for the islamophobes

[TheMythOfSisyphus]

I like how its "allowable", like people need permission to believe in what they feel is right. I don't know what most religious doctrines are, unless you are talking about those fucking Jehovah's Witnesses. I hate those fuckers. Does anyone know where in the book of whatever the fuck they read does it say that Jehovah's Witnesses need to come knocking on my door at fucking 9 in the morning? Yael, i'm going to "allow" you to respond to me. You should relish this privilege.

[Shakir_Muhammad]

Waddup Y'all,

Personally, I don't believe that ANYONE can prove or disprove the existence of The One who created the universe and beyond. What one person accepts as solid evidence will not be accepted by another person. Also, I am of the belief that depending on one's position (belief or disbelief in a creator) will determine if he or she would accept or reject certain things presented as evidence in favor of or against the idea of a creator.

I think what should be done is for human beings to look at the universe and all within it; Galaxies with billions of stars, each star capable of being the center of a solar system surrounded by millions of planets each capable of sustaining varying forms of "life". The fact that almost everything on earth is created in complimenting pairs, how we as human beings consume nourishment, we benefit from what our bodies need and we excrete and piss out what we don't need, how life is conceived, nourished, sustained and grown in a female womb before being born to start the process of their own journeys through life.

How, if we live long enough, we start off in life knowing nothing, depending on our caretakers and not be able to do for ourselves, how, between early teenage years up to 70's and 80's, we can do all of these things ourselves that we used to depend on our caretakers/guardians/parents for at the beginning stages of our lives and know much more than what we did when we were "young bucks", only to REVERSE the process in our late 80's on into the 90's when we go back to depending on others to help bathe, feed and clothe us. To once again change our diapers (or depends if you prefer) and we start to lose, unlearn and totally forget much (if not all) of what we knew when we were younger and more capable before finally kicking that bucket and crossing over to the other side which is totally unknown to us.

There are many, many, many phenomena in this universe to ponder on which work in detailed and orderly routines. After pondering all of this and more, it is upon every individual to ask him or herself if this is all by chance and coincidence or could there be an intelligent designer and creator who did this and if so, for what purpose? All human beings have to come to their own conclusions and then live their respective lives according to the conclusions they have come to.

My two cents y'all,
Peace.

[Patrick Bateman]

(02-18-2012 10:38 PM)shakur420 Wrote:  Like you avoided dropping proof that Rise Against has any good songs? The street goes both ways, you can't say that someone's opinion on a Creator must require proof in order for them to live their life according to that opinion and then turn around and say providing proof of opinions and likes about music is different, that it doesn't require proof.

I picked Rise Against as an example, you know, shit on something that's important to you. I mean, that's how you came in on the next man, right?

What a retarded argument. Firstly, what makes 'good' music, is personal opinion, like all of the arts. So just because YOU don't like rise against, doesn't mean other people don't. You can not scientifically prove a song is good.
Secondly, how can you use an argument of if you can't disprove it, then it exists? That's a Bill O' Reilly argument.
Did you know that that there are pink unicorns living on Pluto that can survive the extremely cold temperatures? I have absolutely no proof of this, but you should believe this until I can be proved wrong.

[shakur420]

My point was that you can't ask for evidence, for people to prove things to you that can't be proven. I'm not the Creator, you want proof, go to the source. Don't ask me. I'm not knocking on your door at 9 in the morning trynna convince you to believe in a Creator. And as much as you might feel it proper to ask them for evidence of a Creater, remember that you yourself cannot provide evidence for certain things, like whether music is "good", or that zak likes hot dogs. These things can't be proven.

Can you prove to someone that you love them? lol, you can try to show them, get them to believe it but you can't prove it, let alone prove that this person over here loves that person over there. I only mentioned it cause you came in shitting on a dude for saying he liked something that tells him to use his head, to reflect and not believe shit superficially. It's like a dude quoting Shakespere, about love or something, and then you come through and say it's ironic cause the guy can't prove that Shakespere knew the meaning of love.

And now you're on some "answer a question with a question" shit, lol, like what, I have to answer your questions but you don't have to answer mine? My question was rhetorical (yeah, I like that one song), to show how "ironic" it is you're insinuating that the guy's never seen proof of a creator just because you haven't. There's a video on Facebook of my first kid being born, not the others. No one asks me to "prove" they were born. Why, all of a sudden, do I have to prove anything about a Creator? Am I trynna get anyone to believe in a Creator? lol, just pointed out that because you haven't seen proof of something doesn't mean others haven't. To assume that shit is kinda jokes.

Like, who's asking people to believe in a Creator? Sorry if I missed something but this shit is ridiculous. Bill O'Rielly? lol

[Patrick Bateman]

So if you can't disprove it, than it exists? I now worship the pink unicorn on Pluto.

ALL HAIL THE ALMIGHTY UNICORN

The logic of "science can't prove this (yet), therefore it must be GOD!!!!!111111" is just stupid.

[1871]

(so hes blue...)

Quote:shakur420

I'm not knocking on your door at 9 in the morning trynna convince you to believe in a Creator.

not religious then?

[Asshole]

(02-19-2012 12:34 AM)Patrick Bateman Wrote:  So if you can't disprove it, than it exists? I now worship the pink unicorn on Pluto.

ALL HAIL THE ALMIGHTY UNICORN

The logic of "science can't prove this (yet), therefore it must be GOD!!!!!111111" is just stupid.

dibs on high priest

[TheGrandVisionary]

(02-19-2012 12:34 AM)Patrick Bateman Wrote:  So if you can't disprove it, than it exists? I now worship the pink unicorn on Pluto.

ALL HAIL THE ALMIGHTY UNICORN

The logic of "science can't prove this (yet), therefore it must be GOD!!!!!111111" is just stupid.

Hey fuck you man, and fuck your gay unicorn!! the spaghetti monsteris the only lord you should pray to!

[Shakir_Muhammad]

Something else I wish to bring to Introcluse in particular and everyone else in general's attention are two Dictionaries of The Quran that I believe are easy enough for anyone to use regardless of their beliefs or how familiar they may be with Standard Arabic Dictionaries and Lexicons.

I have looked up the word Awliyya (the plural of Waliyya and which comes from the root Waw-Lam-Ya) in both of these dictionaries (I have both dictionaries by the way) and it is something that I definitely have to throw at Introcluse.

The two Dictionaries I'm talking about are Dictionary and Glossary of The Quran by John Penrice and Dictionary of The Holy Quran by Abdul Mannan Omar.

To be fair and honest, I will say upfront that the "Dictionary and Glossary of The Quran" by J.P. has one entry under the root word for Walliyy as friend, but he gives an explanation as to why he has included this entry in his dictionary under this root. I will get to that in a minute.

Both dictionaries utilize the standard format for listing roots in which they present the standard definition of words in their verb form I of the word followed by the other verb forms from II to IX and then give definitions of nouns and other words formed from the root.

The "Dictionary of The Holy Qur'an" by A.M. Omar has a very high reputation among those who study The Quran due to it's layout, user friendliness and the fact that it uses four of the best, most widely known and accepted Classical Lexicons of The Arabic Language including Lane's Arabic Lexicon, Lisan Al 'Arab, Taj ul 'Arus and Al Mufridat fee Ghareebul Quran.

The root definition that he gives for Waliyya on page 621 is To be close, near, to follow, to be up to. That's it. It gives NOTHING about friends or friendship. The definition in this dictionary for the word Waliyy (the singular of Awliyya) is Protecting benefactor; Helper; Ally; Successor; Heir; Guardian. And the only definition given for the plural word Awliyya is Defenders.

Now John Penrice's dictionary for the same word gives the following definitions on pages 162 and 163:

To be very near to anyone, either as kindred or neighbors. His definition of Waliyy is One who guards over the public safety, a near one, patron, benefactor, helper, protector, friend. He also gives the definition of partner and here is explanation for it:

"Waliyy is a lord, companion, protector, patron or client. A MASTER or SERVANT. At 44 v. 41 it is found with BOTH of these meanings, or it may in both instances be rendered partner."

You see, the two dominant, most well know definitions of Waliyy are someone who turns (rather it be towards something or away from something as well as to follow someone) and someone who protects, shelters, acts as a guardian.

The term "Waliyya' Allah" is mentioned in the quran more than once and because of this Mr. Penrice (as well many other Arabic dictionary compilers) felt as though Waliyy must mean partner or friend because human beings cannot be God's guardian or protector. However, I think the mistake Mr. Penrice made is not considering the well known definition of "follower" when giving a meaning for the term "Waliyya' Allah".

To finish this, I would like to bring up one more Arabic dictionary. It's not a dictionary strictly of The Quran, it's a general dictionary of the Arabic language. It's the Arabic-English/English-Arabic Dictionary by John Wortabet and Harvey Porter which has well over 30,000 entries. My very first Arabic dictionary

Here is what is given under "Waliyya" on page 392 in the first half of the book (from Arabic to English):

To follow, to rule over, to make one a ruler, to turn away from, to help, to protect, to take charge of, to follow one another. For the noun Waliyy they have only two definitions...Master, Lord.

Introcluse, if you ever decide to be honest (which I know you will never do) you will have to make an honest decision concerning the Words Waliyy and Awliyya after learning what the Arabic dictionaries have to say about this word and rather or not 3:28 and 5:51 are correctly translated in the English translations done by people who do not like Jews or Christians, are competing against them to be the dominant religion and only want their sheeple to believe in what they hand down to them and shun any independent thinking, rationalizing and questioning of "Religious Authority".

So what are you gonna do Intro? Are you going to key in on ONE entry for Waliyya as being friend over 100 other definitions that have nothing to do with friends or friendship? One entry in one dictionary and with an explanation for his including the word friend (and partner).

Over to you.....

[taif dhia]

hmmmm.... this discussion is getting interesting; going into the religion vs. atheism tangent though? well, i guess radical atheism could be a component of islamaphobia, so maybe its relevant. i agree that learning Arabic is one of the steps you should take if your really want to learn about the Qu'ran and not place blind faith in one translator or another... however i also identify with many Sufi's, that you really can't understand words on a page by only egotistical analysis, but comes from a deeper level, the "heart", developed through many different types of spiritual practice. i also apply this to the Christians, and find it hard to understand how so many place blind faith in the King Jame's translators, instead of learning the Greek, Hebrew, or Am'raic, for that matter. i could go on for a long time on contradictions of the various Religions, but, fact is, people are materialistic, and get attached to books just as much as anything else. however, our attachment to matter is dwarfed by our attachment to our own opinions.... which sometimes are truthful and sometimes not, and mostly in between (yes, me too). this whole extremist narrative two dogmas to choose from, a Creator either being a mythological deity that you have to have blind faith in (or else!), or that the universe was created from "nothing", for no reason, and that we have no purpose other than to procreate, and that competition is the only law of Nature? the fact is, the vast majority of people's opinions, principles, and beliefs, are somewhere between those extremes, (including many scientists!) and are ideologically blackmailed by extremists to parroting concepts that they don't really believe in. as our primitive understanding of the Mind evolves, studies on meditation ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_on_meditation ) and entheogens ( http://healthland.time.com/2011/06/16/ma...long-term/ ) are getting to the point that they become difficult to explain materialistically. just think, in 1000 years, we will look back at our understanding of Science and Religion in these times and it will seem primitive... if you identify with Science as your primary ideological system for understanding Reality, and have a cold, cynical outlook on Reality and claim to understand Nature and the Universe, then im not sure you're really practicing Science... quantum theory, string theory, the multiverse theory, the awesome interconnectedness and interdependence of the various ecological systems of this biosphere that we still don't fully understand, the massive amounts of species that we probably still don't even know about, much less fully understand even the human brain.... leaves me in awe of the Great Mystery that the mystics of the past tried to tell us about, but we still just dont get it. so we focus on the terminology.... ("the devil is in the details"). but that is just all my opinion. if "hailing the almighty unicorn" is the understanding of that Mystery that best suits you, then go for it. i hope you find peace.

[Introcluse]

@Shakur

Like how certain verses talking about killing Jews/Christians/non-believers are directed at specific groups during a specific period.

once again, please show me the verses which say specific verses for a spcific period. You have made this humungus claim yet you have not backed it up from scripture. Once again you're doing a "SHAKUR SPECIAL" of dodging questions like Keanu Reeves doging bullets in the matrix.

If you do this I will concede the point, i will put up my hand and say yes you was right, however if you can't do this you are adding parts to the quran YOURSELF, which under islam is called BIDAH and a grave sin for muslims to commit. Why don't you just be honest for once in your life and admit you just repeated a meme you've heard from other muslims, which has no backing in the scripture/

You have performed your normal red herring tactic of goin off on a tangent about everything else but the question asked of you.

as for this

where you were taking proclamations of democracy and security from a military dictator seriousl

another strawman, i have never backed musharref or anything he's ever said.


@shakir
whose accuracy you cannot verify

no they are verified by the highest islamic institutions

Introcluse who's the REAL layman here between you and me?

oh sorry do you have academia in islamic studies of any kind? I'm interested in you showing me your scholarly credibility and academic background in islam

And your point? I never fell for that 72 virgins garbage. I knew it was bullshit when I first heard it.
Firstly I have proven that's the 72 virgins is part of islamic doctrines in the other thread, which you still haven't responded to mysteriously.

and secondly I was highlighting how the deception performed by islamic apologetics like yourself. Why can't you just be honest and call a spade a spade?

the problem with religionists and defenders of religion is they'll never be candid and perform all kinds of demagoguery & sophistry like you have done.

The religious brigade and there groupies will forever be mendacious and duplicitous. They are never sincere and just just concerned with giving religion good PR.

Let's say there was one line in a religious scripture saying "kill gingers by removing their heads if you see them at your doorstep on sunset" and then a bloke shoots & kill 2 gingers guys he sees outside his house in the morning and it's caught on cctv, he then makes a video saying he did it becos this verse instructed him too before the police arrest him.

The apologist like yourself will come out with excuses like

1) he didn't do it cos of religion, it's the fault of culture as its normal in his culture to make ginger jokes, which led him to have prejudices to them, he's hatred for gingers can be proved by a joke he posted on facebook one week ago 1 week ago.

2 economic conditions are to blame. Gingers were occupying his city in high numbers and taking all the jobs, which led him being unemployed so this led him to kill the gingers as they impoverished him.

3 politics are to blame, there's a political party full of gingers called the GINGER LIBERATION FRONT who are planning to come in power and there leader plans to reduce rights for non-gingers.

4)the people murdered wern't ginger but blond and brunnette, the blokes medical records show his color blind, or the lack of daylight meant their haired looked ginger.

5) he misinterpreted the verse, the specific verse is only meant for when you're at war with gingers.

6) the word that's used for kill doesn't really mean kill, in this lexicon dictionary it can mean "push" "argue with" or "go away"

7) it's a "metaphor", it doesn't really mean to kill

8) he didn't kill them at sunset, it was one hour past sunset.

9) he didn't remove their heads he shot them in the head.

save the gingers !!

[YaelTheGreat]

Interclose, why do you despise religion?