UN: Civilian deaths in Afghan war hit record high

[Resigned]

how do you spam a spam thread?

Your time could be better spent elsewhere.

[Resigned]

[QUOTE=ChicStar;173847
*shrugs*[/quote]

*shrugs*

And I love to share.

What have you shared? There is nothing in your religious belief system that gives it preeminence over any other. There’s nothing unique about the islamist conception of gods and certainly nothing about islamism that makes a case for a supernatural god(s).

Correctamundo! *throws confetti*

You’re easily amused?

You keep missing the forest for the trees. First off, I doubt you'll be ever be honest (as you believe is required) unless you have an open mind free from all stereotypes. That applies to me too.

If you link all of what's happening in the Middle East to Islam's history, alleging that it supports violence and unjust wars, you need to have proper evidence for it (from the texts) or else you're the one stumbling upon "truths". You seem very convinced with your ideas. :/

Anyone who has weed whacked their way through islamist history cannot help but notice that the history is one of perpetual war, conquest and violence. There is ample evidence of islam's history of war and conquest. You need to be emotionally and intellectually up to the task to undestand that history.

In the chapter Arab Imperialism, Islamic Colonialism from his book, Why I Am Not a Muslim, Ibn Warraq draws from the work of Bernard Lewis, Michael Cook, Patricia Crone, Ignaz Goldziher, R.S. Humphreys, Samuel Huntington, et al. to elucidate Arab racism and primacy over all nations conquered under the bloody banner of Islam:

"After their spectacular conquests, the Arabs were unwilling to concede equality to the non-Arab converts to Islam, despite Islamic doctrine that expressly forbade discrimination. But for the Arabs there were the conquered and the conquerers, and there was no question of the Arabs giving up their privileges. "Non-Arab Muslims were regarded as inferior and subjected to a whole series of fiscal, social, political, military, and other disabilities." [Lewis] The Arabs ruled as a "sort of conquistador tribal aristocracy," to which only "true Arabs" could belong, a true Arab being one who was of free Arab ancestry on his father's and mother's side. The Arabs took concubines from the conquered peoples, but their children by these slave women were heavily discriminated against and were not considered full Arabs."

Islam conquered, in a very brief span of time, almost one half of the civilized world. In a time when people still believed that the ebb and flow of ones fortune was dictated solely through supernatural means, what could be a more convincing proof of the supremacy of ones religion? From the Indian subcontinent to the Northern Mediterranean and Western Africa, Islam's bloody conquest was nothing short of spectacular. It also served to confirm, the abovementioned belief, that Islam is the perfect religion of God (of course a perfect philosophy of personal matters, spirituality, and governance would conquer so much, so quickly!). This was an extremely successful commingling of religion and politics, and it left an indelible stamp of entitlement on Islam and Muslims.

Why would I?

Like so many islamists, I don’t believe you have any real sense of islamist history and the damage it has caused. See, it should be a dead giveaway to anybody with a reason to challenge islamist dogma that any religion which is utterly obsessed with war against anyone who doesn't buy into its supremacist ideology (and which can support those bellicose, supremacist claims with ample prescriptive scripture) is a flawed and dangerous religion indeed. Seriously, it really should.

Now, that's what I call being "stereotypical" or...um..."random".

I would call it dogmatic that you define as "stereotypical", anyone who rejects the claims of your religion. The mere fact that you have, more than likely, not made an actual choice about your religion but simply inherited the belief of your family / country of origin. I would call that lazy or arbitrary.

Wow. I commend that. You actually thought of all of this? But, y'know what, don't jump to conclusions..."a futile effort".."it doesn't pass the tests"...doesn't sound wise. You need to see the whole picture, to relate and stuff...

Oh Well.

“To relate and stuff”, somehow fals a bit short of a reasoned, compelling argument. So tell us, why does the koran contain so many factual errors? The test of gods literal, uncreated word should be “perfection”. We hear so often from apologists that the koran has “corrected” prior religions but that claim comes crashing to the ground when we see the many errors in the word of your gods.

My interpretation of the "invention of God(s)" is not interpretation but an assessment of the claims made on behalf of these god(s) and the veracity of those claims. I have read claims that there are countless philosophical, scientific and logical "proofs" for the existence of god(s). Nowhere has anyone provided a single one. I make no claims about existence other than its perceivable and it's natural. Consistently, this claim relies on logic and reason to uphold itself. The theist, in this case, you, asserts that logic and reason are not up to the task of envisioning the "reality" of the "man behind the curtain" paradigm, i.e., the supernatural realms of gods.

One or more of these asserted "divine beings" should know enough to not confuse the mortal beings he seeks to communicate with. Many doctrines alleging supernatural entities allow people to believe in god(s) that have such an appalling lack of integrity and morals and then when we don't "get it" he assigns us to an eternal damnation in Hell!

Why are these god(s) so bereft of ethics?

I'll surmise, it is because DIFFERENT men over HUNDREDS OF YEARS wrote these books (and we know that to be a fact), that these claims to "divinity" self-destruct. Hell, even the writers of such things as hadith couldn't get the same story written right. There are countless studies showing that people start embellishing stories even an hour after they've occured, and here you have biographies of a man told multiple decades after he's dead. Clearly, there is a building towards legend-making in these stories, based upon the dating of these tales and fables.

