them like none other, yet I cannot be a Christian for their sake. If I don't believe, I don't believe. I am still officially a member of the State Church, however, because I know it would pain my father to see me leave it. To me it's just a piece of paper anyway, and I have no need to demonstrate my actual beliefs.


Think of our golden 17th century, on which our current wealth is still largely based. Our forefathers would probably kick our asses. Admiral Michiel de Ruijter was the kind of Dutchman this land needs in large numbers. Firm in his principles, big in action.

Like several Muslim leaders today, then. Good job civilization isn't about survival of the fittest.

You seem to be the kind of person who is prepared to throw everything of proven value away just to look smart and enlightened. Not to me tho'.

This extreme liberalism is actually just about youth and being still naive. We all have been there once when we were younger.

But one day you'll remember this thread. Even Skybird sees his past (travels) in a different light now, or so he shared with us recently :yep: Developing a good degree of rational awareness and intuition often takes a lifetime and even then most people dont get it.

You got it all wrong, I only discard what cannot be proven. Your assumptions do not match the "wisdom of the ages" that you claim to possess. I am old enough to realize that I know nothing. My days of eager idealism are long gone. But I am also old enough to discard passion for passion, and criticize everything I see. What I said above stands. If family decides a person's beliefs, the beliefs are not the person's own. And as such they are worthless.

[Sixpack]

What do you want for Norway ?

[The Avon Lady]

Kissaki's world: nobody's right and nobody's wrong. We're all in this big middle, you see. Think equivalence.

Rhetoric.

The problem is, the alternative is everybody's right, and by consequence everybody's wrong. Because opinions are like children: We are most fond of our own. And what, objectively, makes anyone's opinion more valid than anothers? There is no black and white. Yin and Yang, neither can exist without the other.
No. There are absolutes in this world. And while it's rare to be 100% absolutely correct 100% of the time, there's nothing wrong with being 85% correct when arguing with someone who is 15% correct and 85% full of buba-meises.

And yes there is black and white. You must have a unique color blindness problem.
Au contraire, it is those who fail to see the full spectrum of colours on the scale who suffer from colour blindness.
Maybe it's those that constantly advocate such moral equivalence jibberish that are the ones that don't see? Perhaps?
Nothing is either all good or all bad, or naturally people would flock to the all good.
Rhetoric. Human judgement is the barrier most of the time.
No culture in this world perceives itself as evil.
Your problem seems to be that you have zero foundations of truth. Well, bully for you!
And in fact, when a Muslim claims to be every bit as right as you, how am I as a third party supposed to tell who is right or who is wrong?
Pick you brains.
The thing is, a Muslim doesn't judge himself by your criteria. Nor do you judge yourself by his. I can look at things from your point of view and say, "yes, you certainly have grievances". Or I could look at things from the Muslim's point of view and come to the same (but opposite) conclusion: "Yes, you certainly have grievances". Can you name me but one absolute, where both sides agree on the facts, but strangely still in conflict?
Monotheism.

That was too easy.
Or are you saying that they hate you for no good reason whatsoever?
If someone has a personal vendetta or a bias against someone else and proclaims this to others as absolute truth when it simply is not so and others, in their faulty judgement "trust" this person's word, you have most of history's evils explained in a nutshell.
You guys are as pure as the driven snow?
Never said that. Read my prior comments about percentages again.
That is a bit shortsighted, and simply won't cut it. Of course you're going to perceive yourself as being at LEAST 85% correct if you only see things from your side, and refuse to see things from the other side.
This would explain your excuse for the Nazi SS. You see no right and no wrong, only different sides. Fortunately this doesn't cut in most of the world.
You seem to think that Muslims are the scum of the earth,
No. I do think their religion is, however. Here, too, I must stress that I am referring to their religion as preached and practiced according to what I have and am still learning are the original intentions of Mohamed's teachings, as being conveyed by G-d (Allah) as binding and mandatory laws and ways of life.
just like so many people have thought about Jews over the course of history. Were they right?
According to you, were they wrong? With your way of thinking, who knows anymore!!! Let's just not judge anything anymore and sit back while one half of the world annihilates the other half. We've got plenty of time!
Surely so many people can't be wrong, right?
Why not?
But of course they can. Because there is nothing more dangerous than hate.
Metaphorically, I will agree. There are so many dangerous things in life. I don't have time now to prioritize them. But fine, let's assume so.
Hate is blind, even more so than love, and hate begets hate. It is so easy to fuel hatred, because anything bad is readily believed about an object of hate - it takes a lot more to convince such a person of the truth of a positive rumour.

