Total posts: 1,201
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
Do you have any opinions on it?
- As I just said: Decadence is a human condition that all civilizations inevitably reach after long periods of prosperity, yet it is their last stop. As Ibn Khaldun explains, Stability leads to saving, which drive consumption, which initiates demand for luxury, which drives innovation, which leads to prosperity, & then further luxury, resulting in indulgence, from there decadence, decadence induces corruption, & corruption leads to oppression, hence death.
What things do you consider decadent?
- Self-gratification & self-indulgence. Civilizations start with barbaric lifestyles, & end in them too. For instance, immodesty has always been associated with crude uncivilized cultures, commoner/rural/nomadic/barbaric culture, while modesty is associated with the noble & civilized. Civilizations start in immodesty, then modesty, then succumb back to immodesty.
Would your belief on decadence hold up across time?
- You mean, decadence kills nations? Absolutely. It's just math.
There have been many things throughout history that have been considered decadent by older generations.
- & those things were the sign that those societies have failed. The West today reached levels of decadence never heard of before, naturally, since they also reached levels of stability, prosperity & wealth never heard of before. Decadence happens at the height of prosperity, it doesn't give the impression that the end is near. On the contrary, the prosperity & success only warrants more of it because the people believe they must be doing something right, otherwise how come they are prosperous. But that doesn't last, for corrupt societies are failed societies. You're no different from Greeks, or Romans, or even the Arabs. In Andalusia, long periods of prosperity & stability made the Muslims of the country indulgent: music, parties, obsession with luxuries...etc, they couldn't hold up against their resolved enemies with it counted.
Created:
Posted in:
@RationalMadman
So, in terms of physics, chemistry, biology, psychology and technology what did the Middle East contribute in the past five centuries?
- Add to all the above, all the moral, legal & political influence, which are greater than any other, in liberty, equality, religious freedom, women's rights, commercial law, contracts, animal rights... & everything else.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
I'll be the first to give you a genuine answer. The reason why Americans are so ignorant to their decline is because of their founding psychology. This country was founded by expelled religious groups who had theological ties to Judaism such as the Puritans, Quakers, Mennonites, etc. Thus, they considered America the new "promised land", the "New Jerusalem", and the "city on a hill" given to them by God. These groups did not believe in the divinity or the importance of Christ, which Catholics believed in, so they developed their theology on strictly Old Testament jew ideas such as those mentioned above. Hell, Cromwell even wanted to rebuild Solomon's temple. Mormons believe the kingdom of God will be in Missouri. This idea of America as the grand promised land outlined in the OT is so ingrained in the American conscious that it's impossible to remove and even modern presidents like Reagan spoke about it. So, they say nothing can be wrong with America, it's the promised land.
- This was an interesting read. Huh! I know about the Mormons & the general "God loves us"... but it's interesting how founding conditions can shape future culture like that. This actually explains why some republicans I know think of the US Constitution as an extension of the Bible.
Next you have the ideology and identity that is connected to America. Americans wrongly assume that America was the bringer of democracy, free speech, freedom, and light into the world full of dark, absolutist regimes. Of course these Whig history ideas are total nonsense but the vast majority of Americans believe in it still today and it was ingrained into the Constitution. So today the ignorant American will say "we have freedom and democracy that no other nation has" because they believe this is what America has always stood for and what America will always stand for. So the American identity is a civic identity, not a cultural identity. The French identity is Catholic from the Greco-Roman tradition with French language and culture with a common homeland in France. The Spanish identity is Catholic from the Greco-Roman tradition with Spanish language and culture with a common homeland in Spain. The Russian identity is orthodox from the Slavic tradition with Russian language and culture with a common homeland in Russia. American identity is freedom, guns, democracy, etc with no established culture and language. As a result, America has a much harder time comprehending their decline. They don't realize that culture is what actually matters, and not civic ideas such as freedom. While Spaniards can openly denounce their form of government because their identity doesn't revolve around it, Americans can not because their identity is centered around the classical liberal government that they created. By form of government, I don't mean the current leaders. I mean the system. Falangists, who want to install a fascist strongman, are still popular in democratic Spain but those ideas are completely unthinkable in an America where both of the major 2 parties respect the form of republican government.
- Indeed, Decadence is a human condition that all civilizations inevitably reach after long periods of prosperity, yet it is their last stop. As Ibn Khaldun explains, Stability leads to saving, which drive consumption, which initiates demand for luxury, which drives innovation, which leads to prosperity, & then further luxury, resulting in indulgence, from there decadence, decadence induces corruption, & corruption leads to oppression, hence death.
So what do you have now? You have a population that is being demographically replaced, fat, addicted to drugs and porn, hedonistic, financially unstable, and downright evil but they don't realize this decline because "at least we still have our civic principles of freedom, democracy, the free market and the Constitution". So these people continue to worship the military and veterans who fight for literally nothing except bringing liberalism to hostile, conservative populations. They continue to say that America has freedom, military power, and a democratic government when every single fucking trend in the country suggests otherwise. They spend 600 billion on the military that fights wars in a country most people haven't heard of because of libertarian civic ideas and then turn around and say that we can't have Medicare because it's too expensive for government finances. They say "fight the Muslims over there" and then proceed to let in millions of Muslims to western nations. And the worst part is that SO MANY Americans still believe this. They continue to believe that the biggest threat are those DEMONKRAT SOCIALLISTZ while their son is a porn-addicted loser. They continue to think that the biggest threat is CHINA while their own country dies because of CULTURAL CHANGES.
- I have a lot to say about all this stuff, maybe I'll start a new thread. But indeed, the US is built for the rich & immediate self-gratification.
America is dead, and I for one am happy to accept our new Chinese overlords.
- What change or action do you believe needs to happen to avoid this daunting outcome?
Created:
Posted in:
@RationalMadman
So, in terms of physics, chemistry, biology, psychology and technology what did the Middle East contribute in the past five centuries?
- The right question is what didn't they contribute. It's understandable why European revisionism gained such momentum & acceptance in late 19th century & early 20th century Europe, powerful colonial industrialized states with deeply racist ideologies to whom gratitude or recognition to Muslims was unthinkable. Though, we can't generalize. A great number of intellectuals, especially those sincere among them, stood against this nonsense, such as LeBon & Briffault. The History of knowledge & sciences thus becoming: something basic by the Greeks, then a reiteration by the Romans, then 1000 years of absolutely nothing, then an extraordinary invention by a European prophet. I also understand why they teach you this dumb childish narrative, it's part of your national myth, which every nation has. What I don't understand is why you expect others to subscribe to your myths!!! We have our own History.
- As to your question, although the Muslim world started declining mid-18th century, slowly abandoning much of their sciences, the collection, translation & studying of Islamic works continued in Europe until late 19th century. Muslim ideas permeated Renaissance & Enlightenment Europe, in everything. Just from what little we know about that period, the influence is huge. Of the +120,000 Islamic manuscripts collected during Enlightenment & prior in historic European institutions, only few hundreds are accessible today, mostly about literature & religious related topics. In astronomy, for instance, only a few of the +10,000 available manuscripts may be accessible in European institutions. Also, a very limited number of the +3 million manuscripts across the Muslim world, few dozens of thousands; even much less are in print, in the thousands. Despite that, we can already see huge influence of Muslim ideas on Europeans. From major paradigm shifts in Science, such as Evolution, where Mu'tazilite ideas about increasing complexity of life (from minerals to plants to corals to jellyfish to vertebrates to mammals to monkeys & finally humans) to natural selection, adaptive traits, survival of the fittest, camouflage, prey & predator... gained popularity in 19th century Europe, this constituted one of the arguments against the Church then for not adopting Evolution as Muslims already have (they mistakenly thought this was mainstream belief among Muslims, it wasn't) – or Set Theory, which was founded on one-to-one correspondence, quantifying the object & infinity nature, first brought up by Hamilton then Cantor (who is credited with it), although these ideas were widely studied & taught by Muslims for centuries. [I was actually shocked to learn that these ideas were "invented" by Europeans, since I learned them prior, such as from Sunusi's work (Jumal, from 15th century) who describes 112 rules of sets, about bijection, inclusion...] – The Ash'ari atomic & cosmic theory of matter & the universe (then mainstream in the Muslim world), that efficient causation is inductive, not necessary, that events are isolated & discrete, that nature is uniform by habit ('ada), dimensions are relative contingent on perception, such as time & space, that matter is quantized, accidents (motion/stillness, combination/separation) are probable until actualized, that time & space are quantized, that velocity is bounded.... which were adopted by the anti-Newtonian movement in Europe (by Berkley, Hume & others) to culminate into Relativity & Quantum Physics. To groundbreaking technologies, such as: firearms & the various weapons we are familiar today, which made the Ottomans & the Mughals so dominant, including canons, torpedoes use to sink ships, tanks used to bring down gates, rockets, rapid-fire guns... acquired by Europeans who developed these even further – the steam engine, used in by the Ottomans to carry loads but also for cooking & other mundane practices, then adopted by Europeans for more arduous tasks once coal was discovered (much denser in energy than firewood) – the mechanical clock (with hour hand, minute & seconds) invented by Taqi-deen Dimashqi in the 16th century – the variety of textile mills which made its way from the bay of Bengal to England, instigating the Industrial Revolution therein. To everyday practices, such as in Dentistry: dental restoration, implants, gold teeth, dental alignment...etc – Vaccination, adopted by Europeans from the Ottomans...etc. To even the most subtle things, such as Cancer categorization into 4 phases based on tumor size. We'll be here all day if I continue.
Sp did Greeks, pythagorean theorum was made by a greek.
- Pythagorean theorem existed a 1000 years before Greeks even existed. But same as everything else, Europeans love to credit it closer to home.
Trigonometry was Greek influenced, not just Arab.
- You mean geometric trigonometry. I didn't deny Greeks influenced Muslim in Geometry, who themselves influenced by Egyptians & Babylonians. I was referring to analytical trigonometry. In fact, it is Muslims who invented analytical Mathematics, where world problems were first modelized into general statements & equations, then solved deductively with deductive general solutions & proofs, instead of case-based solutions. This was later adopted in Physics as well, especially with Ibn Haytham & Biruni, to infer mathematical & analytical theories from observation & experimentation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
dead in the grave where it belongs
- Ouch! You don't seem as optimistic about the future as the others. It is because of the decadence you mentioned in your other post?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
Don't know where the US will be. But I know where I'll be.I'd be 118 in 100 years.That means I'll either be 6 feet in the ground or knocking on deaths doors
- Maybe they'll invent brain transplant by then... Or not! Where do you see Greece in a 100 years?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
In 30 years I would say they’re in the same position, just with less influence and less military presence abroad.
- How do you predict that will play out without the technological, economic, & fiscal advantage? – By 2050, China would've grown to at least twice the size of US economy (it already outputs 3 times its industry & 7 times its agricultural production), that also means at least twice the military budget of the US, while having the technological advantage.
In 80 years I have no idea. More of the same with less influence and a drastic decrease of military presence in Asia.Internal politics is way harder to predict.
- Are you a civil war believer?
I wouldn’t say 100 years. Africa is very diverse with a lot of moving parts and lot of corruption. There’s a lot of institutional development that needs to happen. I think it will take time.
- I don't disagree about the process, but a 100 years is a very long time. Today's Nigeria's economy is larger than 100 years ago US economy.
Created:
Posted in:
@RationalMadman
There is nothing I posted that is racist or ignorant.
- No racist admits he is... Everything you posted is *factually* false, as proven.
Arabs invented algebra and the number zero. They didnt do much for science beyond that.
- Except Natural Science itself, Modern Medicine, Social Science, Engineering & Classical Physics. I literally listed a bunch of things they did, yet here you are sticking your head in the sand & pretending nothing exists.
I have no idea who you think you are fooling.
- Was that a monologue? Let's have a debate on the subject, we'll see who's the fooler then.
They rivalled greeks on trigonometry.
- Why do you love making shit up? Muslim invented Trigonometry as well, Calculus too.
Created:
Posted in:
@RationalMadman
Arrogance is no substitute for knowledge
- Then do more knowing & less arrogating.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
The world, politics, statistics, economics, legislation, happenings, importance of events, ramifications, are complicated.Nevermind 100 years,Changes occurring in the span of 5 or 10 years, can surprise people.
- What's your short or medium term prediction then?
(Below is Joke video, as my initial thought when I read American Stereotype, was jokes)
- HAHAHHAHA! Hilarious...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
OBJECTION: Hasty generalization fallacy
- Damn! This ain't a debate. It's a joke thread.
Let's agree that DART is not a representative sampling and chud is distorting your analysis with excess drag.
LOL
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@badger
Well I'm an Irishman. We invented terrorism. It's your lot blowing up concerts full of little kids in England though.You won't find any of that done for Ireland.A much more respectable Manchester bombing for you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_Manchester_bombing
- I'm bamboozled! A terrorist defending terrorism by attacking terrorism. You all belong with each-other, at the bottomless abyss of society & Hell, for all the immense suffering you caused.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
I think 100 years is probably too far out for useful speculation. Sci-Fi writers in 1930's-50's mostly thought we'd have robots and automated vehicles and colonies on Mars by now. At the present rate of change, I think we'd need to establish some assumptions before speculating.
- Thoughts on the next 10 years? By 2050? By the end of the century?
Climate is going to be a massive wildcard likely driving radical shifts in geopolitics.
