Postmortem of Israeli-Hezbollah War – What Next?

mr. tahmed:
you consider a pedophile who married a 9 year old kid ``sincere`` on what he heard in a cave. That is what i would call Islamic BS.

Can John Mark Karr`s musings on God or humanity`s well-being be termed sincere given what we know about him? It would be called BS of a perverted, sick individual

in #221 where i write `` Or perhaps you think my saying that the message of Islam was not more enlightened than the 7th century bedouin society to which it was delivered?``

should (for clarity) read:

Or perhaps you think that the message of Islam was not more enlightened than the 7th century bedouin society to which it was delivered?

I come to chowk to relax. You are the one who seems to be getting nervous when asked to put your money where your mouth was when you swept aside what I wrote as ``Islamic BS``. :-)

And I can see why you are nervous - this (what you cut and paste in old in #220 below) is the best you could do!!

I think that what I wrote was quite reasonable. What exactly about it is there in this cut and paste that you think is BS? Do you thnk your belief that he was insincere on any stronger footing than my belief that was was sincere? Anyone who confuses his beliefs for facts has to be quite superficial in his thinking.

Or perhaps you think my saying that the message of Islam was not more enlightened than the 7th century bedouin society to which it was delivered? If you do, then you obviously are totally brainwashed by the propaganda you were raised in - and need to think for yourself. Or read some neutral, popular western scholars on the subject.

Or is there anything else in my statement that you think is ``Islamic BS``. IF so, then lets see you identify it and provide a brief and rational explanation on why you think so.

Otherwise, hold your peace next time you feel the urge to use strong words to hide weak arguments. Like I said.

hey, relax. dont get yourself into a frenzy. lol. here it is.

these are your words right?
``However, it does not make me weak willed or undisciplined in my thinking if I chose to believe that the prophet was sincere in what he said heard in the cave. I base my views on what I emphasized in bold in my previous post - namely the direction to which the message of Islam pointed.``

#217 further to #218, I`ll give you 30 more seconds to respond (and that is a reasonable time interval to come up with a response, if you knew what you were talking about). Otherwise I will come back later and see what you were able to come up with.

#217 So - you failed to cut and paste anything I wrote, and instead made up your own stuff rather than quote what I said. Since I see you are online now - if you know what you are talking about it should be possible to meet my challenge. :-)

tahmed:
there was nothing indirect. You consider it is fine to give a pedophile some leeway on his directions and guidelines on God etc. I consider it islamic BS.

#212 You write: ``I do not say that it (ultimate cause) is unknowable.``

One would need a very simplistic view of the universe to make such a statement. The fact is, that the more we expand our circle of knowledge, the more we realize are the frontiers of our ignorance.

#214 I was going to leave this board, but see that you refer to my my posts (indirectly) as ``Islamic BS``. Care to put your money where your mouth is and cut and paste anything I have written that you consider to be ``BS``? Unless you can do that, your post is merely another example of weak reasoning hiding behind strong words!!

krishna_abcd:
You might wanna catch Sam Harris` End Of Faith. It is not some groundbreaking work but a very well-written summary of the dilemma that we (non-muslims) have to face dealing with Islamic BS. (Like you just did in last 20 or so posts.)

He linked the first chapter on his website.
End Of Faith

---

``Many religious moderates have taken the apparent high road of pluralism, asserting the equal validity of all faiths, but in doing so they neglect to notice the irredeemably sectarian truth claims of each. As long as a Christian believes that only his baptized brethren will be saved on the Day of Judgment, he cannot possibly “respect” the beliefs of others, for he knows that the flames of hell have been stoked by these very ideas and await their adherents even now. Muslims and Jews generally take the same arrogant view of their own enterprises and have spent millennia passionately reiterating the errors of other faiths. It should go without saying that these rival belief systems are all equally uncontaminated by evidence.......

While moderation in religion may seem a reasonable position to stake out, in light of all that we have (and have not) learned about the universe, it offers no bulwark against religious extremism and religious violence. From the perspective of those seeking to live by the letter of the texts, the religious moderate is nothing more than a failed fundamentalist. He is, in all likelihood, going to wind up in hell with the rest of the unbelievers. The problem that religious moderation poses for all of us is that it does not permit anything very critical to be said about religious literalism. We cannot say that fundamentalists are crazy, because they are merely practicing their freedom of belief; we cannot even say that they are mistaken in religious terms, because their knowledge of scripture is generally unrivaled. All we can say, as religious moderates, is that we don’t like the personal and social costs that a full embrace of scripture imposes on us. This is not a new form of faith, or even a new species of scriptural exegesis; it is simply a capitulation to a variety of all-too-human interests that have nothing, in principle, to do with God. Religious moderation is the product of secular knowledge and scriptural ignorance—and it has no bona fides, in religious terms, to put it on a par with fundamentalism. The texts themselves are unequivocal: they are perfect in all their parts. By their light, religious moderation appears to be nothing more than an unwillingness to fully submit to God’s law. By failing to live by the letter of the texts, while tolerating the irrationality of those who do, religious moderates betray faith and reason equally. Unless the core dogmas of faith are called into question—i.e., that we know there is a God, and that we know what he wants from us—religious moderation will do nothing to lead us out of the wilderness. ``

#210 by tahmed32

[#206 I think you are stretching things to support your contention that the prophet did not have the character needed to make him believable when he said he had a religious experience in the cave.]

