Thread: Split from "Proud to be an American... wait, that's not a country.... ?"

Originally Posted by lucidmax15895

Um, no. But using 'Amen' to agree is not common, you know.

It is in America.

Originally Posted by lucidmax15895

No, it's rather a general interpretation of the message in the Quran. I don't care if the whole world does not agree with my opinion. They are doing wrong, whatever they think. It doesn't change the fact that they are wrong.
About the cartoonist, well, drawing an image, especially a cartoon where the point is to insult, is highly enraging to all Muslims. How would you feel if someone so bluntly insulted the person for whom you hold the utmost respect? While I don't say that killing is okay, I can not also say that it was without reason.
I don't know what kind of Muslims you meet up with, or have known. All I can say is that no decent guy, Muslim or otherwise, supports terrorism at any cost.

You are advocating the mindset that makes this possible. You don't care what other people think, you are right. We have that in writing now so you can't take it back. A terrorists thinks the same way, except they probably feel even more strongly about it than you do. You are projecting your subjective morals and priciples onto the rest of the world, just as a terrorist does. To a terrorist, a decent man would kill to protect his religion and his God.

Originally Posted by lucidmax15895

They reason not many are willing to object to terrorism is because they are too scared to do so. In countries like Iraq, and even certain parts in America, you can very well be anonymously killed for even voicing your opinion against the extremist groups.
The problem is that the scholars who, I believe, are corrupt have gained a lot more attention than those who are preaching the true message, and a common non-Muslim cannot be expected to know about them. The best reference I can give you is Dr. Zakir Naik. He is truly an example of a scholar that preaches the true message.

Some may be too scared to speak out, that's true, but I'm talking about people who aren't just silent on the issue, they actively support it. They are the leaders of theses movements. Like I said, mullahs and imams constitute the leadership of many terrorist organizations including the Taliban and Al Qaeda. I won't except the fear as an excuse either. The longer the "good" ones stay quiet, the stronger the "bad" ones get.

Originally Posted by lucidmax15895

Oh well. You got what I meant anyways. ^_^

No, I got that you didn't think your analogy through before posting it. You have no point there.

Originally Posted by lucidmax15895

Let me correct myself. All PROPER Muslim leader condemn terrorism. The self-proclaimed, corrupt leaders like those of Al Qaeda and the Taliban are not to be considered real leaders.

Again, you have no right to name one proper and the other not. The "fake" leaders of the Taliban and Al Qaeda have massive followings. Their leadership is legitimate as long as there are people that recognize their authority.

Originally Posted by lucidmax15895

Me: "I am a super hero. I can fly without support. I can kill people with my eyes." Do you believe that statement? No. My point, just because someone considers himself to be correctly following the commands of his religion doesn't mean that he IS.

You need help in the logic area. Nobody is claiming supernatural powers. They are disputing over an interpretation. Two sides believe with equal veracity that they are correct. There is no distinct leadership with the authority to settle this dispute, therefore they are both equally right and equally wrong. That's what happens when you have an ambiguous holy book.

Originally Posted by lucidmax15895

There are different types of people, who hold different opinions. There's nothing I can do about it.

Amen! So we agree now.

Originally Posted by lucidmax15895

No. Quran is not too ambiguous to serve as an authority. The INTERPRETATIONS of the Quran are too ambiguous to serve as authority. You are right there. There has to be some sort of definite authority. But leading billions is not an easy task. There are a lot of problems, the main being the threat from groups who consider the deciphering to be incorrect, and the like.

The Catholics did it. If the Quran was not ambiguous, it couldn't have ambiguous interpretations. The Quran is just a book. It can't talk and tell you how to interpret the stories. That's where a human leader comes in. Not that it would solve many disputes anyways. Some Christians are at odds with the Pope from time to time.

I want to make it clear that I am not offering a solution. Im telling you to step back and look at the big picture. No Muslim has the right to dictate who is practicing their faith properly and who isn't. It's always a two way street.

Originally Posted by lucidmax15895

I agree. But then again, most people look at it like this :

They execute heretics and oppress women and are intolerant of other religions and cultivate a standard of ignorance among their followers!!!!! but they also give to charities and help people with their problems and save them from the devil and allow them into heaven......

That's how it should be. People have a right to know if their religion is commiting crimes against humanity.

Originally Posted by lucidmax15895

Get my point? While you are showing that what I said is biased, you have to agree that people do not EQUALLY consider the good points compared to the negative ones. The best thing would be to view the picture with a non-biased, cool, understanding mind.

I have to say it is disconcerting that you feel these atrocities should be overlooked for the mere fact that a religion can also do good things. Is a murderer a virtuous person if, after visciously killing an innocent person, he gives to the poor? As long as he gives to enough charities, it negates the gruesome side of his existence? That is a very dangerous mindset.

A non-biased, cool, ethical person would condemn any religion the second he realizes it has a violent, bigoted nature. He realizes its potential destructive power and isn't fooled by the air it puts on as a peaceful, virtuous institution.

Originally Posted by lucidmax15895

Wrong. The Quran DOES NOT teach to kill anyone who draws Muhammad. Can you give me a reference? I want to make it clear that there are certain people who misunderstand Quran or do not consider it at all and do horrible acts, thinking they did it in the name of religion. I cannot say anything about the Bible, because I read it only to some extent, and not in as much understanding as I read the Quran. And speaking of homosexuality, doesn't Bible also prohibit sexual intercourse? If all people followed the Bible, how would the human race continue?

I thought you read the bible? It prohibits premarital intercourse.

For references, type "Mohammed cartoonist murdered" into google. You'll find pages and pages about the murder plots and the actual murder of danish cartoonists and anyone else who has been perceived to have insulted Islam. Really, a person would have to be living under a rock not to know of the wide variety of crimes commited around the world by the Muslim faith, mostly in third world countries where they still stone women to death for having premarital sex.

Originally Posted by Bonsay

It doesn't matter how many people believe it, the numbers don't make it truer.

Exactly.

Originally Posted by Bonsay

I hope you see the illogic and injustice in an enforced law nobody knows exist or sees as bad.

I do. I am not in the least supportive of enforced laws and religions. I believe people should be free to chose.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

It is in America.

Never been to America. :/

Originally Posted by Caprisun

You are advocating the mindset that makes this possible. You don't care what other people think, you are right. We have that in writing now so you can't take it back. A terrorists thinks the same way, except they probably feel even more strongly about it than you do. You are projecting your subjective morals and priciples onto the rest of the world, just as a terrorist does. To a terrorist, a decent man would kill to protect his religion and his God.

I agree with your "terrorist view" thing, but you misunderstood me. What I meant is this :

Originally Posted by Bonsay

It doesn't matter how many people believe it, the numbers don't make it truer.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

Some may be too scared to speak out, that's true, but I'm talking about people who aren't just silent on the issue, they actively support it. They are the leaders of theses movements. Like I said, mullahs and imams constitute the leadership of many terrorist organizations including the Taliban and Al Qaeda. I won't except the fear as an excuse either. The longer the "good" ones stay quiet, the stronger the "bad" ones get.

Who the hell actively supports terrorism, except terrorists and the people like them? I don't know where you are getting your information from. You know that Saudi Arabia is the center of Islam, right? There are a lot of Muslims here, and many I know and have daily contact with. NOT ONE of them supports terrorism. They all despise it as much as you do.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

No, I got that you didn't think your analogy through before posting it. You have no point there.

Must you take the examples literally? I mean to say, just because a person, for example a Jew, kills an atheist screaming, "This is an act in the way of God! Eat this rocket, you infidel!", doesn't mean Jew-ism tell people to do that. A religion cannot be held responsible for the wrong and sinful actions of it's (so-called) followers.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

Again, you have no right to name one proper and the other not.

Of course I don't. I am just a single regular man, what do you expect? But I can say that, after reading the Quran extensively, what they are doing is wrong.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

The "fake" leaders of the Taliban and Al Qaeda have massive followings. Their leadership is legitimate as long as there are people that recognize their authority.

Yes, they indeed have followers. And so do occult and black magic leaders, Satan worshipers and serial killing groups. What I am saying is that, even "evil" leader have followers, and they are considered an authority. But that doesn't mean that what they are doing is acceptable just because there is a large number of people following it. I repeat that statement again and again, but you don't just seem to get it.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

You need help in the logic area. Nobody is claiming supernatural powers. They are disputing over an interpretation. Two sides believe with equal veracity that they are correct. There is no distinct leadership with the authority to settle this dispute, therefore they are both equally right and equally wrong. That's what happens when you have an ambiguous holy book.

I agree. What Muslims need is a reliable leadership. But that's something for the Muslim authorities to discuss, not me. -_-

Originally Posted by Caprisun

Two sides believe with equal veracity that they are correct.

We can't do anything about it. Different people, different opinions, and different interpretations. I can't say that they are entirely wrong. They are right, to an extent, but their actions cannot be justified by anything.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

The Catholics did it. If the Quran was not ambiguous, it couldn't have ambiguous interpretations. The Quran is just a book. It can't talk and tell you how to interpret the stories. That's where a human leader comes in. Not that it would solve many disputes anyways. Some Christians are at odds with the Pope from time to time.

I want to make it clear that I am not offering a solution. Im telling you to step back and look at the big picture. No Muslim has the right to dictate who is practicing their faith properly and who isn't. It's always a two way street.

Amen.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

That's how it should be. People have a right to know if their religion is commiting crimes against humanity.

Exactly. And they also have the right to know that their religion is helping out millions every year. Please take your own advice and look at the whole picture. While I don't say that ANYTHING good done can justify or heal the harm done by the acts which people have committed in the name of religion, there is also the "good" part to be given consideration.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

I have to say it is disconcerting that you feel these atrocities should be overlooked for the mere fact that a religion can also do good things. Is a murderer a virtuous person if, after visciously killing an innocent person, he gives to the poor? As long as he gives to enough charities, it negates the gruesome side of his existence? That is a very dangerous mindset.

No. Refer to what I said above.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

A non-biased, cool, ethical person would condemn any religion the second he realizes it has a violent, bigoted nature. He realizes its potential destructive power and isn't fooled by the air it puts on as a peaceful, virtuous institution.

I bet he would. But why do you keep insisting that it is the religion that is at fault? Don't you think that the people who commit the acts also thought about it's impacts? Do you think that Muslim terrorists would stop killing people if they all converted to atheism?

Butchers are butchers, regardless of the name under which they shed blood.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

I thought you read the bible?

To an extent. I really didn't go into it's depths. I will at a later date, though. As soon as I am finished with my studies, I would like to read and consider what various Holy Scriptures have to say.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

For references, type "Mohammed cartoonist murdered" into google. You'll find pages and pages about the murder plots and the actual murder of danish cartoonists and anyone else who has been perceived to have insulted Islam. Really, a person would have to be living under a rock not to know of the wide variety of crimes commited around the world by the Muslim faith, mostly in third world countries where they still stone women to death for having premarital sex.

Hey, it is the largest insult to the Islamic community to insult their prophet. Why don't you also tell those Danish bastards to have some respect for other religions, instead of drawing those cartoons while they know it very well that it is a great insult. It's their fault for getting killed. Who told them to draw cartoons in the first place? Again, killing IS NOT a fitting punishment, but they are also at fault, you cannot deny that. Oh and by the way, I have personally gone through at least five or more cases where the couple practicing premarital intercourse were let off with a few weeks in prison. The punishments are not as harsh as you think they are. Even prostitutes were let off with a fine and a short period in jail after they were caught, even though it's strictly against the rules. Although this case isn't made public, I know for a fact that an Indonesian, non-Muslim hooker was caught a few years back, the tried and imprisoned for some time. Upon her release, she received a generous sum from Islamic Community Help Centers so that she may quit prostituting, and get a decent job.

Originally Posted by lucidmax15895

I understand what you mean. Given the fact that there is no such proof of the existence of God, I cannot say that you are wrong. Who knows? You could be right and I could be wrong. I could find myself wiped out of existence after I die, since in your view, there is no afterlife. THAT is exactly why I don't think this argument can lead us to any final decision. Unless and until either one of these can be proven for sure, this argument will continue for a long time, finally reaching a point where we both say that we cannot believe anything for sure.