- 21st century Climate Change is 20th century Overpopulation. Political tools to be used as leverage for political dominion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Make no mistake, the Chinese are ahead technologically—and way ahead in some quarters. ... China is also pursuing research in artificial intelligence and quantum computing at a pace that is difficult to measure, but could render the U.S. and its allies anemic in cybersecurity wars in coming years.
- So, what's your take on the subject, where do you the future of the US in global stage?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@badger
I don't blame you for hating America and your studied anti-Americanism is definitely interesting, but then it's easy to win a battle if your opponent never knew they were in a battle in the first place. That is, you can make a good argument for anything when the other person hasn't ever thought to argue otherwise. Your "global realities" and "world affairs" - impressive as they read - are easily doubted.
- Doubt away. Put up or shut up!
You're advantaged in being an angry little dude. Fun though, I'll give you that. If only it wasn't for the posts promoting gay-bashing, woman-beating, and paedophilia.
- I sense a lot anger coming from you, you ok?
Islam gives a bad name to terrorism.
- I'm sure that how you see it from your side, given you love terrorism & Islam is about peace.
Created:
Posted in:
I recently started a thread : Where do you see the US in a 100 years? Some of the responses were pretty shocking. Complete obliviousness towards global realities & world affairs. I always thought Jay Leno is intentionally picking out the dumbest Americans to feature in his show, like who could possibly think Europe is a country?! There is nothing inherently wrong with not knowing world facts & affairs, as long as the person has good character. But it's curious, why do you think Americans are so ignorant about & detached from the rest of the world? Is it education? Media? Some sense of American centrism? US hegemony? Prosperity?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Incel-chud
You're claiming US morals are worse than China's. It's absurd. Maybe you are dumb enough to believe American self depreciating behavior. I don't know.
- Not that I care either way, but indeed that is objectively the case. You've just been indoctrinated ad nauseam to accept BS behavior as something to be proud of.
If you has lived in China, you would know it is an extremely repressive regime.
- I really believe you're not that stupid to believe such nonsense. Visit China, it's a gorgeous & warm country. Lots of history & tech. We're not living in the Cold War era anymore, this type of language will just make people laugh at you.
Had you lived in America and China, you would definitely prefer America. Anyone stupid enough to believe something different is a Chinese shill or a retard. There is no in between
- You must not travel around the world much! Who told you this bunch of drivel?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
See I show you why and you deny it is an argument.
- Just say that you don't know what an argument is. There is nothing embarrassing about admitting ignorance.
Why repeat what is everywhere. Gee just check out your last answer to me. Rather than admit the veracity of an argument - you deny there is one and tell me I am going around in circles.
- Alright, here goes. This is how you provide an argument against Islam:
1. Show that Islam, in fact, says or does X.
2. Show that X, in fact, is objectionable.
3. Show why the objection is, in fact, the case.
Good luck!
I don't agree there is my truth and your truth. There is only one truth. It does not need to be compelling because it is what it is. As for who has it, I reject any view that you have it.
- Then you wouldn't mind proving you have Truth & I don't in a debate right?
Well - you are. Lying is prohibited in Islam - yet what is a lie according to Islam? Not the same as rejecting an objective truth. If the lie - leads to advancing Islam, Islam approves it.
- Please! Don't lump me & Islam with your disgusting Christian doctrines of lying & spreading hate.
It's not a lie. It is simply revealing once again that Islam practices the view that the ends justifies the means. In other words, whatever will advance the cause of Islam is acceptable. And whatever does not - is rejected.
- You're confusing your faith with Islam. You're just making your faith look worse by the second, with these repulsive practices.
When Muslims, like Progressives, and socialists start to understand the fact that such a view actually undermines their own view, then perhaps - a better dialogue might be possible. It is no different to those who preach tolerance yet are the most intolerant against those who disagree with them.
- Indeed. That is your religion, the most intolerant & bloody to have ever existed. You claim to follow the beloved Jesus (pbuh), yet you do everything else but.
The truth will set us free - not just when it advances a cause - but probably more so when it reveals all of the warts. One of the reasons why the Bible is more consistent with the truth is because it is not afraid to tell the story warts and all. Truth is not just about the ends - it also includes the means. The destination and the journey go hand in hand not just when you feel like it is going to help you.
- We are not in Sunday mass. If you have actual arguments or something meaningful to share, by all means. If you don't, keep your feelings to yourself.
- No such thing. This is just childish. Knowingly & willingly lying about Islam is apostasy: "do not tell lies about me, whoever [Muslim] tell lies about me deliberately, let him take his seat in Hell Fire" the beloved Prophet Muhammed (pbuh).Selective quoting. But if you wish to carry on with this lie - perhaps there is no point in going further.
- Again, you seem to be mixing up our beliefs with yours. In Islam, we follow what the beloved Prophet (pbuh) commands & abstain from what he (pbuh) prohibited. We don't follow whatever it is you believe about lying is ok to spread hate & Christianity.
It is not trick. It arises because of the doctrine within Christianity - that the ends justifies the means. The best way to counter this would be to admit it - at least that would establish an attempt at honesty and then provide a step to consider how we might go forward. Denying it just repeats the cycle and encourages mistrust.
- Indeed. Good thing you admit it. Then, why do Christians do absolutely everything from lying to killing just to spread their faith?
Intentionally missing the point is another way of avoiding the truth.
- Are you mentally challenged or something? Unable to articulate basic meaningful sentences.
The earliest Christians did not deny his resurrection. Nor did they deny the Trinity or his deity.
- Didn't take you long to lie again, did it! Why are you lying to my face like this? That's not nice. Even a child in the street knows you're not telling the truth! Geez, if you had to to advance your faith, at least lie in moderation.
The earliest Christians died not of because of belief - but because they witnessed the risen Christ and were prepared to die for him and the truth. The Trinity is brilliant in concept and in practice. It is the only doctrine which brings together the contradictory natures of the One and the Many. It is not absurd.
- A square circle is brilliant in concept and in practice. It is the only doctrine which brings together the contradictory natures of the one & the many. It is not absurd.... (–_–) So, three & one is not just not absurd (it strictly is btw), it's also brilliant & beautiful? I'm willing to listen, prove it. Being all poetic doesn't prove anything.
No one is running. All I am attempting to do is to get some common trust going here. Telling the truth may well be insulting. A debate without common trust is pointless.
- If that's your concern, then start by telling the truth & stop lying through your teeth. Also, if I trusted you, I wouldn't have a debate with you now would I.
No - blind faith is completely different. Revelation is God's truth. Confirmed by reason - and experience. Confirmed but not necessary. Surely you do not deny revelation? Otherwise - you attest that the Islam results from blind faith.
- I don't deny the principle of Revelation, as it is not metaphysically impossible. But I do deny that the Bible you have today is revelation -at least not all of it. You can convince me otherwise, if you have any proofs. We can also do a debate: Truth of Quran vs. Bible, unless of course you're not that confident of your Bible?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
Looking at large trading blocs roughly by continent, overall I see North America declined, Europe declined, Africa and Asia increased. In terms of influence.
