Total posts: 1,201
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
It's a book, numpty
-Ahem, 'Quran' in Arabic literally means 'The Recitation'...
Supply ant book not written by humans.
- Wut? This is no proof.
True. Dispute it.
- Non-sequitur.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
The formulation of it.Never really understood it the last time I read one of those and still don't.
- It's an argument built on a progression of premises & conclusions. Such as:
1, A is B.
2. B is C.
3. Therefore, A is C.
4. C is D.
5. D is E.
C. Therefore, A is E.
Yeah this was better.Why does the creator need to be self-sufficient?
- A non self-sufficient being is a being that relies on an exterior cause for its existence, thus is contingent on that exterior cause, thus can not be the source of creation, for it is itself created.
Why does having more than 1 creator lead to contradictions?
- As established, having two non-identical creators (self-sufficient) entails that one of them is contingent on the other, which contradicts the fact that they are both self-sufficient. Therefore, there can't be more than one creator (self-sufficient being).
Why does the creator require to be different from what it had created?
- Well, this one is quite evident. A creator can not be both self-sufficient & contingent at the same time, or uncaused & caused at the same time, or creator & created at the same time.
Why does it have to be absolute?
- This follows naturally from having a singular creator. Prior to existence, all things are equally inexistent, which means willing into existence some over others is an absolutely random act (i.e. absolutely free choice), which means willing into existence all things is just as random -& free. This is what we mean by absolute -free- will.
(112:1) God is one. That is enough for me.
- 'Ahad' means singular, not just 'One'.
(112:2) one states God being eternal. Nothing about being self-sufficient. Why can't God be not self-sufficient but still be eternal?
- 'Samad' in Arabic means Self-Sufficient Master He on Whom all depend. Aka, 'necessary being'.
(112:3) Never alive. What are you saying with this verse?
- That verse is basically denying any relationship or relativity between God & His creation.
(112:4) No equivalent yes. What are you saying with this verse?
- God is disjoint from His creation, as there is no common thing between the two.
Are you logically deducing this?
- Literally, yes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Then we are having a separate conversation this,whole time because all I asked is if you could prove your claims true or not.
- Wrong. & I reiterate: "...which is the subject at hand, which you brought up by denying authority in interpretation, to which I responded in objection, & here we are". The conversation was *not* about true or false, it was about authority of interpretation. Nonetheless, if you wish to talk about the truth of the Quran & Islamic morality, then I shall surely oblige.
Yes ones was never provided. All you provided was a claim and a definition.
- And? Where is the objection?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
What exactly is a transcendent being??? Is it a being or not? If it is, it can't be transcendent. If it's transcendent, it can't be a being. It simply can not be both.
- LOL! Bunch of nonsense. Your attempts at being clever are just horribly embarrassing.
The FAN is not material it is transcendent and it is not contingent it is prime and it is not temporal it is eternal it has a spiritual transcendent body not a physical one. You simply don't understand the reality of the FSM.
- Are you trying to say something?
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Yes absolutely terrible. And yes , the Western media once again displaying an outpouring of outrage and condemnation at the slaughter of innocent MUSLIMS which is my whole point of the is thread. Where is the outrage at the slaughter of Christians ? Where is the condemnation and outrage and mourning from the Western media when innocent Christians get blown to pieces? Where are the muslims saying " not in my name" when children and women get splattered all over Manchester by a muslim performing Islamic jihad on the instructions of Allah? Thank you for proving and highlighting exactly my point.
- LOL! The mainstream media also reported on the conflict last month which left some 35 Christians dead as well. Don't pretend otherwise.
Did you miss the title of this thread . It concerns the cowardly WESTERN MEDIA bias when it come to muslims being slaughtered. As you have proven above.
- Umm... If anything, it proves your cowardice in not admitting the facts.
As to your BBC link here>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-47680836 I suggest you also read it instead of just posting it and hoping no one will bother reading it thoroughly."More than 130 people were killed in an attack on a village in central Mali on Saturday by armed men wearing traditional Dogon hunters' clothing".
- Yes I read the article, & many others too. It's interesting though, you seem suddenly very keen on the inter-workings of the conflict that has been going on between the herdsmen & the hunters & the farmers over land rights & water supplies. It's not "violent Muslims slaughtering innocent Christians" anymore is it?
Really? OK lets see what or who it actually is that the DOGON worship.
- The Adara are Christian still. Yeah, busy Christians.
First let me tell you, fewer than half of the 300,000 Dogon are Muslim, and fewer still are Christian. Most practice traditional religion.The religion of the Dogon rests on the belief that some 3,000 years ago amphibious beings from Sirius visited the Dogon.
- I been there before, I've seen their masks. It's ironic though, when you were mentioning the Fulanis the other day, you weren't interested in their diverse religious traditions -belonging to Islamic & Christian & animist faiths. If the Dogon are not all Christian, the Fulanis are not all Muslim either.
And:The Fula people or Fulani number between 38 and 40 million people in total, are one of the largest ethnic groups in the Sahel and West Africa, widely dispersed across the region.[ Inhabiting many countries, they live mainly in West Africa and northern parts of Central Africa but also in, South Sudan, Sudan and regions near the Red Sea coast.
- Wow! Look at you all suddenly interested in all this. Your OP looks quite black & white for this, eh?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
The Quran is a book. True
- It's a recitation, but whatever.
The quran was written by men. True
- Why don't you establish its truth first.
The Quran claims that a god exists. TrueBefore man existed there were no claims of gods. True.
- Non-sequitur.
Then support your claim.
- Done, support yours.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Prove it.
- Umm... The next part you just deleted.
Yes that's right. It's not a physical plate of spaghetti it's a transcendent one. A spirit of the perfect spaghetti in whose image all other spaghetti is made.
- What exactly is a transcendent plate of spaghetti??? Is it a plate of spaghetti or not? If it is, it can't be transcendent. If it's transcendent, it can't be a plate of spaghetti. It simply can not be both.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
And what makes that more than a subjective opinion
- Regardless, authoritative still.
I don't see why an interpretation would help without some external evidence.
- As long as it's authoritative, which is the subject at hand, which you brought up by denying authority in interpretation, to which I responded in objection, & here we are.
I'm not sure what the difference is and I'm not sure what makes laws more than the prevailing subjective opinion.
- OMG! It is what it is, moving on.
Why should I accept the Quran over any other holy book that makes a similar claim? Muslims believing something is not evidence it's an appeal to popularity and a category error.
- Again, this isn't about "Muslims believe, therefore it's true". It's about "The Quran says, therefore it's authoritative (to Muslims)".
Also what is legal in the United States is not necessarily what any given American citizen considers moral or right so that's another category error.
- Again, irrelevant. Regardless, it's still authoritative. Keep up friend.
Also also the constitution can be amended if enough people feel something unjust is taking place as a result of the constitution.
- Sure...
If you can't explain something adequately better to leave it out of a debate.
- God knows I tried my best...
Because it is a legal document there are humans whose job it is to make rulings. The are appointed to the task by other people. All the people involved are independently observable and verifiable
- Exactly! & who are these people again? Those with proper authority & qualification, hence what I said.
and it is still just subjective opinion so right and wrong may be intrinsically meaningless. You could ask how do you know it is lawful but that is tautologically true.
- For the gazinllionth time, this isn't about "true or false" or "good or bad", it's about authoritative or not. If you wish to discuss the morality & truth of things, we could talk about that separately.
Yes. That something is written in a book does not make a thing true therefore truth should be demonstrable without a book.
- It's evidence for authority & reference, regardless of truth, for it's irrelevant here ; we don't really talk about wether the US Constitution is "true" or "false"... But sure, to establish the truth of things one must follow the conventional ways of proof & evidence.
What makes this more than subjective opinion?
- It's authoritative. Nuff said.
That was not a question it was a statement. Even if we grant some necessary being (which you have not demonstrated only baldly asserted)
- If you have an actual objection to my demonstration, then do establish it, otherwise dismissed.
that would still not necessitate that this necessary being would in any way resemble allah as described in the quran.
- It does, by definition. Seriously man, please do keep up.
They are separate claims that must be demonstrated seperately.