A rumour that bandits are ravaging the countryside must be repeated three times before it is believed. A rumour that a ruler is deficient does not need to be repeated that often.
I've lost your point here.

What if bandits really are ravaging the countryside?

And yes, hate begets hate. What if the initiator had never hated in the first place. You have totally mixed up cause and effect. This is one big booboo to make in life! :yep:

I would be very happy not to have to deal with other's hate and I would be very happy to ignore it, if I could afford to. Unfortunately, this has not been the case. Apparently, you're safe and cozy enough up there to afford the luxury of thinking otherwise.

But that may not last forever.

Must go now. Maybe more tomorrow night.

[The Avon Lady]

Just to leave you all with this last piece of food for thought:

Jihadism and denial (http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/dwest.htm).

[Kissaki]

Au contraire, it is those who fail to see the full spectrum of colours on the scale who suffer from colour blindness.
Maybe it's those that constantly advocate such moral equivalence jibberish that are the ones that don't see? Perhaps?


Perhaps. I do not know that I am right, I can only draw conclusions based on what I think is right. This applies equally to you.


Nothing is either all good or all bad, or naturally people would flock to the all good.
Rhetoric. Human judgement is the barrier most of the time.

Exactly! And is human judgement not what decides - no, creates good or bad? (Don't know why I'm asking you this, knowing you'll simply answer "no" :roll: )


No culture in this world perceives itself as evil.
Your problem seems to be that you have zero foundations of truth. Well, bully for you!

I have foundations for facts. Truth is different from one person to the next. Of course, depending on religion your views may differ, but the fact that different people have different convictions is proof of this.


And in fact, when a Muslim claims to be every bit as right as you, how am I as a third party supposed to tell who is right or who is wrong?
Pick you brains.


Not an answer, I'm afraid.


The thing is, a Muslim doesn't judge himself by your criteria. Nor do you judge yourself by his. I can look at things from your point of view and say, "yes, you certainly have grievances". Or I could look at things from the Muslim's point of view and come to the same (but opposite) conclusion: "Yes, you certainly have grievances". Can you name me but one absolute, where both sides agree on the facts, but strangely still in conflict?
Monotheism.

That was too easy.


What's so absolute about monotheism?


Or are you saying that they hate you for no good reason whatsoever?
If someone has a personal vendetta or a bias against someone else and proclaims this to others as absolute truth when it simply is not so and others, in their faulty judgement "trust" this person's word, you have most of history's evils explained in a nutshell.

But what is the cause of this vendetta in the first place? Everything has a reason.


You guys are as pure as the driven snow?
Never said that. Read my prior comments about percentages again.

Based on those percentages, you must be pretty darned clean.


That is a bit shortsighted, and simply won't cut it. Of course you're going to perceive yourself as being at LEAST 85% correct if you only see things from your side, and refuse to see things from the other side.
This would explain your excuse for the Nazi SS. You see no right and no wrong, only different sides. Fortunately this doesn't cut in most of the world.

If you have read my posts you should have noted that I never defended the Nazi institution (apart from the smart uniforms) - I simply defended the individual's right to be judged on individual basis.


You seem to think that Muslims are the scum of the earth,
No. I do think their religion is, however. Here, too, I must stress that I am referring to their religion as preached and practiced according to what I have and am still learning are the original intentions of Mohamed's teachings, as being conveyed by G-d (Allah) as binding and mandatory laws and ways of life.

I see. And who teaches you from the Koran? If you are self taught you surely bring your own views into it, just like when I first read the Bible it was really just so I could use its quote to argue with Christians. I have since regained my respect for Christianity, though.


just like so many people have thought about Jews over the course of history. Were they right?
According to you, were they wrong? With your way of thinking, who knows anymore!!! Let's just not judge anything anymore and sit back while one half of the world annihilates the other half. We've got plenty of time!

They thought they were right. Just like I think I am right. Just like you think you are right. We are only right if we base our conclusions objectively on real facts, though, and that hardly ever happens. Facts are easily distorted here, ommitted there, and hence we draw our conclusions based on what we've got - which is scarcely the pinnacle of objectivity.


Surely so many people can't be wrong, right?
Why not?


So you're saying anti-Semitism over the ages was perfectly justified? Interesting. My point here, though, is that people don't think. Individuals think - people are cattle. Sure, we're all individuals, but we don't all specialize our critical thinking in the same areas. Just about everyone is capable of good, critical thinking in some subject - but no subject is the field of specialization for many.


But of course they can. Because there is nothing more dangerous than hate.
Metaphorically, I will agree. There are so many dangerous things in life. I don't have time now to prioritize them. But fine, let's assume so.

Huzzah! :D


Hate is blind, even more so than love, and hate begets hate. It is so easy to fuel hatred, because anything bad is readily believed about an object of hate - it takes a lot more to convince such a person of the truth of a positive rumour.

A rumour that bandits are ravaging the countryside must be repeated three times before it is believed. A rumour that a ruler is deficient does not need to be repeated that often.
I've lost your point here.

What if bandits really are ravaging the countryside?


I was trying to make a point about the gullibility of people. I've said it time and time again, but does anyone ever listen? Nooo. What I'm actually saying above is, people believe what they want to believe. If you hate Bush, you're likely to believe any rumour stating how stupid and inept he is, and how everything he does is bad. You are then not likely to believe the rumours that he is actually doing good.


And yes, hate begets hate. What if the initiator had never hated in the first place. You have totally mixed up cause and effect. This is one big booboo to make in life! :yep:


What if the initiator had never hated in the first place? Why did he hate in the first place? But that's not the most important thing. The most important thing is not bickering about "who started it". The African Americans certainly didn't start, and yet as you all know, Martin Luther King had a dream.

But cause and effect is indeed important to understand one's opposition, and that's what I've been advocating all along. Why do they attack us? What is the cause of their hatred? What must we do to stop the HATE? Not the terrorists, mind you, but the HATE. The terrorists are but the symptom of a disease. You can treat the symptom all you want, but it's not going help you get well. You must cure the disease, and the disease is - summed up very, very shortly - hate. Forget revenge and pride if you want peace.


I would be very happy not to have to deal with other's hate and I would be very happy to ignore it, if I could afford to. Unfortunately, this has not been the case. Apparently, you're safe and cozy enough up there to afford the luxury of thinking otherwise.


Oh no, you must never ignore hate. That could have disastrous results. But if you meet a bull head-on you're going to end up with a head-ache. There are very efficient ways to combat hate, if you're willing to compromise. Never underestimate the power of forgiveness.


But that may not last forever.


Nothing ever does.


Must go now. Maybe more tomorrow night.

Just as well. I have less than four hours to clean up this pig-stye before my parents come to visit. I'm beginning to regret my decision to drop out of archaeology. :(

[Kissaki]

Just to leave you all with this last piece of food for thought:

Jihadism and denial (http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/dwest.htm).

No more reading! This house isn't going to clean itself, you know. But that's next on my list of things to invent. :know:

[Sixpack]

WTF ? Dubiya dines with muslim organizations in honor of the ramadan ?
The West is surely going insane.

[Hitman]

Did G-d reveal himself to humanity or not? If not, then your belief is (almost) unfounded.

So you are saying that only if God reveals himself are we able to know that He exists? That is in my opinion a very poor reasoning, Avon Lady...we humans have intelligence for something else than for building tools and improving our comfort :nope:

The existance of God can be demonstrated through evidence and reasoning at last to a 99%, the only 1% left being that he is invisible to us. We can't force him to make himself visible, but we can conclude through pure reasoning that God exists. There are more complex argumentss, but suffice to say for the purpose of this little discussion, that just the evidence of any effect having a cause is enough to prove that. Where is the cause to the visible effect the universe is?

What did G-d say? Any concrete obligations required of us mortals or are we just in G-d's big sandbox and have been told to play nice with each other?

There are natural laws common to all societies all over the history, ain't they a proof of what is expected from us in terms of behaviour?

Do you know any country, a single one, where killing, hurting or stealing a fellow citizen is not punished?

Pretending to use God as an excuse for imposing a certain vision/rules on earth is the most stupid thing the human mind can conceive. God will judge all of us individually according to all religions, and for what we have made ourselves, not for what we forced others to do. So if we force others to do something, where is their chance to proof their will to obbey God? Nonesense... :doh:

[Col7777]

I posted this in another thread but it got side-tracked:

So a few questions, where did it all start?

We read of times before Christ where people worshiped stones, trees, hills and effigy's etc, it is a general consensus that they were wrong, so who says the God/s that a lot of people today worship are right?

I asked this on a different thread, which God is the right God, is it the one you were brought up to believe in by your parents because they were brought up to believe in him and so on?

Who are the Gods and where are they, where do they exist, where is Heaven?

Who is the Devil, and where does he exist and is there more than one devil, we don't hear much of him till someone does something wrong, then it is his work that caused it, then when something good happens it is Gods work?

If we hear of something very unusual and overwhelming and perhaps unexplainable we say it is a miracle, so when Jesus was born to a virgin it was unexplainable, so it was a miracle, in those days there were no scientists as such so it must have been the work of God.
Did they have the foresight to jump on a bandwagon and say Jesus is the son of God?

Have any of you played Chinese whispers, where you get 6 people, 5 go out of the room then you give a message to the remaining one, the next one comes in the room and the message is passed on and so on, by the time it gets to the 6th person that message is totally different, but we believe what was said thousands of years ago?

I once asked this to a minister and he said 'The message hasn't just been passed on by word of mouth it has been written in the scriptures' I asked him but when did they decide to write it all down, after it had reached the 6th person and after, his reply was, I can see you are not convinced, I wish you well, he shook my hand and went on his way.


I'll add a bit more:

Biblical reliability.

Many derive a large support for the belief in a “God” from the New Testament. The story of Jesus as the Son of “God” is the lynchpin of Christianity.

However, there are no eyewitness accounts to the supposed life of Jesus. It appears that the four known Gospels were taken from the accounts of Paul. Paul never met Jesus. There is no credible ex-Bible supporting evidence for the miraculous events of this period. It is all very suspicious hearsay, full of inconsistency and inaccuracy mixed with made-up astounding occurrences not recorded elsewhere. The alleged proceedings took place in a time of total superstition when ‘messiah’s’ were a dime a dozen. The people were scientifically ignorant and prone to harsh Roman rule and were in need of reprise from their situation. Imagine for a moment if on the touted death of Jesus, the dead Saints rose from their graves and mixed with the population. The Romans would have their version of the CIA investigate this wonder in an effort to make their armies invincible to death. Why have we not read about this in history? Walking on water and feeding the multitudes etc. would have evoked the same result.

It was not until the second Council of Nicaea in 325 CE (Common Era) that Jesus was declared divine and this done by force of vote by the murderous Constantine. The interference to the Gospels was a result, with many being left out to promote an image that was acceptable to the authorities. Since then, the Bible has been altered to suit in similar fashion. This is to be expected, and again Ockham’s razor is in total harmony.

Sorry for the long post.

[August]

huh? ? Dubiya dines with muslim organizations in honor of the ramadan ?
The West is surely going insane.

Not really when you're trying to win hearts and minds...

[Iceman]

So you are saying that only if God reveals himself are we able to know that He exists?


Matthew 11
[27] All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.


Correct...You will Never and I mean Never "Know" God until He chooses it to be so....
God knows whom "Really" seeks Him out...and those who seek Him shall find Him it is said.Ya can't fool God..He knows who is seeking truth and who is doing lip service.

And read what it says up there...ya gotta go thru the Son..ya gotta realize and accept what was done by the Son.
Passion of The Christ is a good movie there bro if ya haven't seen it.Your Ticket is paid for already in blood.

[Kissaki]

The existance of God can be demonstrated through evidence and reasoning at last to a 99%, the only 1% left being that he is invisible to us.

I have to stop you right there. What evidence? I am not aware of anything that can be taken as evidence of a godly existence. Infinity cannot be explained by "God". And indeed, which god? There are many to choose from, and in my humble opinion, all of them man-made.

I have heard some claim that there's a 50% "probability" that god exists, which is in itself mathematically unsound, but you are the first one I've ever come across to claim that God can be demonstrated through evidence to at least 99%.

Those who claim 50% do so based on the fact that "Does God exist?" can only have two answers, yes or no. And sure enough, not knowing anything about it either way, there's a 50% chance of guessing correctly, but that does not mean there's a 50% chance that God exists. If I have a bag of red and blue marbles, what is the probability of picking a blue marble? Impossible to determine, so long as we don't know how many red and how many blue marbles there are. But not knowing, we still have a 50% chance of guessing correctly, even if the red/blue ratio is 6/9. So without knowing how many "God-marbles" there are, compared with how many "nothing-marbles" there are, it's all guesswork.

And why does it have to be a yes/no answer? If the answer is "yes", it still doesn't answer which god it is, or if there are indeed more than one. And what if there's a third option, a powerful force of somekind, but without personality or concern for us? We simply don't have enough info to work with, though. If science does not have the answers, it does not mean ipso facto that some sort of religion must be correct. So we have unanswered questions, so what? There was a time when science couldn't explain planetary orbits either, but as we have since discovered why, it just goes to show that we can't draw any useful conclusions based on what we don't know.

[Zepheron]

So you are saying that only if God reveals himself are we able to know that He exists? That is in my opinion a very poor reasoning, Avon Lady...we humans have intelligence for something else than for building tools and improving our comfort :nope:

The existance of God can be demonstrated through evidence and reasoning at last to a 99%, the only 1% left being that he is invisible to us. We can't force him to make himself visible, but we can conclude through pure reasoning that God exists. There are more complex argumentss, but suffice to say for the purpose of this little discussion, that just the evidence of any effect having a cause is enough to prove that. Where is the cause to the visible effect the universe is?

Evidence and faith are two different things. You have the faith that god exists and have made reasons for yourself why you believe. Evidence is something you can touch, and feel. No one has evidence of his existance. I for one do not believe anything until I see it. Therfore I do not believe there is a God. I can also conclude through reasoning that there is a 99% chance God does not exist the 1% being margin of error. So it all comes down to faith doen't it ;)

[Col7777]

I agree Zepheron.
All this talk of a virgin giving birth, who said she was a virgin, then when the baby was born because people believed she was a virgin then it must have been a miracle, people in those days were very easily led, in fact they still are.
It was all word of mouth put to simple minds, let us say just for a minute all this never happened and there was no religion anywhere, you would more believe in science and technology, and if someone came along and said there was a god they would be laughed at.
Also this only took place a few thousand years ago, what happened before that, where was god then during the prehistoric ages.
Then there was the Greek gods, what about them, gods of war, gods of fire, gods of this and that, there were gods everywhere?

[Abraham]

It's a pity.
The longer this thread with its very interesting subject runs, the more it goes off topic.
This thread should not be about the question if a God exists and if so, which one.
It is about human convictions. Humans are religious beings anyway. The basic of our knowledge is belief or conviction, as the last postings of this thread clearly show. If you believe there is/are no God/gods, than that's also a conviction.

The real point is that in Europe - and much of the Western world - we happen to live in - as it is called - the Judeo-Christian tradition, that has shaped us all irrespective of our personal religion. For a long period this tradition expressed itself in the omnipotent Roman Catholic church. Through critical thinking by philosophers from (within) this church (!), the Renaissance brought new knowledge of the lost Greek thinking about philosophy and politics. Struggling, with, within and sometimes even without the Catholic Church, this introduction of Classic thinking led to Humanism, an erosion of the political power of the Catholic Church and the rise of Protestantism.

Slowly but surely basic human values as we know them in the Western world started to evolve from what was becoming a pan-European culture. The philosophy of the Enlightment and its political consequence, the French Revolution, heralded the basic separation between State and Church. This was to the benefit of both, the state could defend the freedoms of which Christian and Humanistic thinking profited.

For centuries the Church has been a 'keeper' of those values. However, during the last century a tragedy occurred that greatly eroded the moral power of European values. I mean the disasterous though short-lived rise of the basically irrationalistic cultural countersurge of Fascism and National Socialism (Nazism), with all its consequences.
In my opinion this could well be one of the causes of our loss of faith in Western values and in our cultural right of existence.
Look at the word "nationalism". Normal idom for an identifying force in almost all non-European countries, National Socialism manipulated its meaning in something terrible like national supremacy over others (which true nationalism should not be). Being nationalistic, like I am, is considered political incorrtect to the utmost, especially by people who don't know the true meaning of the word. We should all be... yeah, what? The obvious alternative is "Multiculturalists"...
Nationalism in the true sense means the right of yours and everybody else's nation of self-determination, keeping its own values and identity intact.

What we urgently need is a European nationalism to keep our European values and identity intact.
Should we all become Christians?
No, only if we are convinced (like I am).
Should we all be aware of the Christian values as I described them above, that have shaped our continent and spread over the Western world, mostly as a blessing?
Absolutely.
Should we be critical of our Western values?
All the time. But please, not the criticism that I so often (sadly) see in this thread. A criticism based - it seems - on nihilism. Doubting everything including our culture and ultimately ourselves. I promote a criticism that is aware of the superiority of our values.
Superiority? Should I be banned from the forum?
Yes, superiority. Like Jewish and Greek values were superior in ancient times and therefor survived. Our criticism should be constantly shaping and adapting them to higher standards, resulting in better rules and laws, a better economic and social policy, an inspiration for the European citizens.
But then, doesn't superiority of Western values imply inferiority of other cultures?
Not necessairily. Among many good and noble thoughts, among many workable political systems, among many good footbal teams, one can be superior. If you don't believe in the superiority of your own set of rules and standards, you should switch to another set of values...
Do these superior European (Western) values tend to suppress other cultures?
An interesting question that can't be answered with an outright 'yes' or 'no'. It depends on the cultures involved. The basic human freedoms of our culture are a garantee for the liberty of all, as long as our set of values - including its liberties - are respected by the other culture involved.
That's why so many people from different cultures are immigrating to and settling in Europe, North America and Australia, the Western world.
That's why so many people from the Muslim culture have problems settling in Europe, North America and Australia, the Western world.
Simply because the mainstream Muslim culture can't (yet) cope with the values of the West and wants to impose its values on our society...

[Col7777]

Your first sentence Abraham about it being off topic, was what you did to one of my other posts by trying to steer it back to what you wanted it to be about when a lot of the subject was what I posted about, then you kind of admitted it after someone else pointed it out, not this time my friend.

I got thinking about a lot of this last night and really all these threads do is help get things off our chest, there are a lot of good points from everyone, but we still don't fully agree we never will.

I know it is only a discussion and up to now we haven't had any name calling and people have been respectful and polite, but we will never agree.

I could raise 3 points in a thread, the next guy might agree on point #1 but not 2 & 3.
Then the next person might agree on point#2 but not 1 & 3 and so on, then they might introduce point 4 and on it goes but we will never fully agree.

I would also like to add, in these threads and posts I do respect you all.

[Abraham]

Your first sentence Abraham about it being off topic, was what you did to one of my other posts by trying to steer it back to what you wanted it to be about when a lot of the subject was what I posted about, then you kind of admitted it after someone else pointed it out, not this time my friend.I did not steer the subject back to where I wanted it to be, I just got back to the topic as originally defined. Personally I find it very difficult to discuss a subject that is not properly defined. It makes it also difficult to agree or disagree on certain fundamental principles. Sometimes many of us do agree on something.
Whether God exists, whether his existence can be proven, how He reveals himself and how he relates towards ancient Greek gods is all very interesting and certainly worth debating, but hardly contributes to this topic subject.
So why not concentrate on the subject at hand and start a completely new thread about whatever we want to get off our chest?
I consider that polite towards the 'owner/starter' of the thread.

I respect all that participate in a positive way in our often fierce discussions on often touchy subjects. I certainly do not intend any lack of respect towards you, I just don't follow your path in the general discussion.

[Col7777]

Is that why you continue to discuss religion then Abraham?
On that other thread a lot was discussed about religion not just my post, so give your message to the rest of the posters who have discussed religion here why didn't you mention it earlier?
I think it is because you don't like my views.

[Abraham]

Is that why you continue to discuss religion then Abraham?
On that other thread a lot was discussed about religion not just my post, so give your message to the rest of the posters who have discussed religion here why didn't you mention it earlier?I didn't log on earlier and my initial posting was not specifically mentioning you or your arguments...

I think it is because you don't like my views.That has hardly anything to do with staying on topic, has it?
Anyway, I gave you my argumentation and whether you accept it or not is really up to you. What else can I do? Tell you that I meant it?

By the way, I think this discussion is getting more and more boring for others, but well, that happens when you go off topic...
:D

[Type941]

Do we say a woman must be uncovered?

Is there a vote on that????? :huh:

[Col7777]

@Abraham,

Yes I agree, it has become boring.