- This is already ongoing. Where do you see the US in 2050 & in 2100?
Wait until 400 years into the future (give or take 100), an African trade union will be leading the world.
- Why not 100 years or less? Africa's current average income is around $5k, which is about Europe's average post-WWII, & China's income 20 years ago. It will also have the largest & youngest population of any region or race by the end of the century.
Dominating the world is too strong a phrase for a interconnected global economic community. From what I think, Africa is a steady/fast growing continent when it comes to organisation, economics, population.
- At least you're much better informed than some delusional people here, are you American? It is as you said, many parts of the continent are growing at fast paces. People forget that China was a lot poorer than Africa in the 1960s, in fact it had one of lowest incomes in the world. Today, China is outsourcing into Africa, which is a great opportunity for the continent, the same way the US's outsourcing into China was.
No, I’m saying Africa has a lot of potential in becoming a very influential trading bloc although prosperity is rising everywhere for the most part.
-
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
I find it genuinely amusing how you start threads like this posing as some openminded, 'genuine' type and something about the way I write or whatever exposes you without me even slightly aggressing against you.
- Ahem! Last time I checked it said DEBATEart.com on the link bar. I'm openminded to arguments, not feelings. f you have good arguments, no one is stopping you. If you don't, have the decency to admit it.
Your arrogance is not appealing to most here, some don't seem to care or notice though. It doesn't add weight to your arguments to belittle and insult the other.
- Dude, throughout this whole thread you've been spouting your bullshit presenting your wishful feelings as fact. Enough nonsense.
Western Europe has been the hub of science for a long while now.
- Not for a while, no. Though, a close second after the US, now pushed back to third with the rise of China in 2015-2016. In 2019 numbers (knowing that China since grew even larger), the scientific output of China (citable) = 505k, of the US = 492k, of the Europe = 639k. However, in the top 1% most-highly-cited publications, China leads for the first time at 8.4k, the US then came in second at 7.9k, while Europe lagged at 7.3k. The ratios are skewed further towards China & the US the higher the citations.
You can believe whatever you want about history or the present, you like to brag nonsense a lot on other threads so why should this be any different.
- You can't believe whatever you want buddy! You either know or you don't. Clearly you don't, since you're literally making shit up.
China and the US are huge, Europe collectively thwarts them because it has so many nations that are brilliant at science,
- Most best scientists & universities are in the US & China, Europe lags quite behind.
the most noticeable being Switzerland, Germany and UK are heavily dedicated to it. France isn't far behind, it just tries less at it.
- Aren't you tired of bullshitting? Your feelings =/= reality! The UK & Germany do indeed have remarkable output, since 3/4th of the former's researchers in S&E are foreign & half of the latter's. – Let's see... countries with more scientific output than Switzerland: Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Iran, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Poland, Russia, South Korea, Spain, Turkey, UK, & US. – In technical sciences & engineering (i.e. non-social & health related "sciences") Western countries generally hugely underperform compared to others, knowing that half to 3/4th researchers in these countries are themselves immigrants (the rate is 56% in Switzerland overall & 72% in non-social fields). In Computer Science, for instance, Switzerland (80% international researchers) gained 4.5k citations in 2020, compared to 8.5k citations by Saudi Arabia & 6.2k citations by Pakistan, despite the fact that the western country has an overall larger scientific output.
You can believe whatever you want about it, Pick any western european nation and observe its scientific development through from the 1500s to now and you will see what I am saying, they pioneered the entire planet's science, the others caught onto their discoveries and built upon their theories. I am not sure what you are trying to say here.
- That's a European revisionist fantasy & has no ground in reality. Science was pioneered by Muslims, which the Europeans learned & credited it to themselves later on. It was Muslims who refuted Greek Natural Philosophy, in favor of more abduction & experimentation. From Ibn Haytham’s (d. 1040) first refutation of Ptolemy & al-Ghazali's (d. 1111) refutation of Aristotle, & their introduction of the scientific method, the Tanthir theory (by al-Ghazali) & the empirical method (by Ibn Haytham) to the subsequent celestial models proposed by dozens
of great Muslim astronomers across five centuries that Ali Qushji (d. 1474)
comes to finalize the models of his predecessors Bitruji (d. 1204) and Tusi (d. 1274) and Ibn Satir (d. 1375) and his own master Ulugh
Bey (d. 1449) to propose a new paradigm of astronomical study of celestial motion devoid of philosophical
implications. Qushji, pioneer of the great Samarkand Observatory,
was invited to Istanbul by Mehmet the Conqueror to teach astronomy in Ayasofya, where set up a new observatory. His evidence for the rotation of the Earth appears a century later
in Copernicus’ publications, along with the mathematical models, the astronomical tools, the
terminology & even the diagrams & sketches -often in exact replication- found in Qushji's works. In fact, starting in the 15th century, Arabic chairs were set up across Europe to systematically acquire & study Arab sciences. In Oxford's Arabic chair, where people like Newton studied, 15,000 Arabic manuscripts were collected. Centuries before Newton, Biruni (d. 1048) had already established that gravitation is inversely proportional to
altitude, Abu Barakat (d. 1166) had already proven that force is proportional to
acceleration, and Ibn Baja (d. 1138) had already shown that for every action there is an opposite
reaction...etc. There are over 120,000 such manuscripts across European historic higher institutions & libraries today, which they seized from Muslim lands, studied and appropriated, then shelved and denied. – This whole sickness of Eurocentrism, aka Euro-insecuritism, started in the 19th century to rewrite Europe's history, make it into revolutions & miracles, & remove any part any other civilization played in their success.
There of course were Greeks but they were more math oriented than science itself due also to the technology they had available back then and that's still Europe but admittedly not western europe.
- Greeks did not have much maths either, they had Natural Philosophy. Euclidean geometry is a compendium of Egyptian/Babylonian mathematics, compiled in Egypt & an Egyptian Greek. Also, Western Europe pre-1500s was a wasteland of ignorance, & one of the most backwards & poor regions in the world then.
Weird prediction other than Asia.
- Do you any objective criteria as why that is wrong?
Africa, in general, just doesn't seem to want to compete on that level or dominate the world. The more competitive people within Africa emigrate or if it's financial victory they want, they remain and stay wealthy and powerful.
- In a few decades, Black Africa will have 5 times the population of the entire West, the ratio was reverse a century ago. Western bullying & exploitation of African countries will increasingly become unattainable, which means more chances to develop. We are already seeing this in countries where China is more present, such as in Kenya, Rwanda & Ethiopia, boasting some of the highest growth rates in the world recently (+10%). China is outsourcing production for its domestic consumption to Southeast Asia & mainly to Africa, just like the US outsourced its industry to China. What makes you believe that Africa will not develop?
I don't see it happening ever, no matter how the future plays out. Even South America is more likely to reach that stage and currently they're lagging quite a bit.
- Do you have any actual reasons to say this or are you just going by your "gut" (aka racist) feelings? We know from history, when Europe was in the pit back when the largest library had few hundred volumes, the Mali Empire, on the African side, spanned millions of
km2 across 400 cities; the Sankore University of Timbuktu. hosted 25 thousand
students from around the world, and a collection of one million books. King Keita II commissioned the building of 2000 ships to cross the
Atlantic Ocean and explore the New World (2 centuries before Columbus); and King Mansa Musa is hailed
as the richest man in recorded history. Civilizations rise & fall.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Incel-chud
Why don't you move to China to see if they have superior morals.
- Who says I haven't. What's your answer then, where do you see the US in 100 years? The world?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
I'm probably more bullish on the USA remaining dominant than most people here due to it's dominance in technology
- That's in the past. Do you have reasons why you believe this will be sustained further into the future? We can see China's power & influence rising & the US's declining day after day.
, although 100 years is such a long time that it's hard to tell. I'm a little skeptical of China becoming a super power. It's possible that they'll pull it off this time, but China has an extremely long history of being a paper tiger and they'll be facing a crippling demographic crisis in 25-30 years if they don't get their birthrate up soon.
- Even if China becomes Japan in 25 years, by then it will already be a high income country. That means double the economy of the US + EU combined. 40% of the Chinese population are still rural, the drive towards urbanization isn't stopping any time soon. On average, rural to urban migration raises income 3 folds per person. More engineers graduate in China every 4 years than all active engineers in the US. A stagnated high income China in 25 years will be to the US what the US is to Japan today, unless China somehow stops growing in the upcoming few years for whatever reason, which is highly unlikely.
I'm mostly okay with the US losing it's super power status if it happens, with the caveat of what you're changing to is much more important than what you're changing from.
- How do you imagine the US becoming without superpower status? The US will have to tread like everybody else in limited ability to create money for stimulating the economy, while having to deal with the massive dump of USD, which will exponentially increase inflation.
But I don't think the USA has done a very good or responsible job of "leading" the world, at least not in my lifetime. It's been one embarrassment after another, few if any of which actually benefited the American people.
- Exactly! Sadly, that's the price of the American dream. Immediate self-gratification today, but a burden to cripple the next generations. On one hand, creating the largest Ponzi scheme in existence coupled with inexhaustible source of currency at the expense of the rest of the world may generate the most successful & wealthiest human generation, but it's hopelessly unsustainable. On the other, inciting enemies across the globe & causing heavy grievances among most peoples of the world to maximize national interests & wealth may not be concerning today when the US the military power to deter any retaliations, but the next American generations will pay the brunt of their predecessor's actions. Grievances die hard. The moment the US shows signs of weakness, all the skeletons will come out of their closets.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
I am very familiar with science in terms of which country and corporations are best at it, but think what you want.
- I think BS. You don't have to embarrass yourself like that. This is my world.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Incel-chud
There is a secret race between China and the United States to develop a super artificial intelligence. Whoever wins will control the world, if they can control the AI. They will be the last superpower.
- Among other technologies mobilized by China as part of their Fourth Industrial Revolution project. Such as: 5G, Blockchain, PVs, EVs, drone tech, semiconductos, quantum computing...etc.
China has a slight advantage, because they don't have morals to slow them down
- On that basis, the US should've been light years ahead.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
US doesn't dominate science, Europe does and always has, however the edge is not as severe as it once was.
- This is drivel. I guess you are not familiar with the world of Science & research. Also, it's the same for Europe, +half researches are immigrants.
There is, however, a permanent fact; CERN is the pinnacle of scientific development and is in Switzerland. As for Germany and UK in particular they are powerhouses at scientific innovation and many of the best at science will move to those 3 countries (Switzerland, UK and Germany) specifically due to the fact that the research there is groundbreaking.
- Are you living in the 80s? CERN is international. You know where the best research from CERN users is published? American or Chinese journals.
However, in California in particular (for the US) it is definitely on par especially if we talk technological and computing science.
- On par, huh! Europe is a third world country compared to the US or China in Computer Science. It's not just about the number of publication, Science & Technology are largely driven by groundbreaking research & breakthroughs, which much less of that happens in Europe than in the US.
Japan and South Korea will come to truly rival it but since Japan is specialising into robotics, Japan's edge will be in a field that the rest of the world is kind of willing to let it win at as it's already so far ahead in that. Japan vs California will become quite intense in terms of robotics rivalry as we are entering the age of robotics for sure if we talk 100 years from now.
- You're truly living in the 80s. What? They taught you this back in high school? China has far surpassed Japan or the US -or as a matter of fact, the rest of the world combined- in Robotics.
China kind of rivals it in biology but since so much of China's work is top secret for the sake of it, we can never really know.
- In total scientific output, China just outstripped the EU & has already surpassed the US by a significant margin. In scientific breakthrough, the EU is lagging far behind, while the US is barely catching up now. But in virtually all technical fields, China far surpasses the US. In the field of Chemistry, for instance, China = 150k citations, US = 68k citations [2020 numbers]. In Computer Science, China = 125k publications, US = 71k publications...
Militaristically, I definitely think the edge will and has already reduce(d). We'd be seriously looking to Asia, not just Europe to rival that. Australia and New Zealand will be aligned with both (Asia due to proximity and Europe due to relations with the UK and Ireland).
- US in this?
I think in finance, US will always dominate because that's its 'thing' and because the world kind of lets them dominate that. The agreed 'universal currency' in discussion is the US dollar and US is just so influential internationally that their currency will always be a very important one.
- That's obviously nonsense. The US was successful in striking a deal with Saudis back in the 70s to establish the petrodollar, hence abolish the gold standard for a USD standard, because it was predominant. That hegemony is waning by the day, we are already seeing efforts by many countries bullied by the US, like Russia, Mexico, India, Turkey & China trying to move away from USD standard. The only reason China is not ditching the Dollar is because they are still an export-based economy, they like their stuff to be cheap so they can hog market shares. Once their economy becomes consumption-based, they will naturally & hastily ditch the Dollar.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Incel-chud
TLDR?
- US was the shit, but it's going to shit. It has shitload of problems & new shit in town to contend with. Considering all the aforementioned facts:
Do you think the US dominance in Tech, Science, Military, Industry, Finance, & Economy on global stage will persist in the near or far future?
Do you think China will fail to sustain its newly acquired predominance over the US in these various domains like its predecessors or will they actually succeed as they promised?
When do you think China will truly overtake the US & how do you imagine that would happen?
What fate do you reckon for the established pegs of US hegemony (such as USD, Petrodollar, GPS, Big Data, Military Complex, SWIFT...etc)?
When do you think the USD will be dethroned from global reserve currency? How do you imagine the fate of average Americans when that happens?
