Charismatic

That is kind of the way you have to approach these things. What if someone offered you substantial evidence, outweighing evidence against gods existence (or often more accurately the lack of evidence to corroborate claims about god), that god was real? If such evidence came to light then I would have to reverse my position and dig out my Sunday best suit/dishdasha/meditation matt (assuming god wanted me to worship and live according to a religious code, unfortunately your still a bit stuck believing in god but not knowing which so you should probably ask).

Much like you can’t believe in negating wrongdoing after death when considering moral philosophy; you can’t consider religious questions without considering that there may be a god. I don’t believe that renders self-examination on religious or philosophical questions beyond the ability of ordinary people regardless of their belief system.

The up side to considering such questions is a more profound reconciliation of your choices in life with your beliefs, the down side is that you’ll always feel culpable for your choices in life and you will forever struggle with the choices you make. No going back though once you’ve eaten the forbidden fruit, hence the serpents warning “…for God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.”

WakeUp

Actually in realtity what usually results is a tit-for-tat argument which no-one can win and both sides blatantly ignore the other sides point of view and it gets boring pretty fast.

Bahtatboy

No it doesn't.

WakeUp

Oh yes it does

jackthehat

Behind You!!!!!!

Norm_uk

You're not looking for a heated debate but you're happy to say almost half my posts are inflammatory? And you've been posting here for how long exactly?...less than a month

Amazing how you've had time to read enough of my 3800+ posts that I've made since December of 2004 to know that. You are a truly remarkable reader who should be commended.

It's not my problem you find polemics or factual statements inflammatory...if you don't like what I say debate me or ignore me. No sweat.

N.

WakeUp

not nice is it?

Norm_uk

What's not nice? New forum members who are so full of arrogant presumption about me based on a few posts that they feel the need the take them to task over it?

Or perhaps you mean it's not nice to give stupid beliefs and ideologies respect just because some people choose to or are brainwashed into believing them, regardless of the evidence?

N.

Norm_uk

The problem is most people are not like you and will not turn away from their presumptions and beliefs because they would loose face doing so. Most humans will blindly stick to their guns in spite of the evidence and even when their beliefs make them look and act in a ridiculous manner.

This is why errors in philosophy are usually pitiful and stupid whereas errors in religion are often dangerous.

N.

WakeUp

I think you should read your own signature, where is your doubt? I suggest that you are fanatical against religion, mainly Islam.

As for me you don't need to worry about me bothering you again.

Cheers

irich

So approximately how much cannabis does it take to kill a dog?

Bahtatboy

Dunno, but I reckon Henry's indestructible...



ps: I'm not sure if this thread has gone from the sublime to the ridiculous, or t'other way round. Norm's holding them both at bay at the moment...

Norm_uk

Your suggestions are incorrect - I will listen and consider evidence...

N.

WakeUp

Unless I have been living on a different planet for the last 30 years there is no evidence either way. You base your arguments on research of history. As you well know history is written by the winners of any conflict and has been purged and rewritten countless times.

What concerns me is that you seem to have set yourself up as your own God and you come across, at times of thinking you are omnipetent, have all the answers and are never wrong. I do not see you asking questions only providing detailed historical answers. You seem to lack humility and in the case of discussing Muslims and other religious groups humanity because you blend everyone together.

We discussed Islamophobes the other day and I pointed out that Judeaphobes also exist, this did not seem to meet with your agenda so you ignored the point.

I am aware of the irony in all this, as you said I have not read all of your nearly 4,000 posts and I am sure that you are a decent bloke. Unfortunately when people discuss religion, which you frequently do, the decency tends to go out of the window.

This has become a long post and I want to finish by reinforcing that I am not a religious man. I responded to your posts because I saw you belittling peoples beliefs and in some cases making racist remarks (I do not say that to be offensive just stating fact), this is abhorrent behaviour to me on the internet or in real life. There is nothing personal in it I would have taken anybody else to task for stating similar things.

Regards,

WakeUp

Nb. I would like to see a reporting function on this board, even a simple thumps up or thumbs down to posts so that people can express how they feel about some of the more emotive comments made.

Norm_uk

Incorrect - there is evidence both ways but nothing empirical or conclusive. However in terms of probability one argument seems more likely than the other.

As for history - well it is possible to at least try to be impartial and to focus more on contemporary over secondary sources. In any case if someone has an issue with any of my facts I'm happy to debate that and change my position if proven wrong.


There's some irony there for sure. As an agnostic atheist I most certainly do not think I am God. If I come across that way to you that's likely your problem more than mine if I may say so. I suggest re-reading what I say as sometimes it's easy to make judgement from a first glance at someone's words (I know I've done that before).

I mostly focus on what they believe in, or rather their religion and don't tend to stray from the original source when making statements. Muslims are a fairly diverse bunch, many don't even know their scriptures (the same can be said for Christians and Jews to a lessor extent) and I'd wager for at least half Islam is more of a cultural construct than a spiritual experience.

Oh, and the very nature of polemics makes humility rather pointless. If some people cannot handle criticism perhaps the ideology they cling to isn't very secure.

Both are non-words. And as I stated Islamaphobe is used almost exclusively in the context of silencing any criticism of Islam, especially from non-Muslims. It's one step above calling critics of Islam "racist" and is quite mentally dishonest.

No one calls me a "Stalinphobe" if I criticise the policies of that mad ideology. I've yet to be called a "fascistphobe" either...so what makes Islam so special it is above criticism? There's a question for you.

This is because Abrahamic religion, especially Christianity and Islam, are not decent, but rotten as a whole. That is a statement against the doctrine not the followers just in case you need further tiresome clarification (which it seems you do). It seems to some people critique of a belief or ideology is the same as insulting people personally. Well let them be insulted. Open a Koran or Bible and you'll find far worse than anything I have ever said in these forums.

As someone who grew up experiencing racism I really want you to tell me clearly where I made racist remarks. If you reply to nothing else please reply to that because it's a serious charge I won't sit back and ignore.

Like on youtube? That's used a lot by people to silence critcisism...once you reach a certain amount of thumbs down the post is removed.

N.