I can say that religious people are wrong because if there was a god who really cared about what we did and wanted us to believe in him and follow his rules, he would make it entirely clear what his rules are and that he exists.

Originally Posted by lucidmax15895

And yet, have you done any research into what some of those grains of sand say? Also, there is not THAT much variety of religions. There are about 10 or so main religions, so it cuts down your choice to a pretty acceptable level.

Why bother? When was the last time you felt compelled to learn about the ancient Greek gods just in case it turned out they were real?

Originally Posted by lucidmax15895

You have to understand that I don't have any more references than you. If I could answer these questions, then there wouldn't be atheism, would there?

You know who could answer these questions? God.

Originally Posted by lucidmax15895

I do. I am not in the least supportive of enforced laws and religions. I believe people should be free to chose.

So do you agree that the claim that there is a god who wants us to believe in him and has a certain set of rules he wants us to follow is false?

Originally Posted by lucidmax15895

I agree with your "terrorist view" thing, but you misunderstood me. What I meant is this :


"It doesn't matter how many people believe it, the numbers don't make it truer."

Im not arguing the validity of anybody's beliefs. Personally I think both sides are wrong. Im arguing about supposedly "true" Muslims disregarding violent Muslims as "fake" or "not real Muslims." Your quote applies to both sides, meaning it invalidates your own viewpoint as much as it does the opposition. Take a minute to think about my arugment before you respond. Please.

Originally Posted by lucidmax15895

Who the hell actively supports terrorism, except terrorists and the people like them?

Do you really need me to answer this again? I've already mentioned the leadership of the Taliban and Al Qaeda, they couldn't survive without cooperation and support from locals. There are many reasons the locals would support an insurgency and it doesn't necessarily mean they advocate violence, but its safe to assume they aren't very sympathetic of western victims of terrorism. All that being said, terrorism isn't the only issue with Islam, as I have also discussed previously.

Originally Posted by lucidmax15895

Must you take the examples literally? I mean to say, just because a person, for example a Jew, kills an atheist screaming, "This is an act in the way of God! Eat this rocket, you infidel!", doesn't mean Jew-ism tell people to do that. A religion cannot be held responsible for the wrong and sinful actions of it's (so-called) followers.

You're still not understanding how analogies work. If an insanse Jew kills someone, it's just an insane Jew killing somebody. An isloated incident. Islam has large factions of militants who claim they are doing the work of God. They think the Quran orders them to murder infadels, especially if they insult Islam. How can you not see the difference? They are murdering innocent civilians because of their religion. How is anything other than the religion at fault?

Originally Posted by lucidmax15895

Of course I don't. I am just a single regular man, what do you expect? But I can say that, after reading the Quran extensively, what they are doing is wrong.

They don't think so. (ad nauseum)

Originally Posted by lucidmax15895

Yes, they indeed have followers. And so do occult and black magic leaders, Satan worshipers and serial killing groups. What I am saying is that, even "evil" leader have followers, and they are considered an authority. But that doesn't mean that what they are doing is acceptable just because there is a large number of people following it. I repeat that statement again and again, but you don't just seem to get it.

I keep repeating myself because you aren't understanding what Im saying. Again, you are projecting your subjective morals onto other people and using that to judge them. What's wrong with black magic and Satan worshippers? Do you think those people really believe they are evil? Are they hurting society in any way? Serial killers may know they are insanse, but they are just that, insane. Even Hitler didn't believe he was wrong, he believed he was doing the world a service. The terrorists feel the same way. They believe they are righteously ridding the world of infadels in the name of God, and they will be rewarded with 72 virgins. It doesn't matter if you believe they are wrong, it doesn't make them any less of a Muslim than you.

Originally Posted by lucidmax15895

Exactly. And they also have the right to know that their religion is helping out millions every year. Please take your own advice and look at the whole picture. While I don't say that ANYTHING good done can justify or heal the harm done by the acts which people have committed in the name of religion, there is also the "good" part to be given consideration.

You are just not getting the words that are coming out of my mouth. I have explained my viewpoint numerous times now and you just aren't understanding. How about this, a religion that advocates violence, or preaches intolerance and ignorance and bigotry, should be erased from history and destroyed for the sole purpose of ridding the world of a potentially devastating institution. It doesn't deserve any sort of positive recognition because that belittles and somewhat excuses the horrors of it's past. Did you know Hitler liked dogs? He advocated animal rights. Im outraged that none of my school text books mentioned that fact. I have the right to know about Hitler's good qualities as a human. (That's how you do analogy.)


Honestly, if a person wants to know the whole story, the information is available to them. You criticizing a person for rightfully mentioning a religion's advocation of violence and oppresion, makes it seem like you are trying to suppress the truth. Like you support the negative aspects of these religions. If Islam oppresses women, and a person speaks out against it for that reason, is that really such a bad thing? Think about what you are arguing for.

Originally Posted by lucidmax15895

I bet he would. But why do you keep insisting that it is the religion that is at fault? Don't you think that the people who commit the acts also thought about it's impacts? Do you think that Muslim terrorists would stop killing people if they all converted to atheism?

Do I think a terrorist would stop killing if he became any atheist? Obviously. What else would he have to kill for? A criminal is a criminal, they commit crimes for their own benefit, usually for money. Terrorists don't kill for money, they kill for God.

What else is to blame for these acts of violence? It is the nature of the religion that causes people to do these things. You can't kill in the name of Islam if you are not a Muslim. People don't kill unless they have a reason, with the exception of serial killers and the mentally insane. The holy book of the religion commands these men to kill, allegedly, but the religion is not at fault you say?

Originally Posted by lucidmax15895

Hey, it is the largest insult to the Islamic community to insult their prophet. Why don't you also tell those Danish bastards to have some respect for other religions, instead of drawing those cartoons while they know it very well that it is a great insult. It's their fault for getting killed. Who told them to draw cartoons in the first place? Again, killing IS NOT a fitting punishment, but they are also at fault, you cannot deny that. Oh and by the way, I have personally gone through at least five or more cases where the couple practicing premarital intercourse were let off with a few weeks in prison. The punishments are not as harsh as you think they are. Even prostitutes were let off with a fine and a short period in jail after they were caught, even though it's strictly against the rules. Although this case isn't made public, I know for a fact that an Indonesian, non-Muslim hooker was caught a few years back, the tried and imprisoned for some time. Upon her release, she received a generous sum from Islamic Community Help Centers so that she may quit prostituting, and get a decent job.

This calls your mental stability into question. It's their fault they got killed? That is a very dispicable thing to say. It sounds almost like you support the men who commited these atrocious crimes. You say killing is not a fitting punishment, as if they should be punished at all, but the rest of your post seems at odds with that statement. It sounds to me like you are glad they were killed. You think the entire world's free speech rights should be oppressed to appease an insecure, violent, oppressive religion? That hardly sounds ethical to me.

It also sound to me like you don't think couples should be free to have sex before they are married. You really are from the third world aren't you? Only a few weeks in prison for premartial sex? That's no big deal to you? That's outrageous.

(I also saw a news story the other day where two Afghan women, suspected of prositution, were executed in the street and left there for the community to see. Afghanistan is supposed to be ruled by Muslim laws and Muslim ethics.)

Originally Posted by Mark75

Why bother? When was the last time you felt compelled to learn about the ancient Greek gods just in case it turned out they were real?

Last week. No kidding. :l

Originally Posted by Mark75

So do you agree that the claim that there is a god who wants us to believe in him and has a certain set of rules he wants us to follow is false?

No. I said, "I am not in the least supportive of enforced laws and religions. I believe people should be free to chose." I don't think that what you are doing is wrong, given the fact that we have no solid proof yet. I'll go my own way, and you go yours. You have to understand that, as you DO NOT believe in God, I, on the other hand, do. As long as there is no evidence, we can't come to a definite answer as to who is right and who is wrong.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

Im not arguing the validity of anybody's beliefs. Personally I think both sides are wrong. Im arguing about supposedly "true" Muslims disregarding violent Muslims as "fake" or "not real Muslims." Your quote applies to both sides, meaning it invalidates your own viewpoint as much as it does the opposition. Take a minute to think about my arugment before you respond. Please.

I don't think so. It's not that I don't get your point, it's just that I don't agree with it. I also am repeating myself again and again. I KNOW that I have no basis to say that I am a "real" Muslim, but, either one of us has to be wrong, right? I believe that I am a "true" Muslim, and they believe so too. Either party can be wrong. Let me say it in another way. Even if I believe I am a "true" Muslim, I am doing so with only references of the Quran and Hadith, not from any established authority, and thus, I could be going the wrong way. I believe in it, but that doesn't necessarily mean that what I am believing is right.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

You're still not understanding how analogies work. If an insanse Jew kills someone, it's just an insane Jew killing somebody. An isloated incident. Islam has large factions of militants who claim they are doing the work of God. They think the Quran orders them to murder infadels, especially if they insult Islam. How can you not see the difference? They are murdering innocent civilians because of their religion. How is anything other than the religion at fault?

Let's forget for a minute that the terrorists are Muslims. Let's just, for the sake of argument, say that they were Jews. They were killing infidels because they believe they are doing the work of God. They think it's written in their book. Then what? Would you say that Jew-ism tells people to kill non-Jews?

Originally Posted by Caprisun

They don't think so. (ad nauseum)

It's you who is sticking to your theory. Why don't you view my point as well. I am not talking about myself, or the terrorists. I am saying is that just because a person believes that he is killing in the name of God doesn't mean that he is right. Why can't you get this simple statement?

Originally Posted by Caprisun

I keep repeating myself because you aren't understanding what Im saying.

I DO UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE SAYING. I AM JUST DISAGREEING TO IT!! Stop thinking you are a clever smart-ass of some sort. Jeez.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

It doesn't matter if you believe they are wrong, it doesn't make them any less of a Muslim than you.

And it doesn't matter that if they believe they are right, it doesn't make them any more of a Muslim than me.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

You are just not getting the words that are coming out of my mouth. I have explained my viewpoint numerous times now and you just aren't understanding.

*sigh* Why do you insist on being so arrogant? Loosen up man. I know what you are saying.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

Did you know Hitler liked dogs? He advocated animal rights. Im outraged that none of my school text books mentioned that fact. I have the right to know about Hitler's good qualities as a human. (That's how you do analogy.)

Then don't people also have the right to know the good qualities of religions?

Originally Posted by Caprisun

Im outraged that none of my school text books mentioned that fact.

Which basically means that you are enraged that only Hitler's negatives point are being shown to the world, without sufficient consideration of his positive points. I AM SAYING THE SAME THING HERE!!! I am enraged that people only single out the bad things of the religion, while not paying attention to the good ones. It gives a false image. Why do you have so much difficulty in understanding that when it's concerned with religion?
You yourself said that the negatives of a religion cannot be excused or justified by the positives. Tell me, even if Hitler killed thousands of people, does THAT fact make his "good" qualities less worthy of mention? Thus, in your view, people are doing right by showing only the bad side of Hitler, because

Originally Posted by Caprisun

That's how it should be. People have a right to know if their religion is commiting crimes against humanity.

that's how it should be. People have the right to know if Hitler killed thousands.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

Honestly, if a person wants to know the whole story, the information is available to them. You criticizing a person for rightfully mentioning a religion's advocation of violence and oppresion, makes it seem like you are trying to suppress the truth. Like you support the negative aspects of these religions. If Islam oppresses women, and a person speaks out against it for that reason, is that really such a bad thing? Think about what you are arguing for.

I am not criticizing anyone for mentioning the negative aspects of religions. I am criticizing them for drawing attention towards the negative aspects and away for the positive ones. YOU should think what you're saying.
Oh, and for the record, "oppression of women"? Don't make me laugh. Find me ONE single decent Muslim woman who says that she is being oppressed because of Islam, (with the veil and all) then I will shut up and not say anything.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

Do I think a terrorist would stop killing if he became any atheist? Obviously. What else would he have to kill for? A criminal is a criminal, they commit crimes for their own benefit, usually for money. Terrorists don't kill for money, they kill for God.

