Total posts: 3,052
-->
@Stephen
I can assure you my TV is working fine and i do read newspapers.
My position is that it is wrong to identify the source of the problem to some inherent or intrinsic property of Islam. Much of what is blamed on Islam is not intrinsic to islam, and in some cases it goes against Islamic principles.
Fact - young men are being radicalised and commiting random acts of violence.
Fact - muslim women are being abused and getting raped and killed.
etc etc.
All that and more is true - of course it is.
What I don't accept is that putting it all down to 'Islam' and highighting some verse in the koran or hadith to prove it is anything like a satisfactory analysis. It smacks of cheap, nasty populism of the worst kind.
Created:
-->
@Castin
I don't disagree - why do people assume everything has to be adversarial!
I wanted to stress the non-monolithic nature of islam. Maybe I shouldn't have said 'But...'!
Created:
-->
@Castin
The doctrine and dogma of the catholic church is set centrally. Islam is even less centralised than protesant sects. There is no priestly hierarchy of vicar, bishop, archibishop etc in islam. The leader of each mosque has considerable power and autonomy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
English is often abiguous. Is 'mere non-belief' the same as 'firm rejection' or the same as 'not quite total belief'?Disbelief and belief with varying strength and mere non-belief.
i believe it is well over 99% probable there is no god. I don't suppose I can justify more than a fraction of that 99% with hyper-rational facts and rigorous arguments. People are irrational and emotional; we aren't Vulcans.
Created:
-->
@Logical-Master
Gee, how about "if someone is being a jerk they get banned. End of."
Created:
-->
@Castin
But they don't all follow the same interpretation. The dominant Sunni sect has no central authority and 'Papal infallibilty' does not exist in Islam.But the Quran is followed by all.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
The scale (so to speak) from 0-100 should be based on the preponderance of evidence for and against the claim. Belief or disbelief should be based on whether the body of evidence favors or disfavors the claim. When the scale is above 50, the claim should be accepted. When the claim is exactly 50, the claim should neither be accepted nor rejected. When the claim is below 50, the claim should be rejected.
I don't go for that. it implies the only options are full-on belief or full-on disbelief. That isn't how the world works.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
Which mosque did you learn Islam at?If you really want to learn, go to an Orthodox church and talk to a priest.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
And I'd say people change their views accordingly - most of the time.Evidence available to us is often dynamic and changes over time
But i don't accept it's a matter of believing or not believing. Belief isn't all or nothing but on a scale from 0-100 and new information moves the pointer. But English doesn't have 100 words so we end up saying ' i don't belive' for 0-20, 'i do believe' for 80-100 and 'unsure' for points in between.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TwoMan
Evidence varies in ways such as veracity, weight, relevance, etc. The evidence would need to be evaluated on its merits. The slightest bit of circumstantial evidence probably would not sway me especially with a subject as weighty as this.
I agree, It's important to keep the concepts of 'evidence' and 'proof' seperate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
It depends on how you define the word "evidence."
I don't have the power to define words.
Despite the cliche, absence of evidence very often is evidence of absence. The proverb should be more like 'absence of evidence isn't proof of absence', but sometimes absence of evidence gets very close to the level of proof.
i suppose the moral is 'don't rely on cliches'. 'You can't prove a negative' is another false proverb!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
I refer you to my reply to coal. (#16).
I think with minor adustments what you posted in #17 would make a fair argument why god [probably] does not exist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@coal
Elephants don't present the same metaphysical problems that belief in the divine would.
I know little of metaphysics. I was addressing "Is absence of evidence evidence of absence?".
The answer is often assumed to be no, but just ain't so! Very often it is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
So perhaps you can now concede that it is possible to believe in an 'ultimate reality' without committing to the existence of the Christian God?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
Is absence of evidence evidence of absence?
Well, how can you you be sure there's no elephant in your fridge?
Created:
-->
@Castin
Anyone who complains about a ban (or about a non-ban) gets banned.How would you address the concern that this would turn every ban into a drawn-out drama circus?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
i think it would be better with 'invented' instead of 'created'...
Feel free to re-use it. ;)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
I get the impression Steve isn't getting anywhere in convincing anybody of anything so there's no point posting rebuttals unless you want to, or are bored.
Created:
-->
@DrChristineFord
It's the debating about debating about debating that annoys me!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
But yeah, The Ultimate Reality is the uncaused caused.
Almost by definition, I'd say.
