Ever wondered who would win the American elections if the wh

[SisQ]

posted on December 8th, 2008, 2:02 am

Last edited by SisQ on December 8th, 2008, 2:04 am, edited 1 time in total.

why this website is senseless:

there are many tricky PRE decisions made.

a) you have only the choice of one of this two
b) it pre decides that one of them will be "the right" vote for a change of all problems
c) it pre decides that the president of the usa is in command of what happens in the usa

in fact there is more to change in many countries than their "supposed to be" leaders. there has to be a change in mind. in many ways as you can imagine.

as long as not even the politicians have the power, but those who have the industry behind them, the billionaires and bankers, nothing will change through a vote ...

[Triarii]

posted on December 8th, 2008, 2:11 am

Last edited by Triarii on December 8th, 2008, 2:18 am, edited 1 time in total.

Now, whilst these recent posts are still mostly TL:DR, I will say that I am also an atheist and that what I base that on is a complete and utter lack of evidence for God's existance... Even though science cannot provide absolute certainty, a famous person once said, "That which can be asserted without evidence, can also be dismissed without evidence" and indeed, if this were not the case scientists would spend their entire lives disproving silly notions like the old saying about the 50 monkies, the 50 typewriters and the greatest novel ever written...

Agnostics will tell you that they can't prove anything either way, yet we can't prove that, say, Sonic the Hedgehog doesn't exist and yet people (agnostics included) generally consider Sonic to be fictional and not real, despite there being about as much evidence for God than there is for Sonic (I.E. absolutely none)... So no, I cannot categorically state that God doesn't exist, but I also cannot categorically say that Sonic, faries or Thor definately don't exist either... Richard Dawkins talked about this with Bill Maher, as you can see in this YouTube clip starting around 1:30...

YouTube - Richard Dawkins on Real Time with Bill Maher

Or as (of all places) Conservapedia put it...

their claim that theists bear the burden of proof to show that God exists, that they have failed to do so, and that belief is therefore unwarranted

...which is pretty much my atheism in a nutshell... Belief in God is unwarranted due to lack of evidence, just as belief in Fox McCloud is unwarranted due to lack of evidence...

Of course, there are plenty of other arguements you can make, like how (for example) the Bible contradicts itself when God is supposed to be perfect and so on, but dismissing God entirely on the grounds of no evidence right from the off tends to be a lot faster, so I generally stick with that...

posted on December 8th, 2008, 3:26 am

the whole asking if gods true, is presuming god is either a person or something thats "beeing" in some form.

i suspect gods nothing less than our natural feel for justice and/or conscience. gods what tells us that letting afrikans die from aids just by telling them condoms are evil, is false. or letting people die of hunger whilst we are getting fatter and fatter, whilst we spend money on killing foreign people, our people starve and are homeless and die of cold. thats what god is. not some old white bearded man sitting somewhere ... with, or without 75 virgins ... neither its some "beiing" we just cant see ...

i always get angry when i hear those debates on "mr. god" or something that presumes that god "exists"

fuck stand up and DO justice. justice is nothing given by someone, neither a god, nor a leader, but done by righteous humans. dont fight against people; fight war, hunger, homelessness, illness, injustice and so on.

just a little hint for those not known to this

Axis of Justice

im sorry that something similar doesnt exist in germany, where i am from.

[Dominus_Noctis]

posted on December 8th, 2008, 3:50 am

Last edited by Dominus_Noctis on December 8th, 2008, 3:54 am, edited 1 time in total.

1. The Quran verse in the first chapter itself says - the heavens and the earth were as a single point and we drove them asunder.
If that does not sum up a big bang I do not know what does.

“Sorry. Says nothing of matter or energy, or really anything at all that could lead to theory of how the universe works. After all, all religious texts also talk about the creation of the heavens and of earth. Are we to use that to say “I told you so, the sun and sky weren’t there forever!”? Moreover, I could say that you will die, and I would be correct… insofar, that eventually, you will die as you are mortal. However that says nothing about how or why you will die, nor anything about your life (which is the same as that Qu’ranic verse).

2. The book does not in any place call Jews apes or pigs. That's Saudi propaganda as broadcast on their news channels and a quote by Pat Robertson.

You are correct, is does not call Jews apes or pigs. Yet it does state that the Jews will always deceive and are the greatest of the deceivers and will deserve the worst punishment along with pagans and polytheists (and atheists).
Furthermore, according to Hadith (such as Ibn Battuta, Rihla, ii) there are quotes such as: “You accursed son of an accursed father, how dare you sit above the readers of the Qu’ran, you who are a Jew” –in reference to a Jewish physician who walked into a room. Of course we also have examples from the Qu’ran itself after the battle of Badr, Uhud, and the ditch, where Jews were forced to leave Medina after each battle, and in the Battle of the Ditch everyone (men, women and children) were said to have been beheaded by Muhammad’s army. Keep in mind that the Jews who founded Yathrib (Medina) had asked Muhammad to arbitrate for them, and he kicked them all out.

3. Not evenone verse in the Quran cites burning anyone to bits. In fact the only verse that mentions "kill the infidel whre you see them", is the verse which was revealed on the battlefield, and indicates how one has to deal with the opponent on the field. The subsequent verse goes further to mention once they are disarmed how they are to be dealt with mercy and compassion, calling to account the accountability of a victor before the One.
Not quite Guantanamo or Abu Ghaib  

Lets not leave Hadith out of this discussion, as that is just as important as the Qu’ran: refer to below.

4. War itself has been plainly sanctioned ONLY as one of self-defense. Compare thatto Hinduism;s rig veda which openly calls for the destruction of those who do not worship Vishnu, the OT's treatment of the Amalek, and the NT's Matthew 18:35: I bring not peace but the sword.
And before an atheist tries to grandstand, the fact that an atheist does not have theguidelines of when and when not - atheists can proudly venerate Stalin, Pol Pot, Attila the Hun, and the rest of the despots.