He would kill because he has already become a blood thirsty animal. And even he DOES stop, he will probably be killed by FBI for "security reasons". It's a long way down to the black hole.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

What else is to blame for these acts of violence? It is the nature of the religion that causes people to do these things. You can't kill in the name of Islam if you are not a Muslim. People don't kill unless they have a reason, with the exception of serial killers and the mentally insane. The holy book of the religion commands these men to kill, allegedly, but the religion is not at fault you say?

What THE hell? It's you who is not getting my point. The book doesn't command these men to kill. They misinterpret it and then THINK they are killing for religion. If Islam really told people to kill infidels, then WHY THE HELL would I be sitting here trying to reason with you guys? Why wouldn't I, if Islam commanded, go kill my non-Muslim neighbors? Because IT DOESN'T TELL ME TO DO SO!! If it were, then why wouldn't I do it? "72 virgins for blood shed", you say. Don't you think that the rewards are appealing for me as well? What reason is there for me to not start killing people? because Islam doesn't tell me to, and I am not insane anyways to do it even IF it did.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

This calls your mental stability into question. It's their fault they got killed? That is a very dispicable thing to say. It sounds almost like you support the men who commited these atrocious crimes. You say killing is not a fitting punishment, as if they should be punished at all, but the rest of your post seems at odds with that statement. It sounds to me like you are glad they were killed. You think the entire world's free speech rights should be oppressed to appease an insecure, violent, oppressive religion? That hardly sounds ethical to me.

Again, think before you post. I do not say they should have been killed. I regret that fact. Being a peaceful man, I do not support blood shed of ANY kind. But I also despise anyone who insults any other religion. Why can't they mind their own business? Who told them to draw pictures, when they know it's insulting? And also, they very well know that their lives would be at risk if they did so. I am NOT saying that it should be, but if it IS, then why not stop it, instead of cowering behind the government's skirts, and covering up their biased hatred in the name of humor?

That's the problem with them. They JUST have to do that, don't they? Leave Muslims alone, and they will leave you alone. It's some fault on their part, too.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

It also sound to me like you don't think couples should be free to have sex before they are married. You really are from the third world aren't you? Only a few weeks in prison for premartial sex? That's no big deal to you? That's outrageous.

oh man. Think about it, I live in Saudi Arabia. It's a major crime here to have premarital sex. KEEPING THAT IN MIND, it was a light punishment. Oh, and jails here are not at all what you think they are. They are separate rooms, with air conditioning, good meals, washing facilities, a bed, and television. It's not THAT harsh, you know. The only people who get executed are those who commit major crimes like murder.
And just for the record, I am fully supportive of love before marriage. Actually, I think it's better that way, because I find it disturbing to pick just anyone around and take that someone as my life-partner. Please don't blindly assume what you don't know.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

(I also saw a news story the other day where two Afghan women, suspected of prositution, were executed in the street and left there for the community to see. Afghanistan is supposed to be ruled by Muslim laws and Muslim ethics.)

What are you saying here, exactly? You think Afghanistan is a bigger stronghold of Islam than Saudi Arabia? You make me laugh. Also, Afghanistan has major peace issues, something not present in Saudi Arabia. Keep that fact in mind.

Lastly, stop trying to degrade me with your supposedly clever arguments and the stupid comments about my mental stability and whatever. YOU assumed things for yourself, YOU are the one who misjudged what I said. Do you see me questioning your intelligence? Now seriously, either stop trying to show me down or shut up.

I am sorry, but I will not be posting here anymore. I have exams to take care of, for the time being, and am busy with other stuff. If I continue, we would just end up creating more and more friction, so I will be the one to stop. Since I was the only one arguing for the religious side, then I hope this discussion will come to a halt. Enjoyed sharing views with you. So long.

Originally Posted by lucidmax15895

Last week. No kidding. :l

You were considering them as an alternative religion? That's interesting. Assuming you didn't convert, what made you decide they were not real? How did you prove that they don't exist? What made you consider them in the first place?

Originally Posted by lucidmax15895

No. I said, "I am not in the least supportive of enforced laws and religions. I believe people should be free to chose." I don't think that what you are doing is wrong, given the fact that we have no solid proof yet. I'll go my own way, and you go yours. You have to understand that, as you DO NOT believe in God, I, on the other hand, do. As long as there is no evidence, we can't come to a definite answer as to who is right and who is wrong.

Why would you not think it false? Specifically, can you respond to this point: "I can say that religious people are wrong because if there was a god who really cared about what we did and wanted us to believe in him and follow his rules, he would make it entirely clear what his rules are and that he exists."

What kind of an asshole would think that god is a wishing well?

And, as far as the existence or non-existence of "God", it is written in the Judeo-Christian Scripture how to communicate with and prove the existence of the same.

Of course, it is also written that this path would have to wait till the Second Comming, because the second comming is not the particular prophets involved but how they got to be prophets. i.e. the second comming is "God". The prophets are the witnesses! duh. What is lucid dreaming anyway? Does anyone know?

or so it would seem.

Why do you insult my intelligence lucidmax? Are you trying to play me for a fool? I know what the fuck I am saying and I know what the fuck you are trying to say. You keep trying to tell me that you believe you are right and then continue on trying to convince me so, oblivious to what my argument is. I don't give a shit about the validity of your personal beliefs, or the terrorists for that matter. Understand? I think you are wrong, and I think they are wrong. It's like we are trying to argue two different points, like you are answering the questions you wished I had asked. Earlier, you said that terrorists are not real Muslims, I disagree. By all intents and purposes, by all laws and technicallities, they are also Muslim. That is the point I am trying to get acrossed to you. I don't care if you think killing is un-Muslim-like, obviously they don't see it that way and that is what matters. I have made this explicitly clear on every post I have made, which means it is you who is not reading into my posts. I don't know, maybe the misunderstanding is due to the language barrier, but don't push this on me.

Originally Posted by lucidmax15895

I don't think so. It's not that I don't get your point, it's just that I don't agree with it. I also am repeating myself again and again. I KNOW that I have no basis to say that I am a "real" Muslim, but, either one of us has to be wrong, right? I believe that I am a "true" Muslim, and they believe so too. Either party can be wrong. Let me say it in another way. Even if I believe I am a "true" Muslim, I am doing so with only references of the Quran and Hadith, not from any established authority, and thus, I could be going the wrong way. I believe in it, but that doesn't necessarily mean that what I am believing is right.

Your quote: "It doesn't matter how many people believe it, the numbers don't make it truer."

This doesn't also invalidate your viewpoint? I'd like to know why.

Honestly I don't think you even know what you are arguing because you change your argument every time I challenge you.

Originally Posted by lucidmax15895

Let's forget for a minute that the terrorists are Muslims. Let's just, for the sake of argument, say that they were Jews. They were killing infidels because they believe they are doing the work of God. They think it's written in their book. Then what? Would you say that Jew-ism tells people to kill non-Jews?

YES!!! Now you're getting it! (FYI it's Judaism, not Jew-ism.)

=lucidmax15895;1483127It's you who is sticking to your theory. Why don't you view my point as well. I am not talking about myself, or the terrorists. I am saying is that just because a person believes that he is killing in the name of God doesn't mean that he is right. Why can't you get this simple statement?

Im gonna start pulling my hair out and bang my head against a wall. I've cocluded that either you lack reasoning capacity, or you are trying to speed read or something. Previous evidence supports the former. I don't think the terrorists are right. At what point in our discussion did you get that idea? I think that are equal with you in their wrongness. Here's me considering your viewpoint: "Hmmm, yes. They are also wrong." Can we move past it now? What you don't seem to understand is that "ambiguous" means it "can have more than one meaning." As long as it remains ambiguous, no amount of argument can reach a resolution. You will always believe you are right, and they will always believe they are right. You, in your rigid arrogance, refuse to acknowledge that fact.

Originally Posted by lucidmax15895

I DO UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE SAYING. I AM JUST DISAGREEING TO IT!! Stop thinking you are a clever smart-ass of some sort. Jeez.

No, clearly you don't understand. I can read, and the words that I am reading convey a complete lack of understanding. At no point have I acted like a "clever smart ass," though I can't say the same about you. I have showed frustration only because we have been arguing in circles for three pages now.

Originally Posted by lucidmax15895

And it doesn't matter that if they believe they are right, it doesn't make them any more of a Muslim than me.

Did I say they were more of a Muslim than you?

Originally Posted by lucidmax15895

*sigh* Why do you insist on being so arrogant? Loosen up man. I know what you are saying.

I'm on to you now lucidmax. I've seen your games before. You drive people to insanity with your circular arguments and then you criticize them when they finally snap. Why do you do that?

Originally Posted by lucidmax15895

Then don't people also have the right to know the good qualities of religions? Which basically means that you are enraged that only Hitler's negatives point are being shown to the world, without sufficient consideration of his positive points. I AM SAYING THE SAME THING HERE!!! I am enraged that people only single out the bad things of the religion, while not paying attention to the good ones. It gives a false image. Why do you have so much difficulty in understanding that when it's concerned with religion?
You yourself said that the negatives of a religion cannot be excused or justified by the positives. Tell me, even if Hitler killed thousands of people, does THAT fact make his "good" qualities less worthy of mention? Thus, in your view, people are doing right by showing only the bad side of Hitler, because



that's how it should be. People have the right to know if Hitler killed thousands.

I think maybe I should attribute this to the language/culture barrier. Then again, you have already failed three times at making a valid analogy, which is why it is not suprising that you've misunderstood me. This was my analogy, the first legitimate one in our discusssion, and it went *wishhhh*straight over your head. I don't think schools should show Hitler in a positive light. Why on Earth would I want that? It wrongfully draws attention away from his crimes against humanity and belittles the impact they had on Europe and the world. Soon people would forget about the Holocaust altogether and Hitler would be remembered as a decent guy.

Originally Posted by lucidmax15895

I am not criticizing anyone for mentioning the negative aspects of religions. I am criticizing them for drawing attention towards the negative aspects and away for the positive ones. YOU should think what you're saying.
Oh, and for the record, "oppression of women"? Don't make me laugh. Find me ONE single decent Muslim woman who says that she is being oppressed because of Islam, (with the veil and all) then I will shut up and not say anything.

Do you know how absurd that sounds? Do you think all debaters should lend equal credence to the opposing viewpoint every time they speak? If a person is critcizing a religion, and the purpose of their argument is to draw attention to specific negative aspects of said religion, obviously they think it is a bad institution and that the world would be better off without it's practice. So why would they also talk about its positive aspects? Why would they purposefully hurt their own argument? That's about as dumb as shooting yourself in the foot.

lucidmax: "Oh, and for the record, "oppression of women"? Don't make me laugh. Find me ONE single decent Muslim woman who says that she is being oppressed because of Islam, (with the veil and all) then I will shut up and not say anything."

I'm tempted to copy and paste this into my signature so everybody can see who you really are. You can stop playing yourself off as a decent guy now. You've let your true personality show multiple times in this thread. You think the Danish cartoonists who were killed were "bastards" and "it's their fault they got killed." And you think the oppression of women in the Muslim world is a laughing matter.

Originally Posted by lucidmax15895

He would kill because he has already become a blood thirsty animal. And even he DOES stop, he will probably be killed by FBI for "security reasons". It's a long way down to the black hole.

Christ lucidmax, do you know anything about psychology? What makes you say that? Do you have anything other than your illinformed, subjective opinion? You are starting to look desperate. Like an animal trapped in a corner.

Originally Posted by lucidmax15895

What THE hell? It's you who is not getting my point. The book doesn't command these men to kill. They misinterpret it and then THINK they are killing for religion. If Islam really told people to kill infidels, then WHY THE HELL would I be sitting here trying to reason with you guys? Why wouldn't I, if Islam commanded, go kill my non-Muslim neighbors? Because IT DOESN'T TELL ME TO DO SO!! If it were, then why wouldn't I do it? "72 virgins for blood shed", you say. Don't you think that the rewards are appealing for me as well? What reason is there for me to not start killing people? because Islam doesn't tell me to, and I am not insane anyways to do it even IF it did.

Those are the first three videos I could find, there are videos out there even more damning than these. I know because I have seen them. Like I said, they like the quote the Quran. Whether these are misinterpretations is beside the point. And you don't have a leg to stand on with that argument anyways, as I have pointed out numerous times. Do me a favor and watch the third video until the end.

Originally Posted by lucidmax15895

Again, think before you post. I do not say they should have been killed. I regret that fact. Being a peaceful man, I do not support blood shed of ANY kind. But I also despise anyone who insults any other religion. Why can't they mind their own business? Who told them to draw pictures, when they know it's insulting? And also, they very well know that their lives would be at risk if they did so. I am NOT saying that it should be, but if it IS, then why not stop it, instead of cowering behind the government's skirts, and covering up their biased hatred in the name of humor?

Forgive my feeble, ignorant brain, it is sometimes prone to impulsive acts. I wrote that entire post in an uncoscious, dribbling daze.

You must think Im an idiot, don't you? I have your post in writing. It's up above for everyone to see, so you can stop trying to save face now.

Originally Posted by lucidmax15895

That's the problem with them. They JUST have to do that, don't they? Leave Muslims alone, and they will leave you alone. It's some fault on their part, too.

It's a matter of principle. Free speech. A concept that seems to be ass-backwards in the Middle East.

Originally Posted by lucidmax15895

oh man. Think about it, I live in Saudi Arabia. It's a major crime here to have premarital sex. KEEPING THAT IN MIND, it was a light punishment. Oh, and jails here are not at all what you think they are. They are separate rooms, with air conditioning, good meals, washing facilities, a bed, and television. It's not THAT harsh, you know. The only people who get executed are those who commit major crimes like murder.
And just for the record, I am fully supportive of love before marriage. Actually, I think it's better that way, because I find it disturbing to pick just anyone around and take that someone as my life-partner. Please don't blindly assume what you don't know.

Assume what I don't know? I told you I saw a news story ealier this week of two women shot execution style in the middle of the street for prostitution. What am I assuming? You think it's ok to imprison people for premarital sex if the jail is nice? You really do lack reasoning capacity don't you. Apparently even the "moderate" or "good" Muslims like to preach intolerance and oppression, since that's the side you represent. It's just you like to keep it vailed as something positive while the extremists don't bother.

Originally Posted by lucidmax15895

What are you saying here, exactly? You think Afghanistan is a bigger stronghold of Islam than Saudi Arabia? You make me laugh. Also, Afghanistan has major peace issues, something not present in Saudi Arabia. Keep that fact in mind.

I'm happy to entertain you. Because that's what Im here for. This is the second time you have laughed in response to a quote about the oppression of women, except this time you are laughing at their execution. You are painting an awfully wicked picture of yourself.

Originally Posted by lucidmax15895

Lastly, stop trying to degrade me with your supposedly clever arguments and the stupid comments about my mental stability and whatever. YOU assumed things for yourself, YOU are the one who misjudged what I said. Do you see me questioning your intelligence? Now seriously, either stop trying to show me down or shut up.

You have degraded yourself. Im glad there is a record here of what you have written, that way everyone can judge for themselves.

In relation to the environment, the human mind has a particular function, to produce human will such that that will maintains and promotes the life of the individual. This means that just like any other human body acquisition system it can be rated against its function.

This means that we can rate a persons so called belief systems against the function of the individuals mind.

A person can speak the most fundamental truth "I am a human being." Or speak a lie "I am a Christian, a Jew, a Muslim, etc." for the one is aimed at seeing the singularity of the human condition in all men within the vast environment which all men must subdue to survive, while the other is aimed at pitting man against man--with the results--not of life but of death.

The choice of what a man is can be clearly seen and anticipated when, instead of saying I AM, he says instead, I am that.

Sure, whatever God is, is real: but either IT can teach us to be men, or it can simply be ignored. The point is, there is nothing in the environment, even belief or gods, which can negate the fundamental truth;--we are responsible for our own actions. We will live by them, or we will die because of them. If, what ever this God is, decides to do anything at all, the same applies as well, or ill.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

By all intents and purposes, by all laws and technicallities, they are also Muslim.

Tell me one thing. Is this your point? If yes, then : (if not, then skip to the next quote)

by all laws and technicallities

How can you say that? Have you read up on Islamic laws? What technicalities? As far as I am aware, the terrorists aren't right. It's because according to Quran and Hadith, killing innocents is not allowed. When it is clearly written, then how can you say that they are Muslims? It's not a matter of misinterpretations and different viewpoints, it's the simple matter of them CLEARLY going against the rules. Then, by all proper intents and purposes, by all real laws and technicalities, they are not Muslim.
I am not trying to project my beliefs onto anyone. I have read the Quran, and it was simple enough to understand that it does not allow the slaughter of innocents. Frankly, you are in an even less of a position to tell which one of us is more or less wrong, and neither which one of us is more correct, because you are debating without having actually read the Quran OR the Hadith, and are solely relying on what OTHERS say. Wouldn't it be better to gain some first-hand experience?

they don't see it that way and that is what matters.

What actually matters is if what they are doing is actually right in the ORIGINAL and PROPER rules of Islam, not whether they THINK they are.

Also, :

Originally Posted by lucidmax15895

It doesn't matter how many people believe it, the numbers don't make it truer.

Originally Posted by lucidmax15895

Just because someone believes he is right, doesn't necessarily mean that he is.

How the HELL do these quotes invalidate my argument? They are two completely different things.

Originally Posted by '"Caprisun"

YES!!! Now you're getting it! (FYI it's Judaism, not Jew-ism.)

If someone believes he is killing in the name of his religion, it means his religion ACTUALLY tells him to do so?
If so, then I am gonna convert to Buddhism, then I will believe that it tells me to kill people, whether it does or not, and then kill people. That way, Buddhism is a violent religion. Don't try to disagree now. This is exactly what you are saying.

Judaism, eh? i KNEW it was something like that.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

You will always believe you are right, and they will always believe they are right.

Dude, I AM acknowledging that fact. What I am trying to say is that any of us cannot be right just because we believe we are.

I don't think schools should show Hitler in a positive light.

Im outraged that none of my school text books mentioned that fact. I have the right to know about Hitler's good qualities as a human.

Yeah. And people also have the right to know religions' good qualities. What racist people do is to show all negatives, while completely disregarding the good aspects. I KNOW that mentioning that would invalidate their argument, but then again, it gives a false idea of the religion. People need to actually read the scriptures, instead of relying on what biased racists say.

Originally Posted by lucidmax15895

You think the Danish cartoonists who were killed were "bastards" and "it's their fault they got killed."

YOU ARE GETTING ME WRONG! The Danish cartoonists are "bastards" because they insult other religions. Why can't they stay quiet? I have all the right to curse anyone who insults anything. If anyone comes up and bluntly starts to degrade atheists, I would also call him a bastard. Do you have a problem with that? And, "it's their fault they got killed." because they KNEW they could be killed because of doing so, then WHY DO IT IN THE FIRST PLACE? I don't say that ANY sort of punishment towards cartoonists is okay, but dude, if I know that I will get a sniper in my head for shouting "I have a bomb!" in front of the FBI headquarters, WHY THE HELL WOULD I SHOUT IT? Even if they think Islam is wrong, then why not stay quiet if they know it could pose a threat to their lives? It's their fault because consciously did something the know would put their lives in danger. I am not saying that it's their fault because they made cartoons and they should be killed. READING COMPREHENSION, YOU ENGLISH SPEAKER!! you don't get what I say, do you?

Originally Posted by Caprisun

And you think the oppression of women in the Muslim world is a laughing matter.

I didn't laugh about the oppression of women, I laughed at the fact that you seem to think oppression of women exists in Islam. There is no such thing. Care to give me a reference from some Muslim women? Go ahead.
Don't take the wrong meaning. I am not trying to save face. I don't have to. I was trying to make you understand what I am trying to say. Frankly, I don't care even if it DOES get spread out to DV, and I get hated all over the forum. Because I didn't say that, and I don't mean I like what terrorists are doing. You are misunderstanding me. If it's because of the language barrier, I think you are TOO expert in English to get the point of normal people. Go do a P.H.D. or something and leave me alone, because other than you, everyone get's the point of my posts.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

Christ lucidmax, do you know anything about psychology? What makes you say that?

What makes me say that? Do you want me to show you some of the more gruesome videos that contain the horrible deeds of terrorists? Do you look at their eyes? Have you ever seen any pity or regret on those faces? They undergo such brainwashing that it's almost like they think killing is good. Rather, they DO think killing is good. Their brain is manipulated to such a degree that it would be hard to undo it. If he is let free, he would eventually end up killing people nevertheless.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

Free speech. A concept that seems to be ass-backwards in the Middle East.

Free speech my ass. I accept free speech as in being free to express your views, but I think free speech as in insulting other religion and running through the street saying to everyone around "FUCK YOU!! It's freedom of speech." is a bunch of crap. You guys need to be more polite, you know that? Freedom of speech. Cheh. It's more like abusing the freedom of speech.
And speaking of Middle East, be assured that I can express my opinions here however I want, but I cannot, and wouldn't, use my freedom to insult others.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

What am I assuming?

And you say that English is your first language?

You are assuming this:

You think it's ok to imprison people for premarital sex if the jail is nice?

you don't think couples should be free to have sex before they are married.

I never claimed any of these. It's just you and your "better than others" English, dude.
Let me say it again. Saudi Arabia has strict laws. It doesn't have oppression of women, nor any of the absurd, presumed enforced laws you talk about, but it strictly doesn't allow any indecent act. KEEPING THAT IN MIND, it's a pretty light punishment. IF THEY FOLLOWED THE LAWS YOU THINK ARE ISLAMIC, SHE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DEAD NOW. Why is she still alive, and treated nicely? It's because here, the TRUE laws of Islam are implemented, not the crap you people assume. If she is in need, according to the law here, she will be given compensation from the government funds until such a time she can be independent.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

This is the second time you have laughed in response to a quote about the oppression of women, except this time you are laughing at their execution.

Take my advice, go to 10th grade again and study reading comprehension. I laughed at YOU, because you seem to think that Islamic laws are being applied more accurately and correctly than in Saudi Arabia. sheesh. Look at my post again :

You think Afghanistan is a bigger stronghold of Islam than Saudi Arabia? You make me laugh.

Did I say, "Oh really, those women got killed? HAR HAR HAR HAR!!!!" or anything along the lines of that? Seems to me like you are taking random pieces of my posts and taking them as answers to random questions that you ask. We are not playing mixer here.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

You are painting an awfully wicked picture of yourself.

No, YOU are painting a false and awfully wicked picture of me.

Originally Posted by lucidmax15895

You have degraded yourself. Im glad there is a record here of what you have written, that way everyone can judge for themselves.

Here's me thinking about your insults :
Man, you are taking the wrong point of my posts, and then establishing by your own that I am a corrupt guy or something. Oh well.

Okay, so much for the quality stuff in your posts. Now I am gonna single the crap out and reply it with crap.

Honestly I don't think you even know what you are arguing because you change your argument every time I challenge you.

dude, we are arguing different things simultaneously here, it's not my fault if your brain is messing it all up. I respond to your latest arguments, and change them if you have a new argument.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

Why do you insult my intelligence lucidmax? Are you trying to play me for a fool? I know what the fuck I am saying and I know what the fuck you are trying to say.

I am not trying to. I am not playing you for a fool. I know what the fuck I am saying and what the fuck you are saying. I don't agree with it, but you seem to think I don't get it.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

don't push this on me.

lol. YOU are the one pushing you're invalid and nonsensical theory on ME, I am just trying to reason with you.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

Im gonna start pulling my hair out and bang my head against a wall.

YAY!!! Really? By all means, go ahead. Maybe it will take some of that super genius english away and make you more understandable.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

I think that are equal with you in their wrongness.

And I am disagreeing with it. I don't kill people for nothing, heck, I don't kill people for anything. How can you say that we are equal in wrongness? I am no perfect saint, but I certainly am not as evil as them.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

What you don't seem to understand is that "ambiguous" means it "can have more than one meaning."

*sigh* Again with the 'my english is better than yours" attitude. Dude, I have lived part of my life in an english country, and I got the highest marks for english in the WHOLE of Dammam in my exams, and that includes freak-o-zoids like you, too. It's just that no one else uses you're kind of irrational and flamboyant talk.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

I'm on to you now lucidmax. I've seen your games before. You drive people to insanity with your circular arguments and then you criticize them when they finally snap. Why do you do that?

Yeah! You got it right! And you are the one who makes a completely irrational statement, argues persistently about it while ignoring the point of other's, and then use your so called first language english to degrade and show them for fools. Why do you do that?

You can stop playing yourself off as a decent guy now. You've let your true personality show multiple times in this thread.

You are starting to look desperate. Like an animal trapped in a corner.

I have your post in writing. It's up above for everyone to see, so you can stop trying to save face now.

Im glad there is a record here of what you have written, that way everyone can judge for themselves.

Yeah!!! My personality is EVIL!!! Say whatever you want about me, a guy insulting me with a bunch of bytes and pixels who is thousands of miles apart will have less affect on me than a fly buzzing in my year.

This thread is getting nowhere. Now please, let's just stop. We are both busy men, and we can't change anything in the world by arguing about it here.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

I have showed frustration only because we have been arguing in circles for three pages now.

If you are frustrated and think we are arguing in circles, please leave this thread, and don't argue. What? I am arguing? Okay, I will stop. If you post "I am stopping this argument." then I will stop and make peace, and will ignore whatever conflicts or differences there are between us. It's a truce. If you don't wanna make the first move, then I will. I apologize for anything I said that may have offended. Please stop this argument. There. That's my line.




On to Mark75 :

Originally Posted by Mark75

You were considering them as an alternative religion? That's interesting. Assuming you didn't convert, what made you decide they were not real? How did you prove that they don't exist? What made you consider them in the first place?

Actually, I was looking on Greek and Roman Gods online to see the how much truth or sensible things they contain. I was disappointed, though. Want an example? I know that there is no God who pulls the sun's chariot across the sky, so it definitely isn't real. They are religions that have been proved unreal by science. What made me consider them in the first place? Curiosity and boredom.

Originally Posted by Mark75

"I can say that religious people are wrong because if there was a god who really cared about what we did and wanted us to believe in him and follow his rules, he would make it entirely clear what his rules are and that he exists."

I don't think so. Atheist believe they have no concrete evidence about the existence of God, and of course, the statement above, but for me, the wisdom and the divine message in the Holy scriptures is enough evidence. It's a spiritual thing. By all means, I can be wrong, but I believe in that, whether or not I have proof.
My response to your statement is that while it is not wrong, it's not my viewpoint.

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

What kind of an asshole would think that god is a wishing well?

And, as far as the existence or non-existence of "God", it is written in the Judeo-Christian Scripture how to communicate with and prove the existence of the same.

Of course, it is also written that this path would have to wait till the Second Comming, because the second comming is not the particular prophets involved but how they got to be prophets. i.e. the second comming is "God". The prophets are the witnesses! duh. What is lucid dreaming anyway? Does anyone know?

or so it would seem.

Um, sorry, but the only thing I can extract from your post that makes sense is this :

What kind of an asshole would think that god is a wishing well?

Well, no one takes God for a wishing well. If you are talking about atheists, you have to understand that they have no solid proof or any valid reason to believe in God, so they would obviously, as would I, wish for some sort of proof, message or indication that there really is a God. We can't hold them wrong.

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

In relation to the environment, the human mind has a particular function, to produce human will such that that will maintains and promotes the life of the individual. This means that just like any other human body acquisition system it can be rated against its function.

This means that we can rate a persons so called belief systems against the function of the individuals mind.

A person can speak the most fundamental truth "I am a human being." Or speak a lie "I am a Christian, a Jew, a Muslim, etc." for the one is aimed at seeing the singularity of the human condition in all men within the vast environment which all men must subdue to survive, while the other is aimed at pitting man against man--with the results--not of life but of death.

The choice of what a man is can be clearly seen and anticipated when, instead of saying I AM, he says instead, I am that.

Sure, whatever God is, is real: but either IT can teach us to be men, or it can simply be ignored. The point is, there is nothing in the environment, even belief or gods, which can negate the fundamental truth;--we are responsible for our own actions. We will live by them, or we will die because of them. If, what ever this God is, decides to do anything at all, the same applies as well, or ill.

Uh, yeah. What you said. It's pretty deep stuff, you know.

Originally Posted by lucidmax15895

Uh, yeah. What you said. It's pretty deep stuff, you know.

Oh, at least as deep as dew, I trust.

Ok some of the problems in Caprisun - Lucidmax debate:

Lucidmax

- You must understand that Caprisun regards religions and ideologies (as I see it, sorry if not) in a relativist point of view. He isn't arguing about who is right or wrong, because he takes the fact that it all depends on the perspective. You and the terrorists are both Muslims. I'm sorry if you think that you are the real one, but the fact is you are all under one flag. You ask if Buddhism becomes a violent religion if you use it for vile purpose... yes it is! You see, there is no "true religion", there are just religious interpretations. Depending on the main source of the religious conviction, the person does things under a certain flag, that's how he is seen by others. Some Zen monk during WWII wrote a military type of Zen. A way to achieve Buddha nature, through military discipline, to take life as a whole in a meditative way, to rid yourself of ego, so when you decapitate some stranger it is just an action, an illusion, an interaction between objects with no substance. Now the main reason for Buddha to "create" Buddhism was to rid humanity of suffering. So most would see this military Zen way as heresy, but non the less, you can't deny the role such a Buddhist philosophy would have in the mind of a soldier doing his duty.

-You said that a terrorist is brainwashed into thinking that killing is good. I don't know what proof you have of this, but surely you understand that without their religious belief, they wouldn't have anything to kill for. Most people who are brainwashed or indoctrinated will never break free. So talking about a hypothetical scenario where we instantly strip a Muslim terrorists of his religious beliefs is sort of useless, seeing how integrated they are into peoples minds.

-Then another thing was the Danish cartoonist issue. I agree that you have a right to call the bastards. But lets face it... saying that it's their fault they got killed is stupid. If there is one thing humanity for the sake of its individuals should agree is that humans have free will and a responsibility for their actions. Otherwise, if I stab you in the chest, I can say that it's your fault if you die because it's your body that is bleeding. It's stupidity. It's some sort of transference of cause and blame that just can't be accepted if we want a functional global society. The Muslim terrorists who kill because of the drawings aren't a "force of nature" without a mind or consciousness. They aren't like a fire or a tsunami or a meteor.

They have responsibility for their actions. If you want to call the cartoonists bastards, that's your right... BUT If you say that it's their fault they got killed, then I say that it's Muhammad's fault the "blasphemous" cartoons were made, since without him there would be no such thing as Islam, and nobody would be offended by the hypothetical cartoons.

Originally Posted by Bonsay

Ok some of the problems in Caprisun - Lucidmax debate:

Lucidmax

- You must understand that Caprisun regards religions and ideologies (as I see it, sorry if not) in a relativist point of view. He isn't arguing about who is right or wrong, because he takes the fact that it all depends on the perspective. You and the terrorists are both Muslims. I'm sorry if you think that you are the real one, but the fact is you are all under one flag. You ask if Buddhism becomes a violent religion if you use it for vile purpose... yes it is! You see, there is no "true religion", there are just religious interpretations. Depending on the main source of the religious conviction, the person does things under a certain flag, that's how he is seen by others. Some Zen monk during WWII wrote a military type of Zen. A way to achieve Buddha nature, through military discipline, to take life as a whole in a meditative way, to rid yourself of ego, so when you decapitate some stranger it is just an action, an illusion, an interaction between objects with no substance. Now the main reason for Buddha to "create" Buddhism was to rid humanity of suffering. So most would see this military Zen way as heresy, but non the less, you can't deny the role such a Buddhist philosophy would have in the mind of a soldier doing his duty.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by Bonsay

-You said that a terrorist is brainwashed into thinking that killing is good. I don't know what proof you have of this, but surely you understand that without their religious belief, they wouldn't have anything to kill for. Most people who are brainwashed or indoctrinated will never break free. So talking about a hypothetical scenario where we instantly strip a Muslim terrorists of his religious beliefs is sort of useless, seeing how integrated they are into peoples minds.

Actually, they are brainwashed USING Islam, that is, the idea that they will go to heaven after suicide bombing in a particular place is firmly etched into their minds. They no longer have any sensible consious thought, and all they can think of is heaven they will (supposedly) be going to. Proof? Man, I have seen this first hand in Pakistan.

Originally Posted by Bonsay

-Then another thing was the Danish cartoonist issue. I agree that you have a right to call the bastards. But lets face it... saying that it's their fault they got killed is stupid. If there is one thing humanity for the sake of its individuals should agree is that humans have free will and a responsibility for their actions. Otherwise, if I stab you in the chest, I can say that it's your fault if you die because it's your body that is bleeding. It's stupidity. It's some sort of transference of cause and blame that just can't be accepted if we want a functional global society. The Muslim terrorists who kill because of the drawings aren't a "force of nature" without a mind or consciousness. They aren't like a fire or a tsunami or a meteor.

They have responsibility for their actions. If you want to call the cartoonists bastards, that's your right... BUT If you say that it's their fault they got killed, then I say that it's Muhammad's fault the "blasphemous" cartoons were made, since without him there would be no such thing as Islam, and nobody would be offended by the hypothetical cartoons.

You misunderstand my point is well. Just forget for a second I said it's their fault for getting killed, because it seems to have stuck to your minds, and ponder this statement. "They did something they knew that could pose a potential threat to their lives consciously and knowingly, and that's why some of it is also their fault, as they wouldn't have gotten killed if they didn't do so."
It's almost like suicide. I mean, why touch the electric socket with a wet hand when you know you will get electrocuted? Getting electrocuted is in no way a "punishment" for touching the socket, but it is AT LEAST somewhat your fault for touching the socket in the first place.
That's all i am trying to say.
Get what I mean?

Originally Posted by lucidmax15895

You misunderstand my point is well. Just forget for a second I said it's their fault for getting killed, because it seems to have stuck to your minds, and ponder this statement. "They did something they knew that could pose a potential threat to their lives consciously and knowingly, and that's why some of it is also their fault, as they wouldn't have gotten killed if they didn't do so."
It's almost like suicide. I mean, why touch the electric socket with a wet hand when you know you will get electrocuted? Getting electrocuted is in no way a "punishment" for touching the socket, but it is AT LEAST somewhat your fault for touching the socket in the first place.
That's all i am trying to say.
Get what I mean?

I know what you're trying to say. I know that a black man going into some Nazi hangout is asking to be killed. I'm not saying that such an aspect of choice doesn't exist.

- What I'm saying though is that this is a dishonest judgement to make in this discussion. Because we already know this. So I'll say it again. If somebody jumps into an enclosure filled with hungry tigers, we blame the man, because tigers are "just hungry animals" and they do what they do.
For humans, most of us regard each other with a sense of intrinsic respect. I acknowledge your presence as something more than just an object, I see you as a soul, consciousness etc. This brings with it, in our society, a sense of responsibility for ones actions. This is the main point.

So we say Hitler is the evil mastermind, the killer is the killer, the paedophile rapist is the paedophile rapist. We don't beat around the bush when something what we regard as "real life" needs action. So I repeat, it's unjust to blame the cartoonist, just as it is unjust to blame Muhammad for the cartoons. The cartoonist's only action was the drawing, the reaction was made by the angry Muslims. There is no other way to see this if we want some sort of stability in this global society.

- One could argue that the angry Muslims are just like hungry tigers. Each are animals (all humans, not just Muslims ) with a response to the environment based on some internal need (food/cognitive or emotional satisfaction). But before one strides into this area, one must be prepared to face the full reality of equating the mind of an animal with the "soul" and thus bringing the human experience down from the clouds of religions to what some see as "cold hard material reality". This is being discussed in some philosophy threads and I don't want this thread to be hijacked. So yeah, just FYI on this. So we're careful not to equate human beings with "inanimate, unconscious, natural forces" in this thread - Responsibility must apply.

Spectacular post, and splendidly well put. I can't, and won't disagree with any of your statements, they are all dead on. Thanks for that.

Originally Posted by lucidmax15895

Actually, I was looking on Greek and Roman Gods online to see the how much truth or sensible things they contain. I was disappointed, though. Want an example? I know that there is no God who pulls the sun's chariot across the sky, so it definitely isn't real. They are religions that have been proved unreal by science. What made me consider them in the first place? Curiosity and boredom.

That was a metaphor. You took that out of context. It was a parable. Apollo works in mysterious ways.

Good call. It's just the way we know that the idea that the first man was made of dust and the first woman was made from his rib is stupid and makes no sense. Not to mention the reproductive issues after that generation. All religious myths are like this; Ridiculous stories that can be discarded at not much more than a glance.

Originally Posted by lucidmax15895

I don't think so. Atheist believe they have no concrete evidence about the existence of God, and of course, the statement above, but for me, the wisdom and the divine message in the Holy scriptures is enough evidence. It's a spiritual thing. By all means, I can be wrong, but I believe in that, whether or not I have proof.
My response to your statement is that while it is not wrong, it's not my viewpoint.

Do you have a specific objection to my conclusion or do you just not like how it sounds? It doesn't matter that the scriptures are enough for you. It matters that they are not enough for everybody. Why does your god not care?

Originally Posted by Mark75

That was a metaphor. You took that out of context. It was a parable. Apollo works in mysterious ways.

Good call. It's just the way we know that the idea that the first man was made of dust and the first woman was made from his rib is stupid and makes no sense. Not to mention the reproductive issues after that generation. All religious myths are like this; Ridiculous stories that can be discarded at not much more than a glance.

If so, then WHY are these religions still alive. It's because even the making of Adam from clay cannot be entirely proven wrong. It is known for a fact that humans are composed of similar compounds compared to clay, so the theory is still not proven wrong. Also, the existence of God has not been proven to be incorrect.
Regarding the Greek mythologies, well, they have been proven wrong. We know for a fact that the earth orbits the sun, not the opposite, and it's the rotation of the earth that causes the day and night. It's certainly not Apollo pulling sun across the planet. Similarly, other myths like that can also be proven to be entirely wrong.

Originally Posted by Mark75

Do you have a specific objection to my conclusion or do you just not like how it sounds? It doesn't matter that the scriptures are enough for you. It matters that they are not enough for everybody.

As I said, I have no specific objection, it's just that my beliefs and yours differ.

Originally Posted by Mark75

Why does your god not care?

To be honest, I am in no position to answer that, as I have, I confess, no solid evidence nor the means to communicate with God. Time will tell us who was right and who was wrong. If I die and get wiped out of existence, as you say, then so much for me. If there actually WAS a soul inside me, then I would also come to know that eventually. Frankly, I am powerless to do anything about it. If I was following the wrong religion, and ended up in hell, it's because I don't have any proof. Same goes for you. All of our beliefs are based on assumptions. Time will reveal the truth. We can't do anything about it, no matter how much we argue about it here.

You are really testing my patience here lucidmax. If I didn't have any reservations about insulting you, I could make you look like a giant fucking idiot right now. I kick myself everytime I get into a debate with somebody like you, but now Im stuck and I can't back out. Im not satisfied with calling this a "truce," since that would imply that your line of reasoning was as equally valid as mine, and that just isn't the case. So you can expect some more "first language English cleverness" out of me.

You keep shouting, quite abnoxiously, "I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE SAYING!" But then, in the same breath, you say something that affirms beyond any question of a doubt that you, in fact, do not understand what I am saying. As you so famously like to say, "just because you say it's true, doesn't mean it is true." If you really understood what I was saying, you wouldn't continue on with your argument as you have because you would have realized long ago that your logic is completely invalid. This doesn't mean that I am infallable, Im just an average college student with average intelligence. What I mean is that I have presented some very simple, concrete realities that you just flat refuse to acknowledge. That is the source of all of our misunderstanding. I am trying to move this discussion forward but you keep regressing to the same faulty logic.

You also keep throwing words out there like "irrational," or other names that you have no basis for using(if Im not mistaken, you also called me a racist.) If there is one quality that I possess, it is rationality. I may lack in other areas, but I am always rational. You should view me as an outside observer, untainted by any other organized religion. Like an alien floating in space above the Middle East, objectively observing. Of course I have my own biases, but you being a Muslim yourself, you are severly biased towards your own viewpoint, and it shows. You may think I am hostile towards your viewpoint, since you keep pleading that I consider your own view (as if I haven't already done that,) but if that's true, it is equally true for the opposing viewpoint. Keep that in mind.

(I would also appreciate it if you didn't quote every individual line. It is very annoying and it also makes it more likely that you will take me out of context, which it appears you already have.)

Originally Posted by lucidmax15895

How can you say that? Have you read up on Islamic laws? What technicalities? As far as I am aware, the terrorists aren't right. It's because according to Quran and Hadith, killing innocents is not allowed. When it is clearly written, then how can you say that they are Muslims? It's not a matter of misinterpretations and different viewpoints, it's the simple matter of them CLEARLY going against the rules. Then, by all proper intents and purposes, by all real laws and technicalities, they are not Muslim.
I am not trying to project my beliefs onto anyone. I have read the Quran, and it was simple enough to understand that it does not allow the slaughter of innocents. Frankly, you are in an even less of a position to tell which one of us is more or less wrong, and neither which one of us is more correct, because you are debating without having actually read the Quran OR the Hadith, and are solely relying on what OTHERS say. Wouldn't it be better to gain some first-hand experience?

Did you not watch any of the videos from my last post? Muslim extremists frequently quote the Quran to point out the specific passages that call for their jihad. Not having read the Quran myself, I can't tell you how to find these passages, but can't we agree that they must exist, since there would otherwise not be such a problem with violent extremism? Afghanistan is a Muslim country ruled by Muslim law, and so are the rest of the Middle Eastern countries. Afghanistan is not the only country with human rights problems. You laughed when I read you the definition of "ambiguous," as you frequently do when you are challenged, but to me, it doesn't seem like you fully grasp it's meaning. So here you go:

Ambiguous 1: open to or having several possible meanings or interpretations; equivocal: an ambiguous answer.

Ambiguous 2: of doubtful or uncertain nature; difficult to comprehend, distinguish, or classify: a rock of ambiguous character.

Ambiguous 3: lacking clearness or definiteness; obscure; indistinct: an ambiguous shape; an ambiguous future.

As you can see, the Quran, being an ambiguous book, can have passages with more than one meaning. But you, in your unbending arrogance, refuse to recognize any other interpretation but your own. You have no valid argument for believing so, and indeed you never can (but I bet you will still try.) This is the concrete reality I speak of. For your argument, it is a road block of infinite height and infinite width. You can never get around it. You have repeated "They are wrong, they are wrong , they are wrong." And your reasoning? "That's what I think," or "that's what I believe." What am I supposed to do with that? I don't care what you think or what you believe. I only care about what can be known. You have said on more than one occasion, "just because they think they are right, doesn't mean they are." BRILLIANT! What you don't realize, is that I can turn every one of your arguments around in favor of the extremists, and they would be equally valid (or invalid rather.) OPEN YOUR EYES! For the love of Allah. You're killing me.

Originally Posted by lucidmax15895

What actually matters is if what they are doing is actually right in the ORIGINAL and PROPER rules of Islam, not whether they THINK they are.

Do you see now? Please say yes.

Originally Posted by lucidmax15895

Also, :

"It doesn't matter how many people believe it, the numbers don't make it truer."

"Just because someone believes he is right, doesn't necessarily mean that he is."

How the HELL do these quotes invalidate my argument? They are two completely different things.

Fine.

"It doesn't matter how many people believe it, the numbers don't make it truer"

This is your argument for why the extremists are wrong. They have a large following, one that is only getting bigger. You say that because a lot of people believe it, doesn't make it true, as if I care either way. So what makes your view right? The numbers? Because you have a bigger following, you are right? You are falling into your own trap but you are too closed minded to realize it.

"Just because someone believes he is right, doesn't necessarily mean that he is."

Another nugget of gold. Hopefully by now you know what I am about to do. Just because you believe you are right, doesn't mean you are. Yet, you expect me to accept that as a valid argument.

Originally Posted by lucidmax15895

If so, then I am gonna convert to Buddhism, then I will believe that it tells me to kill people, whether it does or not, and then kill people. That way, Buddhism is a violent religion. Don't try to disagree now. This is exactly what you are saying.

Judaism, eh? i KNEW it was something like that.

Do you want me to post the definition of "analogy" as well? You still don't get it. The radical Islam movement consists of more than one solitary, angry, Muslim man.

Originally Posted by lucidmax15895

Yeah. And people also have the right to know religions' good qualities. What racist people do is to show all negatives, while completely disregarding the good aspects. I KNOW that mentioning that would invalidate their argument, but then again, it gives a false idea of the religion. People need to actually read the scriptures, instead of relying on what biased racists say.

You must have skipped over this part:

"I think maybe I should attribute this to the language/culture barrier. Then again, you have already failed three times at making a valid analogy, which is why it is not suprising that you've misunderstood me. This was my analogy, the first legitimate one in our discusssion, and it went *wishhhh*straight over your head. I don't think schools should show Hitler in a positive light. Why on Earth would I want that? It wrongfully draws attention away from his crimes against humanity and belittles the impact they had on Europe and the world. Soon people would forget about the Holocaust altogether and Hitler would be remembered as a decent guy."

Originally Posted by lucidmax15895

YOU ARE GETTING ME WRONG! The Danish cartoonists are "bastards" because they insult other religions. Why can't they stay quiet? I have all the right to curse anyone who insults anything. If anyone comes up and bluntly starts to degrade atheists, I would also call him a bastard. Do you have a problem with that? And, "it's their fault they got killed." because they KNEW they could be killed because of doing so, then WHY DO IT IN THE FIRST PLACE? I don't say that ANY sort of punishment towards cartoonists is okay, but dude, if I know that I will get a sniper in my head for shouting "I have a bomb!" in front of the FBI headquarters, WHY THE HELL WOULD I SHOUT IT? Even if they think Islam is wrong, then why not stay quiet if they know it could pose a threat to their lives? It's their fault because consciously did something the know would put their lives in danger. I am not saying that it's their fault because they made cartoons and they should be killed. READING COMPREHENSION, YOU ENGLISH SPEAKER!! you don't get what I say, do you?

I understand you perfectly. Instead of sympathizing with a man who was horrifically murdered for an unjust cause, you called him a bastard and said it was his fault he got killed, and you still say it. You only think I misunderstand you because I see that as a dispicable thing to say, but you weren't expecting that reaction because you don't think it is such a bad thing to say. Welcome to the civilized world.

Originally Posted by lucidmax15895

I didn't laugh about the oppression of women, I laughed at the fact that you seem to think oppression of women exists in Islam. There is no such thing. Care to give me a reference from some Muslim women? Go ahead.
Don't take the wrong meaning. I am not trying to save face. I don't have to. I was trying to make you understand what I am trying to say. Frankly, I don't care even if it DOES get spread out to DV, and I get hated all over the forum. Because I didn't say that, and I don't mean I like what terrorists are doing. You are misunderstanding me. If it's because of the language barrier, I think you are TOO expert in English to get the point of normal people. Go do a P.H.D. or something and leave me alone, because other than you, everyone get's the point of my posts.

No, you said, "Oh, and for the record, "oppression of women"? Don't make me laugh." That was for the "record," remember? I'm an honest person unlike you, I wouldn't represent your statements for anything but what they really were.

Here's your references if you are really that ignorant:

http://www.terrorismawareness.org/vi...omen-in-islam/

http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate/women.html

http://www.primechoice.com/philosoph...ages/women.htm

That was all from the first page of google.

Originally Posted by lucidmax15895

What makes me say that? Do you want me to show you some of the more gruesome videos that contain the horrible deeds of terrorists? Do you look at their eyes? Have you ever seen any pity or regret on those faces? They undergo such brainwashing that it's almost like they think killing is good. Rather, they DO think killing is good. Their brain is manipulated to such a degree that it would be hard to undo it. If he is let free, he would eventually end up killing people nevertheless.

Please lucidmax. The look in their eyes? The killing is good because it is God's wish, it wouldn't be good with out the attachment of God. Why don't you just come clean for once and admit that you don't know if they would become serial killers when they lost their faith.

Originally Posted by lucidmax15895

Free speech my ass. I accept free speech as in being free to express your views, but I think free speech as in insulting other religion and running through the street saying to everyone around "FUCK YOU!! It's freedom of speech." is a bunch of crap. You guys need to be more polite, you know that? Freedom of speech. Cheh. It's more like abusing the freedom of speech.
And speaking of Middle East, be assured that I can express my opinions here however I want, but I cannot, and wouldn't, use my freedom to insult others.

This is how I would expect a Muslim to view free speech. A nuisance. A liberty that you wish you could take away from Westerners. I don't condone using free speech for the sake of insulting someone just because you can, and neither do most people. The people who do that are inconsiderate assholes and they are treated as such by the rest of the world. The Danish cartoonists however, did it not because they thought it would be funny to insult Islam, they did it to combat a very serious issue. It is a very serious problem when the threat of death exists for insulting a religion. It needs to be squashed before it gets out of hand. If everybody started drawing Mohammed, there would be too many for the Muslims to murder and they would stop issuing bounties for the heads of people who draw Mohammed. Therefore the Danish cartoonist's actions were heroic. Why is Islam special? No other religion is like that. People make fun of the Pope all the time, people speak out against all other religions. But Islam? No, that is a serious offense. You deserve to die if you insult Islam. Why are you so insecure?

Originally Posted by lucidmax15895

And you say that English is your first language?

You are assuming this:

"You think it's ok to imprison people for premarital sex if the jail is nice?"

Originally Posted by lucidmax15895

"you don't think couples should be free to have sex before they are married."

I never claimed any of these. It's just you and your "better than others" English, dude.
Let me say it again. Saudi Arabia has strict laws. It doesn't have oppression of women, nor any of the absurd, presumed enforced laws you talk about, but it strictly doesn't allow any indecent act. KEEPING THAT IN MIND, it's a pretty light punishment. IF THEY FOLLOWED THE LAWS YOU THINK ARE ISLAMIC, SHE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DEAD NOW. Why is she still alive, and treated nicely? It's because here, the TRUE laws of Islam are implemented, not the crap you people assume. If she is in need, according to the law here, she will be given compensation from the government funds until such a time she can be independent.

This really isn't a good showing for you lucidmax. You are supposed to represent the good Muslims. You keep making jokes about my literacy (I have no idea why,) while you remain blissfully unaware of how horribly you are misconstruing my words. It is pretty funny if you think about it, but not for the reasons you think. I wouldn't be so cocky if I were you.

"Oh, and jails here are not at all what you think they are. They are separate rooms, with air conditioning, good meals, washing facilities, a bed, and television. It's not THAT harsh, you know."

"I have personally gone through at least five or more cases where the couple practicing premarital intercourse were let off with a few weeks in prison. The punishments are not as harsh as you think they are."

The proof is in the pudding. What do you have to say for yourself now? You think it is ok to send a couple to jail for having premarital sex, as long as the jail has air conditioning and a tv of course.

Originally Posted by lucidmax15895

Take my advice, go to 10th grade again and study reading comprehension. I laughed at YOU, because you seem to think that Islamic laws are being applied more accurately and correctly than in Saudi Arabia. sheesh. Look at my post again :

"You think Afghanistan is a bigger stronghold of Islam than Saudi Arabia? You make me laugh."


Did I say, "Oh really, those women got killed? HAR HAR HAR HAR!!!!" or anything along the lines of that? Seems to me like you are taking random pieces of my posts and taking them as answers to random questions that you ask. We are not playing mixer here.

Why, when I talk about the execution of two women in Afghanistan, do you think I am taking a jab at Saudi Arabia? Why do you brush it off as if it is no big deal? You can't say that Saudi Arabia practices "true" Muslim law, while Afghanistan does not, for the obvious reason that it can't really be known what "true" Muslim law is. (Please, please, please do not make me explain it agian.)

Originally Posted by lucidmax15895

No, YOU are painting a false and awfully wicked picture of me.

I've used exact quotes and I haven't made anything up. Therefore you are the only person who could paint that picture.

Originally Posted by lucidmax15895

If so, then WHY are these religions still alive. It's because even the making of Adam from clay cannot be entirely proven wrong. It is known for a fact that humans are composed of similar compounds compared to clay, so the theory is still not proven wrong. Also, the existence of God has not been proven to be incorrect.

Can you entirely prove that Zeus is not the source of lightning or that he does not exist? Sure we may be aware of the meteorological conditions that cause lightning, but who's to say that Zeus is not somehow magically responsible for arranging those conditions in such a way that he causes lightning to strike in exactly the places he wants?

Originally Posted by lucidmax15895

Regarding the Greek mythologies, well, they have been proven wrong. We know for a fact that the earth orbits the sun, not the opposite, and it's the rotation of the earth that causes the day and night. It's certainly not Apollo pulling sun across the planet. Similarly, other myths like that can also be proven to be entirely wrong.

Well, you're only disproving the literal interpretation. We all know that god didn't literally make the universe over a course of a few days some few thousand years ago, the universe is much older than that. And yes, it is disproven that the first human was not made of dirt, as we know that we evolved from earlier species.

Originally Posted by lucidmax15895

As I said, I have no specific objection, it's just that my beliefs and yours differ.

But why? By what standard do you hold your belief that there is such a god? How do you see that it makes more sense to say that there is a god who wants us to believe in him and follow his rules and yet doesn't seem to care that so many of us don't even consider his rules? Even considering that he wants us to have "free will" it does not make sense. We're hardly "choosing" to not follow his rules when to us they simply appear to be human inventions based on ancient myths. How do you resolve this contradiction?

Originally Posted by lucidmax15895

All of our beliefs are based on assumptions.

You're really not making a very good case for your beliefs when you say things like that.

Mark75 "Can you entirely prove that Zeus is not the source of lightning or that he does not exist? "

Proving is a grammatical process. The foundation of Grammar rests upon a convention of names which stems from a thing in the environment from which abstractions can be made in order to name the the source of the abstraction. IT does not mean to produce the abstractable, for prior to the absractable, a series of letters is not a name--the appearance of language is not the same as the reality.

Predicataion is no more than adhering or not to the physical process of abstaction, i.e. the convention by which things and their elements are named. (abstractrion means to acquire--some say "to know")

Is that a no?

Originally Posted by Caprisun

You are really testing my patience here lucidmax. If I didn't have any reservations about insulting you, I could make you look like a giant fucking idiot right now. I kick myself everytime I get into a debate with somebody like you, but now Im stuck and I can't back out. Im not satisfied with calling this a "truce," since that would imply that your line of reasoning was as equally valid as mine, and that just isn't the case. So you can expect some more "first language English cleverness" out of me.

man............Okay, don't agree with my views. It's not a truce, I will be the one to back away. I don't have to prove my beliefs to anyone, and certainly not you. If you want to end this argument peacefully, leaving out any hatred towards one another, then please, DO NOT read further than this. Just say you will end this argument, and that's that.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

You keep shouting, quite abnoxiously, "I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE SAYING!" But then, in the same breath, you say something that affirms beyond any question of a doubt that you, in fact, do not understand what I am saying. As you so famously like to say, "just because you say it's true, doesn't mean it is true." If you really understood what I was saying, you wouldn't continue on with your argument as you have because you would have realized long ago that your logic is completely invalid. This doesn't mean that I am infallable, Im just an average college student with average intelligence. What I mean is that I have presented some very simple, concrete realities that you just flat refuse to acknowledge. That is the source of all of our misunderstanding. I am trying to move this discussion forward but you keep regressing to the same faulty logic.

Caprisun, do me a favor and present you arguments clearly and precisely. Say exactly what you want to ask, what you want to be explained, or what you disagree with, and I shall reply accordingly. How do you expect me to reply sensibly when you keep pointing so very vaguely towards your point? Say it simply, and if possible, limit your questions to two or three sentences. I believe it will make us BOTH easier to understand.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

You also keep throwing words out there like "irrational," or other names that you have no basis for using(if Im not mistaken, you also called me a racist.) If there is one quality that I possess, it is rationality. I may lack in other areas, but I am always rational. You should view me as an outside observer, untainted by any other organized religion. Like an alien floating in space above the Middle East, objectively observing. Of course I have my own biases, but you being a Muslim yourself, you are severly biased towards your own viewpoint, and it shows. You may think I am hostile towards your viewpoint, since you keep pleading that I consider your own view (as if I haven't already done that,) but if that's true, it is equally true for the opposing viewpoint. Keep that in mind.

If you really had considered my viewpoint, then you wouldn't be speaking like this. Again, be precise about your questions. Vague questions will only get vague answers. How do you expect me to understand or even know what your point is?

Originally Posted by Caprisun

Did you not watch any of the videos from my last post? Muslim extremists frequently quote the Quran to point out the specific passages that call for their jihad. Not having read the Quran myself, I can't tell you how to find these passages, but can't we agree that they must exist, since there would otherwise not be such a problem with violent extremism? Afghanistan is a Muslim country ruled by Muslim law, and so are the rest of the Middle Eastern countries. Afghanistan is not the only country with human rights problems. You laughed when I read you the definition of "ambiguous," as you frequently do when you are challenged, but to me, it doesn't seem like you fully grasp it's meaning. So here you go:

Ambiguous 1: open to or having several possible meanings or interpretations; equivocal: an ambiguous answer.

Ambiguous 2: of doubtful or uncertain nature; difficult to comprehend, distinguish, or classify: a rock of ambiguous character.

Ambiguous 3: lacking clearness or definiteness; obscure; indistinct: an ambiguous shape; an ambiguous future.

As you can see, the Quran, being an ambiguous book, can have passages with more than one meaning. But you, in your unbending arrogance, refuse to recognize any other interpretation but your own. You have no valid argument for believing so, and indeed you never can (but I bet you will still try.) This is the concrete reality I speak of. For your argument, it is a road block of infinite height and infinite width. You can never get around it. You have repeated "They are wrong, they are wrong , they are wrong." And your reasoning? "That's what I think," or "that's what I believe." What am I supposed to do with that? I don't care what you think or what you believe. I only care about what can be known. You have said on more than one occasion, "just because they think they are right, doesn't mean they are." BRILLIANT! What you don't realize, is that I can turn every one of your arguments around in favor of the extremists, and they would be equally valid (or invalid rather.) OPEN YOUR EYES! For the love of Allah. You're killing me.

My arrogance? Haven't I already accepted the atheists' beliefs to be correct in their own way, and haven't I accepted your statement, "They are equal to you in their wrongness"? It seems to me like you are the one not reading my posts properly.
I have no valid argument for believing my interpretation is correct? What the fuck? I already said that I don't have any such authority to back up my interpretations. Are you even reading what I have typed? And OF COURSE I will argue that terrorists are wrong. According to me, they are sinning. According to you, we are both wrong. Isn't it YOU who is trying to force me into accepting that? Of course I will say that they are wrong, because in my viewpoint, the ARE wrong, and are not real Muslims. Accepting that they are right, OR that I am "equal to them in my wrongness", would not only destroy the basis of my argument, but also my belief.
You keep repeating, "You and the terrosits are equally wrong." and your basis is, "I THINK they and you are equally wrong. Your arguments in proving my posts wrong are even more shaky than mine.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

I don't care what you think or what you believe. I only care about what can be known.

You just shot yourself in the foot. Earlier, you were saying that terrorists are just as true Muslims as me because they BELIEVE so, and now you are saying that "I don't care what you believe."
If you really do care about the known, then read the Quran yourself, or at least a part of it, decipher it on your own, and then use your own interpretation to judge, not the interpretations of others. You seem to be a decent guy, and I bet you will arrive at the same conclusion as me, which is, terrorists are not real Muslims because they are not following the rules of Islam.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

Do you see now? Please say yes.

Yes. FYI, THIS is the point I was trying to get through to you the whole time. But according to you, terrorists are just as much Muslim as me because they believe so. Why the change of opinion, Caprisun?Your agreement to my statement and your previous argument are completely at odds with each other.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

"It doesn't matter how many people believe it, the numbers don't make it truer"

This is your argument for why the extremists are wrong. They have a large following, one that is only getting bigger. You say that because a lot of people believe it, doesn't make it true, as if I care either way. So what makes your view right? The numbers? Because you have a bigger following, you are right? You are falling into your own trap but you are too closed minded to realize it.

sigh.........And how the hell did you arrive at that conclusion? I said, I COULD be wrong, because I confess I have no means of proving I am right. I believe I am right, and I don't care if you accept my views or not. Different people, different opinions. Deal with it. That's why I said in the first place that this argument cannot go anywhere.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

"Just because someone believes he is right, doesn't necessarily mean that he is."

Another nugget of gold. Hopefully by now you know what I am about to do. Just because you believe you are right, doesn't mean you are. Yet, you expect me to accept that as a valid argument.

Yeah, and that applies on the terrorists as well. Just because they THINK they are doing the work of God, doesn't mean they ARE doing the work of God. Your previous and present arguments contradict each other.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

Do you want me to post the definition of "analogy" as well? You still don't get it. The radical Islam movement consists of more than one solitary, angry, Muslim man.

And yet, even if a billion people say that Islam tells then to kill non-believers or Muhammad cartoonists, it doesn't make it true. You told me that numbers are not acceptable as a basis for my beliefs, and yet you constantly say that the MAJORITY of Muslims thinks so and so, and that's why it's true. What are you doing, exactly? You are completely saying the opposite of your previous statements.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

You must have skipped over this part:

"I think maybe I should attribute this to the language/culture barrier. Then again, you have already failed three times at making a valid analogy, which is why it is not suprising that you've misunderstood me. This was my analogy, the first legitimate one in our discusssion, and it went *wishhhh*straight over your head. I don't think schools should show Hitler in a positive light. Why on Earth would I want that? It wrongfully draws attention away from his crimes against humanity and belittles the impact they had on Europe and the world. Soon people would forget about the Holocaust altogether and Hitler would be remembered as a decent guy."

I did not skip ANYTHING. I would argue further on the Hitler topic, but it's irrelevant. Let's drop it for now.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

I understand you perfectly. Instead of sympathizing with a man who was horrifically murdered for an unjust cause, you called him a bastard and said it was his fault he got killed, and you still say it. You only think I misunderstand you because I see that as a dispicable thing to say, but you weren't expecting that reaction because you don't think it is such a bad thing to say. Welcome to the civilized world.

No, you still don't get. Read what Bonsay posted. He got my point WAY better than you. See what he said :

Originally Posted by Bonasy

I know what you're trying to say. I know that a black man going into some Nazi hangout is asking to be killed. I'm not saying that such an aspect of choice doesn't exist.

And by the way, you are so enraged when I said "It's their fault for getting killed." From my point of view, as I quoted Bonsay above, that statement is correct. And yet you expect me to sympathize with those Danish cartoonists just because YOU think that they were not doing anything wrong. It might not be insulting for YOU, but it is for me. To quote you, welcome to the civilized world.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

No, you said, "Oh, and for the record, "oppression of women"? Don't make me laugh." That was for the "record," remember? I'm an honest person unlike you, I wouldn't represent your statements for anything but what they really were.

Here's your references if you are really that ignorant:

http://www.terrorismawareness.org/vi...omen-in-islam/

http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate/women.html

http://www.primechoice.com/philosoph...ages/women.htm

That was all from the first page of google.

The thing for the "record" was to establish clearly that there is no such thing as oppression of women in Islam. There is more than one meaning to my statement, and you took the wrong one.
By the way, do you have anything better than Google and other's views? Come ON. Be a man and give me some real references for the so-called oppression of women, from the Quran or Hadith, if you can.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

Please lucidmax. The look in their eyes? The killing is good because it is God's wish, it wouldn't be good with out the attachment of God. Why don't you just come clean for once and admit that you don't know if they would become serial killers when they lost their faith.

Okay. I admit that it is not IMPOSSIBLE to become killers once they lost their faith, but it certainly is hard. I have gone MYSELF and sat through one of those brainwashing sessions, to see how it works. Believe me, the expertise of sophistry they possess is entrancing. A naive, ignorant and partially illiterate teenager, the type readily available in Pakistan, is too vulnerable to their discussion and it is way too easy to manipulate it. Having seen it myself, I can tell you that he will most probably not give up killing even if he lost his faith, unless forced to. This is something I have experienced first hand, and you have not, so you can really argue with me here, seeing you have less experience about it than me.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

This is how I would expect a Muslim to view free speech. A nuisance. A liberty that you wish you could take away from Westerners. I don't condone using free speech for the sake of insulting someone just because you can, and neither do most people. The people who do that are inconsiderate assholes and they are treated as such by the rest of the world. The Danish cartoonists however, did it not because they thought it would be funny to insult Islam, they did it to combat a very serious issue. It is a very serious problem when the threat of death exists for insulting a religion. It needs to be squashed before it gets out of hand. If everybody started drawing Mohammed, there would be too many for the Muslims to murder and they would stop issuing bounties for the heads of people who draw Mohammed. Therefore the Danish cartoonist's actions were heroic. Why is Islam special? No other religion is like that. People make fun of the Pope all the time, people speak out against all other religions. But Islam? No, that is a serious offense. You deserve to die if you insult Islam. Why are you so insecure?

Where THE hell is it written that you have to kill people if they insult Islam. I don't care what those people in your videos say, they quote something not from the Quran. I consider the Quran to be the fundamental law of Islam, not some references that they have no proof are real.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

This really isn't a good showing for you lucidmax. You are supposed to represent the good Muslims. You keep making jokes about my literacy (I have no idea why,) while you remain blissfully unaware of how horribly you are misconstruing my words. It is pretty funny if you think about it, but not for the reasons you think. I wouldn't be so cocky if I were you.

I think it's YOU who is misunderstanding me, not the other way round.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

The proof is in the pudding. What do you have to say for yourself now? You think it is ok to send a couple to jail for having premarital sex, as long as the jail has air conditioning and a tv of course.

He strikes!! Lucidmax's point is in the air!! Oh and it's going towards Caprisun!! He can catch it, it's such an easy catch!! Whoa!!! He dives!!! He has caught..........and it goes straight over his head.



KEEPING IN MING THAT SAUDI ARABIA IS A VERY STRICT COUNTRY, and that premarital sex is strictly prohibited, it's a light punishment. It's certainly less cruel than killing people, which you think is the rule in Islam. IF it really was the rule, then she would have been dead by now.

Quotes from the Quran :

If ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, marry women of your choice, two, or three, or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one, or that which your right hands possess. That will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing (them) injustice.

And give the women (on marriage) their dower as a free gift; but if they, of their own good pleasure, remit any part of it to you, take it and enjoy it with right good cheer.

..........but feed and clothe them therewith, and speak to them words of kindness and justice.

From what is left by parents and those nearest related there is a share (equal) for men and a share for women.........

O ye who believe! ye are forbidden to inherit women against their will. Nor should ye treat them with harshness, that ye may take away part of the dower ye have given them......

............on the contrary live with them on a footing of kindness and equity.

I could go on and on, but I won't. This is to show you that Quran asks for equality and kindness towards women.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

Why, when I talk about the execution of two women in Afghanistan, do you think I am taking a jab at Saudi Arabia?

Originally Posted by Caprisun

(I also saw a news story the other day where two Afghan women, suspected of prositution, were executed in the street and left there for the community to see. Afghanistan is supposed to be ruled by Muslim laws and Muslim ethics.)

You are not taking a jab at Saudi Arabia. You seem to think that the people who killed those two women did so following the laws of Islam. I have proven it to be wrong already. See above.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

Why do you brush it off as if it is no big deal?

Dude, I am NOT brushing it off as no big deal. I regret the fact that they were killed. I resent the horrible killing even more so than you do. I will tell you a little story. My grand-father was killed in a suicide bombing in Iraq a couple of years back while attending some business there. Killings like these, supposedly in the name of Islam....I HATE them. You think I would brush something like that as no big deal? Think about what you are saying.
By the way, you have so much concerns about those two women getting killed (falsely) according to Islamic rules, and yet, I never have seen you give a rat's fart about the thousands of innocents terrorists AND the US forces kill each year. If it's SUCH a big deal to you, (which is not wrong, of course) then be a man and don't just speak about those two women. Consider the other people getting needlessly killed as well.


@ Mark75:

You are making too big a deal out of this. They are absolutely proven wrong by modern science, and we cannot take them seriously.

Also, the theory of evolution is not proven to be completely true. It's still a theory, not a fact. But let's drop it here. I don't want to start another Atheism-Religion debate. As I said, you believe what you think is true, and I will believe what I think is true.

But why? By what standard do you hold your belief that there is such a god? How do you see that it makes more sense to say that there is a god who wants us to believe in him and follow his rules and yet doesn't seem to care that so many of us don't even consider his rules? Even considering that he wants us to have "free will" it does not make sense. We're hardly "choosing" to not follow his rules when to us they simply appear to be human inventions based on ancient myths. How do you resolve this contradiction?

Please. I don't want to start another debate. Especially when we are at peaceful terms right now. You are right in your own way, and I am in mine. Let's just not argue.

You're really not making a very good case for your beliefs when you say things like that.

I don't HAVE to make a good case for my beliefs. It's a hard cold fact. The same goes for you. You have no concrete evidence for believing God is not there, while I don't have any for believing he is there. We are on equal footing, frankly.

And, as a further response :

Proving is a grammatical process. The foundation of Grammar rests upon a convention of names which stems from a thing in the environment from which abstractions can be made in order to name the the source of the abstraction. IT does not mean to produce the abstractable, for prior to the absractable, a series of letters is not a name--the appearance of language is not the same as the reality.

Predicataion is no more than adhering or not to the physical process of abstaction, i.e. the convention by which things and their elements are named. (abstractrion means to acquire--some say "to know")

Do tell me when you grasp his meaning, will ya?

Is that a no?

I have no idea.

There are plenty of verses in the Quran that when taken at face value can seem to say that killing infidels in Muslim lands is the way to go. I agree that this is probably a misinterpretation, lucidmax, but you kept saying earlier that you believe the terrorists are fake followers of Allah because of your perspective of Allah and his word. If that is true, then in their perspective they are true followers of Allah and you are missing out on killing in his name, and thus are less of a Muslim. So they are Islamic to themselves, just not to you. Here is the issue with how you are presenting this argument. Either there is universal truth, and some people or are right and others are wrong, or there is no universal truth and we are all right according to our own opinions/reality is just perception. It can't be one way sometimes and the other way at other times. You cannot change the way truth works based on how it suits you. It is what it is.

As far as the whole pre-marital sex thing, I think that is cultural dissonance. But saying the cartoonists were in the wrong and set up their own deaths is not. It is a logical dissonance for anyone that thinks they had it coming. See, the only basis I see for your belief that they are the makers of their own death and that they were in the wrong is that they insulted a belief system. Is that immoral? To insult a belief system? I mean, fascism is a belief system. It was a major movement in Italy once upon a time. If I had said, 'Hey, Mussolini and friends, you guys are totally supporting genocide and that is a really evil thing to do. You guys totally suck. Maybe if the trains you want to run on time so badly, carrying truckloads of people to die, ran through your own country and you saw the death yourself you would realize "Wow, I am really terrible."' Would that have been wrong to say? I mean, jeez, that would have been highly offensive to that belief system! (Please don't loose the whole point of the argument by saying Islam is not like the holocaust. I know that.)

I do think that you should defend some of your beliefs more clearly, even though you keep saying that you don't have to. Now, I believe there are good arguments for God. I believe in him, even. But to say that an atheist and a theist are on equal ground because neither has proof is illogical. I could say the same about faith in space hamsters. That fly in pirate space ships. And steal from merchant space gerbils. I should think that the skeptic is on a higher ground than the believer. There are good arguments for God, (they are not really appropriate for this thread,) but this isn't one of them.