Little conflicts regarding facts may seem trivial and dismissible, but there should be PERFECTION in the PERFECT word of god(s). And there isn't perfection.

If you're the one claiming PERFECTION is defined by falsehoods, inconsistencies and contradictions, then it is you who needs to come up with something better.

[ChicStar]

Anyone who has weed whacked their way through islamist history cannot help but notice that the history is one of perpetual war, conquest and violence. There is ample evidence of islam's history of war and conquest. You need to be emotionally and intellectually up to the task to undestand that history.

In the chapter Arab Imperialism, Islamic Colonialism from his book, Why I Am Not a Muslim, Ibn Warraq draws from the work of Bernard Lewis, Michael Cook, Patricia Crone, Ignaz Goldziher, R.S. Humphreys, Samuel Huntington, et al. to elucidate Arab racism and primacy over all nations conquered under the bloody banner of Islam:

"After their spectacular conquests, the Arabs were unwilling to concede equality to the non-Arab converts to Islam, despite Islamic doctrine that expressly forbade discrimination.

It says, "despite Islamic doctrine that expressly forbade discrimination".

But for the Arabs there were the conquered and the conquerers, and there was no question of the Arabs giving up their privileges. "Non-Arab Muslims were regarded as inferior and subjected to a whole series of fiscal, social, political, military, and other disabilities." [Lewis] The Arabs ruled as a "sort of conquistador tribal aristocracy," to which only "true Arabs" could belong, a true Arab being one who was of free Arab ancestry on his father's and mother's side. The Arabs took concubines from the conquered peoples, but their children by these slave women were heavily discriminated against and were not considered full Arabs."

Whoa! I didn't know. But, the author himself says, as I already pointed out that it's got nothing to do with the "Islamic doctrine".

Islam conquered, in a very brief span of time, almost one half of the civilized world. In a time when people still believed that the ebb and flow of ones fortune was dictated solely through supernatural means, what could be a more convincing proof of the supremacy of ones religion?

How does that show supremacy? cuz, anyways, God'll remain One and the same, whatever religion you follow.

From the Indian subcontinent to the Northern Mediterranean and Western Africa, Islam's bloody conquest was nothing short of spectacular. It also served to confirm, the abovementioned belief, that Islam is the perfect religion of God (of course a perfect philosophy of personal matters, spirituality, and governance would conquer so much, so quickly!). This was an extremely successful commingling of religion and politics, and it left an indelible stamp of entitlement on Islam and Muslims.

These conquests btw, weren't so "Islamic" as you make it seem. Did they follow the Shari'ah or not? I want facts.

Like so many islamists, I don’t believe you have any real sense of islamist history and the damage it has caused.

First off, we aren't on the same page. While I'm concerned with the "Islamic" history, you talk about "Islamist" history? I'm sure you know the difference.

See, it should be a dead giveaway to anybody with a reason to challenge islamist dogma that any religion which is utterly obsessed with war against anyone who doesn't buy into its supremacist ideology (and which can support those bellicose, supremacist claims with ample prescriptive scripture) is a flawed and dangerous religion indeed. Seriously, it really should.

Indeed.

But dude, y'know what, stop getting paranoid! I highly doubt that there'd be any "supremacist" religion which supports indoctrinating it's ideologies through war. Not one.

Yet, I do think that every religion claims to be the only truth...which is, in other words, supermacism... :/

I would call it dogmatic that you define as "stereotypical", anyone who rejects the claims of your religion.

No, there's no such "dogma" in Islam. So, yeah, I ain't being dogmatic.

The mere fact that you have, more than likely, not made an actual choice about your religion but simply inherited the belief of your family / country of origin. I would call that lazy or arbitrary.

Er...no. That's not the case. Why'd I be on a religious forum then?

It's all a process...a research-discovery-realization-faith process.

But, yeah, Alhamdullilah, I consider myself blessed to be born a Muslim.

“To relate and stuff”, somehow fals a bit short of a reasoned, compelling argument.

Okay, that's what you think.

So tell us, why does the koran contain so many factual errors? The test of gods literal, uncreated word should be “perfection”. We hear so often from apologists that the koran has “corrected” prior religions but that claim comes crashing to the ground when we see the many errors in the word of your gods.

You sure aren't talking about Islam. Because, if you were, you'd not say "the word of your gods". That's the basic tenet of Islam: Tawheed, Oneness of God. There are no "gods" but just ONE GOD.

My interpretation of the "invention of God(s)" is not interpretation but an assessment of the claims made on behalf of these god(s) and the veracity of those claims.

Hmmm. You're genuine. Haha...

But, seriously, just any "claim"? I mean, you should just concentrate on the Divine Scripture at first and then move on to the other claims "made on behalf of"...

So, have you read the translation of the Holy Quran?

I have read claims that there are countless philosophical, scientific and logical "proofs" for the existence of god(s). Nowhere has anyone provided a single one.

Um. :/

I make no claims about existence other than its perceivable and it's natural. Consistently, this claim relies on logic and reason to uphold itself.

So, what's your theory of existence?

"natural"...sorry, but I found this funny. Is the act of creation by God "unnatural"?

How'd you explain the world's coming into existence? I know that the existence of the universe can be explained through the Big Bang. But, there has to be some kind of a beginning, right? A singularity...how did that come into being?

The theist, in this case, you, asserts that logic and reason are not up to the task of envisioning the "reality" of the "man behind the curtain" paradigm, i.e., the supernatural realms of gods.

Beyond what's perceivable and within the capacity of human beings, is there any need to explore?

And, at one point, one would definitely either conclude with, "I don't know" or "God did it". Do we need to break our heads over what cannot be fathomed?

One or more of these asserted "divine beings" should know enough to not confuse the mortal beings he seeks to communicate with.

Does Islam confuse you?

Many doctrines alleging supernatural entities allow people to believe in god(s) that have such an appalling lack of integrity and morals and then when we don't "get it" he assigns us to an eternal damnation in Hell!

But, that's not the case. Islam isn't confusing and God isn't so cruel.

And, there's a hadith of the Prophet (pbuh), in which he says, "And if I order you to do something, then do of it as much as you can." (just a part of it)

Why are these god(s) so bereft of ethics?

My God isn't.

I'll surmise, it is because DIFFERENT men over HUNDREDS OF YEARS wrote these books (and we know that to be a fact), that these claims to "divinity" self-destruct.

:/

Hell, even the writers of such things as hadith couldn't get the same story written right. There are countless studies showing that people start embellishing stories even an hour after they've occured, and here you have biographies of a man told multiple decades after he's dead. Clearly, there is a building towards legend-making in these stories, based upon the dating of these tales and fables.

Do you believe that Abraham Lincoln was real? that he was once the President of the United States? He could be a made-up guy?

Now, just imagine, you happen to doubt that he once existed, would that be justifiable? I don't think so. But, why'd one trust the historians? One has to, as far as it makes sense, right? And, God makes perfect sense. His Existence puts everything into perspective.

Little conflicts regarding facts may seem trivial and dismissible, but there should be PERFECTION in the PERFECT word of god(s). And there isn't perfection.

There is. I find the Holy Quran PERFECT. I ain't being biased.

If you're the one claiming PERFECTION is defined by falsehoods, inconsistencies and contradictions, then it is you who needs to come up with something better.

Hmm. Yep. But I'm not.

[Resigned]

It says, "despite Islamic doctrine that expressly forbade discrimination".

I only supplied a portion of the book. The book goes on to describe the islamist imperative "to make allah's religion supreme". I’m sure you’ve read that slogan.

Whoa! I didn't know. But, the author himself says, as I already pointed out that it's got nothing to do with the "Islamic doctrine".

See above. As I indicated, Islam's jihad against humanity has never stopped since Islam holy warriors spilled out of the Arabian Peninsula after the death of the religions inventor.

How does that show supremacy? cuz, anyways, God'll remain One and the same, whatever religion you follow.

You need to learn your Islamo-history and research the practice of dhimmitude.

Dhimmitude is the fascistic and systematic denigration aimed st the infidel.

God certainly won’t remain one and the same.

Gods have come and gone throughout history. It has been part of human culture to invent supernatural agents to explain that which could not already be explained. Whenever there is a gap in our knowledge, it was tempting for cultures and societies to simply throw up their hands in defeat and say 'Godidit' (or more frequently 'Thegodsdidit'). Kings, rulers, pharaohs and "prophets" etc made use of this idea, by claiming for themselves a special ability to receive messages or to translate the true meaning from a divine supernatural ruler, even though the best evidence for their existence was simply the fact that there were some things we didn't understand. Societies grew, codified rituals, passed on these ideas from parent to child with severe warnings for not believing - such as eternal burning and torment and unrealistic 'carrots' for believing e.g an eternity of sensual gratification and so giant structures and substructures grew which evolved (yes, evolved) into the religions we see today.

Monotheism is currently in vogue for religions. Multi-god religions have been replaced by a one-stop-shopping god of convenience.

Such deistic minimalism is wrong, of course, and it will eventually go out of fashion. Whatever replaces it will be wrong as well.

These conquests btw, weren't so "Islamic" as you make it seem. Did they follow the Shari'ah or not? I want facts.

Of course the conquests were islamic. They were carried out by arb muslims under the black banner of jihad.

From Ibn Warraq:
“After their spectacular conquests, the Arabs were unwilling to concede equality to the non-Arab converts to Islam. But for the Arabs there were the conquered and the conquerers, and there was no question of the Arabs giving up their privileges. "Non-Arab Muslims were regarded as inferior and subjected to a whole series of fiscal, social, political, military, and other disabilities." [Lewis] The Arabs ruled as a "sort of conquistador tribal aristocracy," to which only "true Arabs" could belong, a true Arab being one who was of free Arab ancestry on his father's and mother's side. The Arabs took concubines from the conquered peoples, but their children by these slave women were heavily discriminated against and were not considered full Arabs.

The Arabs practiced a kind of apartheid toward non-Arab Muslims: "The Arabs looked upon [the non-Arab Muslims] as aliens and, regardless of what class they belonged to, treated them with scorn and contempt. They led them into battle on foot. They depreived them of a share of the booty. They would not walk on the same side of the street as them, nor sit at the same repast. In nearly every place separate encampments and mosques were constructed for their use. Marriage between them and Arabs was considered a social crime." [Cambridge History of Islam]”

Like so many islamists, I don’t believe you have any real sense of islamist history and the damage it has caused.

First off, we aren't on the same page. While I'm concerned with the "Islamic" history, you talk about "Islamist" history? I'm sure you know the difference.

Islamist vs. Islamic history and ideology has no historical significance. Either term is merely the encapsulation of a politico-religious ideology that has a presumed sense of entitlement.

But dude, y'know what, stop getting paranoid! I highly doubt that there'd be any "supremacist" religion which supports indoctrinating it's ideologies through war. Not one.

No one’s getting paranoid. It’s a matter of becoming educated regarding islamist ideology. If you don’t believe islamist ideology is one of establishing itself as “supreme above all others”, you need to become acquainted with past and current islamist history.

At no time and at no location has an islamist majority ever promoted equality. Islamist ideology has always been a function of supremacism.

Yet, I do think that every religion claims to be the only truth...which is, in other words, supermacism... :/

No. Historically, (and despite the false claims of islamist apologists), islamic states have been vigorous in their oppression of non-Muslim dhimmis. Dhimmitude has historically been defined by conditions imposed by islam's wars of conquest and included only three alternatives for those conquered: conversion to Islam, emigration, or death. The children of dhimmis were often impressed into state slavery as Janissaries, seized and sold into slavery, or put under tremendous pressure to convert and forsake their parents. Since Islamic states routinely forbade the teaching or preaching of any faith other than Islam, the transmission of such faiths over the generations was near to impossible. This condition continues today in every Islam-dominated nation on Earth, including several that claim to practice religious toleration.

No, there's no such "dogma" in Islam. So, yeah, I ain't being dogmatic.

Of course there is islamist dogma. It is the reiteration of islamist ideology.

Er...no. That's not the case. Why'd I be on a religious forum then?

It's all a process...a research-discovery-realization-faith process.

But, yeah, Alhamdullilah, I consider myself blessed to be born a Muslim.

As I noted, for you and for the vast majority of people, religious faith is not a matter of considered choice. It is nothing more than an acceptance of the majority religion. I’ll also note that in an islamist majority nation where religion is forced / coerced, there is really no thinking or decision making involved at all.

You sure aren't talking about Islam. Because, if you were, you'd not say "the word of your gods". That's the basic tenet of Islam: Tawheed, Oneness of God. There are no "gods" but just ONE GOD.

“Tawheed” is nice as slogans go, but let’s dispense with slogans. Islamism is centered on a god and his partner: muhammud. There is no islam without muhammud as he is central to the ideology.

Muhammud is even central to the slogan one recites while pledging allegiance to Islam’s god and his partner.

Hmmm. You're genuine. Haha...

But, seriously, just any "claim"? I mean, you should just concentrate on the Divine Scripture at first and then move on to the other claims "made on behalf of"...

What “divine scripture” would that be? The claim of one man to have heard voices providing instructions or providing messages is not at all unique. Hospitals and jails are full of such people. Some are medicated to alleviate those chemical imbalances and some are jailed to protect the public.

So, have you read the translation of the Holy Quran?

Yes, I’ve read the koran and I found nothing “holy” about it.

So, what's your theory of existence?

That existence is natural.

"natural"...sorry, but I found this funny. Is the act of creation by God "unnatural"?

How'd you explain the world's coming into existence? I know that the existence of the universe can be explained through the Big Bang. But, there has to be some kind of a beginning, right? A singularity...how did that come into being?

How did your gods come into existence? See, this is the trap you fall into. You hope to excuse your gods from the very requirement for causal existence that you demand of the universe.
Try this thought experiment. We know that the universe exists. We can see no evidence for its non-existence either in the past or the future. We can see that the universe changes its form over time. The logical implication is that the universe has always existed in some form and will always exist in some form. Of course nature and natural forces may have always existed. Natural law is (by all evidence) eternal and uncreated. Now, in anticipation of your objection that this cannot possibly be, I need only point out that your own beliefs already presume the existence of something that is "eternal and uncreated." You call that thing "god(s)." So it appears that you cannot have any consistent argument against something being "eternal and uncreated" since you already accept that possibility explicitly.

Beyond what's perceivable and within the capacity of human beings, is there any need to explore?

No. There is not. Everything you need to know or will ever need to know is in the koran.

And, at one point, one would definitely either conclude with, "I don't know" or "God did it". Do we need to break our heads over what cannot be fathomed?

Your comment above is perhaps the strongest argument against religion. All seriousness aside, dig deeper and look beyond the cultural dynamics of a 7th century age that seems to have an unyielding grip of the Islamic Middle East.

Everything from CDs to Starbucks that we take for granted is a representation of millions of past Western lives. These forgotten scientists, inventors, and entrepreneurs, along with other reformers in politics, journalism, economics, and religion, created our present liberal environment.

Only its institutions led to our prosperous modernity. Without them, thinkers cannot discuss ideas freely. They will not find legal protection for their accomplishments, status for their contributions, and profit for their benefactions — and thus would end up hopeless and adrift in a society such as present-day Syria, Iran, or Egypt or most anywhere else in the Middle East.