It is completely false that you would claim that war has been sanctioned only as self-defense. There is a reason that the leader of the Muslims is called the Commander of the Faithful.You should know yourself that of the two struggles (the lesser and the greater Jihad), the lesser has been glorified by Muhammad himself. Struggle in the path of god is often considered “the sixth pillar of Islam” (and his for modern day wahhabists). Until the entire world (only People of the Book; pagans, polytheists, and atheists are killed outright-there is no choice) either pays the jizya (the poll tax) by becoming dhimmis (protected peoples) or Muslim, good Muslims must not rest. To further this goal, they must either become soldiers of Islam, or help the cause through monetary means or da’wa (essentially propaganda). Usually Islam is described as being radically tolerant for these and other reasons. These core elements are the same in all madhabs (schools of law), as the elements are derived off the Qu’ran, although the Hanbali school is much more radical in implementation. Hadith and interpretation of them is what makes the schools different.
To move onto quotations:
Xxxiv, 33/34-37/38: “But those who strive against our signs, seeking to make Us of no avail, will be brought to punishment”
Ix, 29: “Fight against those who do not believe in God or in the Last Day, who do not forbid what God and His Prophet have forbidden or practice the true religion, among those who have been given the Book, until they pay the jizya from their hand, they being humbled”
LxxxIv “Nay, but the unbelievers are crying lies, and God knows very well what they are secreting. So give them good good tidings of a painful chastisement, except those that believe, and do righteous deeds—theirs shall be a wage unfailing”
VIII 15: “O believers, when you encounter the unbelievers marching to battle, turn not your back to them. Whoso turns his back that day to them , unless withdrawing to fight again or removing to join another host, he is laden with the burden of God’s aner, and his refuge is Gehenna—an evil homecoming”. After this passage, an apology is made whereby it is clear that man doesn’t do the killing, but god does it through his agent, the muslim man: “You did not slay them, but God slem them; and when thou threwest, it was not thyself that threw, but God threw…”
VIII 60: “Make ready for them whatever force and strings of horses you can, to terrify thereby the enemy of God and your enemy, and others besides them that you know not…” “O Prophet, urge on the believers to fight…. It is not for any Prophet to have prisoners until he make wide slaughter in the land…”

Also, feel free to read the Hadith, for example Al-Dinawai, Al-Akhbar al-tiwal: “The story of how Mu’tasim killed Babak, cut off his hands and feet, and crucified him is well-known”. Other sayings attributed to the Prophet are “those who revile the Arabs are polytheists”, “May God curse both lots of foreigners, the Persians and the Byzantines [Rum]”. I also suggest you read Black, White, and Brown (ca 902-903) to get a good a good idea of slavery and bigotry in the Pax Islamicus. I can provide more if you so wish. Of course, I am not saying that this is unique to the Islamicate and to the Qu’ran/Hadith, just so we are clear.

5. Saddam hussein and the other despots of the 20th century - if u endup studing a little more ull see were plainly backed by material motivations of an atheist style thinking of geo-political advantage.

Yes, Saddam Hussein who believed he was espousing the mantle of Salah al din and his Sunni political system. Clearly an atheist. Also, you might want to look up a definition of atheism and then realize that unlike a religion, which unites people by common belief, there is no such doctrine among people who believe themselves atheist. Likewise, morals do not come from a religion, they come from who we want to seen as. Does a child who has not yet read the Qu’ran know that killing is evil? Does he know not to kick his mother? Still, you seem to classify all atheists together, thus making them a religion, which makes them have morals under your own belief system. However, calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color. Yes, you indeed kicked my ass.

“:1.If indeed you claim to be interested in paying attention to what you are debating, then wy not start in this thread. lol. Iwas driving at the fact that regardless of how pathetic Palin;s misinformation appears to be, you too are misinformed about other facts - my citation of Irgun and Likud was an example.
Repeating your argument on the same point about Palin's fallacy still misses the point. She messed up with Autism ok. Your mess up with Mohinjodaro and Harappa being capitalist, when clear archaeological evidence shows a purely Egalitarian society kinda drives home what Im saying.”

You are clearly a moron. I never said capitalist. I said there was no archaeological evidence to prove egalitarianism because no writing survives. However, there is also no evidence for egalitarianism, only monarchy, because of surviving palace-like structures. Where does this insider knowledge of an egalitarian society (which has never existed anywhere on the planet ever) come from? Did the aliens (I mean deities) give it to you? How am I misinformed about Irgun and Likud? We are not having that debate, so what would you know about my knowledge in that area. So what are you saying?

“3. I said that everyone had theories at the time, not U. I was telling you to understadn the meaning of solipsism efore trying to answer my analogy between copernicus and the Papacy through which I was trying to drive home a point.
So may be you've been arguing at cross purposes with me since you kinda missed the analogy. No worries, step back a little and get back to me  ”

Choke on your own words: “It would do you good to look into the definition of solipsism before claiming "everyone had theories at that time"”. So you were trying to make it seem like I said that everyone had theories at that time, when I never did. You go round and round, and never stop trying to spin your lies do you? And yet, you got the facts wrong about Copernicus and the Papacy, and won’t admit it.

“4. Please read Laz's post. He stated plainly "the most scientifically advanced nation" referring to the US. to which I responded militaristically yes not scientifically, which is from where we went further.
No he didn’t: he stated first, “the world's most powerful nation wakes up to the reason they became powerful - science, innovation and the free exchange of goods and ideas” and then clarified that “I view the scientific power if the US as a historical artifact based on massive resources mobilised 50 years ago - it won't last, and European science is now more sophisticated, whether it's sychrotron light sources or unstable fighter jets stablised by an on board computer”. You are still wrong plain and simple.