Whatever happened at the beginning of time and space was something unlike anything we know about. But if there was an uncaused causer of the universe, it is only by faith (no logic) that anyone can say it 'so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life' and has strong views on marriage!
Created:
-->
@bsh1
It's almost a pity that site ownership and moderation are in different hands.
It would be good if the owner/mod had god-like powers and it was made clear that signing up to DA means accepting that the owner/mod's decisions are final no matter what. As to trials, if the owner chooses to ask for the members' opinions he/she can do so but the result is always advisory, not binding.
Draconian, yes. But anyone who doesn't like it can jolly well develop their own site. Posting and debating here is a privilege, not a right.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TwoMan
To insist on one of an unknowable number of unknowable possibilities, is hubris.
A hindu myth tells us the gods came into being alongside the universe so even they don't how it happened!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
- That response by Stephen speaks volumes in my opinion since it does not supply any facts, just attacks the man. Instead, he should lay down how what he claims is done.
Well I certainly don't hold Islam in my heart!
The fact is that I'm no expert on Islam and I doubt Stephen is either, so us debating Islam would be an exercise in applied ignorance.
Created:
Not enough facts yet to apportion blame, but that doesn't stop people like Gp doing so.
Created:
-->
@Plisken
If you can't agree that the scholars that hold the fundamentals of Islam are Islamic, that doesn't make real Muslims fanatical. That view must be informed by bigotry and ignorance. The scholars gunning for heresy are in fact, the fanatics.
I suppose 'Fundamentalism' is a word that refers to a species of Christan exegesis that doesn't carry over into Islam directly. It does not refer to the 'fundamentals' of a religion but to a narrowly 'literalist' interpretation of scripture.
Many muslims reject the label 'moderate' because 'moderate Muslim' seems to imply they are not 'full muslims'. They say it is theselves who are muslims and the fanatics are not muslims at all. Misunderstanding that meant that Turkish premier Erdogan's comments that 'There is no Islamic terror' and 'There is no such thing as moderate islam' were widely misconstrued.
Created:
-->
@Plisken
You sound just like an islamic fanatic!
It seems fanatics of both sides are closer to each other than they are to their own moderates.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
Really? Here in the UK atheism is just about the norm. To quote wikipedia.
"Non-religious people have risen to the highest ranks of UK politics, including at least three Prime Ministers, one Deputy Prime Minister, and several Leaders of the Opposition."
Practically everyone I know is non-religious.
Created:
-->
@Plisken
That would be the opinion of some scholars, other scholars would disagree. And those that agree will disgree what the 'fundamental' meaning is!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
If you don't understand something then it is 'baffling' by definition!This is only baffling if you think you have to completely understand or know something in order to believe it.
Are you saying you don't actually understand "The Ultimate Reality did not begin to exist, if it did, it wouldn't be The Ultimate Reality."? If so how do you expect us to understand it, let alone believe it?
Created:
-->
@Plisken
I don't think you really think a fundamentalist interpretation of the koran is the genuine word of God.
Created:
-->
@Grugore
Could everyone please stay on topic? This thread is about the TEACHINGS OF ISLAM. The article I posted explains, in detail, the life of Mohammed and his teachings using the original sources. Feel free to try to refute this. But stay on topic.
There is no single 'teaching' of islam. Even more so than Christians, Muslims are not encouraged to intrepret their sacred texts themselves but to rely on the interpretation by scholars. It almost goes without saying that almost any conceivable 'slant' has been espoused by some scholar or school. Wahabbist islam is very different from Ahmdiyya Islam. Indeed violence within islam exceeds that between islam and 'infidels' by a considerable margin.
However a certain type of critic of Islam is uninterested in all that. They see Islam as a monolithic threat to their cuture and portray it as such. The inevitable consequence of their writing and rhetoric is to ratchet up inter-community distrust and paranoia. It is disenguous to claim that consequence is unintended or accidental.
Hardly anyone in the west thought about Islam before the 1970s. The 1972 Munich olympics attack was considered as politically, not religiously, motivated. The qu'ran and hadith have not changed in the meantime, but hardline, conservative and fundamentaist interpretations have become much more influential.
i'm not interested in simplistic and populist pseudo-analyses that are essentially rationalisations of old fashioned xenophobia such as the pdf linked in the op.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
I'd say it not pattern recognition per se. It's more that we humans tend to think in terms of cause and effect.. That is if we see something like a pile of droppings or a broken twig we automaically start thinking about what caused it because it is useful to know.