Where do you see the US in 10 years? In 25 years? In 50 years? In 100 years?
Where do you see China in 10 years? In 25 years? In 50 years? Where do you see the rest of the world in that period & beyond?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Well most of what you you write falls within that framework. Respectfully, when someone provides evidence against Islam, you either deny it, or attack Christianity. Or the writer's character. Mocking someone is not in my view an argument. It is rare that you acknowledge even a half hearted argument.
- You're going in circles. Isn't it convenient, albeit absurd, to refuse providing arguments for your claims by accusing me of rejecting them pre fact.
Just go back to any of the discussions recently on Islam - almost every post.
- Then plenty of examples you can show me are false statements or propaganda, instead of just making empty claims.
Truth does not have to be compelling. Truth is truth.
- I said 'your truth', not Truth -which does have to be compelling, & indeed is. You just don't have it.
You know the doctrines as well as I do that Muslims are obligated to speak the truth to each other - but not to non-Muslims.
- Lying is categorically prohibited in Islam, regardless to who or what, including "white lies". So, who's lying now?
When such doctrines exist - it creates a mistrust in any dialogue before we begin.
- There is definitely mistrust towards you, since you started this with lies.
Lying according to some is acceptable if it advances Islam.
- No such thing. This is just childish. Knowingly & willingly lying about Islam is apostasy: "do not tell lies about me, whoever [Muslim] tell lies about me deliberately, let him take his seat in Hell Fire" the beloved Prophet Muhammed (pbuh).
Would you agree or not - knowing full well you have every motivation to lie about it and deny it as well?
- I'm pretty familiar with this little circular trick. It's a childish spell they use to trap the dumbest & most gullible of Christians, to make sure they never look elsewhere to check their lies: "you have to trust us, because they are lying to you, because you have to trust us". Pretty neat trick.
See above - And this is just one flaw. Out of many.
- Which is?
Islam does not irk me. I just happen to think it is wrong and dangerous and unhelpful for those who want truth and salvation. Islam in that sense is a religion that denies the deity of Christ. It denies his resurrection. It denies the Trinity. Each of which are clearly expressed in the Bible.
- So did the earliest Christians. Why are we compelled to believe your Bible? Christ is obviously not God, for God is not a body, else contingent, thus not-God. The resurrection did not happen, not even according to the Bible itself, it's just an extraordinary conjecture inferred from two ordinary facts. The Trinity is literally an absurdity, a square-circle, an impossible being.
There is not much point debating if we cannot come to an understanding of what truth is and when we should use the truth and when - advancing our own religion becomes more important than telling the truth. My discussions with Muslims can seem helpful until that issue raises its head and then truth gets thrown out the window reducing the entire discussion to ashes. Nevertheless, the good thing is the Holy Spirit is bigger than these things and still penetrates to the person's heart. I have observed many Muslims convert to Christianity, even at the cost of losing their families.
- Do you mean by "truth" the Bible or Reason? Why are you running from debate after all this barrage of insults & claims? Since you seem very confident & sure about your beliefs, why not have a debate?
I say - "God the Holy Spirit" has made be believe the Scriptures in the first instance. And this has been confirmed over and over again by reason, and experience.
- That's blind faith. What makes you believe, as in have a positive judgement regarding the truth of scripture?
Created:
Posted in:
- The US has been the major player on the global stage in the post-WWII, or even earlier. Since, few rivals came close but were never successful in overtaking it, at least economically. Namely, Germany, the Soviet Union & Japan. The Soviets were able to surpass the country militarily, & the Japanese technologically, though only by a small margin, & were not sustained for long periods of time, making the US the best all-rounder superpower in the post-WWII era in economy, military power, international politics, science & technology, industry, finance, & even in soft-power. Add to that the reign of the USD, petrodollar & big data monopoly.
- In numbers, post-WWII US alone, counting only 1 in 16 human population, contributed over 1/4th to global economy. Its share since dropped to 1/7th global GDP today, though with just 1 in 23 global population. In industrial output, the highs were higher, at 40% global industry during the war, & the lows also lower, down to 1/10th today. The same steady decline is also seen in scientific output, from over 1/3rd of all publications 50 years to less than 1/7th today. – New raising powers, especially in Asia & the Muslim world, have been munching away at American hegemony, slowly but surely. Recently, a new rival superpower is emerging. China is overtaking the US in domains previously dominated by the States one by one. In real GDP, it's closing in to 1/5th global production, from only 1/20th post-WWII, thus already surpassing the US. In industry as well, it's no secret that China is the new factory of the world, pumping almost 3 times US production. In S&E publications, similarly, China overtook the US in 2018, with a third greater output today. In global exports, China far outstrips the US today, hogging 1/7th global market share, compared to 1/12th for the US. – That, knowing China has 4 1/2 times the population of the US.
- Despite its successes, the American giant rests on much shaky foundations. US Healthcare spending accounts for close to half global spending. A brain MRI in Turkey costs as little as $30, in the US it's around $10,000 or more. Insurance for universal free healthcare (0 out of pocket) costs about $100 a month for a family package in the former, yet costs a leg & an arm & your soul in the latter. – Unlike in European countries & most other developing countries, infrastructure in the States is geared more towards wealthy lifestyle rather than public good. You all know what I'm talking about. – US household debt & national debt is the highest in the world. The average American enjoys $200k extra money worth of goods, services & expenditure he has never worked: $100k owed to banks in consumer debt (i.e. of future money decades worth of savings he has yet to work for), plus another $100k owed to noone (i.e. will never be asked to pay or work for), except the sheer fact of having the USD as a global reserve currency. – Over 50% of researchers/engineers in S&E in the US are foreign born immigrants, the rate goes up to 80% in more technologically geared fields, such as engineering, material science, information technology...etc. However, since 2017 more among them are increasingly choosing to go back home rather than stay in America.
- Considering all the aforementioned facts:
Do you think the US dominance in Tech, Science, Military, Industry, Finance, & Economy on global stage will persist in the near or far future?
Do you think China will fail to sustain its newly acquired predominance over the US in these various domains like its predecessors or will they actually succeed as they promised?
When do you think China will truly overtake the US & how do you imagine that would happen?
What fate do you reckon for the established pegs of US hegemony (such as USD, Petrodollar, GPS, Big Data, Military Complex, SWIFT...etc)?
When do you think the USD will be dethroned from global reserve currency? How do you imagine the fate of average Americans when that happens?
Where do you see the US in 10 years? In 25 years? In 50 years? In 100 years?
Where do you see China in 10 years? In 25 years? In 50 years? Where do you see the rest of the world in that period & beyond?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
I haven't changed my mind about Islam since reading your dialogues. I knew Muslims loved talking about religion and were argumentative. I also knew that they had an agenda and were not moved themselves by other's arguments and evidence.
- Maybe the other's arguments & evidence weren't that good? I'm probably the only Muslim here, how come you've never showed me those arguments?