This is what happens when you jump in half way due to a bruised sense of national pride.
oh well., onwards and upwards.
Dom Dom. calm down. All I was saying is statistically the US needs foreign minds to develop. If the US did not have immigrants from India and China and Germany and Austria, E=Mc2 would be in Europe, Nasa would be a distant relic still stuck tring to get its shuttles to stop falling apart on reentry.”

What is this national pride you speak of? What nation(s) pray tell do I belong to and espouse? You dance and you twirl but you cannot escape the fact that you were not originally trying to say that: you wanted to state that every other nation was a success because they weren’t the U.S. If you had wanted to say that the U.S. needs foreign minds you should state so, rather than saying the U.S. is evil and “the west” is the root of all the world’s problems. Stop changing your tune to cover up your errors. You fail miserably over and over while lying to cover your mistakes.

5. I did not light the atheist statement.
You indeed lighted it by stating atheists “one would say the same about atheists and religion” in reference to Laz's: "If palin is not interested in science, then fine, but she shouldn't bash it until she's learned about it. Do you agree? --Before you attack something you should learn what it is. Is that not reasonable? Is it not reasonable to expect the future vice president to make informed decisions?"" Obviously your statement was merely to infuriate, and not designed for a proper debate.

“6.I understand you're trying to get a point across. But before telling me to read up on something, what exactly were you trying to refute - that Harappa and Mohinjodaro, were not the first democracy..ok
lol
I never said they were.”

So you weren’t clear and never stated the actual ruins you were talking about (you said northeast India), and thus you expect me to read your mind? Still, you did say: “The world's first Republic existed in northeast India 2000 years before ancient Greece. Ancient Mycenae was the seat of a Democratic prototype b4 Greece's city states even emerged from the Mycenean dark age.”
You don’t even know what Harrapan Civilization is do you? Harrapan Civilization is from 2500 BCE. Not 5500 BCE as you claim. Yet again, you also do not discuss Mycenae. You fail over and over, still helplessly trying to fall back on something, yet the facts do not support your views.

“Another Palinesque remark on you part lol. So much for you criticising her.
To clarify - he republic I am referring to is from the a period slightly later not 5500 BC, but 3500 BC approx n the north east section in what is todays Bihar and Uttar Pradesh. This region with stone remnants has indications of being amongst the world's first republics.
Harappa and Mohinjodaro are near Pakistan's border - i.e western front.
So it is kinda presumptuous then for you to tell me to get my facts straight in that regard.”

Bihar and Uttar Pradesh were later ARYAN warrior kingdoms (in around 600 BCE). Uttar Pradesh was first colonized in 2000BCE by the Aryans. Bihar was colonized much later. You are still wrong. Remains indicate that they were kingdoms under control of monarchies and this is recorded history.

“There is much to be seen in archaeology for exchange of ideas in ancient civilizations and the idea of Proto-Indo-European Civilization.”

Of course there is, but that wasn’t part of the discussion: what was is that the Greeks had the first Democracy, not some made up fairy land somewhere in Northeast serpicus-land.

2. You're still incoherent. Nothing in your statement actually can refute what I said. Defensive tone yes. Mere vociferation of indignation yes. Facts to refute. No. Thank you. lol
I rest my case on this point then.lol

And you still fail. Over and over I prove you wrong and yet I am forced to say this because you have not admitted any of your misstatements, but have merely come up with new ones: the list of so far stands at SETI, NASA population makeup, Mycenae, Copernicus, “the West” debacle, dates of Harrapan Civilization, F22 research, NASA being most advanced, quotations from the Qu’ran etc.

posted on December 8th, 2008, 4:35 am

Wow do you need a publisher for that book?

Just remember is a debate and when if come down to finger out the best course of action it comes down to the questions not the answers every one has answers not every one has questions. 

Its the Questions that matter.

posted on December 8th, 2008, 4:59 am

sorry to say so, but i already read this in on a web page blaiming atheists for all evil in the world. was made by some zionists, me myself cannot call zionists, because they didnt get the point whats meant by the zion city.

i must say there are evil people ALL over the world and in EVERY community. islamic, christian and atheist comms.

that doas NOT mean EVERY atheist is bad, nor that every islamic is bad, or every christ is.

we have to find THOSE who are bad, but not by condeming a whole community driven by pre-justice.
a real atheist believes in peace of all nations/religions, too. he is not  particularly against religion itself, but against religieous misleading to war, instead to peace. thats what some religious leaders do and some atheist leaders do too.

you all have to learn to listen CLOSE to whats written or said.

when a book speaks of dis-believers, its not meant "christs" or "jews" or "islamists" or "atheists"
it speaks of bad people -----> claiming to be < ----- "christs" "jews" "islamics" or "atheists"
we have to find the disbelievers in our community, not condeming or prejudicing other comms for being disbelievers in a whole ...

i hope someone got, what i wanted to say ...

posted on December 8th, 2008, 1:42 pm

that doas NOT mean EVERY atheist is bad, nor that every islamic is bad, or every christ is.

Emphasis mine...

I'm sure Ben Christ, Victor Christ, Carol Christ, Norman Christ and John Christ would all be very pleased to hear that...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_C._Christ
Victor Christ-Janer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Carol T. Christ - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Norman Christ - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
John Christ - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

a real atheist believes in peace of all nations/religions, too. he is not  particularly against religion itself, but against religieous misleading to war, instead to peace. thats what some religious leaders do and some atheist leaders do too.

when a book speaks of dis-believers, its not meant "christs" or "jews" or "islamists" or "atheists"
it speaks of bad people -----> claiming to be < ----- "christs" "jews" "islamics" or "atheists"

Epic No True Scotsman fallacy is epic...