If a primitive ape man ever wondered what caused the whole world, what could he imagine except a god? Man created the gods that control the world and then invented religion to control the gods.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
I 'kinda believe' in a uncaused cause too.... but my idea of an uncaused cause isn't godlike - it's more like a 'revised mathematical defintion of time'.
IMO we are missing a critical part of the solution and when we find we will kick ourselves for not seeing it. If the missing piece is anyting like a god I'll eat my shorts live on webcam.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
I agree. i'd hand out religious literature in the street to save mopac's life.
of course i'd expect a decent bottle scotch in return!
Created:
-->
@bsh1
The purpose of a trial is to put the user on trial--ergo, to put their actions and character through the ringer.
Surely the purpose of a trial is to provide an opportunity for someone to defend theselves before they are punished unjustly?
i just think it's too much fuss over a few days of not posting. A ban is a great opportunity to find someting more worthwhile!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
That may not be so in the quantum realm. Confession time: I don't really understand Bell's theorem but AFAICT it does show that the unpredictabiity of quantum phenomena is not due to lack of data.Unpredictability itself is only evidence of lack of data (appeal to ignorance).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
I will be happy to discuss that barbaric ideology with you.
If your understanding of Islam is as bad as your understanding of Christianity there'd be little point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
I'm not surprised you didn't get it - i didn't make it as clear as I thought.
Ok, suppose you find yourself in a situation were you have various options what to do net.
Option 1 is evaluated by bb3 for its harm/benrfit to others and output a small amount of hormone accordingly.
The same option is also evaluated bty bb2 for its harm/benefit to yourself, also outputting hormone.
the outout of bb2 (self) signal may reinforce the bb3(others) signal, or it may be opposite in which case the stronger signal will 'win'. Hence an option very good for others and not very bad for self is felt as positive and vice versa.
by evaluating each option in turn and chosing the one that makes you happiest (ie produces the biggest 'dopamine minus seratonin' value) the decision what to do gets made.
the take-away is that you don't choose the platonic 'best' or 'most moral' option - you choose the one your brain's black boxes produces most 'dop minus ser' for. Natural selection hones that system to produce beneficial outcomes very much more often than not.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I'd say it's necessary to sort out the morality then pass or amend the laws accordingly.
i'm not very interested in how the law is now. I'm interested in what it should be.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
@3RU7AL
How do we apply the concepts of free will and morality in cases like this?
It's not stated if the baby-eater was punished by the group - so probably not.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
Its not hard to fool the eyes alone, especially for static cases. Artists have been doing 'Trompe-l'œil' for hundreds of years.
It's much, much harder to make dynamic/interactive simulations 100% convincing
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
The concept of free-will is incompatible with the concept of uncaused events.The concept of free-will is incompatible with the concept of caused events.
The argument can be phrased that 'if it's caused it is not free; if it's uncaused it is not willed'.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
not today we can't. What you mean precisely?We could construct an entirely virtual world from this one and have it look exactly the same.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
My project this week is to outlaw phrases like "exists" as an allusion'. Someting either does or does not exist - no quotation marks or qualifiers allowed!
The situation is an image of a cow displayed and viewed on a vr head set.
A pattern of coloured LCDs exists - the cow it represent does not exist.
A pattern of neural activity in the viewers brain exists induced by light fro the LCDs.
The cow perceived by the viewer does not exist. What we can say the cow is perceived, but not that it exists.
If you perceive a cow it is guaranteed that a pattern of neural activity encoding 'cow' exists in your brain. Perceving a cow not a gurantee that cow exists but obviously it will usually be case that it does.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
Black box time!
black box 1 generates the ideas for options of what to do in a given situation.
black box 2 estiates the benefit/harm of an option idea to 'self'.
black box 3 estiates the benefit/arm of an option idea to others.
bb2 and bb3 output takes the form of secreting either dopamine (which makes you feel happy) for beneficial things or seratonin (which makes you sad) for harm. The quantity of hormone is proportional to the amount harm/benefit anticipated and bb2 is stronger signal than bb3.
What is not explained by that mechanism, given that is delibertely over-simplified?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I think i see... we can change and learn.
but we don't have any control over how we change or what we learn - presumably all that stuff is deterministic too. if i change from liberal-ish to being a neo-con it is becuse that shift was decided on a billion years ago.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MagicAintReal
No, because it's a misunderstanding.
Created: