Postmortem of Israeli-Hezbollah War – What Next?

``So, let us not judge an individual based on our standards today of the right age for marriage. ``

Thanks for spelling out Islamic BS further. I am sure through this exercise you know exactly where we differ.

peace.

#225 If you call this obvious point to be ``Islamic BS``, then the historical facts that I took the trouble to provide you with are also ``Islamic BS``. And the only ``fact`` that you illustrate - albeit unwittingly - is your inability to deal with facts.

So, I suppose the best strategy left for you is to hide your brainwashed mind behind strong words. Have a nice day. :-)

Raw_Dust #214:

I gather that this board has long since been abandoned by those who wanted to discuss the official topic.

You must know that Sam Harris has a slim little book due to be released later this month: Letter to a Christian Nation. Further, Richard Dawkins has a book coming out next month: The God Delusion. I can’t wait to get my hands on it.

tahmed:
sure. I cant handle Facts like a 53 year old marrying 9 year old and shy away from the obivous explaination of such behavior. Not only that when i am called out on this i try to low-tone the sickness of such stuff by implying pedophilia as some sort of human weakness. As if rape, murder and pedophilia are just some weaknesses of human characters and not crimes.

Yep, i get it but since i am completely brainwashed, it doesnt mean that i can handle it. And that is where you got me. I concede. :-)


AlephNull:
Yea, i saw that on Sam Harris` website. Thanks for mentioning Dawkins.

peace.

#216 by tahmed32

[#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.]

Not at all.

I also do not say that it (ultimate cause) is knowable.

If you go over my posts you will find that I mentioned that I SIMPLY DO NOT HAVE ENOUGH EVIDENCE ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.

See?


In any case, even if you are able to prove that I am an idiot (which of course you cannot), that still does not to resurrect your prophet.

:-)

#224 by tahmed32

This was a man who lived in the 7th century AD. You should know that child marriages are considered the norm in primitive societies even today. In 21st century India for example.]

This piece off obfuscation is used by Muslims on a regular basis.

In child marriages in India, a child marries another child.

If a 53 year-old man marries a child, he would be labeled a pedophile and would be thrown in jail.

If a 53 year-old man lusts* after a 6-year old, he would be considered a monster in India.

ALSO, AND THIS IS IMPORTANT - INDIANS WOULD NOT CONSIDER SUCH A MAN CREDIBLE ENOUGH TO LISTEN TO ANY COCK-AND-BULL STORY HE MIGHT HAVE THAT GOD WAS CHATTING WITH HIM IN A CAVE AND HE IS GOD`S CHOSEN VEHICLE FOR COMMUNICATING HIS ``MESSAGE``.


* Yes, his attraction for Ayesha was not an intellectual love between two mature people - it was lust for a 6-year old little girl`s body.

#224 by tahmed32

[Nor is the prophet`s personality of relevance, given that his role is restricted to that of being a messenger...]

He is a messenger ONLY IF he was telling the truth about talking with God etc.

Was he the type to tell the truth? That`s where his personality becomes relevant.

Everybody sees that, except Muslims.

#224 by tahmed32

[I havent been following the Karr case, but what he says does not carry the weight of centuries of history and millions of adherents. ]

Centuries later, Sai Baba might still be a major religious figure. Centuries later, he might have millions of adherents to his fold. It does not matter. He will not have credibility in many thinking people`s eyes.

Huge mosques and minarets are created by ordinary humans - faith is a commodity handed down through generations - none of this proves a thing.

#210 by tahmed32

[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`ll tell you what makes you weak willed. Open-minded and intellectually honest people are STRONG ENOUGH to be open in their thinking - THEY WILL FOLLOW A LINE OF REASONING LOGICALLY, AND ACCEPT THE LOGICAL CONCLUSIONS NO MATTER WHERE IT MIGHT LEAD.

Consider the HYPOTHETICAL possibility that your ``Prophet`` was making things up in order to control other people. Ask yourself - would you be willing to live with the implications of that?

I think we both know the answer to that.


[I base my views on what I emphasized in bold in my previous post - namely the direction to which the message of Islam pointed. ]

The ``message`` does not stand on its own merit. It would be considered a ``message`` from ``God`` ONLY if your Prophet was not cooking things up on the fly - borrowing copiously from existing religious texts.

Get it? No?

Oh well.

#233 ``Consider the HYPOTHETICAL possibility that your ``Prophet`` was making things up in order to control other people. Ask yourself - would you be willing to live with the implications of that? ``

I already am. What part of ``belief`` dont you understand??

I dont like to waste my time talking to a deaf man.

Cheers.

#233 and I say ``deaf man`` in #234 only after patiently trying in two or three posts to explain the difference between ``fact`` and ``belief``, only to have you come back repeating the same thing while ignoring what I had written or trying to be cleverer than you are.

This may be a great way to keep an argument going - but it is a miserable way to have a discussion.

Anyway. I have to do some other things now, so I am not going to spend my time reading your other four posts below since I have no reason to believe they are any different than this one.

krishna_abcd:
congrats. tahmed`s hi-fi belief system that was going on in an interstellar overdrive somewhere far above the earth vectoring onto some medieval image of a male tyrant who has a penchant for blood sacrifices but wait, that is all not true. It was afterall not that hifi. It turned out to be just about one schizophrenic man of arabia sitting in a very un-hifi cave in 7th century arabia who happened to have cultivated some pretty sick ``weaknesses`` of his own.

By the way, if you ever wanna read Mohammad`s schizophrenia textualized - read last two chapters of the glorious Quran. Check out what ``Jinnaat`` means and then see the historical context behind them. It is one funny story.

#234 by tahmed32

[#233 ``Consider the HYPOTHETICAL possibility that your ``Prophet`` was making things up in order to control other people. Ask yourself - would you be willing to live with the implications of that? ``

I already am. What part of ``belief`` dont you understand?? ]


The part that says that ``belief`` may or may not be grounded on logic and facts.

But in any case, I am guessing that by ``belief`` you mean ``faith`` (which is one of the meanings of the word ``belief``). In that case, my respect for you goes up - because then in that case you are not a deluded individual. You are then just like most other people - of any faith.


Thanks for the clarification.

#214 by Raw_Dust

Raw_Dust,

Thank you for that quote.

[ 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. ]


This is exactly what I have been saying all along. This is why I have been saying that pacifists are so dangerous and insidious in effect, even when they are well-meaning. Osama Bin Laden and his type are a lesser danger because they are easily identifiable and thus, ultimately exterminable. But it is the ``moderates`` who are the ones who are instrumental in perpetuating the ``faith`` intact - their ``liberal`` thinking seduces the commies and the tree-hugger types quite readily, and recruits them in their fight for the perpetuation of Islam.

#236 by Raw_Dust

[By the way, if you ever wanna read Mohammad`s schizophrenia textualized - read last two chapters of the glorious Quran. Check out what ``Jinnaat`` means and then see the historical context behind them. It is one funny story.]

Well, according to tahmed and others who ``believe``, all good things in the Quran came from God through the mouth of the good man Muhammad. All bad things in the Quran are ``distortions`` put in there by bad people. It is always interesting that although they claim that the Quran is the best thing after sliced bread, they are NEVER able to state exactly which suras in the Quran they find so revolutionary and amazing. They ALWAYS ask you to read for yourself, or point you to a website and obfuscate.

It is no point pointing out these things to the ``believers``. These people are able to swallow fairy tales like Gibreel, feathers and all, so it`s a sheer waste of time.

It`s when they try ``logic`` to ``explain`` their faith is when it irritates the heck out of me. Not to mention abject morons like Masadi with his quantum physics of the Quran.