No true Scotsman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Whilst it's true that, for example, many atheists are like what you describe a "real atheist" to be (and the prominent and respectable ones like Dawkins tend to be), if an atheist is not like this, is does not automatically mean that they are not a "real atheist", because atheism simply means a disbelief in God, irrespective of one's other views...

The same applies to a religious person... You can go on all day about how a person isn't a true believer because they did X, Y and Z, but the fact is that "bad" people can be of any religious denomination...  People have committed all kinds of atrocities when they genuinely believed they were doing it "in the name of God" or whatever...

posted on December 8th, 2008, 1:54 pm

I'm glad some people understand what a fallacy is.

In addition, the labels only become meaningful if the belief system motivated their behavior. The vast majority of so-called "atheist atrocities" were motivated by the same things which usually result in atrocities - greed, and a lust for power. These have nothing to do with a person's position on garden fairies.

However, if the person's lack of belief in unicorns directly caused them to commit genocide, the it would certainly be proper to call that person an "atheist terrorist" or whatever. Keep in mind though that there are no real examples of this. Even one concrete example would still not prove anything, except that the person had was nuts - a common affliction. With religion, too many people "misinterpret it" for it to be attributed to chance alone. In reality, they are not "misinterpreting" anything, they're just reading what the scriptures say.

Religion is different. The so-called Islamic "extremists" are motivated by their religion - by specific scriptures. Likewise with the IRA, where their religion is a major factor too. They very well should have been called "christian extremists". "Moderate" christians/muslims are simply trying to live a good life. They do not follow their books and we should be pleased about that fact.

posted on December 8th, 2008, 4:31 pm

...or they follow their books in a way that does not harm others (i.e. they interact amicably by following the basic precepts, rather than the blood-thirsty passages egging on followers to convert the hordes).

[Anonymous]

posted on December 8th, 2008, 7:10 pm

Last edited by Anonymous on December 8th, 2008, 7:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.

1. thank you Triarii and SisQ. I have been trying to say just that to Laz - the label of religion or atheism does not mean anything. It's the intention of the particular individual that counts towards what he sees therein for no religion or ideology inherently calls for attack and conquest unless one deliberately tries to twist it to their own ends, and attempting to deflect the previous discussion theme towards a specific topic when lacking any rebuttals on that original front is frankly dishonest.


2. It pretty much becomes clear that ppl do not subscribe to what is being thrown out as "labeling" by some in this forum.

I do however, to set the record straight, feel compelled to reply to Dom. Again to clarify some more of his intentionally misleading twists and turns.
And for the record once more - all that you;re misquoting is being clarified below. you still can;t clarify or deflect that I said about English/US/Dutch/Russian/Spanish/Portugese/Australian and general western history...

a. “Sorry. Says nothing of matter or energy, or really anything at all that could lead to theory of how the universe works. After all, all religious texts also talk about the creation of the heavens and of earth. Are we to use that to say “I told you so, the sun and sky weren’t there forever!”? Moreover, I could say that you will die, and I would be correct… insofar, that eventually, you will die as you are mortal. However that says nothing about how or why you will die, nor anything about your life (which is the same as that Qu’ranic verse).
LOL
Matter or energy.. lol.. the book is a revelation dealing with ppl's places and what is expected of them.
It isn't a book on hisotry or science. It does howeverquote and describe - in this case very very accurately - what is reality as a sign of its origin.
You are deliberately procrastinating here Dom. We all see that. lol

b. You are mixing and matching in your quote of Hadith.

----Furthermore, according to Hadith (such as Ibn Battuta, Rihla, ii) there are quotes such as: “You accursed son of an accursed father, how dare you sit above the readers of the Qu’ran, you who are a Jew” –in reference to a Jewish physician who walked into a room. Of course we also have examples from the Qu’ran itself after the battle of Badr, Uhud, and the ditch, where Jews were forced to leave Medina after each battle, and in the Battle of the Ditch everyone (men, women and children) were said to have been beheaded by Muhammad’s army. Keep in mind that the Jews who founded Yathrib (Medina) had asked Muhammad to arbitrate for them, and he kicked them all out.-----

  - Ibn attuta lived from 1304; year of death uncertain, possibly 1368 or 1377. The recognized authentic hadith are from the era reaching upto 150 years after the Prophet's death in the seventh century.
Sadly, this person you are trying assign "hadith" to isn't quite recognized as a hadith reporter. He was a traveler and a jurisprudent of one school of thought from the middle ages. Rihla means travelogue - NOT Hadith.
Again another Palinism from ya Dom.

  - now that battle of the Ditch which you are quoting is more interesting. You have to have the background of the battle to begin with.
The muslims were settled in Medina at the time and had signed a peace agreement with the Bani Qurayza (the name of this specific jewish tribe you are referring to). the pact signed by them accepted Mohummad as the leader of the city and they pledged their allegiance.
When the pagans attacked with the other Jewish tribes - (interestingly you will notice that the Jews of Arabia at this time .. see im being specific not generalizing as u like to misquote combined forces and attacked muslims in this battle, the battle lasted at a deadlock for months, with the muslims running low on resources.
At this time, the rear was where the Qurayza encampment was and no large contingent was focused there due to the presumed treaty and pledge on their part. Although they initially refused to back either side (like to see NATO members refuse to side either side in the event of a russian attack..interesting still the US's reaction lol) they eventually turned sides and attacked the muslims from their position.
If they were indeed successful I don't belive they wouldbe blowing kisses in the defeated's faces. lol

After teh battle was over and the Pagan-Jewish alliance was routed, the qurayza were called to account for violating the treaty they signed under which they accepted Mohummad as the head of the city state.

the punishment was invoked by a Jew based on Jewish law which btw is the penalty in the US, and most western countries to date - Treason is a capital offense.
So I fail to see the hullabaloo.