That long odyssey that the western world embarked upon is not so in the world of bin Laden or an Iranian theocrat — or the ignorant that stream out of the madrassas and Friday fundamentalist harangues along the Afghan-Pakistani border. These fist-shaking, flag-burning fascists all came late to (and struggle fiercely against it), Western traditions of innovation, personal responsibility, rule of law and now cherry-pick its technology. As classic parasites, a Zawahiri or a now "pushin daisies" al-Zarqawi wants Western sophisticated weapons and technologies — without the bothersome foundations that made them all possible.

The professional Islamic protestors who riot in the streets because they learn of a rumor in a Western magazine, and those like him who asplode' and behead in Iraq, are emblematic of this hypocrisy. Nothing they have accomplished in their lives, either materially or philosophically would result in a free opinion magazine, much less the technology to send out the story instantaneously — or, in the case of al-Zarqawi, to have his murdering transmitted globally on the Internet.

Instead, our professional Islamic rioters, and the Islamist organizations that have endorsed them, live in the 7th century of rumor, sexual and religious intolerance, tribal chauvinism, and gratuitous violence — but now electrified by the veneer of the 21st-century civilization that is not their own, but sometimes fools the naïve who believe it might be.

Yet all the illumination in the modern world — neon, fluorescent, or incandescent — cannot light up the illiberal Dark Age mind if it is not willing (or forced) to begin the long ordeal of democracy, tolerance, legality, and individual rights.

Does Islam confuse you?

No.

But, that's not the case. Islam isn't confusing and God isn't so cruel.

Which god(s)?

And, there's a hadith of the Prophet (pbuh), in which he says, "And if I order you to do something, then do of it as much as you can." (just a part of it)

And then there’s the hadith of The Prophet, in which he says:
“O no, not another “saying” attributed to me which those knuckleheads got wrong”.

My God isn't.

Are you authorized to speak on behalf of your gods?

Do you believe that Abraham Lincoln was real? that he was once the President of the United States? He could be a made-up guy?

Now, just imagine, you happen to doubt that he once existed, would that be justifiable? I don't think so. But, why'd one trust the historians? One has to, as far as it makes sense, right? And, God makes perfect sense. His Existence puts everything into perspective.

You do understand that you’re making comparisons betwen a flesh and blood human and a supernatural entity, right?

Need I remind you that your claims to this supernatural entity derives not from any personal journey you willing undertook but an entity you claim exists because this entity was part of the cultural baggage that accompanied the majority religion you were born into.

There is. I find the Holy Quran PERFECT. I ain't being biased.

Why do you attach PERFECT to a book written by Uthman that is rife with errors, inconsistencies and falsehoods?

Hmm. Yep. But I'm not.

The moniker of a true believer: “I don’t care what the facts are, I ain’t beliven’em.”

Remember Baghdad Bob? (Saddam’s propaganda mouthpiece who was convinced that his fantasies were more real than the US armored forces plowing through Baghdad). The Baghdad Bob syndrome is not so unusual.

[ChicStar]

Thanks.

Will get back to you later. InshaAllah.

[ChicStar]

I only supplied a portion of the book. The book goes on to describe the islamist imperative "to make allah's religion supreme". I’m sure you’ve read that slogan.

But, the author admits that Islam forbids discrimination. Then, how'd it be injustice. Even if the Muslims do believe in making God's Religion superior, it'd be based on absolute justice and not discrimination otherwise, they'd be going AGAINST the Islamic doctrines.

What was the book again? Perhaps, I can check it out.

See above. As I indicated, Islam's jihad against humanity has never stopped since Islam holy warriors spilled out of the Arabian Peninsula after the death of the religions inventor.

But, Islam is against discrimination. The author consents.

You need to learn your Islamo-history and research the practice of dhimmitude.

Dhimmitude is the fascistic and systematic denigration aimed st the infidel.

It was just a substitute for Zakah (annual charity) for the non-Muslims. But, it's no more in practice among the Arab nations now. Why'd you be concerned about it then?

God certainly won’t remain one and the same.

Hey, I never said that! why's it in quotes then?!...oh, i get it, maybe a genuine mistake. never mind.

Gods have come and gone throughout history. It has been part of human culture to invent supernatural agents to explain that which could not already be explained. Whenever there is a gap in our knowledge, it was tempting for cultures and societies to simply throw up their hands in defeat and say 'Godidit' (or more frequently 'Thegodsdidit'). Kings, rulers, pharaohs and "prophets" etc made use of this idea, by claiming for themselves a special ability to receive messages or to translate the true meaning from a divine supernatural ruler, even though the best evidence for their existence was simply the fact that there were some things we didn't understand. Societies grew, codified rituals, passed on these ideas from parent to child with severe warnings for not believing -

I felt as if my grandma was telling me a bed-time story. haha...sorry, your writing style is very expressive.

such as eternal burning and torment and unrealistic 'carrots' for believing e.g an eternity of sensual gratification

How do you know that it's "unrealistic"? What if it's real? It's better to be on the safe side. There got to be a purpose to life. It just can't be otherwise.

and so giant structures and substructures grew which evolved (yes, evolved) into the religions we see today.

"Grandma, one more story, pleaseeeee"

sorry, i miss my grandmom now.

Monotheism is currently in vogue for religions. Multi-god religions have been replaced by a one-stop-shopping god of convenience.

Islam was and will forever be belief in the One and Only God Almighty.

Such deistic minimalism is wrong, of course, and it will eventually go out of fashion. Whatever replaces it will be wrong as well.

Even Atheism? then you're definitely on the wrong track.

Of course the conquests were islamic. They were carried out by arb muslims under the black banner of jihad.

From Ibn Warraq:
“After their spectacular conquests, the Arabs were unwilling to concede equality to the non-Arab converts to Islam. But for the Arabs there were the conquered and the conquerers, and there was no question of the Arabs giving up their privileges. "Non-Arab Muslims were regarded as inferior and subjected to a whole series of fiscal, social, political, military, and other disabilities." [Lewis] The Arabs ruled as a "sort of conquistador tribal aristocracy," to which only "true Arabs" could belong, a true Arab being one who was of free Arab ancestry on his father's and mother's side. The Arabs took concubines from the conquered peoples, but their children by these slave women were heavily discriminated against and were not considered full Arabs.

The Arabs practiced a kind of apartheid toward non-Arab Muslims: "The Arabs looked upon [the non-Arab Muslims] as aliens and, regardless of what class they belonged to, treated them with scorn and contempt. They led them into battle on foot. They depreived them of a share of the booty. They would not walk on the same side of the street as them, nor sit at the same repast. In nearly every place separate encampments and mosques were constructed for their use. Marriage between them and Arabs was considered a social crime." [Cambridge History of Islam]”

Since, the author realizes that Islam FORBADE discrimination, I'd suggest he rename his book as "Why I'm not an Arab".

Like so many islamists, I don’t believe you have any real sense of islamist history and the damage it has caused.

I do know about Islamic history, tho not much about Arab history....but, if this dude is right about it, then it's really sad. Well, I'm glad that at least he does acknowledge that Islam forbids discrimination and so it was a result of the Arabs going off track.

Islamist vs. Islamic history and ideology has no historical significance. Either term is merely the encapsulation of a politico-religious ideology that has a presumed sense of entitlement.

So has any other religion.

No one’s getting paranoid. It’s a matter of becoming educated regarding islamist ideology. If you don’t believe islamist ideology is one of establishing itself as “supreme above all others”, you need to become acquainted with past and current islamist history.

At no time and at no location has an islamist majority ever promoted equality. Islamist ideology has always been a function of supremacism.

not "Islamic" ideology. If at all anything, then the greed of man. And that's why God's there to give Absolute Justice to everyone without bias, the Holy Quran's a witness.

No. Historically, (and despite the false claims of islamist apologists), islamic states have been vigorous in their oppression of non-Muslim dhimmis. Dhimmitude has historically been defined by conditions imposed by islam's wars of conquest and included only three alternatives for those conquered: conversion to Islam, emigration, or death.

wow. really?

I'll have to check that out.

The children of dhimmis were often impressed into state slavery as Janissaries, seized and sold into slavery, or put under tremendous pressure to convert and forsake their parents.

:/

I don't believe.

I've come across many statements of the Prophet (pbuh) expressly encouraging kindness towards women and children. I'll try getting it for you.

Since Islamic states routinely forbade the teaching or preaching of any faith other than Islam, the transmission of such faiths over the generations was near to impossible. This condition continues today in every Islam-dominated nation on Earth, including several that claim to practice religious toleration.

I bet there are hundreds of churches and temples in the Middle East.

Of course there is islamist dogma. It is the reiteration of islamist ideology.

See the context. I said there is no such dogma in Islam which says that anyone who rejects the claims of Islam is stereotypical....haha, sounds funny. :/

As I noted, for you and for the vast majority of people, religious faith is not a matter of considered choice. It is nothing more than an acceptance of the majority religion. I’ll also note that in an islamist majority nation where religion is forced / coerced, there is really no thinking or decision making involved at all.

no, nothing of that sort, I believe.

The writer that you quote, Ibn Warraq, sounds like an Arab name, probably from an Islamic country?

it's basically what an individual thinks/accepts and comes to terms with after careful study with extreme sincerity and open mindedness and fear/love of God.

“Tawheed” is nice as slogans go, but let’s dispense with slogans. Islamism is centered on a god and his partner: muhammud. There is no islam without muhammud as he is central to the ideology.

Muhammud is even central to the slogan one recites while pledging allegiance to Islam’s god and his partner.

Um, yeah, so? it doesn't make him as co-equal to God. Never. God is free of and much above any sort of association.

Why Muhammad (pbuh) is important is cuz he was the last prophet and he was given the Guidance, the Holy Quran. following which matter a lot.

What “divine scripture” would that be? The claim of one man to have heard voices providing instructions or providing messages is not at all unique. Hospitals and jails are full of such people. Some are medicated to alleviate those chemical imbalances and some are jailed to protect the public.

But, do these people have a myriad of followers? no.

Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) has.

And, a "follower" is one who follows someone, in our case the Prophet (pbuh). Now, if like you say, hospitals are meant for such people..do you think that Muslims all over the world should be either hospitalized or jailed?

Yes, I’ve read the koran and I found nothing “holy” about it.

:/

Are you saying that you can write a book like it, then?

btw, do you know that this was the challenge given to those of the time of the Prophet (pbuh) who rejected it? They obviously couldn't live up to it, all their attempts totally screwed the pooch.

That existence is natural.

just "natural"? Like, what and how exactly?

Are aliens and UFO's natural too? what if they come and raid the earth? *gasp* and what about the Bermuda Triangle? freaky. 0_0

How did your gods come into existence? See, this is the trap you fall into. You hope to excuse your gods from the very requirement for causal existence that you demand of the universe.

No, I mean there has to be a beginning, something "causeless"...er, yeah. Or, to put it in a better way, there has to be a cause and The Cause is God. Is it necessary that a cause should have a cause? maybe. But, cuz God is THE Cause He doesn't require a cause. makes sense, eh?

Try this thought experiment. We know that the universe exists. We can see no evidence for its non-existence either in the past or the future. We can see that the universe changes its form over time. The logical implication is that the universe has always existed in some form and will always exist in some form. Of course nature and natural forces may have always existed. Natural law is (by all evidence) eternal and uncreated. Now, in anticipation of your objection that this cannot possibly be, I need only point out that your own beliefs already presume the existence of something that is "eternal and uncreated."

E=mc2, eh? Hmm. :/

Didn't Einstein have better stuff to do? Oh, boy. :|

You call that thing "god(s)." So it appears that you cannot have any consistent argument against something being "eternal and uncreated" since you already accept that possibility explicitly.

No. I can. :/

Um....this is a tough one, but there's definitely an answer for it...er, I'll think over it, and InshaAllah, I'll prove that it's possible.

It isn't that difficult though....I dunno...at the moment I can't think of a convincing answer but I'll come up with one, iA. Till then someone else can address this.

*marks it purple* (so that it becomes conspicuous)

Guys, anyone?

>_<

No. There is not. Everything you need to know or will ever need to know is in the koran.

Right on!! XD

Your comment above is perhaps the strongest argument against religion.

for real?!

All seriousness aside, dig deeper and look beyond the cultural dynamics of a 7th century age that seems to have an unyielding grip of the Islamic Middle East.

Everything from CDs to Starbucks that we take for granted is a representation of millions of past Western lives. These forgotten scientists, inventors, and entrepreneurs, along with other reformers in politics, journalism, economics, and religion, created our present liberal environment.

What has Starbucks got to do with "creation" of "liberalism"? So random. :/

And we don't take it for granted, we pay! Just imagine, I hold a CD or a frappuccino, which I've paid for, in my hand and wonder, "Oh my, I wonder how these geniuses came up with such a beautiful CD, how can I pay tribute to 'em, I'll buy one more"

Wow. Do you do that?

Only its institutions led to our prosperous modernity. Without them, thinkers cannot discuss ideas freely. They will not find legal protection for their accomplishments, status for their contributions, and profit for their benefactions — and thus would end up hopeless and adrift in a society such as present-day Syria, Iran, or Egypt or most anywhere else in the Middle East.

Why do you underestimate the Middle East or rather the Muslims so much?

You know what, check this out.

That long odyssey that the western world embarked upon is not so in the world of bin Laden or an Iranian theocrat — or the ignorant that stream out of the madrassas and Friday fundamentalist harangues along the Afghan-Pakistani border. These fist-shaking, flag-burning fascists all came late to (and struggle fiercely against it), Western traditions of innovation, personal responsibility, rule of law and now cherry-pick its technology.

HUH?! What? "cherry pick" "it's" "technology"?! (emphasis on of each of it) haha, dude, this is odd. So, now the West would dictate as to what one should take and not take of "it's" technology? And, as if technology is solely the brainchild of the western minds. You better check out that link, if you haven't.

As classic parasites, a Zawahiri or a now "pushin daisies" al-Zarqawi wants Western sophisticated weapons and technologies — without the bothersome foundations that made them all possible.

Hmm. :/

Hey btw, I remember al-Zarqawi, I had to google him up the last time you mentioned his name. And, I also remember that I had reminded you that he's dead, and so you now put in quotes, "pushin daises"...haha, funny.

Who's Zawahiri?...Ahh never mind, so what if they have cell phones or laptops? They pay for it, right? You don't want Apple or HP to lose their customers, do you?

The professional Islamic protestors who riot in the streets because they learn of a rumor in a Western magazine, and those like him who asplode' and behead in Iraq, are emblematic of this hypocrisy. Nothing they have accomplished in their lives, either materially or philosophically would result in a free opinion magazine, much less the technology to send out the story instantaneously — or, in the case of al-Zarqawi, to have his murdering transmitted globally on the Internet.

Oh, C'mon. This sounds so childish.

"Mom, this ain't fair! I do all the hard work, empty my piggy bank, all my hard earned pennies, ride my badass bicycle all the way to the supermarket, get my fav sweets for myself and this knucklehead lazy bum gets to have 'em all. I WANT MY SWEETS BACK!!"

You shouldn't blame it on Islam.

Instead, our professional Islamic rioters, and the Islamist organizations that have endorsed them, live in the 7th century of rumor, sexual and religious intolerance, tribal chauvinism, and gratuitous violence — but now electrified by the veneer of the 21st-century civilization that is not their own, but sometimes fools the naïve who believe it might be.

*sigh*

That's so not true.

Yet all the illumination in the modern world — neon, fluorescent, or incandescent — cannot light up the illiberal Dark Age mind if it is not willing (or forced) to begin the long ordeal of democracy, tolerance, legality, and individual rights.

:|

No.

Cool.

Which god(s)?

-.-

Are you so out to lunch? or perhaps you're already zonked?

And then there’s the hadith of The Prophet, in which he says:
“O no, not another “saying” attributed to me which those knuckleheads got wrong”.

Stop yanking my chain.

I'm serious, can't you do without it?

Are you authorized to speak on behalf of your gods?

So, you are?

You do understand that you’re making comparisons betwen a flesh and blood human and a supernatural entity, right?

No, you're not getting the point.

I was comparing the "biographies of a man" (in your words) written to the biographies of another man written.
In reply to this...

There are countless studies showing that people start embellishing stories even an hour after they've occured, and here you have biographies of a man told multiple decades after he's dead. Clearly, there is a building towards legend-making in these stories, based upon the dating of these tales and fables.

Need I remind you that your claims to this supernatural entity derives not from any personal journey you willing undertook but an entity you claim exists because this entity was part of the cultural baggage that accompanied the majority religion you were born into.

That's not the case with every believer.

If you don't mind, may I ask, what religion were you born into? or rather are your parents Atheists too?

Why do you attach PERFECT to a book written by Uthman that is rife with errors, inconsistencies and falsehoods?

Who says it's written by Uthman (ra)?

IT'S THE SPEECH OF GOD ALMIGHTY, FREE FROM ANY SORT OF ERROR WHATSOEVER, MEANT FOR THE ENTIRE HUMANITY TILL THE END OF TIMES. PERIOD.

Now, don't you play dumb anymore.

The moniker of a true believer: “I don’t care what the facts are, I ain’t beliven’em.”

Remember Baghdad Bob? (Saddam’s propaganda mouthpiece who was convinced that his fantasies were more real than the US armored forces plowing through Baghdad). The Baghdad Bob syndrome is not so unusual.

So, you consider yourself a "true believer"?



P.S: Sorry for the late reply.

[ChicStar]

Resigned:

Looks like you're not interested.

Anyways, this answers the argument you raised.

Now, in anticipation of your objection that this cannot possibly be, I need only point out that your own beliefs already presume the existence of something that is "eternal and uncreated." You call that thing "god(s)." So it appears that you cannot have any consistent argument against something being "eternal and uncreated" since you already accept that possibility explicitly.

Check it out if you want to.

[Resigned]

Resigned:

Looks like you're not interested.

Anyways, this answers the argument you raised.



Check it out if you want to.

Sorry, but I don't find clips by anonymous individuals on YouTube videos to be particularly convincing.

[ChicStar]

Sorry, but I don't find clips by anonymous individuals on YouTube clips to be particularly convincing.

"anonymous"?

Okay, I'll give you his details, contact him if you want.

The guy's name is Hamza Andreaz Tzortzis.

http://www.hamzatzortzis.com/

That's his website. Has some awesome stuff.


And, btw, what's anything got to do with who the person is? you need to look at the facts and the argument. Is the argument convincing or not?

[Resigned]

"anonymous"?

Okay, I'll give you his details, contact him if you want.

The guy's name is Hamza Andreaz Tzortzis.

http://www.hamzatzortzis.com/

That's his website. Has some awesome stuff.


And, btw, what's anything got to do with who the person is? you need to look at the facts and the argument. Is the argument convincing or not?

I didn't come across any facts. His presumptions are boilerplate apologetics.

Could you send him an email and ask him to explain how the gods are excused from the thing he requires of the universe: a creator. How many gods are needed to create the gods?

[ChicStar]

I didn't come across any facts. His presumptions are boilerplate apologetics.

Could you send him an email and ask him to explain how the gods are excused from the thing he excludes the universe from: a creator. How many gods are needed to create the gods?

Okay.

Check this out.

http://www.adc.org/index.php?id=247


EDIT:
You can contact him yourself, that'll be better, I think, cuz you know you could explain your point better then.

[Resigned]

Okay.

Check this out.

http://www.adc.org/index.php?id=247


EDIT:
You can contact him yourself, that'll be better, I think, cuz you know you could explain your point better then.

So much of the "contributions" are fabricated, it's difficult to know where to begin.

[ChicStar]

So much of the "contributions" are fabricated, it's difficult to know where to begin.

Oh. :|

It's okay, begin from wherever you like. I don't mind. I just wanna know what's fabricated and what's not.

[Resigned]

Oh. :|

It's okay, begin from wherever you like. I don't mind. I just wanna know what's fabricated and what's not.

The website you linked to has assembled a host of fallacious claims. I'm not inclined to refute the claims of every website that you can find on the web.

[ChicStar]

The website you linked to has assembled a host of fallacious claims. I'm not inclined to refute the claims of every website that you can find on the web.

Uhm, okay dude.

Just any one will do. I hope you can do that.