As I said, my personal belief is that someone who did any ONE of the thousands of things that Muhammad did during his lifetime CANNOT BE called a good person. This is what I would teach my children about ANYONE they come across.

If you believe differently, then I cannot change that. However, this issue about Muhammad will continue to come up increasingly as Muslims continue to aggressively prevent other people from discussing anything negative about him, while at the same time trying to spread his ``message``.



[If you chose not to believe him, that is your business and fine with me. Nor do I think this means you are headed to hell or anything like that. ]

Good, because it is difficult to listen to grown up and educated people talk about stuff like ``heaven`` and ``hell``.


[However, it does not make me weak willed or undisciplined in my thinking if I chose to believe that the prophet was sincere in what he said heard in the cave. I base my views on what I emphasized in bold in my previous post - namely the direction to which the message of Islam pointed. It is a stretch on your part to reject the one reason I gave that convinces me that the prophet was sincere (i.e. your attributing to ``cleverness`` on his part the fact that the Quran limits his role to that of messenger only, denying him the temporal authority needed to become a temporal ruler).]

You think it is a stretch on my part. I think it is a stretch on your part to use that weak reasoning to absolve him of all the hideous things he has done in life.


[Nor can you explain that if he was insincere, why he did not try to start a dynasty or even appoint a successor. These are not the actions of a power-hungry man. ]

He was only interested in himself. But this is like trying to dance around the issue - trying indirect proofs to counteract direct allegations. You cannot explain any of the bad things he did.


[I wont quote specific verses from the Quran to you, like you asked, to demonstrate that Islam is a religion of peace and harmony and human rights. Not because there is any lack of them, but because I think you should do some reading yourself and reach your own conclusions. Read about the Islam from neutral and popular western writers like Huston Smith, Joe Esposito and Karen Armstrong. Then draw your own conclusions, whatever they may be. ]

I was pretty sure you wouldn`t. :) Because there is NOTHING in there that is of any earth-shattering value. I know. Because I have forced myself to wade through all that verbiage. Endless repetitions of idiotic things. The stuff in there is VERY commonplace, trite, and a lot of it is unconscionable. God knows how you guys read that stuff day in and day out.


[And keep in mind that all this talk about Islam are mere ripples on the surface, the sensational news reported in newspapers. The real undercurrents that will define the world a hundred, or fifty years from now, or even next year - have nothing to do with these subjects that everyone gets so excited about on chowk. ]

I do not see your Islamic world emerge. I think that humanity will eradicate Islam out of a need for self-preservation. But I am being optimistic when I say that. In history, evil has won many times.

#208 by tahmed32

[#207 There is of course a word in the english language to describe what you say you say you mean when you say atheist. The word is agnostic. ]

No. ``Agnostic`` means ``a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience``.

I do not say that it is unknowable. Rather, I very much belive that it is possible that there are paths that might lead to this knowledge. But I am not sure.

[What is relevant is the substance of what you are writing.]

Exactly. So let me get to that.

krishna: my three posts below are my final ones on this board. Thanks for a pleasant, intelligent discussion. We may not agree on everything, but agreement is not necessary for a productive exchange of views.

#206 I think you are stretching things to support your contention that the prophet did not have the character needed to make him believable when he said he had a religious experience in the cave. If you chose not to believe him, that is your business and fine with me. Nor do I think this means you are headed to hell or anything like that.

However, it does not make me weak willed or undisciplined in my thinking if I chose to believe that the prophet was sincere in what he said heard in the cave. I base my views on what I emphasized in bold in my previous post - namely the direction to which the message of Islam pointed. It is a stretch on your part to reject the one reason I gave that convinces me that the prophet was sincere (i.e. your attributing to ``cleverness`` on his part the fact that the Quran limits his role to that of messenger only, denying him the temporal authority needed to become a temporal ruler). Nor can you explain that if he was insincere, why he did not try to start a dynasty or even appoint a successor. These are not the actions of a power-hungry man.

I wont quote specific verses from the Quran to you, like you asked, to demonstrate that Islam is a religion of peace and harmony and human rights. Not because there is any lack of them, but because I think you should do some reading yourself and reach your own conclusions. Read about the Islam from neutral and popular western writers like Huston Smith, Joe Esposito and Karen Armstrong. Then draw your own conclusions, whatever they may be.

And keep in mind that all this talk about Islam are mere ripples on the surface, the sensational news reported in newspapers. The real undercurrents that will define the world a hundred, or fifty years from now, or even next year - have nothing to do with these subjects that everyone gets so excited about on chowk.

and what I write in #208 about no labelling anyone applies only to serious discussion only. However, I am not above using labels for non-serious discussions (which are the only kind possible with individuals who are here to promote some ideology or agenda).

#207 There is of course a word in the english language to describe what you say you say you mean when you say atheist. The word is agnostic.

In any case - I dont believe in labelling anyone anything. That puts the focus on the individual, rather than on what that individual is saying. So, agnostic/atheist/hindu/muslim/whatever - that is not relevant as far as I am concerned. What is relevant is the substance of what you are writing.