What is also interesting is that the arab jews at the time specifically chose to ally with the Pagans and kill a fellow Monotheist - for what? - saying that they were not teh chosen ones, that all men were judged by deed and not by some queer stamp that finds itself more in 800BC to 200AD anti-roman/greek rhetoric, that they were wrong to crucify jesus... no where did he ever call for them to be killed or attacked.
Not in the quran, and not in the hadith - again I refer you to REFERENCE TO CONTEXT.

your understanding is a good example of how asinine extremists actually interpret the text.
So you need to ask yourself whether you're some sort of perverse fan of Osama bin Laden trying to deliberately misquote and misrepresent text in order to bolster his stance.

Extremism feeding off extremism... the more you look at it, the more the xenophobes and arrogant nitwits think alike

- As regards the sixth pillar - yes jihad is considered to be the sixth pillar. Jihad means struggle, which implies any struggle for righteousness.
It also encompasses holy war. but quoting it as a sixth commandment does nto mean it is not for self defense. It is a war of self-defense and it is a sixth pillar to come forward to defend the community instead of sitting at home. Kinda what was called forth from patriotic Englishmen, Americans, Asutralians, Frenchmen, and Russians in the face of Nazi aggression.
So the West still practices the same concept lol


as regards the Jizya. It is a poll tax. The concept of the Jizya is a form of taxation on people who do not pay the islamic mandatory charity which is Zakah. So in effect if the person did not pay Zakah which is a mandatroy deduction from a mulsim;s annual income that goes directly to the poor, orphans and widows, the non-beleivers who choose to subscribe to the law of man pay the man's tax - jizya.
Exempt from the tax are women, children, the old and infirmed, and those who are economically genuinely unable.
Sadly enough you and I end up paying jizya all our lives at almost 50% of our income to support wars.

Infact since youre quoting hadtih, please do not omit the ones along with the Quranic verses that specify and address the rulers that they will be called to account on the day for any excesses they impose for the One does nt like transgressors and oppressors.

now for the verses you;'re quoting:

-- Xxxiv, 33/34-37/38: revealed when the Meccans were planning the battle Uhud to attack and destroy the muslims for not worshiping stones. No war of attack here. AGaIn - REFERENCE TO CONTEXT

--LxxxIv refers to hell and the chastisement from the Divine for their attacks. Does not call the human into the picture.

-- anfal 60 is VIII 60 as ure quoting there. this is the translation
60 Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of Allah and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom Allah doth know. Whatever ye shall spend in the cause of Allah, shall be repaid unto you, and ye shall not be treated unjustly
the part after your "..." is from VIII 67 not 60
It is not fitting for an apostle that he should have prisoners of war until he hath thoroughly subdued the land. Ye look for the temporal goods of this world; but Allah looketh to the Hereafter: And Allah is Exalted in might, Wise.

not wide slaughter.... why are you deliberately sensationalizing? Dishonest yet again.

Again revealed before the battle of Uhud.
Meaning of this verse refers to the premise of Jihad being a fight as long as teh enemy is able to engage you. Once the enemy ahs been disarmed, cease hostilities and the survivors are POWs.
Ironically there are further verses that deal with how the prisoners are to be dealt with respect and mercy for ech excess will be called to account. Theverse ended up resulting in the captors walking back to camp under the desert sun, while allowing the prisoners to ride the camels under the makeshift umbrellas they had.... where do we see that in Western history. Even in the US civil war there was no respect for teh vanquished, let alone the travesty in Germany, Iraq and Vietnam and korea .

-- Also, feel free to read the Hadith, for example Al-Dinawai, Al-Akhbar al-tiwal: “The story of how Mu’tasim killed Babak, cut off his hands and feet, and crucified him is well-known”. Other sayings attributed to the Prophet are “those who revile the Arabs are polytheists”, “May God curse both lots of foreigners, the Persians and the Byzantines [Rum]”. I also suggest you read Black, White, and Brown (ca 902-903) to get a good a good idea of slavery and bigotry in the Pax Islamicus. I can provide more if you so wish. Of course, I am not saying that this is unique to the Islamicate and to the Qu’ran/Hadith, just so we are clear.

  Mutasim and Babak were in (816-817 AD. 200 years after the Prophet. That is not hadith.
The fact is during this period there was upheaval in the arab world, and this is where today's asinine associations with Islam find root. This was the time of Muawiyah who instituted monarchic dynasty in sharp contrast to the quranic verse As-Shoura calling ppl - men and women alike -to decide for themsevles on their matters of rulers. It was up until this time that women had previouslt held political office such as Omar's provincial governess.

-- SO WHERE IN YOUR QUOTES HAVE YOU DEMONSTRATED THAT JIHAD IS FOR ATTACK OR THAT I MISQUOTED OR MISREPRESENTED MYSELF IN ANY WAY.
Frankly, if ure gleaning wiki for your info on mohinjodaro and harappa which - as a caveat foryou - please refer to all wiki articles on Indus Valley civilization to get your facts straight.
You will see even wiki - as common a website as that - has actually described the difference between Islamic Jihad concepts and the Salafi concepts which developed as interpretive responses to Western interjection in the region in the latter half of the 19th and 20th centuries. -- u can also refer to the works of Tariq Ali - a fellow atheist and his analysis on extremism, the modern state of jihad and western crusades where sadly ppl were eaten by invading European crusaders ewwwww..

So gain - you quote the extremist and deviant elements and falsely attempt to assocate them with Hadith. Everyone knows that they screwed around in this time - making the Pax Islamicus come off like the Pax Christianicus where Jews were subject to European pogroms, tithe was rampant, inquisitions and the like, or the Pax Romanus or the Pax Atheisticus in Communist china and USSR..

COME ON MAN! DO YOU ACTUALLY RESEARCH BEFORE YOU TYPE THAT STUFF IN.... OR ARE YOU SIMPLY GOING TO THE NEAREST ISLAM-BASHING WEBSITE AND LIFTING STUFF ON THE SPOT .LOL


c. Phew that was a lot...
In regards to Saddam,... I was referring to the atheistic rationale of the CIA that backed Saddam and the baath party - with their focus on the pure geo-political advantage it gained them - Pure logic - without any relfection on the moral implications or responsibility.

But Sadam himself was never a practicing theist. He started his rants about religion towards the fag end of his regime when he had no western allies left. however, please feel free to refer to the NGC's recent biography on him... or if you find that to be a little boring foryou to research and feel compelled to again pull another Palinism on us -- as if the above citations and incomplete interpretation of Islam wasnt akin enough LOL -- you can watch the HBO docu-drama.

d. the middle block of your post ranges from outbursts to vociferations. I rest my case there. LOL

e. to be clear Aryan is not Indian. It has its origins from the northwestern Steppes and Prairies region in what comprises today's Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Turkmenistan.
If you're referring to the 600BC time period - you must be thinking of Pali where Buddha was born. Yeah that was an old republic but was only from 600bc. There are ruins in that same region but much older.
You won;t find it on wiki yet. So I guess that's why you must be a little thrown LOL

As regards Harappan - you mentioned Harappan and Mohinjodaro. to help you understand what I am referring to Date range (BCE) Phase Era
5500-3300 Mehrgarh II-VI (Pottery Neolithic) Regionalisation Era
3300-2600 Early Harappan (Early Bronze Age)
3300-2800 Harappan 1 (Ravi Phase)
2800-2600 Harappan 2 (Kot Diji Phase, Nausharo I, Mehrgarh VII)
2600-1900 Mature Harappan (Middle Bronze Age) Integration Era
2600-2450 Harappan 3A (Nausharo II)
2450-2200 Harappan 3B
2200-1900 Harappan 3C
1900-1300 Late Harappan (Cemetery H, Late Bronze Age) Localisation Era
1900-1700 Harappan 4
1700-1300 Harappan 5

Please for the love of GOD . dont argue with me for the sake of it. Please read, research and understand.



GOD ALMIGHTY... you and Laz were the ones who came out speaking about Palin - THAT WAS OUR INITIAL DISCUSSION AND I MERELY TOLD U THAT YOU AREN'T IN A POSITION TO MOCK HER COS U'RE IN THE SAME BOAT AS REGARDS FACTS VS CONCLUSIONS.

The rest of your attacks on Islam and Theism etc etc were mere fall offs. so when we return to our initial discussion and --

I hope you remember the point I made that you can;t make fun of her cos you too are subject to equally blaring mistakes of fact vs your opinion on things....

THANK YOU FOR ELUCIDATING MY CASE.

ROFL ROFL ROFL

posted on December 8th, 2008, 8:32 pm

to Triarii

ok if i understood everything right, you want to say that my argumentation is complete shit, and you prefer prejudice more than to think abouts whats written in that books.

you think, the meaning of beeing christian is to kill other people to spread our religious freedom.
so: READ the fucking boock, and perhaps you should concentrate on the story thats told by the evangelists. you know, the shit about jesus, and these things.

if i consider your argumentation you think the following:

beeing muslim means to bomb your self to peace, and innocent to pieces.
jewish means beeing rich and acting in the underground to world leadership.
atheists believe in nothing and lead a shameless life.
buddism means to be selfish and drawing back to your little shell and beeing passive.
blacks are niggers that rape women, and just waiting to robb the fuck out of you.

and so on.

this all is called PRE-JUDICE and is the very-very worst in our world.
if i see a muslim on the streets, or what i suspect to be one ..., i dont runnaway in fear, because i suspect hes a terrorist.

i can find no further words for this, i still hope, i misunderstood you ...

posted on December 8th, 2008, 9:09 pm

That summary doesn't represent anybody's views, SisQ. However religion is still a problem, for many reasons put forth carefully by myself and by others previously in this thread.

Atheists do not hold the view you described, but they do think theirs is the better "position". I put it in inverted commas because to call atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair colour. Atheists most certainly do NOT live a blameless life, but they are less susceptible to persuasion by intolerant or violent verses/people. You can control an atheist by other means, but it's never quite the same as the iron grip which religion has over people's minds, which is so powerful that they insist on defending the worst kinds of biblical atrocities.

And on that last point, be careful about trying to put forth the view that you have read the "book" and others haven't. Reading the bible is a sure ticket out of christianity if you value things you claim to. In fact I think everyone should read it. Carefully.

[Dominus_Noctis]

posted on December 8th, 2008, 9:36 pm

Last edited by Dominus_Noctis on December 9th, 2008, 1:41 am, edited 1 time in total.