Even now reading more of your dialogue, it is amazing how EVERY argument somehow becomes propaganda or is false.
- Examples?
I also accept more fully the truth - that Muslims don't care about the truth except when it suits them.
- Have you thought that maybe your truth wasn't that compelling? Try it, hit me.
Since I reject the ends justifies the means argument, I find this flaw of Islam concerning.
- Which flaw is that? I thought you were talking about Muslims.
I have had some meaning exchanges with Rosends about the Jewish religion. Also PGA.2 has helped me to change my views about the preterist position. I have found it helpful discussing with some of the atheistic views on determinism have reshaped my thinking. And my views in relation to Orthodox church have been tested by some of our resident forums.
- Would you accept arguments & evidence for Islam then? –There is nothing stoping us from having those meaningful discussions. What irks you about Islam?
Emotional factors rarely shape my thinking. An intellectual argument can be quite persuasive if it is compelling. I don't care about the popular views.
- Same here. Maybe we can have a debate Christianity vs. Islam, so we can find those compelling arguments.
Mostly, however my views can be changed and shaped by revelation - the Scriptures.
- What makes you believe in Scriptures.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
My faith (Catholic) only grows as I age and see Biblical narratives reflected more and more in reality. I was raised pretty much as a cultural Christian with very little religious education, reading the Bible makes me feel basically that “all of the answers were here the entire time…”
- Any examples?
I don’t talk about religion much here because I think very few people are willing to talk about it in good faith (I consider you one of those few FYI even though I don’t really interact much, I enjoy your posts)
- There is another thread 'Genuine Discussion' if you wish to talk about any topic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
I changed my mind about religion, I used to identify as Christian. Over the years I have watched it devolve into appeasing popular opinion rather then following its bible. Much like all the rest. Religion is a creation of man in my view, and it was created to control man by any popular and brutal means necessary. The OP asks if I have changed my mind, Yes I have.
- What changed your mind?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
Islam like all religions are tyranny at their core. Control is always the goal.
- Aren't you Christian...?
Islam is in my view the worst of all. It is demonstrated daily.
- Indeed, in your view.
I believe a higher intelligence created the universe but it is not anything like what man would describe it as. Man is so arrogant as to think the creator would be anything like him in any way. To me its almost laughable to think that. Man has devolved since his creation. The creator created the universe and everything in it. The creator does not control outcome. Only the creations that evolve will last.
- There seems to be a lot of contradictions here... I doubt you're the type of guy who changes his mind, I am right?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
Do you believe that Allah is omnipotent and omnibenevolent?
- As I said, God is the singular, necessary, absolute, transcendent being. Absolute here meaning with absolute Will, i.e. omnipotent/omniscient.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
I can send a challenge if you wish. How do you define your God? With the common omni attributes?
- I'd rather we agree on the parameters before engaging in debate. Of course I'd be arguing for the Islamic definition of God. That is, a singular, necessary, absolute, transcendent being. Anything I should know about your side of things?
You indicated that the provided were the topics you are willing to debate ,which is why I added it. No worries if you've changed your mind.
- Any other topics you're interested in?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
I 'don't agree that they are contradictory, or that one needs supersede the other.
- You may not agree that a square circle is contradictory either, doesn't mean it isn't. National rights, by definition, are exclusive to nationals sans non-nationals, i.e. all other humans. You can not believe in exclusive AND inclusive rights at the same time, that's strictly absurd.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
I believe that national rights and human rights are both constructs,It's not a matter of one superseding the other,
- That's squaring the circle.
People will apply the law according to their preferences.
- No. Not when these are strictly contradictory. Are you afraid to admit that you believe national rights supersede human rights? Either that, or you believe human rights supersede national rights.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
Regardless of nationality,I'd prefer people be respected, not tortured, not have agreements with broken with.
- That's not saying anything. Preference warrants no real or binding consideration. It's the same with or without. – It's ok to admit you believe national rights supersede human rights, for that is the essence of Nationalism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
- How come they let you go online in the asylum?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
I disagree,If a person is part of a company, then they have rights in regard to that company,Such as a paycheck,A right to work for that company,A right to enter the company office,This does not mean that human rights, fair treatment, or civility towards those 'not of the company, do not exist.
- So, you intend by Human Rights, those rights for humans who happen to be nationals, thus National Rights. Hence, NOT Human Rights, as in for humans, not necessarily nationals.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@spacetime
I became an atheist over the past couple years.The religion I was born into, Sikhism, demands a lot from its adherents -- never cutting your hair, wearing a turban any time you leave the house, abstaining from all the standard vices (premarital sex, masturbation, alcohol, drugs), spending inordinate amounts of time in meditation and prayer, incessantly policing your thoughts in an effort to eventually achieve an idealized state of total detachment from the material realm.
- Doesn't the alternative require even more effort & struggle?
As I grew older and more independent, it all began to seem quite burdensome, and it drove me to start questioning why I even believe in any of this stuff to begin with.
- Is this due to environmental conditions or personal journey?
I came to the realization that my faith was entirely based upon certain personal experiences that I had perceived as being divinely inspired. Once I started doubting the veracity of those experiences, it all unravelled pretty quickly.
- You didn't look elsewhere for faith?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
- Are you like... a crazy person?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Mmm, communism's pretty based.
- Is that what you changed your mind about?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
I support 'both National Rights, 'and Human Rights.
- Propaganda speak of "Human Rights" aside, you can't support both at the same time in the same sense, for these are contradictory. National rights assume exclusive inviolability & sole priority of nationals, at the expense of all other humans.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
If "good faith" means these cheap tactics & emotional outbursts I keep seeing from you, I'll pass.Thx, Yassine. I think I'll finish with an appeal to READERS regarding this exchange.READERS, pls. note, Yassine:approached me with an inquiry regarding my religious beliefs buthas moved on to promoting his religious beliefs.I did not ever inquire about Yassine's beliefs.
- Strawman! You have yet to address my counter arguments to your false objections, therefore dismissed. Also, that's a lie. You DID inquire about my beliefs:
"Explain the compassion of creating eternal paradise as a prize for winning a cruel game show called THIS MORTAL COIL. Answer the question: explain the compassion to be discovered in the creation of eternal suffering."
claimed that he has good evidence for Mohammad's flight to heaven on the winged horse Baraq buthas failed to provide any such evidence after three requests.
- That is also a lie. It is you who refused to accept a formal debate about miracles of the Prophet (pbuh) & instead resorted to this nonsense to save face.
dismissed a highly respected source as unreliable only because it did not support his claims
- False. I did not say the source is unreliable, you liar. You failed to address my objection to your incoherent use of material to justify the point in contention.
Reminder, address this >>> Allow me to provide an analogy, I postulate that the US's health response to Covid-19 is bad, & you bring me a report by Health Readiness Index ranking it number 1. Health readiness is itself the point of contention in the debate, the Health Readiness Index, hence, is just an unsupported claim. – Pew's report on religious freedom, similarly, is just a claim for your side of the debate which has yet to be established & defended.
^^^ If you can't disprove my above objection, then your position is dismissed. Saying "mommy save me" doesn't help your case one bit.
repeatedly changes the subject instead of responding directlyWhen I claimed that atheists in Mecca are not free to express their viewsoffers to debate Freedom of Religion in EU is superior to Freedom of Religion in ME in lieu of responsechanges debate to Sharia vs. Secularism
- Are you a pathological liar or what?? Let's see... The conversation starts with my comment on declining Christianity in Europe, & proceeds as the following:
- You respond with "If Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion ever make it to the Middle East..."
- To which I commented: "There is a lot more freedom of religion in the Middle East than in any western country. How about incurring your third loss in a debate about freedom of religion in Islam vs. Secularism?" <<< Hoping to engage in a debate about the underlined systems of belief in the Middle East vs. in Europe.
- To which you responded: "Don't change the subject. I said that the Middle east lacked freedom of religion."
>>> Hence the conversation proceeds about freedom of religion in the Middle East vs. in Europe, for which you claim Tunisia is the Middle East when it isn't, & Israel is a democracy when it's an apartheid state... Conclusions, you run from accepting my proposed Freedom of religion in Sharia vs. Secularism debate, then you run from addressing my arguments & objections about Freedom of religion in Europe vs. Middle East. – Whining here does not save your case nor does it save face.
When I claimed that Hell is not compatible with a compassionate godtried to change unnecessary suffering to necessary suffering
- You truly are a pathological liar. Let's see...
- You claim: "I don't see how any human pain might be restorative or remunerative"
- When you claim was disproven, you resort to lying: "I argued that the infliction of unnecessary pain on others is never restorative or remunerative" <<< when you never made such argument, you added the "unnecessary" on your own.
- Then you proceed now to accuse me of moving the goal posts, which is exactly what you did.
>>> Upon failure to address my objection to your fantasies about Hell & Compassion, your case thus is wholly dismissed.
tried to bring Hitler in
- So I get you're utterly incapable of defending your position that you have to resort to these cheap tactics & emotional appeals. Shocking how you won 99 debates, if this is really your style. You must be a noon sniper.
when I provided an English language definition for an English word, replied with a non-English religious definition
- Are you dumb or something? We are speaking of a metaphysical concept, yet you bring me a linguistic definition, & complain on top of it.
It seems clear now that Yassine's pretense to be interested in my views was really just pretext for proselytization and no serious inquiry was ever intended.
- Liar! You have it backwards. YOU asked me about my beliefs:
- You said: "Explain the compassion of creating eternal paradise as a prize for winning a cruel game show called THIS MORTAL COIL. Answer the question: explain the compassion to be discovered in the creation of eternal suffering."
- To which I replied: " you wish to discuss this topic in sincerity, I'll be happy to accommodate."
- Then you proceeded to discuss the subject.
>>> When your worldview was destroyed, you then resort to accusing me of "proselytizing"... I take this as a concession.
Yassine has challenged me to a number of debatable subjectsI'm a little skeptical of the sincerity of such offers given the paucity of Yassine's debate record on this site, howeverI am open to possibility of such a challenge, particularly given thatarguments in bad faith and with poor conduct are generally penalized by VOTERS on this site.Thx, Yassine!Yes to a future debate,
- I'll take this as an attempt to save face upon failure to defend case. But I accept your debate offer, & I hope your antics don't continue there as well, else voters may indeed penalize your conduct. Let's see... the proposed debates so far:
- The miracles of the beloved Prophet Muhammed (pbuh)
- Freedom of religion in Sharia vs. Secularism
- Freedom of religion in Europe vs. Middle East
- Maybe: God, Compassion, Hell... if I know this is going to be an emotional debate.
No to any further religious instruction, pls.
- The only one doing the religious instruction was you, generalizing your anti-Christian views on Religion. Yeah, I'm not falling for it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
How are you both pro-Islam and pro-China knowing that China isn't islamic?
- I'm pro-Islam, yes. It's not that, it's just the Western system is so shit, even China is doing better. Also, I'm pretty familiar with Chinese glorious history. China & the Muslim world share a lot of peaceful & collaborative history.
Or are you just a hater for the western world?
- That's a weird question. Are you a slave of the Western world then?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Incel-chud
wrong, history just means the past. 20 minutes ago is the past.
- Recourse is in the present, hence not history.
Your argument is that it is better preserved, not that it is provably better preserved.
- Of course the argument would be about demonstrability of said preservation, not actual proof of it.
It is possible to be equally as preserved, but not better. stupid argument
- I haven't even provided any argument though... It's not so easy to demonstrate authenticity now is it!
I knew we would get into stupid semantics though, as immediately you attempted to alter what the word history means
- I wouldn't have added "in history" if I intended any book whatsoever. I do mean, any book whose author is dead. I don't wish to argue about possibility of recourse.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
All Muslims may follow the beloved Prophet Muhammed (pbuh), as the founder & sole ultimate authority of Islam.And 'yet,Different practices exist, different sects, different beliefs, different groups, different Islams,'Seems to me.
- Who all claim to follow the beloved Prophet (pbuh).
I am trying to say that even claims people view as objective,Become 'subjective through the human lens.An elephant may be an elephant,But the blind men's findings are subjective.I'm trying to say,Through perception and practice,Through passing's of batons,labels change.
- Yet, it is an objective fact that Muhammed (pbuh) is the sole authority of Islam, no muslim is claiming otherwise, else not a Muslim.
National Rights and Human Rights, are not the same thing.
- Duh! Which do you support then?
That word could be used instead of intellectually, I suppose.Epistemological,Relating to the theory of knowledge, especially with regard to its methods, validity, and scope, and the distinction between justified belief and opinion.I think I exist, move, because I exist,I a human exist,My instincts, desires, psychological mechanisms exist,Existence existed/Exist,Material existed/Exist,Natural laws existed/Exist,And through time, chance, the right conditions,Life on the planet Earth came to be,Years and years and years passed,Until complex organisms existed.
- Infinite monkey fallacy.
I suspect, but do not know,That the practice of Islam,Is 'different today, than in it's conception?
- If you mean societal, legal, judicial & political Islam is today not what it was pre-abolition of the Caliphate, then you'd be right. But the mainstream Sunni Islam, as expressed in the traditional schools is still practiced across the Muslim world, since the 8th century, save some places like Arabia & Iran, dominated by Salafism, Ibadi & Shia Islam.
In the story, I am reminded of how people hark back to what they see as true or right by their traditions, founders.Whether in Religion, Society, or Law.
- A founder of a religion, is not the same as the founder of a state. One is seen as infallible, while the other isn't.
Created: