Muslims angry over Bush terrorist speech

[Neo]

sorry, false. christians are now inexistant as a community, strictly speaking.

if a religion have no more a homeland, a State, it disapears.

what happened to christianity (I say, sincerly, as a muslim : unfortunatly) is that it have desintegrated. chrisitianity is now more like a label, and much less like a faith.

contrary to what you claim, reason does not help more than religion, for a very simple fact : reason is Amoral, = is not related to moral. (not to be confused with IMmoral)

that means that reason lacks : a community (religion) and higher aims (religion). reason is not a belief system (i.e reason is not a religion, like the West is trying to do). because of that, outside a religious context, reason lose sense. this is EXACTLY why the West is inventing a new religion label "democracy". democracy, invented by the greek genious civilisation, is a pure product of reason, a rational and pragmatic managment political method. What we see know is the summum of the absurd, as usa want the world to "belive" in "democracy". before "democracy"-religion, the west have invented other belief systems to compensante its lack of christianity : consumerism and supremacism for example.


-about sunna and shiaa : this is a matter not related to islam as a religion, but rather as a political system. behind that, there is in reality an ethnico-civilisation division between the (true) sunni arabo-semitic islam, and (true) indo-iranian islam (please note that many sects claim to be sunni while being influenced by shiaa, and many claim to be shiaa while more like sunnis).

contrary to what some imperialists from iran or arabia claim, there is no problem in, having both these sects in islam, and they are not haram, as nothing forbids that. At the contrary, islam is by nature (even if this have niot been respect during the imperial islamic eras) decentralised (a cenral church is forbidden), and is NOT an ethnic religion (not like judaim). that means : not arab or iranian or....islam. only one divine islam, that is NATURALLY diverse in its forms as every human tribe is different; the most important is that the ideas of islam are kept alive, thus islamic solidarity is a duty. NOT islamic UNIFORMITY.

Nice post Wadawada.
Btw, welcome to PFF.
Anta Maghribi?

 

[wadawada]

One would argue the reasoning faith (atheism) itself is a religion.

Of course its not one without its own set of contradictions either.

One of the reasons I'm a Muslim and not a Christian (despite having a deep interest in it) is because while Islam attempts to reason out things, Christianity's all about "Just believe it".

We have two suspiscions of Bush's hatred towards all Muslims. Either greed or his his faith. Either way Muslims have a lot of cause for concern.

Asim, I disagree about the atheism=religion and the reasoning=>atheism.

it is a dangerous analogy that have participated in the backwardness of muslims, and islam. it is exactly what have made from us in the 21 Century the joke of humanity.


first, athneism cannot logically be a religion, simply because atheism supooses that "nothingness" exists (beliving in no-god instead of God). but nothingness does not exist, and because the no-god does not exist, is not a god, believing in no-god is the logical equivalent of NOT believing in any "god". => not a faith.

it's like the zero : the zero is not a number strictly speaking, as it describes the INexistence of quantity. it is only an advanced tech that serves like an escape character in the numerical positionnal writing system.

the best proof is the logical weakness of the proporsition "I see zero cows"...you see ?


second, reason is BY NO MEANS related to atheism. simply because reason is a methodology to investigate in SOMETHING, in a given PRE-SUPPOSED context !!!

so here, reason relies on : AXIOMS (basic math, of physics BELIEFS, recognized as such to not be mixed with theorems (demontrated) ) AND a PRE-supposed context (in many physics theories, "time" entity is supposed to exist, otherwise, physics cannot describe it. BUT BUT can any human STRICTLY proof that this entity exist really, and is not only a mind illusion or a semantic invention ? especially that other physics theories don't care about "time" but rather on other conceptual choices)

we see here that reason itself cannot lead or be related to atheism, because reason deals with the REAL world, and not some "poetic" nihilst concepts like atheism. and the REAL world does eixist...


many IGNORANT and STUPID muslims scholars spend a lot of time attacking reason, saying that it leads to kufr, and forgotting that the only thing that SURELY leads to irreversible kufr (wich is the real problem, as islam accepts thawba, especially if it is RATIONAL and sincere) is ignorance that create a shock in minds, as we see now with many muslims who lose confidence in their own religion because of the lack of reason : thinkig that they are backward because of islam, some adopt pseudo-islamic superstitions (shirk !!) and some others abandon the faith (even if they claim to be muslims) replacing it with the political side of islam ("islamic" identity : notice that here, it is not a faith, but a political identification, and that islamic is just an adjective...).


let's analyse thing logically: islam is based on strict universal monotheism (at the contrary of christianity (the concept of trinity) and judaism (the concept of the god of a given chosen people) ).

the natural consequence of that should mean, that instead of living in intellectual terror, we should be convinced that as long as we don't put into question the absolute universal and unique nature of Allah swt (notice that it is unecessary and scientifically anti-productive : no one coudl prove that god does not exist, and even if someone suceeds to show that god does exist, he/she cannot prove it scientifically or even logically), everything else is QUESTIONNABLE.

being questionnale does not means that we are obliged to question everything, but that if that happens, no one has the right to censor or threathen the life, but instead have the duty to use his mind to convince and improve the ideas of islam.

reason is the only and best friend of islam. "poetry", politics and ideologies are false friends, because they rely on emotions and superficiality. islam is in urgent need of some solid foundations as a political, cultural and social system.

one last proof about the complementarity of islam (the faith, not the superstitions or the ideologies) and reason : to be rationnal, objective, a human needs to be : honest (with himself to begin with), courageous (to be able to go beyong what others have discovered), kind (to take into account, with responsability, all parameters of his invention or discoveries, for the interests of other humans), to belong to a higher dream and aim (faith) and be very very patient . all of these personnality characteristics are purely (but not exclusivly) and strongly islmaic in aim and principle (under the dust of rituals and superstitions and préjugs). on the other hand, nothing in islam have ever prevented learning and asking questions and EVEN no censorship for pragmatic (i.e logical ,related to reason) questions ! you know the "la haya'a fi ddine" (more or less "no pudor in the religion", which means no censorship when studying or asking about any kind of question !!).


The true poverty is that of minds. minds poverty leads to backwardness (not only technical, but also civilisationnal : like failing to create a politico-social system that protects justice, rights and duties rationally, and not only in principles). backwardness leads to weakness. weakness is the end, and this is what the majority of muslims are leaving, this is what made from the imperialist West and zionism "strong" movements. THEY are not strong and advanced, WE are weak and backward.

 

[wadawada]

Nice post Wadawada.
Btw, welcome to PFF.
Anta Maghribi?

thanks salim and neo

na3am, ana ma8ribi , wa anta ?

 

[Samudra]

You've been trying for 2 years, you couldn't yet rattle my arguments, Sam.

One doesnt try to 'rattle' something he does not respect.

 

[sigatoka]

Asim, I disagree about the atheism=religion and the reasoning=>atheism.

first, athneism cannot logically be a religion, simply because atheism supooses that "nothingness" exists (beliving in no-god instead of God). but nothingness does not exist, and because the no-god does not exist, is not a god, believing in no-god is the logical equivalent of NOT believing in any "god". => not a faith.

An Aethist believes there is no god, it is the aeithists belief. This belief is no different from a person's belief in god, which also is a belief. I think this is the point Asim was trying to make.

Indeed one can not prove (nor disprove) god, indeed that is why faith is called faith. (and why aethism is a belief as much as any religion)

True "rationalism" is being agnostic, neither admitting nor denying god unless proof is given one way or the other.

 

[Samudra]

I might actually end up learning quite a bit from you, Wadawada.

Your name reminds me of Idly Vada - a favourite dish of all the gora people who vist my state in South India.

reason is Amoral,

How is reason amoral when it refers to the ability of the human mind to perform thought in varied accordance with rationality and logic.

"I believe in the religion of reason -- the gospel of this world; in the development of the mind, in the accumulation of intellectual wealth, to the end that man may free himself from superstitious fear, to the end that he may take advantage of the forces of nature to feed and clothe the world." - Einstein.

that means that reason lacks : a community (religion) and higher aims (religion). reason is not a belief system (i.e reason is not a religion, like the West is trying to do). because of that, outside a religious context, reason lose sense.

I lost you there....can you explain the above quote?
Just how does reason lose sense outside religious context?

second, reason is BY NO MEANS related to atheism. simply because reason is a methodology to investigate in SOMETHING, in a given PRE-SUPPOSED context !!!

The Atheists dont pre-suppose that a God does not exist - they arrive on that conclusion by use of reaon?

 

[wadawada]

An Aethist believes there is no god, it is the aeithists belief. This belief is no different from a person's belief in god, which also is a belief. I think this is the point Asim was trying to make.

I know

I was commenting on atheism-religion or faith.

atheism is a belief. like everything else. but atheism cannot be a religion, or even a faith.

note that non deist moral beliefs and systems (like confucianism, humanrightism) are philosophies and not religions. the proff is they are not in conflict with the majority of the versions of religions.

Indeed one can not prove (nor disprove) god, indeed that is why faith is called faith. (and why aethism is a belief as much as any religion)

religion is not based on belief, but rathe of faith. faith is stronger than belief and very necessary to religion.

however, with or without the ability to proof, the belief (at least) of the exitance of a "greater entity" is the rule and not the exception.


perhaps because nature fears the void ? or because brain needs at any price a simple explanation ? or because there is indeed somthing greater and it is our instinct that pushes everyone to belive rather than not believe ?

True "rationalism" is being agnostic, neither admitting nor denying god unless proof is given one way or the other.

hum.

there is no true rationalism. by what objective criterias do you label a rationalism "true" and the rest "false" ? note that defining rationalism as agnostic and then imposing this definition as "true" is...irrational at least, because subjective

about agnostism :
basically you're right.

also, during history, the mass of the greatest scientists were believers. the difference and "agnostism" were not directed against the divine belief itself, but rather against the dogmas of their respective societies.

there is no contradiction between science and religion, because there is no relationship at all. because there is no relationship, applying the label/adjective "agnostic" to rationality/objectivity/science is inappropriate, as sciece may be agnostic at some point, no more at another time or in other disciplines, and perhaps agnostic again...without even hurting the science itself.

 

[wadawada]

I might actually end up learning quite a bit from you, Wadawada.

thanks ! we're all here to learn... but don't overestimate me

Your name reminds me of Idly Vada - a favourite dish of all the gora people who vist my state in South India

it seems that it taste good especially that i'm hungry now...lol

(Quote:
reason is Amoral,)

How is reason amoral when it refers to the ability of the human mind to perform thought in varied accordance with rationality and logic.

"I believe in the religion of reason -- the gospel of this world; in the development of the mind, in the accumulation of intellectual wealth, to the end that man may free himself from superstitious fear, to the end that he may take advantage of the forces of nature to feed and clothe the world." - Einstein.

reason, logic, objectivity is by no means related to moral (neither moral, nor anti-moral).

simply because it is a TOOL (method, theory, means...). and tools cannot be good or bad.

rationality and logic are defintly ultra-efficient tools to propose, build, test and use solid, coherent and durable colelction of ideas (a theory, a model, a scenario).

but the foundations are arbitrary (and can be acceptable or good for some, and unacceptable or bad for others). the AIM of the creating, building, and then using is EVEN more arbitrary.

with the same maths and physics, many particle models and theories can be invented/built. quantas seems to have survived until now as the less worst model (not the best as that does not exist). this quanta mechanics can be used from manufacturing microprocessors, to nukes to anti-cancer or imaging medical techs etc...


the example of einstein is extremly expressive and excellent because it proves how a religious scientist (einstein) projected his faith ("i belive in the religion of reason") and the subjective/arbitrary objectives of his faith ("to feed and clothe the world") on the rationality. thus giving his work and his ideas and dreams a meaning and a sense.

let's not forget that einstein never accepted quantas mechanics due to HIS religious beliefs (he was looking for a deterministic theory, not a probabilistic one), and that we must make the distinction between einstein the scientist (so, objective in his domain) and einstein the human ( potentially subjective or biased).

the problem is, as I said, it is einstein the man (subjective, biased) who decides of the aims, dreams, work, choices, philosophical positions (that have a certian impact on the maths) , and last but not least, determination of einstein the scientists !

so a system of beliefs, whether we liek it or not, we see it/identify it or not, gives a sense to the amoral efficient and powerful rationality methods.

(Quote:
that means that reason lacks : a community (religion) and higher aims (religion). reason is not a belief system (i.e reason is not a religion, like the West is trying to do). because of that, outside a religious context, reason lose sense.)


I lost you there....can you explain the above quote?
Just how does reason lose sense outside religious context?

as i said before, ratioanlity is surrouded by subjectivity :

rationality begins first with a question (based on the identification of a problem)

but which question ? what is a probem ? is what a person considers as a (high priority) problem the same for another person ?

so here the religion comes to play :

the community defines a shared cultural context. so the likelyhood of feeling the same problem inside the same community is high than if there were no community. what is important is that there are different DIVERSE communities on earth, to have a higher probabiliy that different DIVERSE questions, based on different DIVERSE problems, be asked and solved.


the high aim is the same process, but at individual level. each person have a dream. which means litte, because a drema isnot alsways good, nor "useful" for the humanity etc...

the religion/faith here play the role of a "filter" : the craziest, or worst potential "dreams" (that could be pure nightmares for others) are "eliminated".

please note that the worst criminals on this earth have no faith, basically.

an example : in islam, terrorist claim that they'll go to paradise if they "kamikaze" themselves. but in islam, ONLY ALLAH swt decides !!! which means that these people by despair (lack of faith) and/or religious ignorace (lack of faith) try to "force" Allah swt !!! it is more of a superstitious belief than a faith in islam. islam says : do your duty of defending yourself inside the laws of jihad (that forbid killing the women and children and disarmed men), and let allah swt decide.


finally, almost every great discovery or invention have been pushed by faith : the numbers have been considered by greeks as the means of the gods to manage the nature, the chemistry in ancient egypt have been encouraged by the pharaonic religion, many developpements in islam have been pushed by the need to define the qibla, the astronomic revolution in europe have benn a challenge against the pseudo-christian dogmas, the 19ths century scientific revolution have been encouraged by the humanist faith. even outside the religion, the moral system of a given religion influece a given civilisation, and that influences the rationality.

(Quote:
second, reason is BY NO MEANS related to atheism. simply because reason is a methodology to investigate in SOMETHING, in a given PRE-SUPPOSED context !!!)

The Atheists dont pre-suppose that a God does not exist - they arrive on that conclusion by use of reaon?

how so ?

why is it possible to accept that the universe have not been created (keyword: accept) and not accept the is have been created ? for example...

both the theism and atheism are logically unproofable. but the atheism is more unconftable and "un natural".

 

[Awesome]

The Atheists dont pre-suppose that a God does not exist - they arrive on that conclusion by use of reaon?

Like what?