I'll just respond to a few choice selections:

- As regards the sixth pillar - yes jihad is considered to be the sixth pillar. Jihad means struggle, which implies any struggle for righteousness.
It also encompasses holy war. but quoting it as a sixth commandment does nto mean it is not for self defense. It is a war of self-defense and it is a sixth pillar to come forward to defend the community instead of sitting at home. Kinda what was called forth from patriotic Englishmen, Americans, Asutralians, Frenchmen, and Russians in the face of Nazi aggression.
So the West still practices the same concept lol

You have got to be kidding me. Look, if you are not going to even going to read what I’ve written and what the Qu’ran extols, then just close your mouth. I already explained what the concepts of Jihad are, but the self-defense you speak of is just not there. Also, you may consider re-reading the history of Yathrib and then realize that unfortunately, your “history” which follows is not recognized as being correct by any means. It was not one Jewish tribe, and the Muslims were not already settled in Medina. Very briefly; Muhammad had been invited and he signed a pact with many different Jewish tribes. ...and I've noted you've gone back to "the west" again.

as regards the Jizya. It is a poll tax. The concept of the Jizya is a form of taxation on people who do not pay the islamic mandatory charity which is Zakah. So in effect if the person did not pay Zakah which is a mandatroy deduction from a mulsim;s annual income that goes directly to the poor, orphans and widows, the non-beleivers who choose to subscribe to the law of man pay the man's tax - jizya.
Exempt from the tax are women, children, the old and infirmed, and those who are economically genuinely unable.
Sadly enough you and I end up paying jizya all our lives at almost 50% of our income to support wars.

--So now you are trying to excuse a special tax which is designed to humble non-muslims? The Zakat is fixed, the Jizya can be any amount deemed necessary. Likewise, if you want to become more specific, the Jizya precept is accompanyed by having all non-muslims wear collars, special colors, not being able to carry arms, ride horses, hold office etc. Sounds like the Jewish pogroms doesn’t it? You call that fair?

It is not fitting for an apostle that he should have prisoners of war until he hath thoroughly subdued the land. Ye look for the temporal goods of this world; but Allah looketh to the Hereafter: And Allah is Exalted in might, Wise.

not wide slaughter.... why are you deliberately sensationalizing? Dishonest yet again.

--Not in the version I have, as I guess yours is a “pacified” translation. Though I assume you would probably like to argue translation errors (mine is deemed "trustworthy" by islamic scholars).

d. the middle block of your post ranges from outbursts to vociferations. I rest my case there. LOL
Wonderful little bit of hypocrisy here.

e. to be clear Aryan is not Indian. It has its origins from the northwestern Steppes and Prairies region in what comprises today's Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Turkmenistan.
If you're referring to the 600BC time period - you must be thinking of Pali where Buddha was born. Yeah that was an old republic but was only from 600bc. There are ruins in that same region but much older.
You won;t find it on wiki yet. So I guess that's why you must be a little thrown LOL

--Thank you for repeating me about the Aryan invaders. I guess I also can’t find this evidence of an ancient democracy in the archaeology books I have cracked open in front of me either. I guess my professor who is an archaeologist must be an idiot then too. I know the chronology thank you, but Mehrgarh is not Harrapan civilization (mature IVC) and thus still not 5500, whatever you say. You are also taking this discussion away from your original point, which was that some unknown, undiscovered civilization you still haven’t specified in some undocumented age, was the first egalitarian democracy.

--Before you go and accuse me of being biased against Islam again, realize that I have not once said anything about hatefullness or about Islam being worse/better than any other religion. I was merely responding to your initial statements by using the Qu'ran next to me, and the textbooks available to me. In fact, I have said that other religions are just as guilty at one point. Saying that just because other cultures practice horrendous acts does not excuse the original culture being discussed, so I fail to see how this proves that the Qu'ran does not have violent passages (both from the divinity and from humanity). You also discuss the fact that context is important, but you provide none when you lash out in anger against this fictional "west". However, context can only go so far, especially when the Qu'ran is used to demonstrate how a good Muslim should live his/her life. The passages on punishment are designed to show how punishment should be wrought. The passages on war are likewise designed to show how war should be fought... and the passages on almsgiving and basic rites are *surprise* designed to show how one should help others and themselves. However, the fact that these passages are in the Qu'ran (no pervertion is necessary) shows that they are important (never mind doctrine of abrogation) and are valid and have been used as a basis for living one's life. To claim that context makes killing on the basis of belief acceptable is quite dangerous. Furthermore, you still have not come back to any of your misquotations, or missrepresentations in any of your previous posts, even though I have referred to them again and again, and whenever I bring up your historical innacuracies you try to side step without actually proving your original statements. I assume that you'll merely respond to these statements by calling me a bigot or some politicial figure that you don't approve of though.

[Anonymous]

posted on December 9th, 2008, 6:26 pm

Last edited by Anonymous on December 9th, 2008, 6:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.

---You have got to be kidding me. Look, if you are not going to even going to read what I’ve written and what the Qu’ran extols, then just close your mouth. I already explained what the concepts of Jihad are, but the self-defense you speak of is just not there. Also, you may consider re-reading the history of Yathrib and then realize that unfortunately, your “history” which follows is not recognized as being correct by any means. It was not one Jewish tribe, and the Muslims were not already settled in Medina. Very briefly; Muhammad had been invited and he signed a pact with many different Jewish tribes. ...and I've noted you've gone back to "the west" again.
----

u mentioned the Battle of the Ditch - the aftermath u referred to involved the 1 particular tribe. The other tribes which allied with the pagans initially signed the pact after this battle.
So i guess you should be the one cocking up instead of telling me - Mr. Palin of Orientalist schools lol

by u arguing in a typical he said she said manner pretty much sums up that ure now eating crow in regards to the jihad accusation.
I did respond to the specifcs u quoted in regards to what you allege the Quran extols. Seems your repeating yuor self here pretty much sums up your intentions - where you keep on ranting the same song despite my clear responses to your specific quotes. lol..
As regards teh West -well think of it this way - you quoted passages claiming it extosl abhorrent acts. I answered you with a twofold response. The first clarified the deliberate misquotes  which everyone else reading has already indicated that they too can see in yuor approach.
and secondly, I stated that if you find that reprehsensible then when you reflect on your own western history you wuld want to take a gun and put an end to your shame induced misery LOL



--So now you are trying to excuse a special tax which is designed to humble non-muslims? The Zakat is fixed, the Jizya can be any amount deemed necessary. Likewise, if you want to become more specific, the Jizya precept is accompanyed by having all non-muslims wear collars, special colors, not being able to carry arms, ride horses, hold office etc. Sounds like the Jewish pogroms doesn’t it? You call that fair?
---

I dont need to excuse anything. It is a tax that is imposed on non-muslims that come under a muslim authority after they lose a war against muslims. If they initially attacekd the muslims - which as i already clarified jihad as being a war of defense-  your purported indignation is amusingly ridiculous: as they say in Harlem dont start notin' dont get notin'.

But to go a step further - If indeed they are paying a tax, everyone in the state is paying a tax. the only difference becomes the name - Zakat as the mandatory charity that a muslim has to pay, or teh Jizya that a non-muslim has to pay. Potayto Potaato... so spare us your superficial understanding and even more asinine outburst.

Before you go a step further and try to quote the supposed Dhimmi status that is being attributed to Omar, I suggest you check the facts a little deeper and see that the entire Omar/Jerusalem terms are by Western scholars today considered to be an overrun of Byzantine edicts not Islamic.



----Not in the version I have, as I guess yours is a “pacified” translation. Though I assume you would probably like to argue translation errors (mine is deemed "trustworthy" by islamic scholars).

LOL. Are you serious... "My translation is better than yours". LOL. Come on man... the fact that you call one pacified and the other correct based solely on what suits your argument, kinda demonstrates more tail wagging the dog in what drives your rationale. Your claim of "deemed authentic by islamic scholars" is more a last ditch attempt to salvage a sinking ship of an argument..


--
--Thank you for repeating me about the Aryan invaders. I guess I also can’t find this evidence of an ancient democracy in the archaeology books I have cracked open in front of me either. I guess my professor who is an archaeologist must be an idiot then too. I know the chronology thank you, but Mehrgarh is not Harrapan civilization (mature IVC) and thus still not 5500, whatever you say. You are also taking this discussion away from your original point, which was that some unknown, undiscovered civilization you still haven’t specified in some undocumented age, was the first egalitarian democracy.

LOL. Mr Palin.. please forget about Indian democracy if you havent got the material to refernce. Take your time. Go online. research there. Go to google, go to wiki,  then go to the library and research tehre.. lol
You are now actually dancing the jig on the backfoot to have something to say..
Is this what you call a response?

If it makes you feel better, I wont respond to your next post. that way you'll feel happy that you;'ve gotten in the last word, and you wont have to embarrass yourself about how ridiculous you were, sounding off about Palin the way you did when here you go doing just the same thing she did - right down to self-righteous denial of plainly stated facts..

LOL ROFL

in regards to your last para - Whatever you tried to state about the Quran with the book next to you, I have explained and made clear with citations and explanations. All I see from you thereafter are mere procrastinations and "but this" or "maybe that"
In short all you were able to respond was he said she said, which WAS NEITHER HERE NOR THERE with absolutely no citations to actually rebut my responses.


To come to a common understanding here and avoid the unnecessary back and forth - The Quran has a clear meaning, so does the Bible, and the Vedas, and the other books of the world. What people deliberately see to justify their own bigotry is being demonstrated as we discuss.... Your presumptions which apparently led to your atheism - as we again have demonstrated - are based on your perception of something, which is why I refer to your opinion as perceptive solipsism.
to misquote anything is easy. All it takes a complete removal of reference to context and a determination to prove oneself right instead of actually understanding the responses to the accusations.

To better understand any religion you need to step back and actually read, understand, discuss, and then understand some more. Jumping to conclusions and vociferating don't get you anywhere - after all when there is as much at stake as a pre-warned Eternity can we truly afford to dismiss things based on anger, preconception, or plain personal convenience; deriving from materialistic sentiments such as nationality, race, or political affiliation and hidden behind false premises which present a misguided sense of rationale.

[Dominus_Noctis]

posted on December 9th, 2008, 10:29 pm

Last edited by Dominus_Noctis on December 10th, 2008, 9:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Here are your "last words" that you've so eloquently asked me to produce Serpicus:
"To come to a common understanding here and avoid the unnecessary back and forth - The Quran has a clear meaning, so does the Bible, and the Vedas, and the other books of the world. What people deliberately see to justify their own bigotry is being demonstrated as we discuss.... Your presumptions which apparently led to your atheism - as we again have demonstrated - are based on your perception of something, which is why I refer to your opinion as perceptive solipsism...."

I think this sums up your argument fairly concisely. The beauty (and horror) of the religious texts are that they can be interpreted in a variety of ways (Satanic Verses anyone?): they are not at all clear, otherwise you wouldn't be arguing "context" and you wouldn't have said that "people deliberately see to justify their own bigotry". Likewise, if religious texts were at all clear, we wouldn't have religious wars within a religion based on interpretation. You don't know my particular brand of beliefs and yet you refer to me as atheist. You don't know where I am from or what my raising has been and yet you refer to me as "western". You are the bigot who believes for the simple reason that if someone has different ideas from yours they must be a "western" atheist who also is named "Mr. Palin".

Incidently, I never claimed that the version of the translated Qu'ran I own was correct, I claimed it had been deemed authentic by islamic scholars which is a prerequisite if it is to be used as a book of prayer; this was to stop you from claiming that it was misstranslated, as you claimed that I lied; and yet you apparently still twisted my response when I was not claiming that yours was incorrect, merely pacified [refer to all the different translated versions of the Bible for example: are they not each correct in their own way?].