- No. You need to stop with this nonsense. I can't be saying the same thing over & over & over.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
None of your arguments prove it's the God as defined by the Koran.
- It literally does just that.
I think it's a pantheistic type of platform... everything is god. You can use the same attributes you gave in your argument. Except for outside of creation... that makes no sense.
- Except =/= Same attributes. You're contradicting yourself, or rather just saying whatever you feel like.
Although, i can concede maybe a panentheistic god... it doesn't matter really. The point would be we are all god. You can't disprove that through your arguments. But i can disprove god is only for a select few found in one religion in the corner of the earth... pshhh common man.
- I can EASILY disprove that we are all god, for the very simple reason that we are all contingent beings -unless you mean by 'god' some creature thing, which is irrelevant to this whole topic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
I didn't really understand that.
- Which part exactly?
Can you make it more simple?
- Umm... it is simple. In an even simpler expression, it is to say that:
1. All creation -whose existence is not self-sufficient- is contingent on a creator, a necessary being whose existence is self-sufficient.
2. This creator must be singular, for supposing multiple such creators would lead to a logical contradiction.
3. This creator must be transcendent (i.e. different from the creation), for it is not contingent as creation is.
4. This creator must be absolute, for all creation is equally contingent on the creator.
=> I hope this makes it easier to understand.
I highly doubt the Quran even speaks of God this way. Why weren't you able to point to the verses as well?
- This is a very standard definition in Islamic Theology. I referred the chapter, Surah 112 (Ikhalas, aka Tawheed):
(112:1) Qul Huwa Allahu ahad = "Say, He is Allah, the One" (1).
(112:2) Allahu assamad = "Allah, the Absolute [Self-Sufficient Master He on Whom all depend]" (2).
(112:3) Lam yalid walam yoolad = "He begets not, nor is He begotten" (3)
(112:4) Walam yakun lahu kufuwan ahad = "And there is none like unto Him" (4)
=> Theologically, inferred from the scripture, Allah is: singular (1), absolute (2), self-sufficient/necessary (2-3) & transcendent -disjoint from creation- being (4-3). Thus, conceptually, a being which has all these 4 attributes is hence identified with Allah. All the other attributes of God follow naturally from these.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
This is a spiritual and transcendent plate of spaghetti. You just have to interpret the definition properly.
- No. Transcendent =/= material. These terms have precise definition & meanings, you need to stop conflating these terms.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
It's not like a normal mundane plate of spaghetti that would be ridiculous. This is an all powerful universe creating plate of spagetti.
- No such thing. It's material, it's contingent, it's temporal, it's a body... It can not possibly be any of those divine aforementioned things.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Is not intrinsically good or bad.
- As far the as American morality & American Law is concerned, it IS the reference of Good & Bad.
It can have utility and its wording can be used to justify inhumane acts. This is also true of the quran.
- Only if done authoritatively. Regardless, this is irrelevant to authority in interpretation, which is our subject.
Appeal to authority.
- Wrong. "Authority is, therefore it's true" = appeal to authority. "Authority is, therefore it's authoritative/binding/valuable" = defeasible reasoning, which is the basis of all things axiology (ethics, aesthetics, politics & law). All Law is "appeal to authority".
Also why should we care what the quran says or what it means (If those aren't the same thing) if we cannot demonstrate that the information is accurate?
- Again, that's irrelevant to authority. As far as Muslim ethics & law are concerned, what the Quran says is authoritative ; the same way the US Constitution is authoritative for every American citizen, regardless of its "accuracy".
Appeal to authority.
- Nope. If you don't understand something, better leave it.
Also the quran is the claim and the claim is never sufficient evidence in and of itself.
- Meaning? Point?
How do you know any of them are wrong? How do you know you are right?
- How do you know who's right to interpret the US Constitution?
The claim is not the evidence so it must be something that we could independently verify even if the quran did not exist.
- Is there a logic to this contention? There doesn't seem to be any. Authority over the interpretation of the Quran must be dictated by the Quran itself by lead of the Prophet (pbuh), the sole source of authority in Islam.
Some test for god(s) that would come back positive or negative when applied to this universe. Now if we simply grant the existence of some necessary being your work is still ahead of you connecting whatever this thing is to your particular flavor of belief.
- This is completely off topic. But sure, what's your question?
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Stephen, look at this:
=> Death toll in last week's Nigeria attack doubles to 130 [Fulani herdsmen] "The death toll from an attack last week by gunmen in northwestern Nigeria has doubled to more than 130, the Kaduna state governor has said. The attack appeared to have been a deliberate plan to "wipe out certain communities".
=> More than 130 Fulani villagers killed. (this week)
- 130 slaughtered -mostly women & children- TWICE, in Nigeria AND Mali. You Christians have been super busy this past month.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
So what you are saying is that it is ridiculous to believethat the universe was created by a giant plate of spaghetti even if it is noncontingent Necessary & Singular & Transcendent & Absolute?
- It simply can not be both! An actual giant plate of spaghetti is strictly none of those things. This is like saying a giant plate of spaghetti is the number '1'. It strictly isn't. Though, you can for notation purposes pose: FSM = 1... in which case, FSM has nothing to do with 'a giant plate of spaghetti'.
I presume then that you have some way of proving that.
- No. That's logically impossible...
Created:
-->
@Analgesic.Spectre
Can we address one topic at a time? I simply don't have the time to address 40 points across two different threads. I also don't feel like we're getting anywhere, because we disagree on fundamental things. I'd be happy to address all the points you've made eventually, but it's like a tangent-a-thon at the moment lol.
- Not a problem. At your leisure ;-)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Such as? Religion does not have the monopoly on morals. I do not have to believe in a god, or be religious or have read the New or Old Testaments to be a good person with morals.The christian "foundation" as you put it, is the new covenant and has nothing to do with the ancient Hebrew OT and their god. Even Jews don't read the OT never mind take any laws or moral guidance from it. Do you not believe that people had laws and morals before Moses decided to write down the commandments? This was the new covenant of his time. It may as well be obsolete. Islam on the other hand has undergone not a single change in all of its 1400 + years since Muhammad had his so called "revelation".
- We can have a formal debate over this. You seem to be quite confident & sure of yourself...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Monotheism has intolerance built-in; if there is one god all others gods and their associated reigions are false.
- Keith, come on, this is just too weak! *Any* ideology starts from the premise of rejecting -in effect- all others... This doesn't necessarily entail intolerance! Maybe in the case of Christianity, yes. In Islam, in so far as Sharia is exigent in firmly deeming other beliefs corrupted, it is just as exigent in categorically tolerating other beliefs as well, for how can one be truly accountable for what they believe unless they have the guaranteed choice to believe.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
The problem with Islam is the same as for any faith based beliefs. The way you personally interpret the quran does not prevent others from interpreting it in a way that does seem to suggest that violence is more or less compulsory.
- No. Things are simply not what you wish them to be. The way you personally interpret the US Constitution does not prevent others from interpreting it in a way that does seem to suggest that violence is more or less compulsory. LOL! NO. There is such a thing as authority in interpretation & scholarship & religion. Islam =/= Protestantism. Not all interpretations of the Quran are equal, the same way not all interpretation of the US Constitution are equal...
I'm not arguing that Islam cannot have utility in creating a functional society or that it is not a positive force in your life. What I am arguing is that just like christianity and Judaism before it and indeed all faith based beliefs is that since no evidence is required for belief that persecuting the (heretic/non-believer/infedel/illegal alien) can be believed to be for the greater good with no evidence that this is so.
- What nonsense are you talking man? Scripture is the source of authority for religious morality or rationality or spirituality, aka evidence. Protestantism took authority away from Catholicism (probably for good reason), as did Salafism -illegitimately- take it away from the classical traditional schools.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stronn
What is the prescribed penalty for apostasy?
- That's an interesting question, for it involves the first of the 6 Sacred Necessities of Sharia: Religion (the other beings: Life, Reason, Progeny, Property & Honor). Religion is indeed a sacred right in Sharia, thus religious freedom -in both belief & practice- is guaranteed & religious coercion is categorically prohibited. This is expressed in the legal notion of 'Ismat al-Millah' (Inviolability of Faith) for Muslims (& non-Muslims in the Hanafi school) & 'Ismat al-Dhimmah' (Inviolability of Protection) for non-Muslims (in the other schools), which mandates that a Muslim or non-Muslim are inviolable in the 6 sacred necessities, i.e. in their religion, life, reason, progeny, property & honor. Thus, the inviolability of a Muslim is tied, not just to his allegiance to the faith, but also to his allegiance to the state & to the community (this is true for other than the Hanafi school). Subsequently, the status of apostates is a special one, for it indicates the simultaneous rejection of faith & state & community at the same time, thus do not warrant neither the inviolability of faith nor of protection.
- In this sense, Apostasy is seen potentially as a political offense rather than just a civil or criminal offense, hence dealt with accordingly by the state. The punishment of Apostasy thus varies depending on circumstances. It can even be frozen or dropped if the circumstances demand so, or if the state deems it best. Particularly, individual apostasy, as opposed to collective/public apostasy, is regarded as politically inconsequent & thus doesn't warrant a penalty, though it warrants questioning & other civil solutions. Depending on the different legal schools, its punishment ranges from nothing to death penalty. Some schools prescribe the death penalty only for apostasy that involves high treason, banditry, revolts & such (Nakhii school). Some others punish apostasy that also involves all kinds of militancy or hostility (Hanafi school). Some schools punish even whimsical (not founded on solid conviction & sincerity) apostasy (Maliki school).
- The biggest issue jurists face in the implementation of this penalty is its conformity to the principal of "there is no compulsion in religion". For Coercion nullifies Accountability. A coerced person can not be accountable, wether in this life or the next. To reconcile this, the jurists view Apostasy as a negative act (in not upholding the religion & the state & the community) rather than a positive act (in joining a new belief). Example, punishing murder is not coercion into not committing murder (negative act). Further, they also postulate that, in theory, the punishment is actually relief from coercion rather than coercion, for allowing whimsical apostasy would inevitably impede reason & morality in favor of foolishness & immorality, which entails the violation of two sacred rights in Islam: Religion & Reason (& probably the rest). In short, the framework is built in such a way that apostates who are law abiding citizens, genuinely seeking truth, know about the religion & have valid objections against its principals, may be spared from punishment, for these are expected to eventually return back to Islam after engaging with assigned scholars to argue said objections.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
- Is your real name Omar? If so, are you an ex-Muslim?
Can you prove the existence of your God?That is really the only question that needs answering.
- There are many proofs for the existence of God in Islamic Theology (Kalam), though two standard proofs are offered by the Ash'ari school (which I follow): one from sufficient causation (mentioned below), & the other much more sophisticated based on the notion of Jawhar Fard. I wrote something to this effect in a another thread, so I'm just gunna paste it here:
Definition:
God is a Necessary (necessarily existent) Singular (simple & unique) Absolute (with absolutely free will) & Transcendent (distinct from all creation) being, from the scriptural definition of Allah in Chapter 112 of the Quran.
Argument:
1. A contingent being (a being such that if it exists it could have not-existed) exists. [ evident ]
2. This contingent being has a cause of its existence. [ follows from 1. ]
3. The cause of its existence is something other than itself. [ follows from 1. & 2. ]
4. This cause must either be a contingent or a non-contingent -necessary- being. [ law of excluded middle ]
5. Contingent beings solely are not sufficient for the existence of a contingent being. [ follows from 3. ]
6. This cause must include a necessary being. [ follows from 4. & 5. ]
7. Therefore, a Necessary being (a being such that if it exists cannot not-exist) exists. [ follows from 1. & 7. ]
8. Two necessary distinct beings exist. [ assumption ]
9. A difference between the distinct necessary beings exists. [ follows from 8. ]
10. This difference is either necessary or contingent. [ law of excluded middle ]
11. If the difference is necessary, then three necessary beings exist. [ absurd! ]
12. If the difference is contingent (has a cause or an explanation for its existence), then at least one of the two necessary beings is contingent (has a cause or explanation for its/their existence). [ absurd! ]
13. Therefore, a necessary being is one (i.e. unique). [ follows from 10. & 11. & 12.]
14. Similarly, a necessary being is simple (i.e does not have parts) [ substitute "necessary beings" with "parts" in 9. ]
15. Therefore, the necessary being is Singular (i.e. unique & simple). [ follows from 13. & 14. ]
16. The sum of all contingent beings is not singular. [ evident ]
17. Therefore, the sum of all contingent beings is Distinct from the necessary being. [follows from 15. & 16. ]
18. Therefore, the necessary being is Transcendent from the sum all contingent beings. [ follows from 17. ]
19. The sum of all contingent beings is contingent (not necessary, i.e. not identical to the necessary being). [ follows from 15. & 17. ]
20. The sum of all contingent beings is contingent on a necessary being. [ follows from 2. & 3. & 6. & 19. ]
21. The necessary being is the sole cause of the existence of the sum of all contingent beings. [ follows from 15. & 20. ]
22. The attribute to cause the sum of all contingent being exists (Will). [ evident from 19. ]
23. All contingent beings are equally non-existent prior to existence. [ evident ]
24. The Will is Absolutely Free. [ follows from 22. & 23. ]
25. Therefore, a Necessary & Singular & Transcendent & Absolute being exists. [ follows from 7. & 15. & 18. & 24. ]
C. Therefore, God exits. [ as defined in the Quran ]
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Paul
What can you tell me about Islam during the period of 800 AD to 1100 AD?
- Umm... what do you like to know? This period represents the height of the Abbasid dynasty, & in many ways the height of Arabo-Islamic empire, especially in political & scientific & economic dominion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Would you say conservative interpretations of islam have gained in influence over the last few decades?
- I wouldn't call it 'conservative' interpretation. Rather, 'modern' or 'puritanical' or 'protestant' interpretations of Islam, at the expense of the classical traditional schools of thought. This, with the rise of Salafism/Wahabism (& all sorts of other new ideologies) due to few reasons: the huge gap of religious authority subsequently to the fall of the Islamic caliphate & Islamic madrasa, the strong allegiance between the dominant West & the anti-Ottoman anti-Arab-secularism & anti-Muslim-Brotherhood Wahabis (all of which enemies to the West) which made it easier for their ideology to flourish, plus the infinite Oil reserves & wealth it brought them to spread & fund their ideology.
- The classical schools have a strict system of authority based on rigorous scholarship & exigent qualifications. In classical schools, several levels of licenses are awarded: 'tabasur' (practicing, beginner level) + 'daawa' (preaching) + 'tadris' (teaching) + 'tadris wal iftaa' (teaching & advising, to become Mufti = basic scholar level) + 'tadris wal iftaa wal hukm' (teaching & advising & judging, to become a Judge) + 'imamah' (leadership, to become a great scholar)...etc. To illustrate the contrast, in Saudi they make you a judge with a 5-year university degree, which I can assure you will barely qualify you to a practitioner level in a classical school. To even qualify for a classical scholar, you need to study the equivalent of 50-70 years university studies (in hours).
Created:
-->
@Stephen
That will be the latter. He's [Yassine] good at conflating,exaggeration and lying.
- If you can prove a single instance of this, I will leave this site immediately & personally send you 1000$. Have at it...
He's even pretty good at contextualising today's Christianity and the 'actions' of Christians with today's Islamic jihad. He will, somewhere, bring up the "crusades" as he and the keith prossers of the world always do.
- If you have any objection or contention to any of my statements, establish it properly. If you disagree, I can formally debate you on any thing I ever said...
But they always leave out the part where the crusades were in direct response to 400 YEARS!!!! of muslim invasion of the Holy Land, europe, and the Indian subcontinent butchering and converting by the sword as they went..
- We can debate this as well, as I'm sure I'll easily wreck you. One, the Crusades were instigated by peoples (Brits & mostly Franks) who had very little prior contact with the Muslim world, as opposed to Byzantine & Iberia. So the whole argument, even if all is conceded (actually all is false), is invalid. Two, the Crusaders massacred 3 million people (mostly civilians, women & children) when they invaded, when the Muslims took over & won they instead gave hem amnesty & sent them back home with their families & property. This is the real contrast between the Christians of Europe, & the Muslims.
Yassine will no doubt bring into the mix the British Empire and overseas "invasions" by the USA whilst leaving out that there had been three rather large Muslim Empires stretching across the globe and hundreds of years before there was ever a Great Britain,British Empire or a USA. The last Muslim Empire only came to an end in the early 1940'. and there had been no "invasions" anywhere by the USA until the muslim attack of 9/11.
- Damn, you can't stop spouting nonsense,, It was 1921, not 1940'. & there were plenty US invasions pre-9/11, namely the FIRST Iraq Invasion...
Another favourite of the Yassin's and the keithprossers of the world is to blame the "West's foreign policy", while conveniently forgetting the intervention in Kosovo where the west saved the lives of countless Muslims from Serbian ethnic cleansing.
- *Christian* Serbians... & it wasn't about genocide, it was about communist tendencies in Serbia, who just received the same fate as Yugoslavia.
I can still see those lines of hundreds of thousands of muslims heading for the west where most have settled. I can still see the aid being air dropped down to these hundreds of thousands of these poor muslim refugees, from countries around the world including ISRAEL, but the yassines and prossers won't go there because to acknowledge such complexity - and the amount of charity given by the west - would be far too problematic.
- Sure thing, but the amount of atrocities & pillaging far surpasses those...
There is no mention of the first Gulf War where, at the distressing pleas for assistance and thanks to US-led intervention, Kuwaiti MUSLIMS were spared the horrors of a protracted Iraqi occupation thanks to the sacrifice British and American lives.
- Umm... You don't seem to be very aware of what you're talking about. That ended in the deaths of 500K to 1M Iraqis.
In other words according to muslims such Yassine and apologist like keithprosser, it will always be someone else's fault.
- It's someone's fault when it's someone's fault.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
What happened is terrible, we get it. It's not like this maniac even had any reason to hit the ones that he hit. He literally picked on random, tame civilians not some massively sadistic or dangerous types. So from all angles this was a terrible event.
- Indeed it was, as intended.
This is not at all approved or cheered on by Islamphobes. This is literally killing the most civil type of Muslim there is; the kind who only ceremoniously live out their religion, holding peace and communal serenity above the spread of Islam. So why the fuck did he target them? I'll tell you why, because he is a sociopath and they were easy prey to justify his sadism on.
- Have you read his manifesto. It's more frustration & desperation coupled with utter lack of virtue & discipline.
We all know that he is a maniac who did a terrible thing, what is the point of this thread? Tell me, has anyone actually defended him? I don't keep up with this thread to know but it seems all this is, is turning an event where all agree it's terrible and horrific into some kind of 'us vs them' thing. We are all against him, especially the left-wing progressives.
- He had a lot of support from White nationalists... But the OP was not about that at all.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I only applied a definition to the FSM that prove a the FSM is necessary.
- NO! That's equivocation. You can't define FSM to be one thing & then conflate that with another definition. If I say, I live in Turkey, I mean the state not the bird -you can't jump & say oh he lives inside a bird. THAT is equivocation. You defined FSM as a necessary being -which you are allowed to do, then you establish that a necessary being exist, thus FSM exists. THEN you jump & define FSM back as a spaghetti monster & say it's a necessary being. No, you can't do this! It's either this or that. A spaghetti monster is NOT a necessary being (it being contingent) not a singular being (it's a spaghetti for god sake) nor an absolute being (it doesn't even exist) nor a transcendent being (it's material)...
Necessary and necessarily Allah are not the same thing. You are the one that said Allah and the FSM are one not me.
- Wut? No! No, I didn't, you did. This is getting ridiculous! If this doesn't make sense to you, there is nothing I can tell you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
The Quran is a book written by men in which men claim the existence of a god. All gods are the creation of men.
- You seem to be very keen on making unsupported claims. Why don't establish what you just claimed?
On the other hand, as established, a noncontingent Necessary & Singular & Transcendent & Absolute being existsThis is just another unsupportable claim made by men.
- Wrong! Established* claim, unlike yours...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
But even if the origin of the universe is neccessary,singular etc., it does not follow (for example) that it dictated the koran to Mohammed, or chose the Hebrew people, or fathered jesus. Scriptures 'define' their gods to be more being the universes's origin.
- Indeed, that is true. You need to establish that separately, that is the revelation -Quran- we have today was indeed revealed by God, which is an extraordinary proposition to demonstrate, requiring extraordinary proof. For that, we have to show that: current Quran = spoken Quran by Prophet Muhammed = revealed Quran by God. To establish the first equation, it is required to show that the Quran we have today is verbatim what Prophet Muhammed revealed. To establish the second equation, it's required to show that the Prophet Muhammed is indeed a true prophet from God, in that the Quran revealed by him is actually revealed to him by God. Once all this is established, the matter is thus resolved.
I might concede something is needed to be the origin of the universe - but i'm not so sure the 'first cause' is the sort of things that can hear prayers.
- Creating the entire universe is a much daunting task than hearing mere prayers.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
The key problem we are here to explore and hopefully solve is, "IF THERE MUST BE A CREATOR, THEN WHAT CAN WE POSSIBLY KNOW ABOUT IT? AND WHICH OF THE MYTHICAL GODS (IF ANY) BEST DESCRIBE THE LOGICAL NECESSITY?"
- You can know a lot about the Creator from both revelation & reason, from essence or from creation itself. The notion of God in all religions except Islam (& closely Judaism) is very human-like & crippled with incoherences & not purely monotheistic & transcendental.
So, Kant's noumenon is logically Necessary & Singular & Transcendent & Absolute.
- Wut? No! Unless you define it as such... as you did just then... As it is commonly referred to in Metaphysics, noumenon is not identifiable with such a being.
But strangely the noumenon does not give us a code of human conduct.The mere existence of a Necessary & Singular & Transcendent & Absolute thing does not necessarily manifest a code of human conduct.
- Wut??
Created:
-->
@Analgesic.Spectre
Muslims enjoy immunity from criticism in the U.K. The same is the case in Australia, but perhaps to a lesser extent. You can't openly criticise Muslims in these countries without pushback from the legacy media. Whites don't run the show there, the Jews do.
- What does that mean "immunity"? Pushback from the "legacy" media is not immunity???!!! That's media on media! The Jews run the pockets not the mouths, & they don't like Muslims either. In fact, much of the demonizing against Muslims was instigated by the JIDF.
As for France, again peaceful Muslims can still overthrow the country by simply voting peacefully. So, even when they're peaceful, they are still a problem for the native population.
- What do you mean 'overthrow' the country? In what sense are they a problem for the native population?
Jews aren't White. A lot of mystery-meat people are getting into academia, due to quotas and SAT score boosting. Plus, have you read the link I sent you? It's not just White on White aggression.
- Yeah, still the overwhelming majority are White. Not that many Jews on TV. I've read all the links. You have an idea, & it's not reaching across.
Well, gifted and talented classes won't be xD
- Idk, have you seen a basketball team...?
But seriously, I wouldn't have a problem if this was in an African country. I don't even think it's a problem in my home country, especially if we had sane immigration policies (e.g. I.Q. testing, political affiliation etc.). If it's a Black majority room, they all have 130+ I.Q. and they're working on some fancy science things, I would encourage this.
- I'm sure no one would mind that either. We are talking about representative politics.
I think the Progressive, Jewish media had a hand in this, too. But sure, the KKK might not have been the most wholesome organisation -- I don't actually know (I find myself having to slowly undo the brainwashing I received at school).Whites who speak out against this get shut down, shamed, black-balled, doxxed etc.
- You mean against progressive Jewish media? Brainwashing? KKK?
Idk all those countries you listed are pretty White, with maybe the exception of Spain (due to, and I'm guessing a bit here due to time constraints, admixture).
- The 'White' descriptor had little to do with skin fairness than the notion of purity, which is subjective. If you read early 20th century French nationalists, Franks were -duh!- the pure White race, then the Greeks then the Romans (to attach themselves to hellenistic & roman civilization)...etc. For the Brits, it was -duh!- the Brits..etc. This only became a thing in post-WWII America.
In the first case I was referring to the White-Muslim narrative (colonialism & invasions & such), in the second I was referring to the White-Black narrative (slavery & racism & such).
So I assume that you don't support one of those narratives? Forgive me if you already told me, but which don't you agree with?
