“We gave you three days to recant but you insist on not returning to Islam"

[Skybird]

Any god there is cannot be a god if it cares for man or listens to prayers. Prayers are deals tiny little men want to enforce onto an entity they claim is unbelievably above them. If that were true, why should it care, then? I do not care whether I stepped onto an ant while walking in the woods, or not. And never I would start trying to discuss my life plan with it. Prayers are man's way to try bribing fate and get recognised as playing a more central role in the universe, than we actually do. We think that if we spell the magical formula right, beside its irrelevance it nevertheless would make the universe moving differently and bending nature's law. But it does not work this way. The causal link people want to see, is just a random event.

If you watch at the cosmos, at least as far as we can gather it, it is a spectacular but lifeless, desolate place that has its beauty only by what humans attribute to it. So is nature - it just does not care for man, not at all. Without humans, things are still just what they are. Many questions we may yell in frustration at this cosmos, but it never gives an answer in return. The only thing we hear is the voice of our own imagination, and the only truth is that which we have attributed to it by ourselves.

That's why I think the only way for us to find some peace of mind, is by listening into the space within ourselves, and trying to find out in what way it may be linked to the space around us. Whether the world outside really is like our senses tell us, is questionable, the only thing we can be certain of, is the undeniable fact that we are undergoing the process of witnessing.

[CaptainHaplo]

My how the subject has changed.... Still, a couple of notes...

First of all - yes, Christianity is a religion. If it wasn't, please tell all the Christian churches to give up their tax free status because they are religious entities....

Second, what is so often lost when it comes to issues of faith is that there is a huge difference between a religious belief system defined (and redefined) by men and a spiritual communion with Deity.

The thing is, Islamic "extremists" are those that take their belief system as literally as possible and do their very best to hold to it. The religious system itself is being followed by the extremists. Compare that to Christianity, where the "extremists" are those who choose simply do not choose to recognize or accept "sinful acts" of others, such as homosexuality. While both religious structures hold the acts as abominations, Islam calls for the execution of the homosexual, while Christianity has moderated from stoning the person to hating the action while loving the person. Where Islam calls for the killing of those who leave Islam, Christianity moved away from calling for death to the apostate. It is an interesting case study that "extremists" in one religion are the moderates in another, is it not?

As for asking how God could "allow" this or that, there are so many numerous theories on the why it would take months to discuss them all. Personally, I am at peace with the actions of God, and thus am not driven to question them beyond what I have already done. Still, I understand and respect that not everyone can have - or accept - the answer I have. Others will have different answers, and some will have no answer at all.

[Wolferz]

Nice analogy, Haplo.

In a nutshell, religion and faith in a supreme being is in the mind of the beholder. Many people need it to stave off the depression and hopelessness that would be caused by the answer to the age old questions...
"Is this all there is?"
"Do we just cease to exist when we die?"

From scientific studies we know that there is more out there just waiting to be discovered. Much more.
The answer to question number two is far more elusive and won't be answered until we experience the death of these physical biological robots we run around in.

I'd like to think that I am much more than the sum of these atoms that this physical body is made of. That idea requires faith in something greater than scientific proof.
Everything about religion is a made up construct by men who were possibly mentally ill.
"If you talk to God you're religious"
"If God talks to you you're a nutter"

[CaptainHaplo]

Originally Posted by Wolferz

Nice analogy, Haplo.

In a nutshell, religion and faith in a supreme being is in the mind of the beholder. Many people need it to stave off the depression and hopelessness that would be caused by the answer to the age old questions...
"Is this all there is?"
"Do we just cease to exist when we die?"

From scientific studies we know that there is more out there just waiting to be discovered. Much more.
The answer to question number two is far more elusive and won't be answered until we experience the death of these physical biological robots we run around in.

Scientifically speaking, we do not cease to exist when we die. We are, if you break it down, more energy than we are matter. Energy - at least as we understand it - cannot be created or destroyed. It merely changes form. (See the Law of Conservation of Energy). Thus we will exist, though science can not say whether our consciousness will do so - simply because science has not been able to truly understand what consciousness IS.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Scientifically speaking, we do not cease to exist when we die. We are, if you break it down, more energy than we are matter. Energy - at least as we understand it - cannot be created or destroyed. It merely changes form. (See the Law of Conservation of Energy).

That's also true of a fire, the light from a lamp, or any other form of energy, or matter. The energy from the fire goes somewere else, as a different form of energy. That doesn't mean it's still a fire when it does so.

Thus we will exist, though science can not say whether our consciousness will do so - simply because science has not been able to truly understand what consciousness IS.

That is absolutely true, and that is the nature of all things scientific. On the other hand religious sources have claimed since the beginning of religious writing to know absolutely that there is a soul that is separate from the body, all without any evidence other than the claim that it is so.

It's easy to dismiss science for not having a particular answer, but claiming the existence of something because science can't disprove it borders on deception in the sleight-of-hand category. Science can't disprove the existence of a separate concsiousness, or soul. Science can't disprove the existence of God. Science also can't disprove the existence of Bertrand Russel's Cosmic Teapot, or, as I like to say, the existence of little blue bug-eyed men from Atlantis living in the oceans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

To summarize: Science has shown that energy changes form, but does not cease to exist. Science has also show that energy and matter are interchangeable, so that combining oxygen and certain materiels and applying an external energy source can cause combustion. Science has further shown that the matter consumed in the combustion takes on a different form of matter or energy.

What science has not shown is that any given part of the matter or energy continues on in the same state, or at least enough to support the claim that the matter or energy will continue to exist in the same state for all eternity. No, there is no proof that the consciousness or soul cannot continue on after death, but there is no reason at all to believe it will other than the desire for it to be so. Do people believe this because religious writings claim that God has revealed this to certain people and they wrote it down, or was it written down because people wanted to believe it?

I don't claim to have an answer, but those who do claim to have an answer don't believe in the existence of certain concepts because those concepts can't be disproven. They use the fact that they can't be disproven to support their beliefs. That is about as unscientific as one can get, not to mention unreasonable and irrational. And, to me anyway, a little dishonest.

[Wolferz]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

That's also true of a fire, the light from a lamp, or any other form of energy, or matter. The energy from the fire goes somewere else, as a different form of energy. That doesn't mean it's still a fire when it does so.


That is absolutely true, and that is the nature of all things scientific. On the other hand religious sources have claimed since the beginning of religious writing to know absolutely that there is a soul that is separate from the body, all without any evidence other than the claim that it is so.

It's easy to dismiss science for not having a particular answer, but claiming the existence of something because science can't disprove it borders on deception in the sleight-of-hand category. Science can't disprove the existence of a separate concsiousness, or soul. Science can't disprove the existence of God. Science also can't disprove the existence of Bertrand Russel's Cosmic Teapot, or, as I like to say, the existence of little blue bug-eyed men from Atlantis living in the oceans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

To summarize: Science has shown that energy changes form, but does not cease to exist. Science has also show that energy and matter are interchangeable, so that combining oxygen and certain materiels and applying an external energy source can cause combustion. Science has further shown that the matter consumed in the combustion takes on a different form of matter or energy.

What science has not shown is that any given part of the matter or energy continues on in the same state, or at least enough to support the claim that the matter or energy will continue to exist in the same state for all eternity. No, there is no proof that the consciousness or soul cannot continue on after death, but there is no reason at all to believe it will other than the desire for it to be so. Do people believe this because religious writings claim that God has revealed this to certain people and they wrote it down, or was it written down because people wanted to believe it?

I don't claim to have an answer, but those who do claim to have an answer don't believe in the existence of certain concepts because those concepts can't be disproven. They use the fact that they can't be disproven to support their beliefs. That is about as unscientific as one can get, not to mention unreasonable and irrational. And, to me anyway, a little dishonest.

"Praise the Lord and pass the collection plate" kind of sums up the dishonesty part. God has no need for money but his self proclaimed servants can't get along without it. They'll passionately tell people anything to boost the tithes. Most churches even put up a tote board as a means to make the parishioners feel guilty and give more. Look at Jim and Tammy Faye Baker for the definition of religious con artists.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Wolferz

"Praise the Lord and pass the collection plate" kind of sums up the dishonesty part.

Actually I was talking about honesty and dishonesty in arguments. Not the same thing at all.

God has no need for money but his self proclaimed servants can't get along without it.

That's true of anyone. We can't survive without some kind of income, whether it be cash, credit or chickens. I can see the point of someone dedicated to "Serving the Lord" having that as his only work and being paid out of the generosity of the faithful. Jesus himself didn't have a job during his ministry, but relied on the help of his followers, including some women with money to spare. Does this make him a scammer? I don't see it that way, if the story is true at all.

They'll passionately tell people anything to boost the tithes.

Some will, yes, but certainly not all. In the past I was aquainted with several ministers who lived on what their followers gave, but were content to live minimally, using only what they needed and redistributing the rest. Billy Graham was well known for living modestly, setting up charitable organizations to use the rest to help people who needed it. As with anything in life, the bad ones make the headlines and people forget all the good ones. I've known some good ones in my time.

Most churches even put up a tote board as a means to make the parishioners feel guilty and give more.

"Most"? I've never seen that. I'm sure it happens, but no church I attended back when ever did anything like that.

Look at Jim and Tammy Faye Baker for the definition of religious con artists.

Yes, but again they made the headlines because of their bad ways. You don't read about the thousands who truly believe what they're doing.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

The thing is, Islamic "extremists" are those that take their belief system as literally as possible and do their very best to hold to it. The religious system itself is being followed by the extremists. Compare that to Christianity, where the "extremists" are those who choose simply do not choose to recognize or accept "sinful acts" of others, such as homosexuality. While both religious structures hold the acts as abominations, Islam calls for the execution of the homosexual, while Christianity has moderated from stoning the person to hating the action while loving the person. Where Islam calls for the killing of those who leave Islam, Christianity moved away from calling for death to the apostate. It is an interesting case study that "extremists" in one religion are the moderates in another, is it not?

While it's true that Christianity has mellowed with time, I have to wonder how much of that was voluntary and how much was due to the growing influence of the Enlightenment. Not claiming, merely wondering. I enjoy exploring the causes, though I know I'll never have a real answer. Did Christianity reform on its own or was it forced to by reasonable people objecting to religious squabling in the civilized world? Probably some of both, because there are reasonable people everywhere, and if they're not shouted down or intimidated by unreasonable people they do have an influence.

I'm reminded of what I was once told is an old Hindu saying: "No God should ever be judged by the sort of people who claim to worship him."

[Dread Knot]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Did Christianity reform on its own or was it forced to by reasonable people objecting to religious squabling in the civilized world? Probably some of both, because there are reasonable people everywhere, and if they're not shouted down or intimidated by unreasonable people they do have an influence.

Here lies one major concern I have regarding Islam. In contrast with the general historical awareness, even recognition of the manner in which the scriptures were gathered in Christianity, which made criticism of the texts possible, there seems to be little corresponding recognition in Islam. After all, it was a Roman emperor who ordered that an authoritative biblical text be put together. There was never a pristine original copy of the Bible to adhere to, and the essence of the faith was defined by synods and in creeds.

In the case of Islam, we have a sacred immovable text, so perfect and unamendable that only the original classical Arabic is considered valid for the practice of true Islam. (Which in turn has produced arguments regarding the perfection of classical Arabic.) This absolutism at the level of the Koran itself, is the key obstacle to the modernization of the faith as practiced and is what always threatens a return to its worst forms at any time.

I perceive it as sort of a 'Dale Carnegie' one-upsmanship, making its absolutism more influential and so taking it to the next and now impossible level. Perhaps it was a ploy at the time to make it more competitive with the well established Jewish and Christian faiths in the area. But its consequences are nasty.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Dread Knot

In the case of Islam, we have a sacred immovable text, so perfect and unamendable that only the original classical Arabic is considered valid for the practice of true Islam. (Which in turn has produced arguments regarding the perfection of classical Arabic.) This absolutism at the level of the Koran itself, is the key obstacle to the modernization of the faith as practiced and is what always threatens a return to its worst forms at any time.

I need to be hairsplitting here. There HAVE been various versions of the Quran circulating after Muhammad'S death,. local leaders payed a caste of scripture interpreter - in other words: bribed them - to interpret it in a menaing that was "helpful" for the rulers'S interest. From this, a fragmation of the transcripts of Muhammad's preachings took place, while the original copies once should have been given to Muhammad'S wife which can be doubted and indeed is discussed). Not before the second or third Caliph, the man ordered that the final version of the Quran should be extracted from these versions.

Later, with the implementation of a dramatic change in written Arabic that according to linguists has fundamentally changed the meaning of at least one quarter, more likely one half, possibly even three quarters of the words in written Arabic, it became even more difficult.

The Quran today may be whatever it is, but one thing it is not: authentic. The Arabic language it now exists in, did not exist at Muhammad's time. Of course, saying so is seen as heresy, and I have just earned myself another death sentence, I fear. To decide what the Quran indeed means or oroiginally wants to say, one must comparew it to the general biography of Muhammad and copare it to the ddeds and actions of the man. The Quran is not the word of God, but the words of Muhammad, who used the founding of his religion to silence opposition and increase influence. And Muhammad was anything but a peace-loving man of modesty. He was a war leader, bandit and conquerer. And the Quran reflects that mindset. And here I just earned myself another death sentence...

It's long ago that I learned all this stuff, details are escaping my memory, I fear. But in general what I wrote above is the essence. I explained all that in much more detail in much longer posts several years ago

The superstitious mindset of true Muslims of course does not worry for these self-contradictions, these and several others. Its all miracle done by Allah. Simplistic answers from simplistic minds. The standard recipe for dealing with criticism, is to call critics infidels and heretics, and kill them if they cannot be made to submit to Islam. Like this woman now.

[Armistead]

It's funny, I started posting videos on FB of the great debates, Hitchens, Dawkins, Krauss, Ehrman, etc. I was blasted by so many....Christians. They almost seemed shocked to find out many of these are held in divinity schools. Course, when you name the schools, of course they're liberal schools. I still remained shocked that people don't test what they believe against any source...

Boy, do I miss Hitchens, love or hate him, he was one of the best...

[Wolferz]

Nice explanation of Islam there Skybird.
One could also argue the same point about the Christian bible. From a Hebrew/Roman perspective of course. Texts dug out of some ancient tomb and Translated from the Greek language. Then selectively cherry picked by a bunch of old fossils who recognized the power it would afford them over the masses and proclaimed to be the words of God. Huh? What?
Convenient at the time.