- I don't evidently. What exactly is your question?
Look, I'm not going to defend the actions of pre 9/11 America. I'll I'm saying is that the Muslim world shouldn't have been surprised when there was a reaction to 9/11. I actually lean towards the side of America being in the wrong, throughout all of this (only lean because I haven't studied it thoroughly).
- What Muslim world? There are twice as many people & more countries & far more languages & ethnicities in the Muslim world than in the entire Western world. It's absurd to collectively accuse 1/4th the world for the actions of a small group. Even the perpetrators of these atrocities themselves admit it was wrong.
I could construct an argument, but it would take me awhile. This isn't easy to prove. I guess look at what happened to Tommy Robinson. Look at how Muslim gangs are treated. Things along those lines. If you want to address hugely complex ideas such as this, I think we need to limit the scope of our discussions. It would take me 10s of hours to respond to one round of responses, if I were to do it thoroughly.
- Alright, good idea, let's. What should be the scope of the discussion?
That's the thing. I think some of the criticisms are legitimate, yet it gets dismissed as "hate". White people get a lot of hate in my country. You just seem to have it backwards. I don't know where to start.
- Give me an example of legitimate criticism dismissed as hate. What kind of hate do White people get in your country?
We'd need deeper analysis than statements.
- You don't believe countless news outlets are anti-Islam? I can literally spent the next 10 hours making a 1000 pages long list of such sources, as I'm sure you're familiar with a lot of them.
You should record them and tally the types of responses you get. That would be decent evidence.
- It's cute. France is the third country of the Jews after Israel & the US.
Created:
-->
@Analgesic.Spectre
Probably talking about? Lol dude just read the damn article and present your counter-evidence. Again, prove to me that slavery in the U.S was as bad as you say it was. Prove to me that slave owners, who probably paid a lot for African slaves, would treat them brutally and kill them off. Prove to me that the increased nutrition is compatible with brutal beatings and maltreatment.
- I have read the article. "Treat them brutally", yes. "Kill them off", I don't believe so. As for nutrition & health, I've read conflicting reports, but I'm more convinced most slave owners did indeed seek to maintain basic health of their slaves, for a sick or dead slave is a net-loss to his owner. It's a stick-&-carrot situation. If you want proof, we can talk about it some other time ; or you can go & find out for yourself.
Okay, so there is a difference. Do you think Islamic forms of slavery should be allowed to exist?
- That's an interesting question. Generally, the only source of slaves in Islam is legitimate warfare, wherein the POW (prisoners of war) are allocated to "masters" as legal guardians, instead of being kept in prison. Thus, with the absence of such circumstance -in a world governed by treaties- the practice becomes illegitimate, which is the conclusion that the Muslim ulama (scholars) have agreed on. The nature of 'slavery' (or any other form of imbalanced relationship) invites oppression. Oppression is top-down transgression, & transgression is violation of other's rightful boundaries -i.e. their rights. In an imbalanced relationship -between a strong & a weak- oppression is easy, in transgressing the boundary of balance between the two in favor of the stronger. This is why a higher power is required, the power of law, to restore equilibrium. This is true for any such relationship: ruler & subject, parent & child, husband & wife, employer & employee... Thus, historically, slaves being the weak end of the stick suffered oppression wherever law was ineffective. To answer your question, I don't think Islamic forms of slavery should be allowed for as long as law is not properly instituted & firmly upheld. Most of these forms, however, do already exist, though certainly not in name. For instance, there is virtually no difference between a Mukatib & someone working & paying his debt (like school debt) ; or between a Mawla & someone whose patron is entitled to some of his will ; or between a Mukharij & someone working & paying for childcare...
It doesn't happen in practice, as my short-list showed.
- An instance for the negative does not mean proof for the negative. For instance, a lot of Muslim groups have been arrested or banned or disallowed. This does not entail no Muslim groups are allowed. Case in point, White nationalist groups of all degrees exist, don't they? Something you're feeling or thinking but you're expressing wrong, it isn't what you're saying. Try articulating it in a more sensible way.
Not sure it can be changed. Jews have such a stranglehold on it. The Progressive narrative has sunk its teeth in deep. Might need a major revolution. Idk.
- The ironic thing here is that the Jews draw their power from right wing evangelicals, who wish for the establishment of Israel to precipitate the coming of Jesus (pbuh)... Without their backing, the Jews would've lost long ago.
It's application is slanderously conflationary, as explained in my linked post. Stop using sloppy language.
- You don't believe Racism exists?
We both know most Muslims are not White.Islam has caused, perhaps at times indirectly, a whole heap of terrorism. IS, Wahabism, 9/11 attacks etc. Not irrational to fear those things.
- Probably not with all that media coverage. But it's simpler than that, but people are easily impressionable. Communism was thought of as the worst evil & an "existential threat" to be eradicated, until it wasn't. It didn't disappear (the largest economy in the world is communist), it just stopped being an enemy. To the other Gulf States upon the blockade, Qatar went from 'blood brother' to 'traitor trash' in a matter of hours. Political enemies are always dehumanized & demonized for self-justification. If Muslims were human & good, the War on Terror (which ended in millions of dead & displaced Muslims) would not have occurred. If the IRA did 9/11, the US would not go & bomb Ireland & Italy & France & Spain because they share the same religion as the IRA... That said, should Muslims "irrationally fear" the West for causing much greater heaps of terrorism & invasions & bombings too...?
Created:
I've cited my short-list of racial hatred/disenfranchisement of White people. White on White aggression is certainly a problem, but again, I've cited instances wherein it's not. The White, male heterosexual problem is another problem that White people face, not the only one. Maybe this differs for the countries in which you live, but in countries like the U.S, Australia and the U.K, my claims are valid.
- Forget links & lists. Why don't you make your case, in a progression of ideas. Conceptualize the issue & articulate it in a structured manner. & start by defining your terminology, 'White people', 'racial hatred'..etc. Maybe this way we can reach an understanding.
Yes, Colonialism and the other things that Whites did to conquer. Some Whites have become racially impartial, due to charges of racism, wanting to be individualistic, virtue-signalling etc.
- I think it had more to do with attaining almost self-annihilation from being too racially partial.
Racism is a bogus term. Oppression is debatable, although there will be instances of it (but Whites have been the kindest out of any rulers, thus far).
- I don't know if this is due to ignorance of history, but of course that's far from reality. It's very hard to find, throughout history, a more ruthless & destructive peoples than Europeans, even to their own kind. The Mongols may have been more ruthless, though much less effective. "Thus far" as compared to who? The thing about relying on these sources that you follow is that there are no opponents who fight back -it's like hitting a dummy & it doesn't hit back, that doesn't mean you're strong & you won-, or that you're right & you won. According to the Encyclopedia of War, the death toll instigated by Europeans throughout history is greater than by the rest combined...
Yeah I guess it's that. I'm going to have at least six children, too :)
- That's the spirit ;-). If every White person did the same, all problems solved. Unfortunately, they are too "free" & too "equal" for this, it's "beneath" them.
Injustice isn't stating the problems of my racial group. They can be addressed and fixed without having to mention other racial groups.
- Then I must have gotten the wrong impression, for you keep mentioning Blacks & Hispanics (& Muslims) as the source of these problems. How do you address these problems then?
Can you prove that neither of those conflicts are ethnic, at least not partially?
- It was meant to be one country, but politics changed that. Much of the borders in-between separate same ethnic groups (such as the Punjabis & the Kashmiris) between Pakistan & India. Both countries speak the same main language (Urdu=Hindi) -along others. Both share the same history & culture. The conflict started as a political one (with parliament elections), which turned into a polico-religious conflict between the Hindus & the Muslims ending in several wars, & separation in 71. This type of situation is very common among most colonized countries, as intended by the colonial powers, divide & conquer.
What you describe for Australia is a pipe-dream. What actually happens is that people naturally balkanise. They're not bad people per se. They're just tribalistic. For example, an area near me called Lakemba has a high Muslim majority (over 60%, much more than Australia's low like 2% off the top of my head: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lakemba,_New_South_Wales). The place is full of Arabic, Halal and has a big Mosque. Clearly, this place doesn't serve most White people. This is not an integrated community. This is natural segregation. I could do it with like Cabramatta and Chatswood (Asian areas).
- This is like the ethnic enclaves in New York (like Chinatown, Little India, Little Italy...). Indeed, why is this bad? Even further, if each community had their own rules & local government, to create an organic pluralist society.
If it's well documented and recorded, cough up the evidence, champ.
- Maybe another time. I'm too lazy to go look for sources.
The Holocaust is a nuanced topic that I frankly don't have the time to discuss here. What I can say is that the public narrative isn't all that accurate, and Hilter engaged in whatever he engaged in because he thought the Jews were too smart for Germans.
- Oooh! Do you believe that the Holocaust happened? This wasn't exclusive to Hitler, it was the natural European reaction once nationalism & racism coupled with very isolated & powerful Jews took root in the society ; others just had different solutions. Hitler sought to "purify" them, while the Russians just besieged them into pogroms & left them to their own vices to perish slowly, & the Brits opted to expel them somewhere outside Europe (Balfour declaration, to the British Mandate of Palestine).
Created:
-->
@Analgesic.Spectre
They don't integrate in that they have their own groups. Muslims tend to stick with Muslims. Asians tend to stick with Asians. Jews tend to stick with Jews. Even if they integrate culturally (and they have no need to when multiculturalism is in place), then you still have to deal with racial integration.
- & Whites tend to stick with Whites, & Blacks with Blacks -these don't integrate with others either. So what's particular to Muslims? I keep hearing "they don't integrate", I still don't know what that means.
Push for Sharia is literal. It only takes 10% of population to have unshakable beliefs (i.e. Islam) into order to see massive population changes in belief (https://news.rpi.edu/luwakkey/2902). Not all Euro countries have 10%, but some do (e.g. France at 12.5% in 2017: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_France)).
- The article makes a lot of pointless assumptions. Not everything has to be a "study", especially since most are inaccurate. Arguing from case studies is just that, a case argument, which doesn't mean much of anything outside its very limited parameters. The study relies on the applied maths method of simulation & optimization, I can literally do the same thing & make it 1% or 90% by changing few parameters. Sometimes it takes 1 man with unshakable beliefs to change a whole population, sometimes a whole population with unshakable beliefs may not be able to change 1 man. Putting such an extremely complex thing as a society in its full depth in a graph is ridiculous. Regardless, what do you mean push for Sharia 'literally'?
Invasion can be covert. I mean, I don't care if you call it invasion or subversion or whatever. Immigrants merely coming in and living there is enough to see cultural and political changes. Some come in wanting to integrate. Some want the freebies. The result is that the host population dwindles and is eventually overthrown.
- Generally immigration is about seeking hopeful conditions or fleeing hopeless ones. Let's talk about that, at what point would you consider the host population at risk of being overthrown? 2-4% seems far from such risk.
No one is attempting to fix White people's problems in a meaningful way. That's why White people bend over backwards to support Yang, when he merely mentioned White's problems in a Twitter comment (and he mentioned many other racial group's problems, too -- this wasn't unique). Muslims have plenty of solidarity, too, when compared with Whites.
- How do you see White people problems getting fixed? Hopefully this doesn't mean remove everyone else...
The biggest problem for White people is that they've given up racial identity when others haven't. This makes them individuals and philosophers against tightly-knitted groups.
- Maybe against Blacks in the US, but most peoples do not identify with race. Race is probably an exclusively European thing born in the 19th century. Others identify mostly with religion or sect or ethnicity or nation or tribe... such as Muslim, Arab, Turk, Persian, Sunni, Shia, Han, Panjabi, Malay, Japanese...etc. The 'White' racial unity is quite a recent concept too. Priorly, it was more nuanced & more divided (some excluding others). For instance, Mediterranean peoples were not considered White (which technically they aren't), nor were Slavs (eastern europeans). Even the lily white bloody Irish were not deemed whites...
Colonialism is a mixed topic. On one hand, Whites got a lot of land and their own spaces. On the other hand, it's lead to this. Idk. Mixed topic. Sorry if these answers are a bit rushed; I literally don't have much time with full-time work and such.
- At your leisure, take your time. This is but a forum.
Muslims in Europe I'm not sure of. Muslims in Australia will soon (maybe within 50 years) be ruled by Asians in Australia.
- Alright. Australia has already joined China's Belt & Road, with its proximity to the great powers of the future (China, India, Indonesia) it will inevitably be absorbed away from the West. What do you think about that? What's the public opinion of China there?
I would befriend a Muslim. Not sure about marry.
- Friendship is a strong connection of equal-merit. Shouldn't friendship entail coexistence? I understand marriage is a bigger leap, but why not marry?
I don't know my heritage. I was adopted at the age of two.
- I meant your 'White' heritage. But wow! That's interesting. How did that turn out? Do you know who your parents are? (you don't have to answer if you don't wish to)
Created:
-->
@Analgesic.Spectre
Tone policing isn't an argument worth anyone's time.You can't criticise Muslims in the U.K -- this is a fact. I provided a link to help you understand.
- I know it's not a fact, for such criticism -or rather hate- is overwhelmingly abundant. The amount of hate against Islam & Muslims out there is unimaginable. Thankfully, most don't care.
This forum isn't irl or even a noticeable platform. The media only care when you start to make waves. That's why the U.K. police falsely arrested Tommy Robinson several times.
- I've read about that, wasn't really about criticizing Islam. & frankly, this never really about criticism, it's about hate, the kind no other group in the Western world remotely receives. If you express a speck of that about Jews or Blacks or gays... the least of it you're gunna lose your job. Tommy Robinson is not a good person, not because he is White you should stand by him. Not because I'm Muslim I would stand with any Muslim, for I should stand with the justice & virtue I believe in regardless of any Muslim.
The major news outlets don't let you criticise Islam. Maybe you're talking about fringe ones, or maybe you just don't know what you're talking about.
- Wut??? This is patently false. The Daily Mail, The Sun, The Daily Express.... In the US, the scene is lushly fertile.
No one is allowed to criticise Jews, wherever Jews have control of the media. This is a non-unique issue.
- This I don't disagree with. I've witnessed it first hand. In France, the French can't talk about two things, religion & Jews. If you ask then about religion, they say 'it's a private matter', unless it's about Islam, then 'that's a backward religion'. If you ask them about Jews, they panic & start lauding & move on.
Created:
-->
@Analgesic.Spectre
Right. So when we say "Western media", a sizeable proportion of that is the expression of Jewish interest. White people don't have control over the majority of their media.
- How do you change that?
Firstly, racism is a bogus term and you need to stop using it (https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/174).
- Racism: 'prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior'. It may have been used loosely & abusively in a lot of circles, but it does have a meaning. Sometimes somethings are definitely racist.
Secondly, my point is that criticism of Islam gets tagged with the 'Islamophobic' label, at least in a lot of Western countries (arguably the worst in the U.K.). We don't have such a tag for White people. Whites don't enjoy the same level of political immunity that Muslims do, in a lot of Western countries.
- A lot of White people are Muslim... That said, there is indeed such a thing as 'Islamophobia', when Muslims are demonized or harmed... It's not quite criticism of Islam, it's more like hate. What do you mean political immunity? Immunity from whom & for what? Do Muslims enjoy such political immunity? Can Muslims call for violence against White people? Can Muslims publicly incite hate against White people? Whites run 95% of the show, Muslims (or any other minority -except Jews) are at their mercy, if not for Whites themselves. Every mosque in France is constantly monitored, every imam is chosen by the municipality, 90% of sermons they give are about how to be good to the French & a good citizen. If the imam attempts to incite Muslims against the French or says a whiff about Jews, he will definitely see himself inside a cell the next morning.
Lastly, demonisation of White people isn't just done by SJWs. It's done by the media, universities, schools and the general public. I think I posted this to you before (https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/915). Your conception is horribly wrong.
- How?! The overwhelming majority in the media & academia are White. Something is missing in communication between us here. Sure, the SJWs -who are mostly White- attack some Whites for things they said or done (& would attack Muslims even more so if they said or done those things). But as I understand it -clear as day- it's not anti-White, it's more progressive White anti conservative White, who usually -& ironically- attack them for not accepting others -regardless of justification. This is like me complaining about the demonization of Muslims in Turkey by other Muslims for not accepting other peoples. imagine Muslims in Turkey inciting against Christians in Turkey, & other Muslims are attacking them for it, would you call that Islamophobia? This doesn't make sense to me. One thing I do see though, it's the stigmatism -in the liberal media & academia- associated with the White heterosexual religious male as a symbol of patriarchy. But this view is invented & maintained by Whites themselves, since postmodernism started in the 70s.
The thread I wrote specifically deals with evidence of people disallowing or protesting things because they are "too White" -- this is literally what is said by anti-Whites. It can't get any clearer than that. Try using that 139+ I.Q. to read something super explicit.
- Would you be OK if those groups were almost all Black? Would that be called anti-Black?
Also, neo-Nazis and the KKK don't represent White in-group bias. They are fringe groups that the vast majority of White people are not a part of. To implicitly argue that White people shouldn't be allowed to form groups, due to the existence of neo-Nazis and the KKK, whilst allowing Black and Hispanic groups to form theirs (despite them having extremists, too), is racial hatred against Whites.
- I don't disagree, but the KKK succeeded in highjacking the 'White pride' label & tainted it, the same way ISIS succeeded in highjacking 'Islamic state' & 'Sharia' & 'Jihad' labels. If a Muslim attempts to publicly celebrate Sharia (which is non other than Islamic worship & ethics) they'll be associated with ISIS. Who knows, maybe this will change. Hoping it will. Why don't you do something about it? Why don't you promote White pride in its ideals & core traditions?
The fact that you can even consider Western countries to no longer be accurately defined as White nations, shows how bad it is for White people in these countries -- they no longer own their nations, in your eyes.
- White nations is not a good descriptor, maybe European nations to depict geography, or French, German, Spanish, British, Italian... nations. & yes, the Western nations is how those nations are referred to, the same way nations of the Middle East, or Far East... are referred to.
Furthermore, I don't understand how you can make the distinction of the West being a "geopolitical entity, not the people themselves", and then later blame the "injustice done to [other people] by your people." It's like the West is a geopolitical entity when it suits you, and a group of people when it doesn't suit you.
- In the first case I was referring to the White-Muslim narrative (colonialism & invasions & such), in the second I was referring to the White-Black narrative (slavery & racism & such).
Yes, America should have just said 'oh well' and ignored the fact that it happened.
- No, it should've bombed whole countries full of innocent people who had nothing to do with it -solely because they were weaker. Really?! From such a mindset, it's very difficult to morally defend your position.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
This Islamic scholar disagrees....
- I feel bamboozled...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Great, so we all agree.It would seem that we've arrived at DEISM.Please explain how any of this (Necessary & Singular & Transcendent & Absolute) hypothetically necessitates one particular religious tradition and excludes all others?
- Again, the Quran defines God as the Necessary & Singular & Transcendent & Absolute being. This, however, does not exclude other tradition, as long as they believe in God too.
Created:
Posted in:
That's a rotten piece of argumentation!
- You mean rotten understanding, not rotten argumentation.
If you define the FSM as the 'necessary singular transcendent & absolute being' then the FSM is neccessary by definition. To see that, check out the definition of the FSM just given!I can apply that to anything. If I define Yhwh, Allah or Zeus as neccessary they become neccessary by definition! But that doesn't make them actually neccessary.
- No. That's called existential import. Even if you identify 'necessary singular transcendent & absolute being' with FSM or Zeus or what have you, it does not follow that these exist. You have to give that identification an existential import, i.e. demonstrate the existence of the 'necessary singular transcendent & absolute being'. Once demonstrated, then it exists regardless of what you like to call it or identify it with. In this case, the Quran indeed defines God as the 'necessary singular transcendent & absolute being', if the latter exists then God (as defined in the Quran) exists, by definition. As demonstrated priorly, indeed, a 'necessary singular transcendent & absolute being' exists, therefore God exists, by definition. If you like to call this being Zeus, it's just a label. However, in this sense Zeus can not be identified with its mythological character while at teh same time being identified with this being, for he simply is not necessarily existent (being contingent) nor transcendent (being material) nor absolute (not being omnipotent) & nor singular (being complex & not simple). The same goes for the other characters.
- To illustrate an example drawing from what you said, I can define Zeus as 'the god of the Greeks' & say, therefore 'Zeus is God', both propositions may be true, but have no existential import. Even if Zeus is God, this doesn't say anything about wether he exists. Going back to what you said, even if Zeus is defined as a necessary being, this doesn't say anything about his existence. That has to be demonstrated on its own right.
One can - using word games and chop logic - show that the origin of the universe was damn odd. But you can't prove its oddness was due to a god, even less can you prove it was the god of some preferred religion. That is matter of unprovable faith.
- Once you demonstrate the origin of the universe is a 'necessary singular transcendent & absolute being', as priorly done, it is safe for a Muslim to assume this is indeed God, for it is thus defined in the Quran.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
Hmm, i'm a bit confused how the two don't correlate.
- 'Eternal' implies time, thus contingent on time. 'Everlasting' is not contingent on time.
Let me make the question more specific then: When / if i get the paradise, will i ever die again?
- No, hence eternal. Though time is an interesting thing to belong to.
Let me define die a little: Death would mean taking you out of that reality. So dying in paradise would mean you are not in paradise anymore. It doesn't however mean that by you dying you didn't go somewhere else. So, the main point in my question above is can you leave paradise.
- You can leave if summoned by angels or by God. The essential idea of Paradise in Islam relates to Man's two unattainable temptations, eternal life & perpetual dominion. Paradise is described in the Hadith as an inconceivable & unimaginable world where life is eternal (no one dies) & dominion is perpetual (nothing decays), & where residents are awarded their own kingdoms each in accordance to their deeds -the least of whom gets a world ten times equivalent to the earthly kingdom, within which all their desires & wishes come true.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
ok, given notorious verses such as 2:191"And kill them wherever you overtake them"and 5:51"Do not take the Jews and the Christians friends"Shouldn't you be out there killing Christians rather than being friendly with them?
- Who says I'm not already doing that... LOL! Seriously, I know. It's getting really old though. It's just baffling to me how they can quote that verse & say it incites violence against [insert whomever] with a straight face, as if they don't know that self defense is!! Of course, by conveniently omitting the whole context & the inconvenient bits, like when you read a classified document with all the blackouts... They see "kill them wherever you overtake them"... & not "Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you"..."but do not transgress'..."Allah does not like transgressors"..."... they have expelled you* ..."And do not fight them at the Holy Mosque until they fight you there"...'if they cease, then there is to be no aggression except against the oppressors"...etc.
- As for the second verse, it's another interesting twist. The Salafis LOVE that, of course when it suits them. Thank God they aren't big on that mantra since Trump, now they are buddy-buddies. The classical schools, however, agree that befriending or loving non-Muslims is only prohibited in matters of religion, as the verses specify. That is, to befriend them or love them for their religion or to support their religion or support them against Muslims: "Allah does not forbid you from those who do not fight you because of religion and do not expel you from your homes - from acting kindly and justly toward them. Indeed, Allah loves those who act justly. Allah only forbids you from those who fight you because of religion and expel you from your homes and aid in your expulsion - [forbids] that you make allies of them. And whoever makes allies of them, then it is those who are the wrongdoers". (60:8-9), Obviously a Muslim can not support a non-Muslim to transgress against other Muslims, that's treason. The Prophet (pbuh) had a lot of non-Muslim friends whom he loved, particularly his uncle, his son-in-law, his Jewish neighbor... & a lot of allies among them too, the Christian Abyssinians, the Copts of Egypt, most Jewish tribes of Medina (except the three that betrayed him).,,etc! The whole notion is patently absurd.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
John III Sobieski. After his victories over the Muslim Turkish Empire- aka the Muslim Ottoman empire the muslims called him the "Lion of Lechistan"; and the Pope hailed him as the savior of Christendom.
- He wasn't very liked in Europe then, but they did honor him after.
Did Sobieski deserve both these titles
- "Lion of ..." is a nickname given to brave warrior commanders, so he must've deserved it indeed.
and why had Allah failed his adherents in not rewarding the muslims victory at this time and not it seems, any other time before this conquering Turkish muslim hoard had taken swaths of Europe, the Holy Lands and and large parts of the Indian continent?
- Allah is God in Arabic, whom Muslims Jewish Arabs & Christian Arabs worship. If you're asking why God didn't give victory to the Muslims when they are in the right, then this equally extends to all other groups, for all of them may taste victory as they taste defeat -as Christians in Europe were not given victory over Muslims in countless occasions. In Islam, we don't believe victory is a sign of divine favor -unless in the cause of Allah ; especially since in this case (the Battle of Vienna) the Muslims did not deserve it -a traitorous commander does not deserve victory. The Ottomans conquered the eastern part of Europe, they did not rule the Indian subcontinent!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
Will you be eternal in paradise according to Islam
- Yes, though eternal =/= everlasting.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
An AMA thread would be more suitable than a debate
- So, do you have a question?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
Why didn't your god know that Muhammad was illiterate?
- God is omniscient. Your point?
Created:
-->
@Analgesic.Spectre
Firstly, when you're wasting $800 Billion per annum ($200 Billion more than the second biggest deficit, according to you) for nothing more than 'muh melting pot' and 'dun be raciss', you're impacting the economy negatively. IF (and this is not the case) you were actually using that debt to build something worthwhile (a hoard of leeches and underminers isn't worthwhile), then maybe you could argue your distinction between budget and economy.
- LOL! You know that money doesn't disappear, as it is put back into the economy, as opposed to the trillions & trillions in stocks & bonds in perpetual virtuality that never see the light of day. Good health & good security leads to good economy.
Secondly, I don't know what point of mine you are responding to.
- This one, "Comparing their income to New Zealand, which has a totally different set of variables (i.e. cost of living, market demand etc.), without addressing those variables, is laughable."... Not so laughable though.
Thirdly, you're writing as if the economy and the budget are immune from each other. When you have -$800 Billion in the budget, the economy is affected. Is that clear for you now?
- If it's so clear to you, why don't you explain it to us? A budget deficit is not necessarily bad for the economy. The $4T debt-deficit in quantitative easing given in bailout to the defaulting banks & corporations post-2008 recession (which btw are run by Whites) was not just not bad for US economy but critical for its maintenance. China's $600B deficit this year is also primarily aimed to stimulate the economy, rather than drain it -much of it is to help the less advantaged. Even in case the budget deficit is bad for the economy, it does not follow that a particular group of people are a drain to the economy. The middle & lower class populations -most of whom are White- are not a drain to the economy.
I'll respond to the rest later; I've got work in the morning...
- Enjoy.
Created:
-->
@Analgesic.Spectre
The reason you are getting these incorrect conclusions is because you are comparing apples and oranges. Traditionally, mature adult African Americans and Whites have been compared (i.e. 24 years of age and older). You will actually get a higher expression of genetics the older you get (up until the age of 24). Using figure 2 from this research paper (http://sci-hub.tw/10.1017/thg.2013.54), we can see that heritability of I.Q. is lower in 17 year olds than it is in 24 year olds. Hence, you need to compare the same age group -- your study doesn't.
- To put this to rest, just like I've been saying. The use of 17 yo assessments as data source is very common in practice, for their abundance & very high correlation with adult assessments, "at the national level measurement in student age can be taken as an approximation of the ability level of adults" "the correlation is r = .95", which is close to the measure your own source -had you checked it- provides (some 0.05 variance). This means that the variance error is at most 1 IQ point (given the gap is about 10), which is insignificant.
This is really getting tedious -- it's just too easy to say something wrong, and then force the other person to spend 5 times the amount of time fixing what you wrote. But anyway...
- Then stop saying wrong things...
I don't know where you got this conception from. The Black-White I.Q. gap is not shrinking. Maybe if you compare children the age of 5, wherein the environment is a strong determinent of I.Q, against older people, then you could make that conclusion (under false pretences). You didn't even cite anything here, so I don't know what you want me to say other than you're wrong lol.
- I would've thought you knew about the gap shrinking.
As for the 80% figure, it's not an unpopular figure. Your 20-80% environmental-genetic split is certainly not the dominant view. We're equi-distance from the average of 50% heritability (https://imgur.com/a/mSqOS5L).
- I've seen that one before, if I remember it had very low response rate. I like this one better, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_IQ_Controversy,_the_Media_and_Public_Policy], 15% all environment, 1% all genetic, 45% both. Plus, I've seen many studies explaining over half the gap just by accounting for SES (socio-economic status).
It would also, again, be nice if you could use sources to support your claims, instead of spurging with wild claims backed by nothing.
- I have, if only you actually read them...
Look, I don't have research specifically on the topic of neurologist number. As for your U.K. claim, the U.K. is significantly smaller than the U.S. As for the specific threshold to when there is a dearth of neurologists, I don't know it.
- Not that smaller!
But you'd think, if you're importing a whole bunch of people with I.Qs. a couple points over the necessary I.Q. to get into the military, that finding neurologists out of those people, or nuclear physicists, teachers, university professors, anthropologists, laywers etc. might be quite hard.
- Conceding you premise, maybe not in abundance but just enough, as Whites had enough 50 years ago. If your concern is global & regional success, then I would agree, lower average IQ may lead -among other factors- to low competitiveness, which is why many believe the US & Europe will not be able to keep up or compete with China in the coming years & decades, especially in STEM fields. So, if Blacks should find it hard to compete with Whites, so should Whites find it hard to compete with Asians, especially since the latter are significantly more numerous.
As for proving that the UK is just "fine", please elaborate on how your paper shows that.
- The UK in many ways is one of the most successful countries out there.
As for Greece, I'm pretty sure it defaulted not too long ago (and was part of the reason Brexit was pushed). Then again, I don't know a whole lot about it off the top of my head.
- Still a high income country, doing better than most. & that was due to bad policy, not IQ.
This is not an acceptable excuse. When you make claims, you need to present data, regardless of the environment. That is how you construct a worthwhile argument. Stop being a petty drag on this discussion.I have constantly cited sources. I'm not going to waste my time counting them up or something like that, because it's just so obvious that I've sited way more than you. Those images are the results of research (some are even tagged with the study they come from), and the videos are collaborations of research. Frankly, there's a chance you're lying about the quality of sources I'm providing, because it's bloody obvious that I'm citing frequently with quality sources. I'm not sure why you'd intentionally lie about something so empirically obvious. You need to watch what you say, champ.
- Quality sources = academic, referential, official, renown sources =/= images. You could instead link to the direct study so I can look into the context & source directly.
I've discussed the fatal flaw in your study above.
- I don't know, I'll stick with "the best predictor for the ability level of younger and older adults".
Spanish and Black people are genetically similar, despite having similar I.Qs. Was that really too hard to comprehend?
- Wut??? Maybe you should go back & recollect what you were trying to say.
No.
- Kewl.
Nice. You stripped the quote out of context and made a broad, generalised (attempt at a) rebuttal. Really good argument. Everyone knows what you are talking about. They are learning so much.
- Wut??? Your source is not supportive ; you denied most Whites don't identify with race, & proceeded to quote a source that proves just that. So...
Created:
Posted in:
Hello everyone,
- Anyone wishes to debate on the topic of Islam? Anything that relates to Islam, in religion, or scripture, or law, or theology, or spirituality, or tradition, or history...etc. If you do not wish to debate the subject, you are welcome to discuss it in this thread. All questions or objections are welcome.
Created:
Posted in:
Allah is a giant plate of sentient spaghetti? That is something that I didn't know about him.
- No, that involves an entirely different definition. Once you define FSM as the necessary singular transcendent & absolute being, it can not also be some spaghetti character, for that is decidedly not a necessary being, for it is contingent on space. Any thing which is contingent on space or time can not be a necessary being, by definition. This is called an equivocation fallacy.
Created:
-->
@thett3
- The most promising candidate so far. It would be interesting to live in a world where the leaders of the two superpowers are Chinese... Could be awkward too...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
We know that all gods are the creation of men, so whatever god you worship, like all gods is contingent on men.
- How do we know this? Proof. On the other hand, as established, a noncontingent Necessary & Singular & Transcendent & Absolute being exists.
Created: