View Full Version : Ask an American, agnostic and atheist man pretty much anything


Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5 6

ozymandias
10-06-2011, 02:51 PM
Hello,

My background:
I'm an agnostic atheist. I've never been religious, but I was educated as a Christian (Roman Catholic, actually), and I have always been interested in educating myself on what, and why, other people believe what they believe. I have been active in another forum for several years, and one of the posters requested I stop by here, and provide another view point. I posted for a long time, and then got busy in my non-internet related life and neglected to keep posting.

I am back, and am willing to resume discussions as best I am able, but want to lay a few ground rules, based on my experiences here, and other places -- these are important, because I am likely to be vastly outnumbered.

My rules:
1) I am *NOT* here to convert anyone, nor am I looking to be converted. Let's get that out in the open immediately. I am here to educate, and *be* educated, nothing more. Please don't insult anyone, including yourself by trying to be clever and pretending things like 'since you are here, you must be seeking'. This includes making the fallacious assumption that the only reason I do not believe, is because I am not educated. I assure you, as I learn more about religion, the more firm my beliefs become.

2) I will be as respectful as I am able, and ask that you do the same. It is very likely that in many cases, cultural barriers will lead to unintentional insults. I ask forgiveness now, if I accidentally offend, and I will try and be forgiving in return. As long as we learn from it and move on, and don't deliberately repeat. Feel free to report me to a moderator, if you feel it is needed, and I defer to their judgment.

3) I am not here to attack Islam. Let me be perfectly clear on that. I am *NOT* attacking any religion, no matter how much I disagree with it. Please do not take my disagreement as an attack.

4) I reserve the right to ignore, or not respond to anyone, or anything. In the past, I saw the same questions repeatedly, and I simply do not have the time to reply every time it comes up.

5) I *WILL* ignore copy/paste walls of text. I am an intelligent modern human. If I wanted to read those copy/pastes, I would use google and find them on my own. Pasting things here is not helpful to the conversation, and makes the conversation very one sided -- you will be asking me to respond to 5 seconds of work on your part with potentially hours of effort typing out my replies. Feel free to link to things, but summarize, and use the link as a citation, in case I want to read more, in detail.

6) I *WILL* ignore videos, for the reasons already cited, as well as the fact that videos easily eat up time just to watch. The same content can usually be read much faster than viewed in a video.

7) Please, use citations when making claims. It's OK to post your opinion, or repeat a fact you know, but upon request, be willing to provide a *scholarly* and *reputable* citation upon request, and I will do the same.

8) Finally, I do *not* speak Arabic, or Pashto. In this regard, I an an ignorant American. I know English, a smattering of Spanish, and a few random phrases in a few other languages. This has *serious* implications on this discussion. This means I *MUST* rely on translations of the Koran. I promise to make every effort to fully understand the context and the translation choices, in return, I ask that "translation errors" be used as an excuse or justification as little as possible. Feel free to help educate me on a better translation though -- that's part of why I am here.

I will occasionally attempt to use phrases from languages I do not understand. This is out of *RESPECT*, and an attempt to be friendly and broaden myself. If I misuse a phrase, and you are offended, that is your fault. Feel free to correct me, or report me to a moderator.

9) I am a huge proponent of human rights, particularly the freedom of speech. I can, and do reserve the right to say anything I want. Feel free to do the same. That said, I also plan on abiding by the forum rules, and will *NOT* argue with the administrators and moderators. This is their forum, and I am posting through their grace.

10) I will try to keep these rules updated to keep this discussion moving.

Ok, that ought to be enough to get us started and avoid most pitfalls I can foresee popping up, let's get to the fun part:

Ask me anything. It does not have to do with my nationality or lack of religion. I promise to answer to the best of my ability.

Pakhair Raghli and As-Salāmu `Alaykum,
Ozy

Al Hanif
10-06-2011, 03:03 PM
Ask an American, agnostic and atheist man pretty much anything

How about no ?

ozymandias
10-06-2011, 03:07 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lITBGjNEp08
How about no?


No one is forcing you to participate. I only seek to bridge the gap between our two worlds, so that we can talk like adults and understand each other a little more.

ScimitarXEdge
10-06-2011, 03:19 PM
and apparently an H.P. Lovecraft fan .....you forgot to mention that

Ia' R'lyeh ...Ia' Cthulhu!!!

ozymandias
10-06-2011, 03:22 PM
and apparently an H.P. Lovecraft fan .....you forgot to mention that

Ia' R'lyeh ...Ia' Cthulhu!!!


You, good sir, are 1 for 2. I will be *VERY* impressed if you can get the other reference without looking it up.

Soldat_Amir
10-06-2011, 03:25 PM
I hope more rational minded people like you continue to flourish in this modern world of ours.

Soldat_Amir
10-06-2011, 03:27 PM
my Question

Does segregation of men and women contribute to the current literacy state of women in the Muslim world?

ScimitarXEdge
10-06-2011, 03:30 PM
I'm more about Cthulhu ....my favorite of the Great Old Ones....although Yog Sathoth is the Lurker at the Threshold, but he's an Outer God

Al Hanif
10-06-2011, 03:31 PM
I am a huge proponent of human rights, particularly the freedom of speech. I can, and do reserve the right to say anything I want. Feel free to do the same.

Your country is the most hated country on this planet. You are the biggest criminals and the biggest evil on this planet. Your country was built on the genocide and ethnic cleansing of natives. This is the reason why you are the one and only country in this world unconditionnally supporting the one and only remaining colonialist state in 2011 I am talking about the terrorist state of Israel which shares the same history as your country except that It was not native amerindians but Palestinians. You slaughtered 82,162,000 natives. Your country waged war on Iraq and Afghanistan killing 500,000 children alone. You tortured innocents in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. You used depleted uranium weapons and White Phosphorus in Iraq. You used napalm and agent orange on Vietnamese civilians. You killed 500,000 Japanese civilians with nukes. You accuse Iran of being in the axis of evil when Iran did not attacked anybody for 300 years. The USA, however, during the last 30 years waged war on "El Salvador (1980), Libya (1981), Sinai (1982), Lebanon (1982 1983), Egypt (1983), Grenada (1983), Honduras (1983), Chad (1983), Persian Gulf (1984), Libya (1986) , Bolivia (1986), Iran (1987), Persian Gulf (1987), Kuwait (1987), Iran (1988), Honduras (1988), Panama (1988), Libya (1989), Panama (1989), Colombia, Bolivia, and Peru (1989), Philippines (1989), Panama (1989-1990), Liberia (1990), Saudi Arabia (1990), Iraq (1991), Zaire (1991), Sierra Leone (1992), Somalia (1992), Bosnia-Herzegovina (1993 to present), Macedonia (1993), Haiti (1994), Macedonia (1994), Bosnia (1995), Liberia (1996), Central African Republic (1996), Albania (1997), Congo/Gabon (1997), Sierra Leon (1997), Cambodia (1997), Iraq (1998), Guinea/Bissau (1998), Kenya/Tanzania (1998 to 1999), Afghanistan/Sudan (1998), Liberia (1998), East Timor (1999), Serbia (1999), Sierra Leon (2000), Yemen (2000), East Timor (2000), Afghanistan (2001 to present), Yemen (2002), Philippines (2002) , Cote d'Ivoire (2002), Iraq (2003 to present), Liberia (2003), Georgia/Djibouti (2003), Haiti (2004), Georgia/Djibouti/Kenya/Ethiopia/Yemen/Eritrea War on Terror (2004), Pakistan drone attacks (2004 to present), Somalia (2007), South Ossetia/Georgia (2008), Syria (2008), Yemen (2009), Libya (2011), Yemen (2011)."


I piss on your flag and on all what it stands for. Your country is the cancer of this planet and Al Qaeda is the chemo.

ozymandias
10-06-2011, 03:37 PM
my Question

Does segregation of men and women contribute to the current literacy state of women in the Muslim world?

I'll be honest: I don't know.

I suspect that it has a huge negative impact, based mainly on the negative stereotypes on how some Muslim countries treat their women, but I have no statistics to back this up. I do know that in specific countries, the segregation is a huge impediment to the education of women as a whole, but I also know that there are studies that show that the two genders have a vastly different learning style, and segregating young children often helps females learn by preventing the outspoken men from monopolizing all the instructors time. These studies -- as far as I am aware, however, were from Western countries, so may, or may not apply to a drastically different culture, and these studies were focused mainly on predominantly masculine subjects, such as math and science. I cannot state if they translate to reading. Finally, these studies also assume that each group of students had access to the same quality of instructor.

I am not knowledgeable enough about Muslim countries overall to definitively state that the majority of the Muslim world follows the lead of the countries that negatively segregate the genders (do so in order to repress one gender) or not, but I am lead to believe that is true. Typically Muslims that are interested in equality are liberal enough to end segregation, but this is not always true.

If you want, I am willing to research the topic more, and form a more informed opinion on the matter -- but I would much rather start with *your* answer to the question and work from there.

ozymandias
10-06-2011, 03:37 PM
I'm more about Cthulhu ....my favorite of the Great Old Ones....although Yog Sathoth is the Lurker at the Threshold, but he's an Outer God


It takes a true scholar to know the difference.

ozymandias
10-06-2011, 03:48 PM
Your country is the most hated country on this planet. You are the biggest criminals and the biggest evil on this planet. Your country was built on the genocide and ethnic cleansing of natives.



I think I might just blow your mind here: I agree -- mostly. The US has done some horrific, and unconscionable things in it's history.

That is part of why I am posting here. I am hoping to educate myself about those that hate my homeland, and help you understand that not everyone here unanimously supports the actions of this country. In fact, I can think of no one that does -- or even anyone I know personally that thinks the way this country was founded is acceptable.




This is the reason why you are the one and only country in this world unconditionnally supporting the one and only remaining colonialist state in 2011 I am talking about the terrorist state of Israel which shares the same history as your country except that It was not native amerindians but Palestinians. You slaughtered 82,162,000 natives. Your country waged war on Iraq and Afghanistan killing 500,000 children alone. You tortured innocents in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. You used depleted uranium weapons and White Phosphorus in Iraq. You used napalm and agent orange on Vietnamese civilians. You killed 500,000 Japanese civilians with nukes. You accuse Iran of being in the axis of evil when Iran did not attacked anybody for 300 years. The USA, however, during the last 30 years waged war on "El Salvador (1980), Libya (1981), Sinai (1982), Lebanon (1982 1983), Egypt (1983), Grenada (1983), Honduras (1983), Chad (1983), Persian Gulf (1984), Libya (1986) , Bolivia (1986), Iran (1987), Persian Gulf (1987), Kuwait (1987), Iran (1988), Honduras (1988), Panama (1988), Libya (1989), Panama (1989), Colombia, Bolivia, and Peru (1989), Philippines (1989), Panama (1989-1990), Liberia (1990), Saudi Arabia (1990), Iraq (1991), Zaire (1991), Sierra Leone (1992), Somalia (1992), Bosnia-Herzegovina (1993 to present), Macedonia (1993), Haiti (1994), Macedonia (1994), Bosnia (1995), Liberia (1996), Central African Republic (1996), Albania (1997), Congo/Gabon (1997), Sierra Leon (1997), Cambodia (1997), Iraq (1998), Guinea/Bissau (1998), Kenya/Tanzania (1998 to 1999), Afghanistan/Sudan (1998), Liberia (1998), East Timor (1999), Serbia (1999), Sierra Leon (2000), Yemen (2000), East Timor (2000), Afghanistan (2001 to present), Yemen (2002), Philippines (2002) , Cote d'Ivoire (2002), Iraq (2003 to present), Liberia (2003), Georgia/Djibouti (2003), Haiti (2004), Georgia/Djibouti/Kenya/Ethiopia/Yemen/Eritrea War on Terror (2004), Pakistan drone attacks (2004 to present), Somalia (2007), South Ossetia/Georgia (2008), Syria (2008), Yemen (2009), Libya (2011), Yemen (2011)."

Your partial view of history is amazing. Most of these conflicts were results of treaties and obligations the US entered -- or were in a (potentially misguided) attempt to protect human rights.

Yes, the US has made mistakes, there is no denying that -- but to compare the political climate of the US to Iran is ignorant, myopic, and frankly so asinine that it cannot even be the foundation of a reasonable conversation. You are not just comparing apples and oranges, you are comparing apples and termites.




I piss on your flag and on all what it stands for.

And this is needlessly offensive, and deliberate.



Your country is the cancer of this planet and Al Qaeda is the chemo.

** IMAGE REDACTED AT MODERATOR REQUEST **

I do not think you have any desire to have a rational, or civil discussion. Your approach to this is the equivalent of my posting pictures of Mohammad's head on a dog or pigs body -- it is deliberately antagonistic and a dead-end to discussion. Please carry on -- the only thing your exercise of free speech has done is make you look bad.

Soldat_Amir
10-06-2011, 03:50 PM
I'll be honest: I don't know.

I suspect that it has a huge negative impact, based mainly on the negative stereotypes on how some Muslim countries treat their women, but I have no statistics to back this up. I do know that in specific countries, the segregation is a huge impediment to the education of women as a whole, but I also know that there are studies that show that the two genders have a vastly different learning style, and segregating young children often helps females learn by preventing the outspoken men from monopolizing all the instructors time. These studies -- as far as I am aware, however, were from Western countries, so may, or may not apply to a drastically different culture, and these studies were focused mainly on predominantly masculine subjects, such as math and science. I cannot state if they translate to reading. Finally, these studies also assume that each group of students had access to the same quality of instructor.

I am not knowledgeable enough about Muslim countries overall to definitively state that the majority of the Muslim world follows the lead of the countries that negatively segregate the genders (do so in order to repress one gender) or not, but I am lead to believe that is true. Typically Muslims that are interested in equality are liberal enough to end segregation, but this is not always true.

If you want, I am willing to research the topic more, and form a more informed opinion on the matter -- but I would much rather start with *your* answer to the question and work from there.

For a successful nation to prosper and progress, the whole gender issue needs to be addressed in the sense that from childhood,the child is taught, both female and male are equal instead of placing conditions as we see in "Some" Islamic teachings i.e most females in hell are women, two female equals one male witness and women are to be seen only as suspect items of lust.

My point is, due to this segregation, I feel the current state of literacy,education and equality of the sexes in the Muslim is low, I feel for this to end, the Muslim world needs to accept that woman are not items of the whole "blame game" the whole "She is the future cause of man's miseries".

In the Muslim world, the literacy rate of women is very low compared to the "West" and a lot of people ignore this, they cover it up with the whole poverty/war issue, when its not, I feel religion plays a major role to the degrading of women in the Muslim world, if you look at Muslim women in the West, they have access to education and rights, better than their fellow sisters in the Muslim world, hence they seem to lead better lives without the restrictions of the Religion placed upon their kin in the Muslim world.

Basically, to sum it up, I feel segregation of the Sexes in context with "Some"islamic beliefs is counter productive for a future modern/progressive Islamic world.

afgpower
10-06-2011, 04:03 PM
why, do you think, is the usa in afghanistan?

also why did you came to this forum out of all other forums where mulims are present.

jst curios

tor_khan
10-06-2011, 04:10 PM
Keep discussions civil and orderly. The forum staff reserves the right to remove flaming posts and images that breach forum rules and common sensibilities even where used as a quote.

ozymandias
10-06-2011, 04:11 PM
why, do you think, is the usa in afghanistan?



Bad politics by a more than slightly dishonest president. the USA was lead to believe that Afghanistan was harboring agents of the terrorist organization that orchestrated the 9-11 attacks, and the US quickly became mired down in a conflict with no politically expedient way to leave. It's very difficult to pull out now, especially considering we have angered many people. Politically speaking (but not ethically or morally) it is better to stick it out until we reach some sort of milestone to justify pulling out.



also why did you came to this forum out of all other forums where mulims are present.

jst curios

I was requested by a member of this board based on my postings on another, undisclosed, forum -- and I found that I very much enjoyed the conversations I had here. There are some very well educated and entertaining people, and I felt there is much I can learn and much I can teach. Attempting to understand the opposing viewpoints on this board are very.... illuminating, and can be a nice counter balance to the bias the media presents over here. It is nice to find the people that break every stereotype of Muslims that many here would have you believe -- and to be honest, it is actually nice to see those that conform to the stereotype, too. At least that means that the bias in the media is based on some fact, and not made up whole cloth.

ozymandias
10-06-2011, 04:12 PM
Keep discussions civil and orderly. The forum staff reserves the right to remove flaming posts and images that breach forum rules and common sensibilities even where used as a quote.

Public apology for reposting an inappropriate image in a quote.

Al Hanif
10-06-2011, 04:12 PM
I do not think you have any desire to have a rational, or civil discussion. Your approach to this is the equivalent of my posting pictures of Mohammad's head on a dog or pigs body -- it is deliberately antagonistic and a dead-end to discussion. Please carry on -- the only thing your exercise of free speech has done is make you look bad.

I thought you were for freedom of speech ? Or only when it suits you ? Now you know what it's like to be a muslim in the west. Freedom of speech can go to hell.

I don't hate you but I hate your country and all what it stands for. Also, I kindly invite you to embrace Islam because either way, you will burn in hell. I am not the kind of man who beats around the bush. I know you don't believe in hell since you're an atheist. But since I do, I thought it would be nice to warn you before it is too late. Just an advice of mine. Enjoy your stay.

ozymandias
10-06-2011, 04:24 PM
I thought you were for freedom of speech ?



I am. Please note, I did not ask you to stop, I simply stated an example that was supposed to help you understand what you were doing.



Or only when it suits you ? Now you know what it's like to be a muslim in the west.



I am afraid I still do not. I was offended -- but I do not have the right *not* to be offended. Instead of taking up arms against what you said, I can, and will take up arms to defend your right to say this. It may offend me -- but it makes you look like a petty, juvenile fool.



Freedom of speech can go to hell.



I disagree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it.



I don't hate you but I hate your country and all what it stands for.



Clearly you do not understand what my country stands for -- because I am what it stands for -- a government of the people, for the people. It is not free from mistakes, but it does have noble goals.



Also, I kindly invite you to embrace Islam because either way, you will burn in hell.



I disagree. I invite you to maintain that belief, but continue this discourse and attempt to at least understand my opinion -- even if you do not agree with it. That said, I could not embrace Islam any more than I could embrace any religion. I am simply not convinced of the 'evidence' for religion, and can no more choose to believe in religion, than I can choose to disbelieve in gravity. My belief is by no means a matter of choice.



I am not the kind of man who beats around the bush. I know you don't believe in hell since you're an atheist. But since I do, I thought it would be nice to warn you before it is too late. Just an advice of mine. Enjoy your stay.

Being threatened with hell is no different than having a hippy threaten to punch me in my aura. You are right -- it means nothing to me, as I have never seen convincing evidence for it -- and believe me, many have tried to find it.

Al Hanif
10-06-2011, 04:57 PM
I am. Please note, I did not ask you to stop, I simply stated an example that was supposed to help you understand what you were doing.

So I can go on ?



I am afraid I still do not. I was offended -- but I do not have the right *not* to be offended. Instead of taking up arms against what you said, I can, and will take up arms to defend your right to say this. It may offend me -- but it makes you look like a petty, juvenile fool.

I disagree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it.

VOLTAIRE.

Way to regurgitate something you read. Original thought is overrated, right ?



Clearly you do not understand what my country stands for -- because I am what it stands for -- a government of the people, for the people. It is not free from mistakes, but it does have noble goals.

No it does not. Your system is corrupted. You have man-made laws. Richs are becoming richer, poors are becoming poorer and your government is waging wars in the globe every decade. It's goals are its survival and the decadence of society.



I disagree. I invite you to maintain that belief, but continue this discourse and attempt to at least understand my opinion -- even if you do not agree with it. That said, I could not embrace Islam any more than I could embrace any religion. I am simply not convinced of the 'evidence' for religion, and can no more choose to believe in religion, than I can choose to disbelieve in gravity. My belief is by no means a matter of choice.

Your brain is soiled by western man-made concepts. You are lost.



Being threatened with hell is no different than having a hippy threaten to punch me in my aura. You are right -- it means nothing to me, as I have never seen convincing evidence for it -- and believe me, many have tried to find it.

You do not even exist. There is no evidence for it. Cogito ergo sum. The only thing I am sure of is that I exist and God exists because I did not created myself.

So since I'm not sure you exist, I have no reason to waste my time. To you your religion and to me my religion.

ScimitarXEdge
10-06-2011, 05:26 PM
It takes a true scholar to know the difference.

I grew up reading Lovecraft books and related Cthulhu Mythos literature

ozymandias
10-06-2011, 05:27 PM
So I can go on ?



I have no reason to stop you. Personally, I think it is better if you do express these opinions -- then we can discuss them, and if you continue to do so in a juvenile manner, you only make the case against you *for me*. Free speech is a double edged sword. You can enact changes and express your opinion -- and you can also make yourself look foolish.






VOLTAIRE.

Way to regurgitate something you read. Original thought is overrated, right ?



Again, I disagree. I used a quote, because it is a very poetic, and succinct phrasing to share a belief I truly have.







No it does not. Your system is corrupted. You have man-made laws.



I can say the same about any countries laws.



Richs are becoming richer, poors are becoming poorer and your government is waging wars in the globe every decade. It's goals are its survival and the decadence of society.



Indeed -- but I have yet to see a better system than democracy, with an educated populous to run a far country. Sure the US has flaws, but it is far better than many of the alternatives -- and it includes a system to refocus the country peacefully and regain the original goals.






Your brain is soiled by western man-made concepts. You are lost.



Care to elaborate? What concepts am I soiled with? The concept of human rights? The equality of the genders? What have I stated so far as a personal belief that is 'soiled' -- and why do you think so?




You do not even exist. There is no evidence for it. Cogito ergo sum.



Now look who is quoting?



The only thing I am sure of is that I exist and God exists because I did not created myself.



And misquoting at that. Cogito ergo sum -- I think, therefore I am. There is no implication of a cause, or causer in that statement. In fact, this only implies that your mind exists, and even then the jump from the premise 'I think' to the conclusion ' I exist' is flawed, because it assumes all that thinks, exists, so this is not a complete proof. Additionally the jump to the supernatural is unneeded. A more accurate statement would be "I exist, and therefore my parents exist". To jump to a god existing is to cut out a great number of middle steps, similar to the argument "I have a cat, therefor I am wealthy" -- while this *may* be true, the simple fact of having a cat (or existing) would not necessitate the conclusion of being rich (or a god existing).



So since I'm not sure you exist, I have no reason to waste my time. To you your religion and to me my religion.


Indeed, I am not sure *you* exist. Given your posting history in this thread, you are far more likely a troll, given the deliberately inflammatory and insulting comments and illogic used. It seems far more likely that you are a fictitious persona played on the internet as some sort of game than a legitimate portrayal of a real person.

That said, you are mistaken -- I have not religion. To you, your religion, to me, no religion. Farewell, if you must go. Troll or not, it has been entertaining and enlightening.

ozymandias
10-06-2011, 05:29 PM
I grew up reading Lovecraft books and related Cthulhu Mythos literature

At the Mountains of Madness and Pickman's Model are my two favorite stories -- I still remember curling up with a collection of short stories on a cold, snowy winter's night as a child and running across Pickman's Model in a midst the drivel of the other stories.

ScimitarXEdge
10-06-2011, 05:35 PM
At the Mountains of Madness and Pickman's Model are my two favorite stories -- I still remember curling up with a collection of short stories on a cold, snowy winter's night as a child and running across Pickman's Model in a midst the drivel of the other stories.


At The Mountains of Madness, The Call of Cthulhu and The Dunwich Horror are mine

I've always liked the whole "unspeakable cosmic horror" theme

ozymandias
10-06-2011, 05:40 PM
At The Mountains of Madness, The Call of Cthulhu and The Dunwich Horror are mine

I've always liked the whole "unspeakable cosmic horror" theme

If there is enough interest, we can spin off a new thread and do a "book club" type thing. It's always interesting to see other viewpoints on the same writing.

ScimitarXEdge
10-06-2011, 05:43 PM
If there is enough interest, we can spin off a new thread and do a "book club" type thing. It's always interesting to see other viewpoints on the same writing.

sounds great, I look forward to it.

Shayesta
10-06-2011, 09:36 PM
@Ozy
Long time no see, welcome back to the forum. :)

And I know that you don't want to answer questions regarding your nationality, but I still want to know where you are originally from, if you don't mind?

Admin Khan
10-06-2011, 10:33 PM
Greetings Ozymandias Khan,
Welcome back. I remember you were one of our very first members here, and we had conversed previously. I certainly remember that you were one of the few with whom many enjoyed sharpening their intellectual swords with. If I recall correctly, you and Akbar Khan had a very amazing debate.

My question:
Wouldn't you agree that it's better to believe in a God, as opposed to rejecting him and finding out that he did indeed exist? Cost-benefit analysis at it's best, no? Why?

I look forward to your response.

ozymandias
10-07-2011, 12:16 AM
@Ozy
Long time no see, welcome back to the forum. :)

And I know that you don't want to answer questions regarding your nationality, but I still want to know where you are originally from, if you don't mind?

Thanks for the welcome back -- it's nice to be remembered ;-)

Nationality, I have no problem with -- I am American, born here, and grew up here. I choose not to narrow it down farther than that, based on the reactions of a few hot-heads when I last posted here. I mean absolutely no disrespect, and understand that the vast majority of you are decent, peaceful people -- but international events being what they are, and the reactions of other Islamic hot-heads, I hope you can understand by desire for secrecy.

ozymandias
10-07-2011, 12:33 AM
Greetings Ozymandias Khan,
Welcome back. I remember you were one of our very first members here, and we had conversed previously. I certainly remember that you were one of the few with whom many enjoyed sharpening their intellectual swords with. If I recall correctly, you and Akbar Khan had a very amazing debate.



Indeed, we did ;-)



My question:
Wouldn't you agree that it's better to believe in a God, as opposed to rejecting him and finding out that he did indeed exist? Cost-benefit analysis at it's best, no? Why?

I look forward to your response.

This argument is called "Pascal's Wager", and it is a very old gem. At first glance, it is indeed a fairly convincing argument -- but upon investigation it does not hold up. Let me illuminate a few of the flaws:

1) Which God? According to most sects and denominations, believing in the wrong one at best, does no good, at worst, angers god. Would you not agree that many Muslims would agree that Allah would be angered if one were to reject him for the Jewish version (called Yahweh, for simplicity), and most Christians would agree. To add to the matters, Baptists would say god would be angered if one were to be a Catholic, and vice versa. How are you to select which version of God, Allah, or Yahweh to believe in?

2) What about the 'other' gods? Odin? Zeus? Osiris? Etc.

3) You assume belief is a matter of choice. I disagree, as would most psychologists and philosophers. Belief is a result of a person being exposed to a convincing level of evidence, not a matter of conscious choice. Could you realistically *choose* not to believe in gravity? Or choose to believe that the sun will not come up tomorrow? Remember, you are not answering just me -- you would have to convince an all knowing, all powerful being of your belief. Any doubt at all would be known to them.

4) Pascal's Wager, even if not flawed as already mention, still would not be *proof* of a god's existence. Look at another example: you cannot win the lottery if you don't play, so thus, would it not be best to spend your entire income on tickets? Clearly it would be best for you to win the lottery, as opposed to not winning, right?

5) Even if a god did exist, would it not be possible that he would be upset that we reject the gifts of rationality, reason, logic, intelligence, and scientific endeavors that he granted us, in return for blind obedience? What kind of loving parent would want their kids to be underachievers?

To put it into a lighthearted image that has been making the rounds on the internet lately:
http://i.imgur.com/ARUx0.jpg

Best of wishes to you and yours -- I am looking forward to continuing this conversation.

KingKhan
10-07-2011, 12:44 AM
This what happens when regular Joe smoes think their Socrates.

ozymandias
10-07-2011, 01:06 AM
This what happens when regular Joe smoes think their Socrates.

I'm not sure what you mean....

Tjanaparh
10-07-2011, 08:33 AM
but to compare the political climate of the US to Iran is ignorant, myopic, and frankly so asinine that it cannot even be the foundation of a reasonable conversation. You are not just comparing apples and oranges, you are comparing apples and termites.


Greetings from my side!
I am a guest here, but I would like you to explain what did You mean with this phrase? Who are the apples , who are the termites and why?

ozymandias
10-07-2011, 12:44 PM
but to compare the political climate of the US to Iran is ignorant, myopic, and frankly so asinine that it cannot even be the foundation of a reasonable conversation. You are not just comparing apples and oranges, you are comparing apples and termites.


Greetings from my side!
I am a guest here, but I would like you to explain what did You mean with this phrase? Who are the apples , who are the termites and why?


Sure can!

Al Hanif stated:

You accuse Iran of being in the axis of evil when Iran did not attacked anybody for 300 years. The USA, however, during the last 30 years waged war on "El Salvador (1980), Libya (1981), Sinai (1982), Lebanon (1982 1983), Egypt (1983), Grenada (1983), Honduras (1983), Chad (1983), Persian Gulf (1984), Libya (1986) , Bolivia (1986), Iran (1987), Persian Gulf (1987), Kuwait (1987), Iran (1988), Honduras (1988), Panama (1988), Libya (1989), Panama (1989), Colombia, Bolivia, and Peru (1989), Philippines (1989), Panama (1989-1990), Liberia (1990), Saudi Arabia (1990), Iraq (1991), Zaire (1991), Sierra Leone (1992), Somalia (1992), Bosnia-Herzegovina (1993 to present), Macedonia (1993), Haiti (1994), Macedonia (1994), Bosnia (1995), Liberia (1996), Central African Republic (1996), Albania (1997), Congo/Gabon (1997), Sierra Leon (1997), Cambodia (1997), Iraq (1998), Guinea/Bissau (1998), Kenya/Tanzania (1998 to 1999), Afghanistan/Sudan (1998), Liberia (1998), East Timor (1999), Serbia (1999), Sierra Leon (2000), Yemen (2000), East Timor (2000), Afghanistan (2001 to present), Yemen (2002), Philippines (2002) , Cote d'Ivoire (2002), Iraq (2003 to present), Liberia (2003), Georgia/Djibouti (2003), Haiti (2004), Georgia/Djibouti/Kenya/Ethiopia/Yemen/Eritrea War on Terror (2004), Pakistan drone attacks (2004 to present), Somalia (2007), South Ossetia/Georgia (2008), Syria (2008), Yemen (2009), Libya (2011), Yemen (2011)."


He states Iran has not attacked anyone in 300 years, and then lists the military actions of the US. What this does not consider is the fact that the US, for all of the military actions listed, the US was a world Superpower, while Iran was not -- and the US was drug into the conflict by treaties and humanitarian reasons. This is why I state that it is unwise to compare the military histories for these countries -- The US, as a superpower, and militarily powerful nation is asked by the UN and other countries to step in on one side of a conflict, or another. Iran tends to not get the same number of requests.

This barely even mentions the fact that a huge number of the conflicts listed, the US entered the country as part of a UN Peacekeeping force. For example, let's take a look at the countries involved in the East Timor 1999 actions -- and, I would like to point out that the conflict in East Timor started in 1999, and continued through 2005 with a continual UN presence for the same issues. Let's take a look at why the US was in East Timor, in the first place:


Australia provided the largest contingent of troops, hardware and equipment for the INTERFET operation–5,500 personnel at its peak–followed by New Zealand.[12] New Zealand's contribution peaked at 1,100 NZDF personnel, and nearly 4,000 New Zealanders served in East Timor (see Military history of New Zealand). It was New Zealand's largest overseas military deployment since the Korean War.
Eventually 22 nations contributed to INTERFET which grew to over 11,000 strong. Other countries to contribute were (in alphabetical order), Bangladesh, Brazil, Canada, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Kenya, Malaysia, Norway, Philippines, Portugal, Singapore, South Korea, Thailand, United Kingdom, United States of America.



As you can see, this sheds a whole different light on the US involvement in the East Timor 1999 conflict, doesn't it? This was *not* a war of US aggression, but rather a UN action that the US participated in. For a bit of history, the UN did not even *HAVE* an Iranian Peacekeeping force. A quick google shows that Iran has, in the last few days, contributed forces for the first time in the history of the UN peacekeeping actions -- which started in 1948 -- and has had 53 actions since 1988, alone.


As a side note, take a quick look at some of those dates: Panama 1988 -- the US did not militarily attack Panama in 1988, it was purely political posturing. This posturing did lead to the US attacking in Panama in 1989 -- which is listed again on that list. Interestingly enough, the actual invasion occurred on December 20, 1989 -- and the last units were pulled out in April 1990 -- and once again, Panama 1989-1990 appears on the list. The same conflict appeared 3 times.



As you can see, not only is this list misrepresenting the number and locations of US military actions, it completely ignores the fact that many of these actions were not a result of US action, but UN action, and thus is not comparing apples to apples. Take your pick as to which country is the apple, and which one is the termite.

ozymandias
10-07-2011, 12:46 PM
Sure can!

Al Hanif stated:


He states Iran has not attacked anyone in 300 years, and then lists the military actions of the US. What this does not consider is the fact that the US, for all of the military actions listed, the US was a world Superpower, while Iran was not -- and the US was drug into the conflict by treaties and humanitarian reasons. This is why I state that it is unwise to compare the military histories for these countries -- The US, as a superpower, and militarily powerful nation is asked by the UN and other countries to step in on one side of a conflict, or another. Iran tends to not get the same number of requests.

This barely even mentions the fact that a huge number of the conflicts listed, the US entered the country as part of a UN Peacekeeping force. For example, let's take a look at the countries involved in the East Timor 1999 actions -- and, I would like to point out that the conflict in East Timor started in 1999, and continued through 2005 with a continual UN presence for the same issues. Let's take a look at why the US was in East Timor, in the first place:




As you can see, this sheds a whole different light on the US involvement in the East Timor 1999 conflict, doesn't it? This was *not* a war of US aggression, but rather a UN action that the US participated in. For a bit of history, the UN did not even *HAVE* an Iranian Peacekeeping force. A quick google shows that Iran has, in the last few days, contributed forces for the first time in the history of the UN peacekeeping actions -- which started in 1948 -- and has had 53 actions since 1988, alone.


As a side note, take a quick look at some of those dates: Panama 1988 -- the US did not militarily attack Panama in 1988, it was purely political posturing. This posturing did lead to the US attacking in Panama in 1989 -- which is listed again on that list. Interestingly enough, the actual invasion occurred on December 20, 1989 -- and the last units were pulled out in April 1990 -- and once again, Panama 1989-1990 appears on the list. The same conflict appeared 3 times.



As you can see, not only is this list misrepresenting the number and locations of US military actions, it completely ignores the fact that many of these actions were not a result of US action, but UN action, and thus is not comparing apples to apples. Take your pick as to which country is the apple, and which one is the termite.


Please note -- I am not defending, justifying, or excusing any of these military actions. I am simply pointing out that this list is not a fair representation and the comparison is not accurate in the slightest.

tor_khan
10-07-2011, 01:46 PM
What exactly is an "atheist agnostic"?

As I've understood it an atheist rejects any form of deity, but an agnostic will consider the possibility if proven. I might have understood this incorrectly. Even so, back to my question ...

Tjanaparh
10-07-2011, 01:51 PM
Greetings again, you didn't answer on my question but asked me again. Please answer it , i do not know what you meant with it and want avoid misinterpretations. Hopefully you have chosen this comparsion with sense.

I understood your point - yes USA and IRAN have different strategical roles, but!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It is blind to say - "You cannot say that IRAN is more peacefull than USA because of their different strategical roles"
The UN even if its an international organization is a false organization, it is rueled by the power states. So You cannot say that UN decisions are objective, bayuse if it would be like that or there would be necessary everywhere military presence, or nowhere.
You know about pproblems of Lezi, Avar, Tolish, Baloch, Uyghur....? Why the Un now isn interfering(because this people are out of interest now- they will interfere when they will have interest.....
If the USA sees itself as protector, than it could pull some of their population back giv best rights to native people remaind and work on them.
It is funny to hear that a drug dependent may heal drugdependance in other people, isn't it?
You are surely right, the oficial version is that.
I would ask you to answer some more questions:

Do You think the smaller countries like Iran and Afghanistan, like Armenia and Burkina Faso, like Kyrghyzstan and Mongolia, like Peru and Chile are not doing this number of "peackeeping" because they are not so potent like the USA ?
Why do you think the USA is a superpower?
Do You think an outern state can decide about human right in an other state and how?
Do You think the USA does human rights violations?
If yes, why the UN doesn give a resolution to China to send peackeeping troops to garant that it won't happen?
If no, why not?
Why is the UN in USA?
What is your opinion about IRANs view and actions?
Do you think somebody can resolve problems of others without having resolved the same problems for himself?
Do you think if a goverment is fault doing bad things and the citizens do not likke that but remain only at"non liking" that they are not fault too?


I limit myself on this questions.
Hope You understood them, cause my ebglish isn't the best and I am a bit tired too.

ozymandias
10-07-2011, 03:20 PM
What exactly is an "atheist agnostic"?

As I've understood it an atheist rejects any form of deity, but an agnostic will consider the possibility if proven. I might have understood this incorrectly. Even so, back to my question ...

One of my favorite topics. This is commonly misunderstood.

Theism/Atheism is a measure of belief in the existence of a god. Theists believe, atheists are everyone else.

Gnostic/Agnostic is a measure of belief in the ability to *prove* something, in this case the existence of a god.

These two terms measure different things, but are commonly misunderstood to measure the same thing. Many people believe that an agnostic is a 'weak' atheist, but this is not true.

An gnostic theist believes that not only does a god exist, they believe that they *can prove beyond all doubt* the existence in a scientifically sound method. For example, I am a gnostic 'appleist' -- I can prove beyond all doubt, scientifically, that apples exist.

An agnostic theist believes that a god does exist, but they cannot scientifically prove it. Most theists fall into this case. They believe, and admit that they cannot prove their belief scientifically.

A gnostic atheist believes that there is no god, and that they can scientifically prove this. For example, I am a gnostic '1+1 does not equal 5'ist. I believe that 1+1 does not equal 5 -- and can prove this.

An agnostic atheist believes that there is no god, but this cannot be scientifically proven. The reason I am an agnostic atheist is because I do not believe that the definition of god is sufficiently defined in a falsifiable way. In order to prove the non-existence of something, you need to first define that thing, and what does, and does not constitute that thing -- and you need to define a concrete method for proving it does not exist. For most things, this is not possible. It is relatively easy to prove the existence of some things -- I can prove that a cat exists -- I can simply find one. To prove that something does not exist, you would need to define what it is -- and then show that no such thing could possibly exist anywhere -- and not just on this planet...

ozymandias
10-07-2011, 03:49 PM
Greetings again, you didn't answer on my question but asked me again. Please answer it , i do not know what you meant with it and want avoid misinterpretations. Hopefully you have chosen this comparsion with sense.



Could you clarify the question? I do not understand what you are asking.



I understood your point - yes USA and IRAN have different strategical roles, but!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It is blind to say - "You cannot say that IRAN is more peacefull than USA because of their different strategical roles"



I agree. That is why you have to come up with objective measures and compare things on equal terms. It is not realistic to simply measure the number of wars a country has been in and rank them on that sole measure. You need to look into the *size* of the countries, the location, the treaties they are in, and the motivation for the wars -- just to name a few -- but even then, you are missing out on the most important factor -- a country attacked is still at war, even though they did no cause it.




The UN even if its an international organization is a false organization, it is rueled by the power states. So You cannot say that UN decisions are objective, bayuse if it would be like that or there would be necessary everywhere military presence, or nowhere.



I'm not sure what you are trying to say here, so I will withhold comment at this time, until you clarify.



You know about pproblems of Lezi, Avar, Tolish, Baloch, Uyghur....? Why the Un now isn interfering(because this people are out of interest now- they will interfere when they will have interest.....
If the USA sees itself as protector, than it could pull some of their population back giv best rights to native people remaind and work on them.



Again, I am not sure what you mean to say. It appears there are language issues at play here.



It is funny to hear that a drug dependent may heal drugdependance in other people, isn't it?



In a way, you are right, but it is as equally strange to think that they cannot work together to both attempt to resolve the issue -- and in many of these cases of military action, the US is seeking to help democracy avoid being overrun by dictators and tyrants. Take a look at Panama, again. The US got involved to eject a dictator that *lost* the public election, and went in to help insure the democratic process. This is *not* an issue that the US has a problem with internally. To use your drug addiction analogy, this is like a man would be like a person with a gambling problem (representing all non-democracy problems the US has) helping Panama with it's drug problem (democracy problem).




You are surely right, the oficial version is that.
I would ask you to answer some more questions:

Do You think the smaller countries like Iran and Afghanistan, like Armenia and Burkina Faso, like Kyrghyzstan and Mongolia, like Peru and Chile are not doing this number of "peackeeping" because they are not so potent like the USA ?



In some cases, that may be the issue -- but I think it has more to do with the size of disposable income the government can afford to spend on military. If only 1% of a government's budget is spent on a military, the US is going to have far more troops to lend to the US.

In addition, many of these countries simple have not offered troops to the UN to use. Iran, for instance, has not offered peacekeeping troops until recently -- so they could not possibly have been used.




Why do you think the USA is a superpower?



Due to size and wealth. We are able to afford a large military, and were able to develop weapons that other nations were unable to develop.



Do You think an outern state can decide about human right in an other state and how?



Yes and no. All humans have basic rights, such as free speech, and freedom to select their own religion, the right to safety and a few other basics. The UN recognizes these rights, and all member countries ratified the agreements. This simplifies issues, in that many of these cases it is *not* an outside state -- the states themselves agreed to these rights.

Not only that, but I think that morally and ethically, it is the obligation of each and every human on this planet to protect the rights of everyone else. This is *not* an issue of politics, but rather an issue of basic human rights. Regardless of what country a person resides in they deserve their basic rights.




Do You think the USA does human rights violations?



Yes.



If yes, why the UN doesn give a resolution to China to send peackeeping troops to garant that it won't happen?



Bigger fish to fry -- and China would not do it, anyway. China is a far worse human rights violator than the US. The US violates some human rights, and is working to self correct the issue. People here protest water boarding of enemy combatants, for instance. There are other countries, however, where anyone that even disagrees with the government are murdered, and alternative political parties or views are not allowed.



If no, why not?
Why is the UN in USA?



It's not.



What is your opinion about IRANs view and actions?



I think it needs to open up to opposing political views, and allow all residents and citizens equal opportunity to education, free speech, religious freedoms, and the right to vote.



Do you think somebody can resolve problems of others without having resolved the same problems for himself?



Yes.



Do you think if a goverment is fault doing bad things and the citizens do not likke that but remain only at"non liking" that they are not fault too?



I am not sure what you are trying to ask, or what country you are talking about. In the US, for instance, the government does things many citizens disagree with, but these people *DO* something about it. They protest. They try to change the government's decisions. Many people disagree with the US governments actions in many cases, and are working to resolve it.




I limit myself on this questions.
Hope You understood them, cause my ebglish isn't the best and I am a bit tired too.

I understand. Your English is far better than any of the secondary languages I speak. I answered the questions as best I could based on how I understood them.

єѕαρχαι
10-07-2011, 05:02 PM
Sure can!

Al Hanif stated:


He states Iran has not attacked anyone in 300 years, and then lists the military actions of the US. What this does not consider is the fact that the US, for all of the military actions listed, the US was a world Superpower, while Iran was not -- and the US was drug into the conflict by treaties and humanitarian reasons. This is why I state that it is unwise to compare the military histories for these countries -- The US, as a superpower, and militarily powerful nation is asked by the UN and other countries to step in on one side of a conflict, or another. Iran tends to not get the same number of requests.

This barely even mentions the fact that a huge number of the conflicts listed, the US entered the country as part of a UN Peacekeeping force. For example, let's take a look at the countries involved in the East Timor 1999 actions -- and, I would like to point out that the conflict in East Timor started in 1999, and continued through 2005 with a continual UN presence for the same issues. Let's take a look at why the US was in East Timor, in the first place:




As you can see, this sheds a whole different light on the US involvement in the East Timor 1999 conflict, doesn't it? This was *not* a war of US aggression, but rather a UN action that the US participated in. For a bit of history, the UN did not even *HAVE* an Iranian Peacekeeping force. A quick google shows that Iran has, in the last few days, contributed forces for the first time in the history of the UN peacekeeping actions -- which started in 1948 -- and has had 53 actions since 1988, alone.


As a side note, take a quick look at some of those dates: Panama 1988 -- the US did not militarily attack Panama in 1988, it was purely political posturing. This posturing did lead to the US attacking in Panama in 1989 -- which is listed again on that list. Interestingly enough, the actual invasion occurred on December 20, 1989 -- and the last units were pulled out in April 1990 -- and once again, Panama 1989-1990 appears on the list. The same conflict appeared 3 times.



As you can see, not only is this list misrepresenting the number and locations of US military actions, it completely ignores the fact that many of these actions were not a result of US action, but UN action, and thus is not comparing apples to apples. Take your pick as to which country is the apple, and which one is the termite.

Just to give you some statistics , see where US stands ....

Rank Country/Region Peacekeepers 1 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f9/Flag_of_Bangladesh.svg/22px-Flag_of_Bangladesh.svg.png Bangladesh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bangladesh) 10,736 2 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/32/Flag_of_Pakistan.svg/22px-Flag_of_Pakistan.svg.png Pakistan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan) 10,691 3 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/4/41/Flag_of_India.svg/22px-Flag_of_India.svg.png India (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India) 8,935 4 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/79/Flag_of_Nigeria.svg/22px-Flag_of_Nigeria.svg.png Nigeria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigeria) 5,709 5 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fe/Flag_of_Egypt.svg/22px-Flag_of_Egypt.svg.png Egypt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egypt) 5,458 6 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9b/Flag_of_Nepal.svg/16px-Flag_of_Nepal.svg.png Nepal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nepal) 5,044 7 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c0/Flag_of_Jordan.svg/22px-Flag_of_Jordan.svg.png Jordan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordan) 3,826 8 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/19/Flag_of_Ghana.svg/22px-Flag_of_Ghana.svg.png Ghana (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghana) 3,647 9 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/17/Flag_of_Rwanda.svg/22px-Flag_of_Rwanda.svg.png Rwanda (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwanda) 3,635 10 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fe/Flag_of_Uruguay.svg/22px-Flag_of_Uruguay.svg.png Uruguay (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uruguay) 2,489 11 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/71/Flag_of_Ethiopia.svg/22px-Flag_of_Ethiopia.svg.png Ethiopia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethiopia) 2,391 12 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/0/05/Flag_of_Brazil.svg/22px-Flag_of_Brazil.svg.png Brazil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazil) 2,269 13 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fd/Flag_of_Senegal.svg/22px-Flag_of_Senegal.svg.png Senegal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senegal) 2,254 14 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/af/Flag_of_South_Africa.svg/22px-Flag_of_South_Africa.svg.png South Africa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Africa) 2,088 15 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fa/Flag_of_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China.svg/22px-Flag_of_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China.svg.png China (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China) 1,995 16 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/0/03/Flag_of_Italy.svg/22px-Flag_of_Italy.svg.png Italy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italy) 1,866 17 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/c/c3/Flag_of_France.svg/22px-Flag_of_France.svg.png France (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France) 1,771 18 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9f/Flag_of_Indonesia.svg/22px-Flag_of_Indonesia.svg.png Indonesia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indonesia) 1,691 19 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2c/Flag_of_Morocco.svg/22px-Flag_of_Morocco.svg.png Morocco (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morocco) 1,561 20 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/11/Flag_of_Sri_Lanka.svg/22px-Flag_of_Sri_Lanka.svg.png Sri Lanka (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Lanka) 1,157 21 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/9a/Flag_of_Spain.svg/22px-Flag_of_Spain.svg.png Spain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spain) 1,109 22 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/66/Flag_of_Malaysia.svg/22px-Flag_of_Malaysia.svg.png Malaysia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia) 1,080 23 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0a/Flag_of_Benin.svg/22px-Flag_of_Benin.svg.png Benin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benin) 1,028 24 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/99/Flag_of_the_Philippines.svg/22px-Flag_of_the_Philippines.svg.png Philippines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippines) 1,024 25 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1a/Flag_of_Argentina.svg/22px-Flag_of_Argentina.svg.png Argentina (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argentina) 1,023 26 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/38/Flag_of_Tanzania.svg/22px-Flag_of_Tanzania.svg.png Tanzania (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanzania) 1,011 27 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/31/Flag_of_Burkina_Faso.svg/22px-Flag_of_Burkina_Faso.svg.png Burkina Faso (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burkina_Faso) 927 28 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/49/Flag_of_Kenya.svg/22px-Flag_of_Kenya.svg.png Kenya (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenya) 870 29 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/06/Flag_of_Zambia.svg/22px-Flag_of_Zambia.svg.png Zambia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zambia) 768 30 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/68/Flag_of_Togo.svg/22px-Flag_of_Togo.svg.png Togo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Togo) 738 31 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b4/Flag_of_Turkey.svg/22px-Flag_of_Turkey.svg.png Turkey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkey) 664 32 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/09/Flag_of_South_Korea.svg/22px-Flag_of_South_Korea.svg.png South Korea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Korea) 643 33 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f4/Flag_of_Niger.svg/22px-Flag_of_Niger.svg.png Niger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niger) 577 34 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/78/Flag_of_Chile.svg/22px-Flag_of_Chile.svg.png Chile (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chile) 538 35 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/77/Flag_of_The_Gambia.svg/22px-Flag_of_The_Gambia.svg.png Gambia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gambia) 522 36 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4c/Flag_of_Mongolia.svg/22px-Flag_of_Mongolia.svg.png Mongolia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongolia) 426 37 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cf/Flag_of_Peru.svg/22px-Flag_of_Peru.svg.png Peru (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peru) 396 38 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/41/Flag_of_Austria.svg/22px-Flag_of_Austria.svg.png Austria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austria) 393 39 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/49/Flag_of_Ukraine.svg/22px-Flag_of_Ukraine.svg.png Ukraine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine) 366 40 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/f3/Flag_of_Russia.svg/22px-Flag_of_Russia.svg.png Russia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia) 362 41 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5c/Flag_of_Portugal.svg/22px-Flag_of_Portugal.svg.png Portugal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portugal) 337 42 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ec/Flag_of_Guatemala.svg/22px-Flag_of_Guatemala.svg.png Guatemala (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guatemala) 320 43 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/17/Flag_of_Sierra_Leone.svg/22px-Flag_of_Sierra_Leone.svg.png Sierra Leone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sierra_Leone) 311 44 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/b/ba/Flag_of_Germany.svg/22px-Flag_of_Germany.svg.png Germany (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany) 293 45 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/a/ae/Flag_of_the_United_Kingdom.svg/22px-Flag_of_the_United_Kingdom.svg.png United Kingdom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom) 281 46 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/9e/Flag_of_Japan.svg/22px-Flag_of_Japan.svg.png Japan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan) 266 47 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/ba/Flag_of_Fiji.svg/22px-Flag_of_Fiji.svg.png Fiji (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiji) 263 48 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/48/Flag_of_Bolivia.svg/22px-Flag_of_Bolivia.svg.png Bolivia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolivia) 259 49 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/89/Flag_of_Yemen.svg/22px-Flag_of_Yemen.svg.png Yemen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yemen) 211 50 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/c/cf/Flag_of_Canada.svg/22px-Flag_of_Canada.svg.png Canada (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada) 200 51 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e6/Flag_of_Slovakia.svg/22px-Flag_of_Slovakia.svg.png Slovakia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slovakia) 200 52 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/92/Flag_of_Belgium_%28civil%29.svg/22px-Flag_of_Belgium_%28civil%29.svg.png Belgium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgium) 195 53 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4e/Flag_of_Uganda.svg/22px-Flag_of_Uganda.svg.png Uganda (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uganda) 184 54 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9c/Flag_of_Denmark.svg/22px-Flag_of_Denmark.svg.png Denmark (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denmark) 172 55 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/86/Flag_of_Cote_d%27Ivoire.svg/22px-Flag_of_Cote_d%27Ivoire.svg.png Côte d'Ivoire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C%C3%B4te_d%27Ivoire) 148 56 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6a/Flag_of_Zimbabwe.svg/22px-Flag_of_Zimbabwe.svg.png Zimbabwe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zimbabwe) 140 57 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1b/Flag_of_Croatia.svg/22px-Flag_of_Croatia.svg.png Croatia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croatia) 130 58 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d1/Flag_of_Malawi.svg/22px-Flag_of_Malawi.svg.png Malawi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malawi) 117 59 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4f/Flag_of_Cameroon.svg/22px-Flag_of_Cameroon.svg.png Cameroon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cameroon) 115 60 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/b/b9/Flag_of_Australia.svg/22px-Flag_of_Australia.svg.png Australia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia) 110 61 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/92/Flag_of_Mali.svg/22px-Flag_of_Mali.svg.png Mali (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mali) 106 62 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/34/Flag_of_El_Salvador.svg/22px-Flag_of_El_Salvador.svg.png El Salvador (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Salvador) 104 63 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c1/Flag_of_Hungary.svg/22px-Flag_of_Hungary.svg.png Hungary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungary) 95 64 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/ce/Flag_of_Tunisia.svg/22px-Flag_of_Tunisia.svg.png Tunisia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunisia) 93 65 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/00/Flag_of_Namibia.svg/22px-Flag_of_Namibia.svg.png Namibia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Namibia) 93 66 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/73/Flag_of_Romania.svg/22px-Flag_of_Romania.svg.png Romania (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romania) 93 67 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ed/Flag_of_Guinea.svg/22px-Flag_of_Guinea.svg.png Guinea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guinea) 92 68 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/27/Flag_of_Paraguay.svg/22px-Flag_of_Paraguay.svg.png Paraguay (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraguay) 89 69 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e8/Flag_of_Ecuador.svg/22px-Flag_of_Ecuador.svg.png Ecuador (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecuador) 89 70 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/a/a4/Flag_of_the_United_States.svg/22px-Flag_of_the_United_States.svg.png United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States) 82 71 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4b/Flag_of_Chad.svg/22px-Flag_of_Chad.svg.png Chad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chad) 78 72 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/50/Flag_of_Burundi.svg/22px-Flag_of_Burundi.svg.png Burundi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burundi) 66 73 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bc/Flag_of_Madagascar.svg/22px-Flag_of_Madagascar.svg.png Madagascar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madagascar) 65 74 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5c/Flag_of_Greece.svg/22px-Flag_of_Greece.svg.png Greece (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greece) 63 75 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d9/Flag_of_Norway.svg/22px-Flag_of_Norway.svg.png Norway (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norway) 60 76 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/45/Flag_of_Ireland.svg/22px-Flag_of_Ireland.svg.png Ireland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Ireland) 56 77 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/83/Flag_of_Cambodia.svg/22px-Flag_of_Cambodia.svg.png Cambodia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodia) 55 78 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/4/4c/Flag_of_Sweden.svg/22px-Flag_of_Sweden.svg.png Sweden (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden) 55 79 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a9/Flag_of_Thailand.svg/22px-Flag_of_Thailand.svg.png Thailand (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thailand) 49 80 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/20/Flag_of_the_Netherlands.svg/22px-Flag_of_the_Netherlands.svg.png Netherlands (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlands) 47 81 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/ff/Flag_of_Serbia.svg/22px-Flag_of_Serbia.svg.png Serbia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbia) 40 82 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/34/Flag_of_Djibouti.svg/22px-Flag_of_Djibouti.svg.png Djibouti (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Djibouti) 37 83 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/21/Flag_of_Colombia.svg/22px-Flag_of_Colombia.svg.png Colombia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colombia) 36 84 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/92/Flag_of_the_Republic_of_the_Congo.svg/22px-Flag_of_the_Republic_of_the_Congo.svg.png Congo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_the_Congo) 31 85 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bf/Flag_of_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina.svg/22px-Flag_of_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina.svg.png Bosnia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnia_and_Herzegovina) 29 86 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3e/Flag_of_New_Zealand.svg/22px-Flag_of_New_Zealand.svg.png New Zealand (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand) 29 87 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f3/Flag_of_Switzerland.svg/20px-Flag_of_Switzerland.svg.png Switzerland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzerland) 29 88 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bc/Flag_of_Finland.svg/22px-Flag_of_Finland.svg.png Finland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finland) 28 89 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6f/Flag_of_the_Central_African_Republic.svg/22px-Flag_of_the_Central_African_Republic.svg.png Central African Republic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_African_Republic) 26 90 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/48/Flag_of_Singapore.svg/22px-Flag_of_Singapore.svg.png Singapore (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singapore) 22 91 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0a/Flag_of_Jamaica.svg/22px-Flag_of_Jamaica.svg.png Jamaica (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamaica) 18 92 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c7/Flag_of_Kyrgyzstan.svg/22px-Flag_of_Kyrgyzstan.svg.png Kyrgyzstan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyrgyzstan) 18 93 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/1/12/Flag_of_Poland.svg/22px-Flag_of_Poland.svg.png Poland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poland) 17 94 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d0/Flag_of_Tajikistan.svg/22px-Flag_of_Tajikistan.svg.png Tajikistan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tajikistan) 16 95 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f0/Flag_of_Slovenia.svg/22px-Flag_of_Slovenia.svg.png Slovenia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slovenia) 16 96 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/31/Flag_of_Samoa.svg/22px-Flag_of_Samoa.svg.png Samoa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samoa) 16 97 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d4/Flag_of_Israel.svg/22px-Flag_of_Israel.svg.png Israel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel) 14 98 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/82/Flag_of_Honduras.svg/22px-Flag_of_Honduras.svg.png Honduras (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honduras) 12 99 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d3/Flag_of_Kazakhstan.svg/22px-Flag_of_Kazakhstan.svg.png Kazakhstan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kazakhstan) 9 100 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cb/Flag_of_the_Czech_Republic.svg/22px-Flag_of_the_Czech_Republic.svg.png Czech Republic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czech_Republic) 9 101 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9c/Flag_of_Brunei.svg/22px-Flag_of_Brunei.svg.png Brunei (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brunei) 9 102 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ed/Flag_of_Guinea.svg/22px-Flag_of_Guinea.svg.png Guinea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guinea) 7 103 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/27/Flag_of_Moldova.svg/22px-Flag_of_Moldova.svg.png Moldova (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moldova) 7 104 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/64/Flag_of_Montenegro.svg/22px-Flag_of_Montenegro.svg.png Montenegro (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montenegro) 4 105 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bc/Flag_of_Grenada.svg/22px-Flag_of_Grenada.svg.png Grenada (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grenada) 3 106 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/65/Flag_of_Qatar.svg/22px-Flag_of_Qatar.svg.png Qatar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qatar) 3 107 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/ca/Flag_of_Iran.svg/22px-Flag_of_Iran.svg.png Iran (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran) 2 108 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d0/Flag_of_Mozambique.svg/22px-Flag_of_Mozambique.svg.png Mozambique (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozambique) 2 109 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9a/Flag_of_Bulgaria.svg/22px-Flag_of_Bulgaria.svg.png Bulgaria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgaria) 2 110 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/11/Flag_of_Lithuania.svg/22px-Flag_of_Lithuania.svg.png Lithuania (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithuania) 2 111 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/ce/Flag_of_Iceland.svg/22px-Flag_of_Iceland.svg.png Iceland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iceland) 2 112 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d4/Flag_of_Cyprus.svg/22px-Flag_of_Cyprus.svg.png Cyprus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyprus) 2 113 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/92/Flag_of_the_Republic_of_the_Congo.svg/22px-Flag_of_the_Republic_of_the_Congo.svg.png Congo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_the_Congo) 1 114 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f8/Flag_of_Macedonia.svg/22px-Flag_of_Macedonia.svg.png Republic of Macedonia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Macedonia) 1 115 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8f/Flag_of_Estonia.svg/22px-Flag_of_Estonia.svg.png Estonia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estonia) 1 116 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/48/Flag_of_Palau.svg/22px-Flag_of_Palau.svg.png Palau (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palau) 1



List of countries by number of UN peacekeepers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_UN_peacekeepers)

Tjanaparh
10-07-2011, 05:02 PM
Could you clarify the question? I do not understand what you are asking.


I meant, whom You see as apple and as termit and why?



I'm not sure what you are trying to say here, so I will withhold comment at this time, until you clarify.
Ok! Look - the UN is not an objective organization! You cannot even immagine how many national conflicts there are. But the UN makes resolutions only for those they interest. If it would be a right organization it would be or everywhere or nowhere.

Again, I am not sure what you mean to say. It appears there are language issues at play here.
Ok! Its about the same. Further i will tell You like this. also to answer further questions. Russia and China are as well big powers, Iran is a medium-bigger country. You called China a bigger human rights violater than USA, but I disagree, and I can tell You why. Russiaand China have done as well many bad military interventions, Iran you americans call dicator - but! But in all that countries still remain all native peoples with their traditions, for example Russia has more than 100 local nationalities, the same about Iran - they maintain their culture. In the USA the natives are almost destroyed, all you are or sons of killers and occupants or immigrants who came there searching for a better life. But you are all guest, and the original population is minimazied to a mortal minimum, in Russia Chechens live in Chechnya, in Iran Baloch live in Balochestan, in China Mongols live in Inner Mongolia. To Iran , Russia, Cina came also immigrants. I am for example a son of Armenian immigrants to Russia, but no Armenian in Russia went to Chukota , told its my land, killed the Chukchi and gave lessons to the other countries on how to live. No Pashtun went to Mazandaran , shooted t Mazandaranis and did like the Americans. And so on. Yes Russia and China colonized territories , they also hve immigrants, but still they maintaind their local peoples. USA no.


In a way, you are right, but it is as equally strange to think that they cannot work together to both attempt to resolve the issue -- and in many of these cases of military action, the US is seeking to help democracy avoid being overrun by dictators and tyrants. Take a look at Panama, again. The US got involved to eject a dictator that *lost* the public election, and went in to help insure the democratic process. This is *not* an issue that the US has a problem with internally. To use your drug addiction analogy, this is like a man would be like a person with a gambling problem (representing all non-democracy problems the US has) helping Panama with it's drug problem (democracy problem).

Who is USA to decide what is right? Why do You think that this democracy is the right way? I am against democracy, it is a hypocrite lie system that is destroying my nation. A powerful dictator that abuses in his power is equal evil like a "free" elected president trying to deal in 4--5 years in some economical interests of big powerfull shadowpeople.
Democracy was like that even in ancient times , where it is taken from- the greek DEMOS where all people holding sllaves, and they were the minority of the population.
Human society is not only a scoiety of rights but of responsabilities. One US congressman orderd one of my friends in Armenia bacuse he was telling that Gays should be treated as sick and gay style shouldn't be promuoved here. He had to go to prison, but this man was fighting for our nation- we are at the borders of existance, we need no gay colture promotion, we are like that few - you can have the possibility to feed your sick peoples, but we are chalenging here to survive against your global petrol plans, the interesting is that we have even no petrol, but becauseof the conflicts with our neighbours we are disturbing in pipelines and so on.....I went to school in Germany, our teacher was telling us "Who is gay here?" Nobody answere, then he told "Bad, we need a colourfull society, if one thought even comes in your mind, try to evolve it...." This is democracy. Democracy tells - women in our countries have no right, but in reality even in the west they have no right - religous fanatics use body power and in europe they use mental power to kill everything feminine in a woman and evrything masculine in a man.
A girl is laughed at if she doesn'T dress to attract man , if she seeks for family and they even have no protection of becoming an object? this democratic system is only made to fulfill "low material wishes" of the masses - and defending them is called defending human rights - humanity is going far away from nature forgetting that we are part of it, that roles of man and woman are not equal, they are different,it doesn'T mean somebody is worse. Perhaps USA is defending democracy, but this democracy defension is equal to dictatorship, bacuse you do not want anywhere to evolve a way of life different of Yours, You do not want to accept different(with you I mean the USA not you personally), what is the difference? The difference is only after genciding the native America you left direct violence upon your citizens , chaning it to halfinformation-propaganda violence and creating animallike immages in people through films.
I am glad , nobody has to fear for his life, but what the USA promote is equal to breath being death inside.



In some cases, that may be the issue -- but I think it has more to do with the size of disposable income the government can afford to spend on military. If only 1% of a government's budget is spent on a military, the US is going to have far more troops to lend to the US.

In addition, many of these countries simple have not offered troops to the UN to use. Iran, for instance, has not offered peacekeeping troops until recently -- so they could not possibly have been used.
How can military resolve problems of one nation and specially not knowing the nation and beeing a stranger? This is not peace.





Yes and no. All humans have basic rights, such as free speech, and freedom to select their own religion, the right to safety and a few other basics. The UN recognizes these rights, and all member countries ratified the agreements. This simplifies issues, in that many of these cases it is *not* an outside state -- the states themselves agreed to these rights.

Not only that, but I think that morally and ethically, it is the obligation of each and every human on this planet to protect the rights of everyone else. This is *not* an issue of politics, but rather an issue of basic human rights. Regardless of what country a person resides in they deserve their basic rights.
The UN is a political organization, their agreement cannot focus a nations will even , bacuase the nations didn't decide, bacuse a state is not always a nation even....
Basic human rights are a theory- the human has not only rights, he has also basic obligations - to continue his race, to aquist knowledge and to do welfare, without those obligations human rights are a poison. You cannot compare the right of free speech of a gay fulfilling his wishes with the right of a culturally wise person in warning on the populations mental health - but they have the same right of speech in the democratic system now.
To tell shortly I would call it " Do harm without using direct power".
The USA are not a judge, neither are the UN.


that is all for today- I am tired - best wishes!

ozymandias
10-07-2011, 05:23 PM
Just to give you some statistics , see where US stands ....

Rank Country/Region Peacekeepers 1 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f9/Flag_of_Bangladesh.svg/22px-Flag_of_Bangladesh.svg.png Bangladesh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bangladesh) 10,736 2 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/32/Flag_of_Pakistan.svg/22px-Flag_of_Pakistan.svg.png Pakistan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan) 10,691 3 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/4/41/Flag_of_India.svg/22px-Flag_of_India.svg.png India (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India) 8,935 4 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/79/Flag_of_Nigeria.svg/22px-Flag_of_Nigeria.svg.png Nigeria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigeria) 5,709 5 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fe/Flag_of_Egypt.svg/22px-Flag_of_Egypt.svg.png Egypt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egypt) 5,458 6 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9b/Flag_of_Nepal.svg/16px-Flag_of_Nepal.svg.png Nepal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nepal) 5,044 7 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c0/Flag_of_Jordan.svg/22px-Flag_of_Jordan.svg.png Jordan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordan) 3,826 8 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/19/Flag_of_Ghana.svg/22px-Flag_of_Ghana.svg.png Ghana (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghana) 3,647 9 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/17/Flag_of_Rwanda.svg/22px-Flag_of_Rwanda.svg.png Rwanda (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwanda) 3,635 10 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fe/Flag_of_Uruguay.svg/22px-Flag_of_Uruguay.svg.png Uruguay (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uruguay) 2,489 11 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/71/Flag_of_Ethiopia.svg/22px-Flag_of_Ethiopia.svg.png Ethiopia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethiopia) 2,391 12 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/0/05/Flag_of_Brazil.svg/22px-Flag_of_Brazil.svg.png Brazil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazil) 2,269 13 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fd/Flag_of_Senegal.svg/22px-Flag_of_Senegal.svg.png Senegal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senegal) 2,254 14 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/af/Flag_of_South_Africa.svg/22px-Flag_of_South_Africa.svg.png South Africa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Africa) 2,088 15 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fa/Flag_of_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China.svg/22px-Flag_of_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China.svg.png China (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China) 1,995 16 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/0/03/Flag_of_Italy.svg/22px-Flag_of_Italy.svg.png Italy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italy) 1,866 17 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/c/c3/Flag_of_France.svg/22px-Flag_of_France.svg.png France (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France) 1,771 18 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9f/Flag_of_Indonesia.svg/22px-Flag_of_Indonesia.svg.png Indonesia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indonesia) 1,691 19 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2c/Flag_of_Morocco.svg/22px-Flag_of_Morocco.svg.png Morocco (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morocco) 1,561 20 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/11/Flag_of_Sri_Lanka.svg/22px-Flag_of_Sri_Lanka.svg.png Sri Lanka (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Lanka) 1,157 21 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/9a/Flag_of_Spain.svg/22px-Flag_of_Spain.svg.png Spain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spain) 1,109 22 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/66/Flag_of_Malaysia.svg/22px-Flag_of_Malaysia.svg.png Malaysia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia) 1,080 23 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0a/Flag_of_Benin.svg/22px-Flag_of_Benin.svg.png Benin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benin) 1,028 24 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/99/Flag_of_the_Philippines.svg/22px-Flag_of_the_Philippines.svg.png Philippines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippines) 1,024 25 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1a/Flag_of_Argentina.svg/22px-Flag_of_Argentina.svg.png Argentina (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argentina) 1,023 26 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/38/Flag_of_Tanzania.svg/22px-Flag_of_Tanzania.svg.png Tanzania (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanzania) 1,011 27 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/31/Flag_of_Burkina_Faso.svg/22px-Flag_of_Burkina_Faso.svg.png Burkina Faso (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burkina_Faso) 927 28 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/49/Flag_of_Kenya.svg/22px-Flag_of_Kenya.svg.png Kenya (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenya) 870 29 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/06/Flag_of_Zambia.svg/22px-Flag_of_Zambia.svg.png Zambia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zambia) 768 30 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/68/Flag_of_Togo.svg/22px-Flag_of_Togo.svg.png Togo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Togo) 738 31 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b4/Flag_of_Turkey.svg/22px-Flag_of_Turkey.svg.png Turkey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkey) 664 32 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/09/Flag_of_South_Korea.svg/22px-Flag_of_South_Korea.svg.png South Korea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Korea) 643 33 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f4/Flag_of_Niger.svg/22px-Flag_of_Niger.svg.png Niger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niger) 577 34 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/78/Flag_of_Chile.svg/22px-Flag_of_Chile.svg.png Chile (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chile) 538 35 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/77/Flag_of_The_Gambia.svg/22px-Flag_of_The_Gambia.svg.png Gambia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gambia) 522 36 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4c/Flag_of_Mongolia.svg/22px-Flag_of_Mongolia.svg.png Mongolia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongolia) 426 37 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cf/Flag_of_Peru.svg/22px-Flag_of_Peru.svg.png Peru (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peru) 396 38 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/41/Flag_of_Austria.svg/22px-Flag_of_Austria.svg.png Austria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austria) 393 39 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/49/Flag_of_Ukraine.svg/22px-Flag_of_Ukraine.svg.png Ukraine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine) 366 40 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/f3/Flag_of_Russia.svg/22px-Flag_of_Russia.svg.png Russia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia) 362 41 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5c/Flag_of_Portugal.svg/22px-Flag_of_Portugal.svg.png Portugal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portugal) 337 42 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ec/Flag_of_Guatemala.svg/22px-Flag_of_Guatemala.svg.png Guatemala (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guatemala) 320 43 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/17/Flag_of_Sierra_Leone.svg/22px-Flag_of_Sierra_Leone.svg.png Sierra Leone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sierra_Leone) 311 44 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/b/ba/Flag_of_Germany.svg/22px-Flag_of_Germany.svg.png Germany (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany) 293 45 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/a/ae/Flag_of_the_United_Kingdom.svg/22px-Flag_of_the_United_Kingdom.svg.png United Kingdom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom) 281 46 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/9e/Flag_of_Japan.svg/22px-Flag_of_Japan.svg.png Japan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan) 266 47 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/ba/Flag_of_Fiji.svg/22px-Flag_of_Fiji.svg.png Fiji (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiji) 263 48 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/48/Flag_of_Bolivia.svg/22px-Flag_of_Bolivia.svg.png Bolivia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolivia) 259 49 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/89/Flag_of_Yemen.svg/22px-Flag_of_Yemen.svg.png Yemen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yemen) 211 50 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/c/cf/Flag_of_Canada.svg/22px-Flag_of_Canada.svg.png Canada (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada) 200 51 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e6/Flag_of_Slovakia.svg/22px-Flag_of_Slovakia.svg.png Slovakia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slovakia) 200 52 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/92/Flag_of_Belgium_%28civil%29.svg/22px-Flag_of_Belgium_%28civil%29.svg.png Belgium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgium) 195 53 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4e/Flag_of_Uganda.svg/22px-Flag_of_Uganda.svg.png Uganda (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uganda) 184 54 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9c/Flag_of_Denmark.svg/22px-Flag_of_Denmark.svg.png Denmark (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denmark) 172 55 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/86/Flag_of_Cote_d%27Ivoire.svg/22px-Flag_of_Cote_d%27Ivoire.svg.png Côte d'Ivoire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C%C3%B4te_d%27Ivoire) 148 56 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6a/Flag_of_Zimbabwe.svg/22px-Flag_of_Zimbabwe.svg.png Zimbabwe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zimbabwe) 140 57 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1b/Flag_of_Croatia.svg/22px-Flag_of_Croatia.svg.png Croatia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croatia) 130 58 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d1/Flag_of_Malawi.svg/22px-Flag_of_Malawi.svg.png Malawi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malawi) 117 59 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4f/Flag_of_Cameroon.svg/22px-Flag_of_Cameroon.svg.png Cameroon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cameroon) 115 60 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/b/b9/Flag_of_Australia.svg/22px-Flag_of_Australia.svg.png Australia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia) 110 61 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/92/Flag_of_Mali.svg/22px-Flag_of_Mali.svg.png Mali (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mali) 106 62 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/34/Flag_of_El_Salvador.svg/22px-Flag_of_El_Salvador.svg.png El Salvador (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Salvador) 104 63 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c1/Flag_of_Hungary.svg/22px-Flag_of_Hungary.svg.png Hungary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungary) 95 64 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/ce/Flag_of_Tunisia.svg/22px-Flag_of_Tunisia.svg.png Tunisia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunisia) 93 65 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/00/Flag_of_Namibia.svg/22px-Flag_of_Namibia.svg.png Namibia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Namibia) 93 66 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/73/Flag_of_Romania.svg/22px-Flag_of_Romania.svg.png Romania (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romania) 93 67 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ed/Flag_of_Guinea.svg/22px-Flag_of_Guinea.svg.png Guinea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guinea) 92 68 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/27/Flag_of_Paraguay.svg/22px-Flag_of_Paraguay.svg.png Paraguay (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraguay) 89 69 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e8/Flag_of_Ecuador.svg/22px-Flag_of_Ecuador.svg.png Ecuador (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecuador) 89 70 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/a/a4/Flag_of_the_United_States.svg/22px-Flag_of_the_United_States.svg.png United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States) 82 71 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4b/Flag_of_Chad.svg/22px-Flag_of_Chad.svg.png Chad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chad) 78 72 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/50/Flag_of_Burundi.svg/22px-Flag_of_Burundi.svg.png Burundi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burundi) 66 73 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bc/Flag_of_Madagascar.svg/22px-Flag_of_Madagascar.svg.png Madagascar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madagascar) 65 74 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5c/Flag_of_Greece.svg/22px-Flag_of_Greece.svg.png Greece (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greece) 63 75 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d9/Flag_of_Norway.svg/22px-Flag_of_Norway.svg.png Norway (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norway) 60 76 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/45/Flag_of_Ireland.svg/22px-Flag_of_Ireland.svg.png Ireland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Ireland) 56 77 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/83/Flag_of_Cambodia.svg/22px-Flag_of_Cambodia.svg.png Cambodia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodia) 55 78 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/4/4c/Flag_of_Sweden.svg/22px-Flag_of_Sweden.svg.png Sweden (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden) 55 79 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a9/Flag_of_Thailand.svg/22px-Flag_of_Thailand.svg.png Thailand (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thailand) 49 80 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/20/Flag_of_the_Netherlands.svg/22px-Flag_of_the_Netherlands.svg.png Netherlands (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlands) 47 81 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/ff/Flag_of_Serbia.svg/22px-Flag_of_Serbia.svg.png Serbia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbia) 40 82 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/34/Flag_of_Djibouti.svg/22px-Flag_of_Djibouti.svg.png Djibouti (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Djibouti) 37 83 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/21/Flag_of_Colombia.svg/22px-Flag_of_Colombia.svg.png Colombia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colombia) 36 84 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/92/Flag_of_the_Republic_of_the_Congo.svg/22px-Flag_of_the_Republic_of_the_Congo.svg.png Congo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_the_Congo) 31 85 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bf/Flag_of_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina.svg/22px-Flag_of_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina.svg.png Bosnia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnia_and_Herzegovina) 29 86 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3e/Flag_of_New_Zealand.svg/22px-Flag_of_New_Zealand.svg.png New Zealand (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand) 29 87 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f3/Flag_of_Switzerland.svg/20px-Flag_of_Switzerland.svg.png Switzerland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzerland) 29 88 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bc/Flag_of_Finland.svg/22px-Flag_of_Finland.svg.png Finland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finland) 28 89 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6f/Flag_of_the_Central_African_Republic.svg/22px-Flag_of_the_Central_African_Republic.svg.png Central African Republic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_African_Republic) 26 90 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/48/Flag_of_Singapore.svg/22px-Flag_of_Singapore.svg.png Singapore (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singapore) 22 91 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0a/Flag_of_Jamaica.svg/22px-Flag_of_Jamaica.svg.png Jamaica (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamaica) 18 92 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c7/Flag_of_Kyrgyzstan.svg/22px-Flag_of_Kyrgyzstan.svg.png Kyrgyzstan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyrgyzstan) 18 93 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/1/12/Flag_of_Poland.svg/22px-Flag_of_Poland.svg.png Poland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poland) 17 94 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d0/Flag_of_Tajikistan.svg/22px-Flag_of_Tajikistan.svg.png Tajikistan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tajikistan) 16 95 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f0/Flag_of_Slovenia.svg/22px-Flag_of_Slovenia.svg.png Slovenia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slovenia) 16 96 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/31/Flag_of_Samoa.svg/22px-Flag_of_Samoa.svg.png Samoa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samoa) 16 97 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d4/Flag_of_Israel.svg/22px-Flag_of_Israel.svg.png Israel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel) 14 98 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/82/Flag_of_Honduras.svg/22px-Flag_of_Honduras.svg.png Honduras (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honduras) 12 99 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d3/Flag_of_Kazakhstan.svg/22px-Flag_of_Kazakhstan.svg.png Kazakhstan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kazakhstan) 9 100 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cb/Flag_of_the_Czech_Republic.svg/22px-Flag_of_the_Czech_Republic.svg.png Czech Republic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czech_Republic) 9 101 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9c/Flag_of_Brunei.svg/22px-Flag_of_Brunei.svg.png Brunei (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brunei) 9 102 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ed/Flag_of_Guinea.svg/22px-Flag_of_Guinea.svg.png Guinea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guinea) 7 103 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/27/Flag_of_Moldova.svg/22px-Flag_of_Moldova.svg.png Moldova (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moldova) 7 104 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/64/Flag_of_Montenegro.svg/22px-Flag_of_Montenegro.svg.png Montenegro (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montenegro) 4 105 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bc/Flag_of_Grenada.svg/22px-Flag_of_Grenada.svg.png Grenada (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grenada) 3 106 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/65/Flag_of_Qatar.svg/22px-Flag_of_Qatar.svg.png Qatar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qatar) 3 107 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/ca/Flag_of_Iran.svg/22px-Flag_of_Iran.svg.png Iran (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran) 2 108 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d0/Flag_of_Mozambique.svg/22px-Flag_of_Mozambique.svg.png Mozambique (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozambique) 2 109 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9a/Flag_of_Bulgaria.svg/22px-Flag_of_Bulgaria.svg.png Bulgaria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgaria) 2 110 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/11/Flag_of_Lithuania.svg/22px-Flag_of_Lithuania.svg.png Lithuania (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithuania) 2 111 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/ce/Flag_of_Iceland.svg/22px-Flag_of_Iceland.svg.png Iceland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iceland) 2 112 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d4/Flag_of_Cyprus.svg/22px-Flag_of_Cyprus.svg.png Cyprus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyprus) 2 113 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/92/Flag_of_the_Republic_of_the_Congo.svg/22px-Flag_of_the_Republic_of_the_Congo.svg.png Congo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_the_Congo) 1 114 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f8/Flag_of_Macedonia.svg/22px-Flag_of_Macedonia.svg.png Republic of Macedonia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Macedonia) 1 115 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8f/Flag_of_Estonia.svg/22px-Flag_of_Estonia.svg.png Estonia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estonia) 1 116 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/48/Flag_of_Palau.svg/22px-Flag_of_Palau.svg.png Palau (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palau) 1



List of countries by number of UN peacekeepers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_UN_peacekeepers)

That really does help put things in perspective -- and puts the lie to several other comments people have made. Thanks!

ozymandias
10-07-2011, 06:02 PM
Could you clarify the question? I do not understand what you are asking.


I meant, whom You see as apple and as termit and why?



*OH!* This is a language issue. I am calling neither country an apple or a termite. The phrase "comparing apples to apples" is a common English saying that means "comparing two similar things", and the phrase "comparing apples and oranges" means "comparing two dissimilar things". I used the phrase "comparing apples to termites" to indicate that comparing the military histories of Iran and the USA is comparing two things that are far more different than apples and oranges.




I'm not sure what you are trying to say here, so I will withhold comment at this time, until you clarify.
Ok! Look - the UN is not an objective organization! You cannot even immagine how many national conflicts there are. But the UN makes resolutions only for those they interest. If it would be a right organization it would be or everywhere or nowhere.



But not everywhere is in need of peacekeepers, nor does it have the resources to send peacekeepers to every location that needs them. Instead it has to prioritize the fights it thinks it can win with the degree that the fight needs to be fought.



Again, I am not sure what you mean to say. It appears there are language issues at play here.
Ok! Its about the same. Further i will tell You like this. also to answer further questions. Russia and China are as well big powers, Iran is a medium-bigger country.



Russia is not considered a Superpower any more. No matter how you cut it, after the fall of communism, Russia lost a lot of it's might. China is on it's way to be a superpower, but it's borderline.



You called China a bigger human rights violater than USA, but I disagree, and I can tell You why. Russiaand China have done as well many bad military interventions, Iran you americans call dicator - but! But in all that countries still remain all native peoples with their traditions, for example Russia has more than 100 local nationalities, the same about Iran - they maintain their culture. In the USA the natives are almost destroyed, all you are or sons of killers and occupants or immigrants who came there searching for a better life. But you are all guest, and the original population is minimazied to a mortal minimum, in Russia Chechens live in Chechnya, in Iran Baloch live in Balochestan, in China Mongols live in Inner Mongolia. To Iran , Russia, Cina came also immigrants. I am for example a son of Armenian immigrants to Russia, but no Armenian in Russia went to Chukota , told its my land, killed the Chukchi and gave lessons to the other countries on how to live. No Pashtun went to Mazandaran , shooted t Mazandaranis and did like the Americans. And so on. Yes Russia and China colonized territories , they also hve immigrants, but still they maintaind their local peoples. USA no.



Those are historical issues, I agree -- but no one living has done those crimes, so there is no real equitable way to address them. What could the UN do about these transgressions? Come into the USA, and kick out the immigrants and leave the country to the natives? Where would all the kicked out people go? How would it be fair to kick me out of the country? I was not born at the time of these events, and I played no part in them, why should I be exiled or killed as a result of them? For that matter, much of the initial slaughter was done by the Spanish, British, and French before this country even existed. Yes, it is a terrible thing, but the UN was not designed to correct historical human rights violations, but to protect the future from them. That said, my statement was referring to the treatment of the common man in China. They are not guaranteed a living wage, they do not have controlled work hours, they do not have free speech, particularly political speech. They do not have a free press. They do not have free access to decent education. They do not have freedom of movement. They do not have freedom of religion (all political positions must be held by atheists, I might add). China murders more criminals as part of their judicial system than the rest of the world *COMBINED*. China routinely tortures *ANY* criminals, not just enemy combatants. Often criminals are tortured into giving a false confession, and then put to death -- rather than let a crime go unsolved. These are all issues that are non-existent in the US, or if they exist do so in a much lesser degree -- and are actively protested, such as torture.

In the current world, there are far more on-going human rights violations in China per-capita than the US.



In a way, you are right, but it is as equally strange to think that they cannot work together to both attempt to resolve the issue -- and in many of these cases of military action, the US is seeking to help democracy avoid being overrun by dictators and tyrants. Take a look at Panama, again. The US got involved to eject a dictator that *lost* the public election, and went in to help insure the democratic process. This is *not* an issue that the US has a problem with internally. To use your drug addiction analogy, this is like a man would be like a person with a gambling problem (representing all non-democracy problems the US has) helping Panama with it's drug problem (democracy problem).

Who is USA to decide what is right?



No one. Even the UN doesn't get to 'decide' what is right, it merely acknowledges it.



Why do You think that this democracy is the right way?



It's the only realistic way to protect basic human rights in all cases.



I am against democracy, it is a hypocrite lie system that is destroying my nation. A powerful dictator that abuses in his power is equal evil like a "free" elected president trying to deal in 4--5 years in some economical interests of big powerfull shadowpeople.



I'll chalk this up to translational issues. I cannot understand how you can think that 4-5 years of an elected president who is responsible to the people, and the laws, or he is kicked out, is equally evil to the same man who holds position for life, and decides the laws -- which do not apply to them.



Democracy was like that even in ancient times , where it is taken from- the greek DEMOS where all people holding sllaves, and they were the minority of the population.
Human society is not only a scoiety of rights but of responsabilities. One US congressman orderd one of my friends in Armenia bacuse he was telling that Gays should be treated as sick and gay style shouldn't be promuoved here. He had to go to prison, but this man was fighting for our nation- we are at the borders of existance, we need no gay colture promotion, we are like that few - you can have the possibility to feed your sick peoples, but we are chalenging here to survive against your global petrol plans, the interesting is that we have even no petrol, but becauseof the conflicts with our neighbours we are disturbing in pipelines and so on.....I went to school in Germany, our teacher was telling us "Who is gay here?" Nobody answere, then he told "Bad, we need a colourfull society, if one thought even comes in your mind, try to evolve it...."



I have no idea what this even means....



This is democracy. Democracy tells - women in our countries have no right,



Actually, according to democracy, women have equal rights. That's not even democracy, but basic human rights. Democracy just protects their rights and lets them exercise them.



but in reality even in the west they have no right



I think you are falling for propoganda. My wife is my equal, so I can say from personal experience, you are wrong. She has the same human rights I do. She can get the same education. She can vote. She can do anything, legally, a man can do -- far more than many Eastern countries.



- religous fanatics use body power and in europe they use mental power to kill everything feminine in a woman and evrything masculine in a man.



Again, translation problems.



A girl is laughed at if she doesn'T dress to attract man , if she seeks for family and they even have no protection of becoming an object?




Again, translation problems.




this democratic system is only made to fulfill "low material wishes" of the masses - and defending them is called defending human rights - humanity is going far away from nature forgetting that we are part of it, that roles of man and woman are not equal, they are different,it doesn'T mean somebody is worse.



But the human rights should be. If they are human, they deserve human rights. Period.



Perhaps USA is defending democracy, but this democracy defension is equal to dictatorship, bacuse you do not want anywhere to evolve a way of life different of Yours, You do not want to accept different(with you I mean the USA not you personally), what is the difference?



As long as each resident of the country is granted equal rights, democracy is not needed. You can be as different as you want -- as long as you grant basic human rights to all.



The difference is only after genciding the native America you left direct violence upon your citizens , chaning it to halfinformation-propaganda violence and creating animallike immages in people through films.
I am glad , nobody has to fear for his life, but what the USA promote is equal to breath being death inside.



I assume this is more language barriers.



In some cases, that may be the issue -- but I think it has more to do with the size of disposable income the government can afford to spend on military. If only 1% of a government's budget is spent on a military, the US is going to have far more troops to lend to the US.

In addition, many of these countries simple have not offered troops to the UN to use. Iran, for instance, has not offered peacekeeping troops until recently -- so they could not possibly have been used.
How can military resolve problems of one nation and specially not knowing the nation and beeing a stranger? This is not peace.



What does that have to do with the quote of mine -- or even anything? I don't understand what you are asking.





Yes and no. All humans have basic rights, such as free speech, and freedom to select their own religion, the right to safety and a few other basics. The UN recognizes these rights, and all member countries ratified the agreements. This simplifies issues, in that many of these cases it is *not* an outside state -- the states themselves agreed to these rights.

Not only that, but I think that morally and ethically, it is the obligation of each and every human on this planet to protect the rights of everyone else. This is *not* an issue of politics, but rather an issue of basic human rights. Regardless of what country a person resides in they deserve their basic rights.
The UN is a political organization, their agreement cannot focus a nations will even , bacuase the nations didn't decide, bacuse a state is not always a nation even....



Actually, many of the countries I assume we are talking about agreed to the UN Declaration of Human Rights: Universal Declaration of Human Rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights#Adoption)

I see Iran, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Iraq, Pakistan, Syria and Turkey all signed. So they did decide. Even before they signed it, here is a list of the countries that *drafted* it: Australia, Belgium, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Chile, China, Egypt, France, India, Iran, Lebanon, Panama, Philippines, United Kingdom, United States, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Uruguay and Yugoslavia.



Basic human rights are a theory- the human has not only rights, he has also basic obligations - to continue his race, to aquist knowledge and to do welfare, without those obligations human rights are a poison.



I agree. And among those obligations is protecting the rights of those that cannot protect themselves.



You cannot compare the right of free speech of a gay fulfilling his wishes with the right of a culturally wise person in warning on the populations mental health - but they have the same right of speech in the democratic system now.



What's with your obsession with homosexuality?

Anyway, you are right, they do have equal rights to free speech. Combine that with equal education, and you have no problems, because everyone is a culturally wise person -- or should be.

Free speech does not include the right to force others to listen. It simply means that you are welcome to talk. People can listen if they want, or they can walk away. Or they can retort and correct you, because they have the right to free speech, too.



To tell shortly I would call it " Do harm without using direct power".



Again, something was lost in translation.




The USA are not a judge, neither are the UN.



You are right. In a perfect world, each and every man is the judge, and the US and UN are simply carrying out the will of the people. That's what they strive for.




that is all for today- I am tired - best wishes!

randolph85
10-07-2011, 09:26 PM
atheism is played out, its not hip, cool, or interesting. professing a lack of belief is attention *****dom.

kakargirl
10-07-2011, 09:45 PM
I have question,Do you think a person could survive if a bomb exploded right next to him or her, or if a grenade went off in their hands .

Alchemist
10-07-2011, 11:19 PM
Indeed, we did ;-)



This argument is called "Pascal's Wager", and it is a very old gem. At first glance, it is indeed a fairly convincing argument -- but upon investigation it does not hold up. Let me illuminate a few of the flaws:

1) Which God? According to most sects and denominations, believing in the wrong one at best, does no good, at worst, angers god. Would you not agree that many Muslims would agree that Allah would be angered if one were to reject him for the Jewish version (called Yahweh, for simplicity), and most Christians would agree. To add to the matters, Baptists would say god would be angered if one were to be a Catholic, and vice versa. How are you to select which version of God, Allah, or Yahweh to believe in?

2) What about the 'other' gods? Odin? Zeus? Osiris? Etc.

3) You assume belief is a matter of choice. I disagree, as would most psychologists and philosophers. Belief is a result of a person being exposed to a convincing level of evidence, not a matter of conscious choice. Could you realistically *choose* not to believe in gravity? Or choose to believe that the sun will not come up tomorrow? Remember, you are not answering just me -- you would have to convince an all knowing, all powerful being of your belief. Any doubt at all would be known to them.

4) Pascal's Wager, even if not flawed as already mention, still would not be *proof* of a god's existence. Look at another example: you cannot win the lottery if you don't play, so thus, would it not be best to spend your entire income on tickets? Clearly it would be best for you to win the lottery, as opposed to not winning, right?

5) Even if a god did exist, would it not be possible that he would be upset that we reject the gifts of rationality, reason, logic, intelligence, and scientific endeavors that he granted us, in return for blind obedience? What kind of loving parent would want their kids to be underachievers?

To put it into a lighthearted image that has been making the rounds on the internet lately:
http://i.imgur.com/ARUx0.jpg

Best of wishes to you and yours -- I am looking forward to continuing this conversation.


Your arguments are rather silly sir.


There cannot be many gods in the first place.
If there were many gods then there would be no order or structure to reality. Our ability to predict the course of nature, the seasons, indeed, the stages of biological life, and continuum of space and time indicate that everything is united under One's will. And if there were many gods, then each god would do as he or she will's, and one day you will wake up with three legs walking at the speed of an ant then vanish and pop out 5 light years away as a fish in water and each god will pit against each other over petty matters the lot of us. As is such the depiction of gods in most polytheistic mythologies. So this line of reasoning of yours is flawed in the sense that you deny who God is.
Even the mystery religions suppose that there is One Supreme God, worshipped exclusively by the "chosen" sect, where as the lesser and commoner folks are given their own idols to praise. So his question to you was about The-God, and in arabic that translates literally to Al-Lah and this reason of yours fails.
Returning to your reasoning of "Pascal's wager" - if you were to believe that there isn't One God, but many gods, and that you have to choose between one god over the other, then this would be the greatest insult to the One God and this would anger Him the most and this would be the most inexcusable in His sight. For the One God will ask you to produce these other gods that you worshiped "beside" Him, and you wouldn't be able to. The wager would be the same for you to believe in many gods and no gods at all, against One god. For if there was no god, then you lose, and if there were many gods, lose, because if The One God asks you to produce the god you worshipped, and your god did exist, then he would be crushed by The more powerful God.

It seems like you didn't think this point thoroughly enough. And you have just learned to argue this way from that meme you found on google.images.

The paradox does not lie in our ability to belief, but in our ability to choose. That you have the ability to choose is proof that you have the freedom to believe in whatever you want.

You don not indicate the learning of a psychologist or a philosopher from the argument you have made. What a person believes, he acts on, therefore your actions are proof of your beliefs. And what you believe is contingent on what you experience as reality. If your beliefs are aligned with reality, then your experience will affirm your beliefs. A person suffering from agoraphobia will believe that if he or she leaves the house, he will surely experience something frightful and terrifying. Their experience does not affirm it to be true but that is what they choose to believe. In order to help such a person, they must be given experiences that invalidate their beliefs. So if you want to believe, you may choose to believe so by choosing to act on it.

Also, I think your faith in "Human rights" is misplaced and if anything, a cliche.
So called human rights from a philosophical and psychological perspective are mirages and illusions. If you believe that humans have a right to "freedom of speech", then this conviction of yours is as a result of your upbringing and the culture you have been imbued in. You are merely parroting another meme without understanding it's significance ...or insignificance.


I think you should spend some more time thinking all this through before you come here playing sage yoda - "Ask me anything". I am not impressed :dog:

Catya Sher
10-07-2011, 11:23 PM
You tell him, Alchemist !

I thought even the title of the thread sounded bombastic.
I couldn't even read what he wrote.

It's too embarrassing how many Americans imagine they
are so smart, when they are next to ignoramuses as far as
REAL LIFE goes.

Admin Khan
10-07-2011, 11:39 PM
J,

Indeed, we did ;-)



1) Which God? According to most sects and denominations, believing in the wrong one at best, does no good, at worst, angers god. Would you not agree that many Muslims would agree that Allah would be angered if one were to reject him for the Jewish version (called Yahweh, for simplicity), and most Christians would agree.

Well, that's an entirely different discussion. We use Allah, because it's a unique term that can't quite be manipulated. It's has a universal meaning amongst Muslims regardless of their origins. You are a technological person J, you should know that it's a final variable, and nothing more than that. In Islam, it's Allah, and in Judaism it could be Yahweh. Muslim's don't deny their past, we believe there were several past revelations, and over 100,000 different types of people sent by God/Allah. Let's stick to one discussion at a time, and we may move on as time progresses.



To add to the matters, Baptists would say god would be angered if one were to be a Catholic, and vice versa. How are you to select which version of God, Allah, or Yahweh to believe in?

By critically analyzing each faith, and allowing to see which one makes more sense to us. Allah is Allah. There is no version, there are simply past revelations that had an important role back in it's respective era. Muslim's don't deny Jesus or Moses.


2) What about the 'other' gods? Odin? Zeus? Osiris? Etc.

Muslims don't deny the past. In fact, we are advised that there were thousands of previous prophets. Perhaps Zeus was one of them, or maybe not.

3) You assume belief is a matter of choice.

It is a matter of choice. One can sit down, research it and analyze it, and realize if it makes sense to them or not. That's what most people end up doing in prison. No one has the right to shove a particular faith down someones throat, but should you chose Computer Science as your religion, it's a matter of your choice and free-will, something I respect and fight for. Whether it's right or not is a fruitful discussion in it's self.

I disagree, as would most psychologists and philosophers.

Such as? I'd like to see some references, please.

Belief is a result of a person being exposed to a convincing level of evidence, not a matter of conscious choice.

Wouldn't you have to be conscious in order to truly accept something as evidence? If you were to be unconscious, isn't that more of a medical problem? I'd like for you to elaborate on the aforementioned. I'm quite confused with your stance here. So if I were to apply some predicate logic, and negate that, what would the opposite statement be?


4) Pascal's Wager, even if not flawed as already mention, still would not be *proof* of a god's existence.

I never claimed it's God's existence. I was just throwing that in the wild, so initiate a discussion. I just want to know, what makes you believe there is no God, or creator?


5) Even if a god did exist, would it not be possible that he would be upset that we reject the gifts of rationality, reason, logic, intelligence, and scientific endeavors that he granted us, in return for blind obedience?

Why would he be upset? No were does God claim you should abstain from intellectual conversations based on logic and science. In fact, he encourages education more than anything. He never requested blind obedience, it's a matter of faith. With all due respect J, that's a misconception on your part.


What kind of loving parent would want their kids to be underachievers?

No parent would, nor would a God.



Best of wishes to you and yours -- I am looking forward to continuing this conversation.
So do I. I apologize for my late response. I will certainly try my best to respond daily, but due to the nature of the research I am conducting, there might be times where there will be a slight delay in my postings.

kakargirl
10-08-2011, 12:16 AM
Allah name is unique no one calls themselves( Allah )but (GOD) name toba well so many have بترس از كسي كه او نمي ترسد از خدا called themselves GOD.

ozymandias
10-08-2011, 02:39 AM
atheism is played out, its not hip, cool, or interesting.



I don't do it to be hip, or cool I do it because I cannot do anything else -- and I find it very interesting, personally.



professing a lack of belief is attention *****dom.

You are welcome to have your beliefs.

ozymandias
10-08-2011, 02:59 AM
Your arguments are rather silly sir.


There cannot be many gods in the first place.

If there were many gods then there would be no order or structure to reality.



Many religions believe in a hierarchy or gods with no issues with that -- but that is not what I actually meant. I meant that any one of many gods could be the correct one.




Our ability to predict the course of nature, the seasons, indeed, the stages of biological life, and continuum of space and time indicate that everything is united under One's will.



Actually, no. It indicates that there are no supernatural actors, but that is a digression.



And if there were many gods, then each god would do as he or she will's, and one day you will wake up with three legs walking at the speed of an ant then vanish and pop out 5 light years away as a fish in water and each god will pit against each other over petty matters the lot of us.



And what basis do you ground this assertion on? At my place of employment, I have many bosses, but we manage to have a consolidated, consistent approach to our business. Why would this *have* to be different?



[quote]

As is such the depiction of gods in most polytheistic mythologies. So this line of reasoning of yours is flawed in the sense that you deny who God is.
Even the mystery religions suppose that there is One Supreme God, worshipped exclusively by the "chosen" sect, where as the lesser and commoner folks are given their own idols to praise.



This is in-line with what I meant. Which of the monotheistic gods is correct? In christianity alone, I could likely name several dozen distinct different gods. Add in the Jewish sects, and the Islamic denominations, and we are looking at a large number of gods, many of which are angered by someone following any one of the other versions.



So his question to you was about The-God, and in arabic that translates literally to Al-Lah and this reason of yours fails.



Not at all. You still have not presented which version is the correct one, which is something that Pascal's Wager, by design, omits. It is outside the scope of the wager.



Returning to your reasoning of "Pascal's wager" - if you were to believe that there isn't One God, but many gods,



This was not my argument, but a straw many you have created.



and that you have to choose between one god over the other, then this would be the greatest insult to the One God and this would anger Him the most and this would be the most inexcusable in His sight.



Bingo.



For the One God will ask you to produce these other gods that you worshiped "beside" Him, and you wouldn't be able to. The wager would be the same for you to believe in many gods and no gods at all, against One god.



Again, bingo. This is a *HUGE* flaw in the wager, as you evidently agree.



For if there was no god, then you lose, and if there were many gods, lose, because if The One God asks you to produce the god you worshipped, and your god did exist, then he would be crushed by The more powerful God.

It seems like you didn't think this point thoroughly enough.



I'm not sure how you can follow up with agreeing with my main point by saying I did not think it through enough.



And you have just learned to argue this way from that meme you found on google.images.

The paradox does not lie in our ability to belief, but in our ability to choose. That you have the ability to choose is proof that you have the freedom to believe in whatever you want.



This is thoroughly and completely false. Belief is in no way a matter of choice. You can act as if you believe something, but let's not be silly. Either an argument is convincing to you, or not.



You don not indicate the learning of a psychologist or a philosopher from the argument you have made. What a person believes, he acts on, therefore your actions are proof of your beliefs.



Not true. You can preform and an action that is the result of a hidden belief, or you can act contrary to your beliefs to hide them. For instance, were I to visit Iran, I would likely act as if I were a Christian, and attend a church. This is not an indication of my belief in the reality of the Christian faith, but an indication that I am concerned I would be attacked, legally or physically, for being an atheist.



And what you believe is contingent on what you experience as reality. If your beliefs are aligned with reality, then your experience will affirm your beliefs. A person suffering from agoraphobia will believe that if he or she leaves the house, he will surely experience something frightful and terrifying. Their experience does not affirm it to be true but that is what they choose to believe.



You are horribly abusing the word 'choice' here. Agoraphobics, by definition, do not chose to be agoraphobic, and are a perfect example of my point. They have experienced something in their lives that provided sufficient evidence *TO THEM* to convince them of the dangers of the outside. It is far from a matter of choice, and the cure for them is *not* to tell them to change their minds, but rather to provide them with evidence of the safety of the outside world, and overcome their belief.



In order to help such a person, they must be given experiences that invalidate their beliefs. So if you want to believe, you may choose to believe so by choosing to act on it.



But they are not choosing to change their belief. They are choosing to examine evidence that might sway their existing belief. You appear to be fluent enough in English to catch the difference. Please let me know if you miss it.



Also, I think your faith in "Human rights" is misplaced and if anything, a cliche.
So called human rights from a philosophical and psychological perspective are mirages and illusions. If you believe that humans have a right to "freedom of speech", then this conviction of yours is as a result of your upbringing and the culture you have been imbued in.



I do not disagree that I am the product of my environment.



You are merely parroting another meme without understanding it's significance ...or insignificance.



I do disagree with this statement.



I think you should spend some more time thinking all this through before you come here playing sage yoda - "Ask me anything". I am not impressed :dog:

Who is being a sage yoga? I am not claiming to have all the answers, and my intention with this thread is *NOT* to provide them for others. I thought I was fairly clear with the first post and explaining that the point was to provide an alternative viewpoint than one that you may have experienced before, and open a dialog. I am merely discussion what I believe, and expect to impart no wisdom. I expect to have thought provoking questions asked of me, and for *ME* to gain wisdom and insight into a world I cannot experience first hand.

ozymandias
10-08-2011, 03:01 AM
You tell him, Alchemist !

I thought even the title of the thread sounded bombastic.
I couldn't even read what he wrote.

It's too embarrassing how many Americans imagine they
are so smart, when they are next to ignoramuses as far as
REAL LIFE goes.


I suggest you give it a shot. The point of this thread is *NOT* to say that 'I am so smart', the point of this thread is to say that 'the media and news cannot be trusted, anywhere. Let's cut out that biased, propaganda spewing middle man and have a conversation and attempt to learn something from each other.'

ozymandias
10-08-2011, 03:45 AM
J,


Well, that's an entirely different discussion. We use Allah, because it's a unique term that can't quite be manipulated. It's has a universal meaning amongst Muslims regardless of their origins. You are a technological person J, you should know that it's a final variable, and nothing more than that. In Islam, it's Allah, and in Judaism it could be Yahweh. Muslim's don't deny their past, we believe there were several past revelations, and over 100,000 different types of people sent by God/Allah. Let's stick to one discussion at a time, and we may move on as time progresses.



Exactly. The choice of *which god is true* is outside the Wager, and is a vastly important choice.



By critically analyzing each faith, and allowing to see which one makes more sense to us. Allah is Allah. There is no version, there are simply past revelations that had an important role back in it's respective era. Muslim's don't deny Jesus or Moses.



By 'version', I mean which set of 'rules', not which ultimate god. The Wager simply states 'believe in a god', and makes *no* differentiation between which faiths. It lumps them all into one. According to the Wager, it is equally OK to be a Baptist, as a Muslim, which is the flaw I am pointing out.



Muslims don't deny the past. In fact, we are advised that there were thousands of previous prophets. Perhaps Zeus was one of them, or maybe not.



And that may be -- but if you were to worship Zeus, it would likely not fair well when you run into Allah -- or vice versa.



It is a matter of choice. One can sit down, research it and analyze it, and realize if it makes sense to them or not. That's what most people end up doing in prison. No one has the right to shove a particular faith down someones throat, but should you chose Computer Science as your religion, it's a matter of your choice and free-will, something I respect and fight for. Whether it's right or not is a fruitful discussion in it's self.



I am going to disagree. You can choose to be exposed to the evidence, which is one thing, but you cannot choose to be convinced by it. Either you find it convincing, or not. I will go back to the example of gravity. By your claim that belief is a choice, you ought to be able to decide to believe, for the next 24 hours, that there is no such thing as gravity -- and that you could honestly, deep down in the core of your self, change that belief. Keep in mind, that you do not need to convince yourself that your belief changed. You do not even need to convince me -- you would need to so firmly believe that there is no such thing as gravity that Allah himself would be convinced.

To add to this, I could make up hundreds of arguments that gravity is not real. You could even choose to read them -- but I sincerely doubt they would be convincing, and could not actually sway your belief.



Such as? I'd like to see some references, please.



I'll link to wikipedia, not because it is a definitive source, but because it is a nice overview of the topic: Belief - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief#How_beliefs_are_formed)

As you can see, choice is not listed, and all the listed causes are variations of 'becoming convinced of the validity of the evidence' in some fashion. I will spend some time this weekend looking for online references to present. Much of the sources I have on hand are from my college psychology text books from years back, but before I do, let's make sure that we are not already on the same page. I do not disagree that you can work towards changing you belief -- you clearly can, by selecting what information to present to yourself and what evidence to read. You see this in every day life -- to use an example that ought to have meaning for you, I am sure that you are aware that many Christians refuse to read the Koran, and a result of this is that they will *not* be exposed to much of the evidence that you find convincing. They do express control over their beliefs -- but it is not direct control.



Wouldn't you have to be conscious in order to truly accept something as evidence? If you were to be unconscious, isn't that more of a medical problem? I'd like for you to elaborate on the aforementioned. I'm quite confused with your stance here.



Out of curiosity, (and not to change the subject), how strong is your use of the English language? You seem to be very fluent, but in this case you made a slight mistake with an ambiguity, and past experiences with you indicate that it was a mistake, and not a deliberate bull-headedness. It may also be that you have a background in British English, and the nuances between the two languages is a stumbling block. You seem to be a native speaker, but this confusion has me wondering.

When I say 'conscious choice', I mean a matter of will. When you weight the pros and cons of an action, and then decide whether to take it or not, you are making a conscious choice. When you select which university to attend, you likely made a conscious choice. What I am saying is that belief (particularly in religion) is not a matter of weighing to pros and cons. I did not weigh the pros and cons of belief in gravity, I see the evidence for it every day, and I find it convincing that gravity exists. Does that make more sense?




So if I were to apply some predicate logic, and negate that, what would the opposite statement be?



In all honesty, I am not sure I can, and not just confuse the issue.



I never claimed it's God's existence. I was just throwing that in the wild, so initiate a discussion. I just want to know, what makes you believe there is no God, or creator?



The lack of supporting evidence, to put it shortly. I have never seen arguments *for* a god that I have found convincing. The more arguments for a god I see, and find flaws in, the less likely it is that there is a god. It really appears that there is only room for a god in the 'gaps' in science, and science is closing those gaps. Where once mankind needed the power of a god to explain the rising and setting of the sun, we now have physics. Where god was once used to explain earthquakes, seismology; volcanoes and tornadoes; meteorology. The list goes on.




Why would he be upset? No were does God claim you should abstain from intellectual conversations based on logic and science. In fact, he encourages education more than anything. He never requested blind obedience, it's a matter of faith. With all due respect J, that's a misconception on your part.



I'm not sure I agree. In my mind, that's exactly what Pascal's Wager asks for. It asks for blind obedience simply because it is deemed the 'safe bet' without providing additional evidence to support it. Keep in mind that we are discussing the Wager here -- and not any other proof for a god. Outside the Wager, I will grant you that you can make the arguments you just made -- but that is outside the Wager. Inside the Wager, the only fact you can consider is the punishment or reward for your choice, and no other evidence for or against.



No parent would, nor would a God.



But that is what the Wager asks for. In my mind, asking for faith without evidence would be asking them to be less than they could. You are asking them to 'turn off' part of their brains and reject what it is saying. You are asking them to be moral people through fear of reprisals, and not because being moral is the right thing to do. That is underachieving, in my mind. This would be avoided by providing evidence (outside of the Wager's scope) and building a moral code not based on punishment and reward.



So do I. I apologize for my late response. I will certainly try my best to respond daily, but due to the nature of the research I am conducting, there might be times where there will be a slight delay in my postings.

Same here. I will post as frequently as possible, but it is *very* likely that I will receive many more posts than I can respond to in a timely manner.

ozymandias
10-08-2011, 03:51 AM
Allah name is unique no one calls themselves( Allah )but (GOD) name toba well so many have بترس از كسي كه او نمي ترسد از خدا called themselves GOD.

I'm sorry, I do not understand what you are saying. Running that phrase through google translate resulted in this:

Allah name is unique no one calls themselves ( Allah ) but ( GOD ) name toba well so many have 'afraid of someone who's not afraid of God' called themselves GOD.

This clarified nothing. I believe that you are implying that the Wager means 'Allah', but it does no such thing. In fact, that is the core problem of it.


من متاسفم، من نمی فهمم شما در حال تلاش برای گفتن.
(I am sorry, I do not understand what you are trying to say.)

یکی از مشکلات این است که پاسکال شروط خدا از هر خدای دیگر افتراق نیست.به اعتقاد من این است که شما در تلاش برای ایجاد.
(One of the problems is that Pascal's Wager does not differentiate Allah from any other god. I believe this is the point you were trying to make.)

Could one of you multilingual people be so kind as to let me know if google translate was even *close* on those translations? It really has no bearing on this discussion, but I would love to know.

ozymandias
10-08-2011, 04:00 AM
I have question,Do you think a person could survive if a bomb exploded right next to him or her, or if a grenade went off in their hands .

This is a very vague question, so I will have to say 'yes'. There are many causes of exactly these things happening. It is not safe to assume everyone would survive these things, but it does happen. It is a matter of how strong the blasts are, the directionality of the blasts, the protective clothing and materials, the orientation of the bodies, arms, and explosives, and many other things I am not likely to understand fully -- but I know it happens.

Admin Khan
10-08-2011, 10:39 AM
Good morning J. I hope you are in good health.


Exactly. The choice of *which god is true* is outside the Wager, and is a vastly important choice.

Like I said before my friend, to choose which God we must critically analyze the religions on hand. Islam, in my opinion, is backwards-compatible so it proves why Jesus and Moses were here before Prophet Muhammad.


By 'version', I mean which set of 'rules', not which ultimate god.

The rules outlined in the Quran, and Hadith.


The Wager simply states 'believe in a god', and makes *no* differentiation between which faiths.

Well, I very eloquently told you that a differentiation is required. Not to mention, Islam explains the past as well. So it's not like we will be sipping tea in the wood, and attempting to figure out who all those past prophets were, a perfect explanation has been provided in our authentic sources.

It lumps them all into one. According to the Wager, it is equally OK to be a Baptist, as a Muslim, which is the flaw I am pointing out.

And according to your e-friend, Admin Khan, it's not. I don't see a need to point out a flaw, for something I don't represent. J, I told you that line was to simply initiate a conversation with you. I'm not trying to tell you "You should blindly become a Muslim, because it's cool!". If religion doesn't make sense to you, we can have a discussion.

I'd like to learn from you.


And that may be -- but if you were to worship Zeus, it would likely not fair well when you run into Allah -- or vice versa.

I have no reason to worship Zeus. This has been made clear to us in our faith. Was Zeus a prophet or messenger? Perhaps he was. The probability does indeed exist. In fact, your great^20 grandfather could've been a prophet. That's what Islam tells us. We are advised not to be oblivious of the past.


I am going to disagree. You can choose to be exposed to the evidence, which is one thing, but you cannot choose to be convinced by it.

If evidence is available, and I chose not to believe in it, the ball is in my court and I'd be the fool.

To add to this, I could make up hundreds of arguments that gravity is not real. You could even choose to read them -- but I sincerely doubt they would be convincing, and could not actually sway your belief.

If your arguments have evidence, I'd give it a shot.


As you can see, choice is not listed, and all the listed causes are variations of 'becoming convinced of the validity of the evidence' in some fashion. I will spend some time this weekend looking for online references to present.

I look forward to it.

Much of the sources I have on hand are from my college psychology text books from years back, but before I do, let's make sure that we are not already on the same page. I do not disagree that you can work towards changing you belief -- you clearly can, by selecting what information to present to yourself and what evidence to read. You see this in every day life -- to use an example that ought to have meaning for you, I am sure that you are aware that many Christians refuse to read the Koran, and a result of this is that they will *not* be exposed to much of the evidence that you find convincing. They do express control over their beliefs -- but it is not direct control.

If a Christian refuses to read the Quran, that's his choice. However, I wouldn't mind reading his Bible. We should read all sort of scriptures, and articles. Which is exactly what I do. I lurk through websites that are anti-Islam, just to learn what the foundation of their beliefs are. The list goes on.


Out of curiosity, (and not to change the subject), how strong is your use of the English language? You seem to be very fluent, but in this case you made a slight mistake with an ambiguity, and past experiences with you indicate that it was a mistake, and not a deliberate bull-headedness.

I sincerely apologize for my mistake. It was pretty late here, and I was working all day. I was also craving for food, but I figured I'd respond to you before I forget. Yes, English is my first language.

When I say 'conscious choice', I mean a matter of will. When you weight the pros and cons of an action, and then decide whether to take it or not, you are making a conscious choice.

I agree.

When you select which university to attend, you likely made a conscious choice. What I am saying is that belief (particularly in religion) is not a matter of weighing to pros and cons.

I disagree here. You are deliberately trying to make religion appear that way, but it's far from that. When someone studies Islam, they realize it's not just a religion, it's a way of life. So they obviously try to dissect the text on hand, and weight it's pro's and con's. Many find it compatible, some are often mislead by the complexity of Arabic. The point here is, they certainly have weighted the pro's and con's and I'm more than confident they have compared it to their former religion. I'm sure many of those who have reverted to Islam would agree.


I did not weigh the pros and cons of belief in gravity, I see the evidence for it every day, and I find it convincing that gravity exists. Does that make more sense?

That certainly makes sense, and I would agree that I have no evidence to prove that God exists. I follow what you are saying, but where do you think the Quran came from? Who do you think had the ability to write such an amazing book?








But that is what the Wager asks for. In my mind, asking for faith without evidence would be asking them to be less than they could. You are asking them to 'turn off' part of their brains and reject what it is saying. You are asking them to be moral people through fear of reprisals, and not because being moral is the right thing to do. That is underachieving, in my mind. This would be avoided by providing evidence (outside of the Wager's scope) and building a moral code not based on punishment and reward.

I'm asking to ask as many questions about the faith as possible, and see if it makes sense or not.


Same here. I will post as frequently as possible, but it is *very* likely that I will receive many more posts than I can respond to in a timely manner.
Awesome.

Afghanistan2010
10-08-2011, 11:06 AM
i hope you are not planning to make an inside job to capture this forum....

ozymandias
10-08-2011, 01:02 PM
Good morning J. I hope you are in good health.



Like I said before my friend, to choose which God we must critically analyze the religions on hand. Islam, in my opinion, is backwards-compatible so it proves why Jesus and Moses were here before Prophet Muhammad.



And like I said before, that is outside the Wager. The Wager is equally valid if you were to plug the word 'Zeus' in for god, it would equally argue that one should worship Zeus. You are drawing in additional material *not* related to the Wager.




The rules outlined in the Quran, and Hadith.



You are starting to get off track here. You are ignoring the fact that the Torah, and Bible also describe *versions* of gods. You may believe they are compatible, but not all people agree. The Wager argues for the Baptist version of God equally well as the Allah version -- and to the Baptists, the two are incompatible.



Well, I very eloquently told you that a differentiation is required. Not to mention, Islam explains the past as well. So it's not like we will be sipping tea in the wood, and attempting to figure out who all those past prophets were, a perfect explanation has been provided in our authentic sources.



And I believe I eloquently told you that any differentiation is outside the Wager.



And according to your e-friend, Admin Khan, it's not.



And you are outside the Wager. The Wager needs to be able to stand on it's own, and address it's own flaws -- or it is flawed. In the larger scope of the world, your arguments have merit, but when discussing the Wager, they do not, as they are beyond what the Wager discusses.



I don't see a need to point out a flaw, for something I don't represent. J, I told you that line was to simply initiate a conversation with you. I'm not trying to tell you "You should blindly become a Muslim, because it's cool!". If religion doesn't make sense to you, we can have a discussion.

I'd like to learn from you.



Same here.



I have no reason to worship Zeus. This has been made clear to us in our faith. Was Zeus a prophet or messenger? Perhaps he was. The probability does indeed exist. In fact, your great^20 grandfather could've been a prophet. That's what Islam tells us. We are advised not to be oblivious of the past.



But according to the Wager, you do.The Wager makes no discussion of *which* god to worship, and can be used to argue for Zeus being the supreme god. You are drawing in arguments that are *not* part of the Wager to decide on Allah, and that is beyond the scope of the Wager.




If evidence is available, and I chose not to believe in it, the ball is in my court and I'd be the fool.

If your arguments have evidence, I'd give it a shot.



But they don't. That's the point. You cannot decide to believe something. You can only decide to expose your self to evidence, or hide yourself from it. You cannot decide if the evidence convinces you.




I look forward to it.

If a Christian refuses to read the Quran, that's his choice. However, I wouldn't mind reading his Bible. We should read all sort of scriptures, and articles. Which is exactly what I do. I lurk through websites that are anti-Islam, just to learn what the foundation of their beliefs are. The list goes on.



Indeed.



I sincerely apologize for my mistake. It was pretty late here, and I was working all day. I was also craving for food, but I figured I'd respond to you before I forget. Yes, English is my first language.

I agree.

I disagree here. You are deliberately trying to make religion appear that way, but it's far from that. When someone studies Islam, they realize it's not just a religion, it's a way of life. So they obviously try to dissect the text on hand, and weight it's pro's and con's. Many find it compatible, some are often mislead by the complexity of Arabic. The point here is, they certainly have weighted the pro's and con's and I'm more than confident they have compared it to their former religion. I'm sure many of those who have reverted to Islam would agree.


That certainly makes sense, and I would agree that I have no evidence to prove that God exists. I follow what you are saying, but where do you think the Quran came from? Who do you think had the ability to write such an amazing book?



Not to be insulting, but I simply do not find it to be any more amazing than any other historical document. It is a product of it's times, and to a scientific mind, does not contain anything that requires the 'divine' to have come about. Most of the 'scientific discoveries' people claim existed in the Koran are vague and are not all that amazing, simply because they are so vague.





I'm asking to ask as many questions about the faith as possible, and see if it makes sense or not.


Awesome.

ozymandias
10-08-2011, 01:03 PM
i hope you are not planning to make an inside job to capture this forum....

I don't know what this means.

kakargirl
10-08-2011, 02:47 PM
I'm sorry, I do not understand what you are saying. Running that phrase through google translate resulted in this:

Allah name is unique no one calls themselves ( Allah ) but ( GOD ) name toba well so many have 'afraid of someone who's not afraid of God' called themselves GOD.

This clarified nothing. I believe that you are implying that the Wager means 'Allah', but it does no such thing. In fact, that is the core problem of it.


من متاسفم، من نمی فهمم شما در حال تلاش برای گفتن.
(I am sorry, I do not understand what you are trying to say.)

یکی از مشکلات این است که پاسکال شروط خدا از هر خدای دیگر افتراق نیست.به اعتقاد من این است که شما در تلاش برای ایجاد.
(One of the problems is that Pascal's Wager does not differentiate Allah from any other god. I believe this is the point you were trying to make.)

Could one of you multilingual people be so kind as to let me know if google translate was even *close* on those translations? It really has no bearing on this discussion, but I would love to know.Thank you, you answered it in a very polite manner ,yes it meant fear those who don't fear god its a pashto saying too something elders will use that fear those who don't fear GOD .

kakargirl
10-08-2011, 03:05 PM
This is a very vague question, so I will have to say 'yes'. There are many causes of exactly these things happening. It is not safe to assume everyone would survive these things, but it does happen. It is a matter of how strong the blasts are, the directionality of the blasts, the protective clothing and materials, the orientation of the bodies, arms, and explosives, and many other things I am not likely to understand fully -- but I know it happens.Mmm yes its a vague question but a very important one actually.

How did my 4 year old uncle at the time of russians survive a grenade blast he was holding in his hands playing catch with it.(he found the grenade on his fathers land left by russians)

How did a woman we know really well survive a fall from a 8 story building, with no bones broken nothing just a bit of back injury.


How is it possible for a teenager to survive 200 tramadol over dose each tramadol 300mg, and walk away with no side effects no liver disorders .

How did a person standing 3ft away from high explosive bomb survive with a few scratchs.

I ask these for reason my belief is if its not your time to go you won't go you could do anything you will survive .

IamDZJ
10-08-2011, 03:37 PM
::rolleyes::

ozymandias
10-08-2011, 04:06 PM
Mmm yes its a vague question but a very important one actually.

How did my 4 year old uncle at the time of russians survive a grenade blast he was holding in his hands playing catch with it.(he found the grenade on his fathers land left by russians)

How did a woman we know really well survive a fall from a 8 story building, with no bones broken nothing just a bit of back injury.


How is it possible for a teenager to survive 200 tramadol over dose each tramadol 300mg, and walk away with no side effects no liver disorders .

How did a person standing 3ft away from high explosive bomb survive with a few scratchs.

I ask these for reason my belief is if its not your time to go you won't go you could do anything you will survive .


In one word? Statistics.

graveyardofempires
10-08-2011, 04:10 PM
another fake ID

ozymandias
10-08-2011, 04:20 PM
another fake ID


...?

graveyardofempires
10-08-2011, 04:24 PM
^
yeah you

we dont need to ask ab anerican,so take a hike.

ScimitarXEdge
10-08-2011, 04:33 PM
Mmm yes its a vague question but a very important one actually.

How did my 4 year old uncle at the time of russians survive a grenade blast he was holding in his hands playing catch with it.(he found the grenade on his fathers land left by russians)

How did a woman we know really well survive a fall from a 8 story building, with no bones broken nothing just a bit of back injury.


How is it possible for a teenager to survive 200 tramadol over dose each tramadol 300mg, and walk away with no side effects no liver disorders .

How did a person standing 3ft away from high explosive bomb survive with a few scratchs.

I ask these for reason my belief is if its not your time to go you won't go you could do anything you will survive .




ufff Kakargirl khor

you and I BOTH know how Afghans love to embelish and exaggerate stories.

One of my Kakagan said he defeated an entire squadron of russians with just his Ttura hahahahaha

ozymandias
10-08-2011, 04:34 PM
^
yeah you



What's a fake ID?



we dont need to ask ab anerican,so take a hike.

Sorry, only the moderators and administrators can request that. If you have nothing to ask, then ignore this thread, and move on.

ozymandias
10-08-2011, 04:50 PM
no it's not UnknownPrince, calm your romantic dreams for another time bacha berish

Ah, he is accusing me of being a 'sock puppet' -- a fake account created by another user.

I assure you I am a real person, and this is my only account.

ozymandias
10-08-2011, 04:54 PM
no i cant ignore this thread



Simply do not click on it. Easily done.



niether can i ignore your crimes against the afghan nation.



This is even easier to ignore, as I have committed no crimes against any nation, let alone the Afghan one.



u r not welcome here

The personal invite from a forum member, and the multiple private messaged from members, including administrators and moderators disagree with you on that one. When I took a break from posting, the repeated requests for me to return also shows that you are wrong.

All I am asking is basic respect. Feel free to post whatever you want, but if it is not constructive, I will use the "ignore" feature of this forum to hide your posts.

IamDZJ
10-08-2011, 04:58 PM
lol

graveyardofempires
10-08-2011, 05:02 PM
Simply do not click on it. Easily done.



This is even easier to ignore, as I have committed no crimes against any nation, let alone the Afghan one.



The personal invite from a forum member, and the multiple private messaged from members, including administrators and moderators disagree with you on that one. When I took a break from posting, the repeated requests for me to return also shows that you are wrong.

All I am asking is basic respect. Feel free to post whatever you want, but if it is not constructive, I will use the "ignore" feature of this forum to hide your posts.
no wonder PF is going down the drain

ozymandias
10-08-2011, 05:02 PM
No not statistics whats behind the statistics,the probability that you believe in.


I am very sorry. I am not sure I understand what you mean. Probability is the basis for statistics, but focuses on the odds that something will occur. Statistics takes probability and lays it over past events to analyze the frequency. Even ignoring the human nature to exaggerate, and the human nature to forget events that are statistically common, there is a non-zero likelihood that a person will survive any given grenade exploding. If enough people are in that situation, eventually a few will survive.

ozymandias
10-08-2011, 05:06 PM
no wonder PF is going down the drain

Yeah, the new accounts, like yours, are close minded, and unwilling to simply allow people with other opinions to exist.

Sarcasm aside, what do you mean it is going down the drain? Simply because they welcome people to post that you may disagree with?

graveyardofempires
10-08-2011, 05:12 PM
Yeah, the new accounts, like yours, are close minded, and unwilling to simply allow people with other opinions to exist.

Sarcasm aside, what do you mean it is going down the drain? Simply because they welcome people to post that you may disagree with?
the let arrogant people with no respect to Pashtuns on Pashtunforums to bash ISlam and Pashtun culture.

also they do not judge the post accordingly instead they trying to shut down anyone who say "hey stop disrespecing Pashtuns"

ozymandias
10-08-2011, 05:18 PM
the let arrogant people with no respect to Pashtuns on Pashtunforums to bash ISlam and Pashtun culture.



Who is bashing the culture? I am here to learn about it. Having different opinions is *not* bashing it. Bashing is about how you spread your message, as much as what the message is.



also they do not judge the post accordingly instead they trying to shut down anyone who say "hey stop disrespecing Pashtuns"

I have lots of respect for Pashtuns, it is only individuals that I have problems with. You are rapidly becoming one of those. You are being intolerant and hateful, and are attacking me for things I have not even done.

kakargirl
10-08-2011, 05:19 PM
I am very sorry. I am not sure I understand what you mean. Probability is the basis for statistics, but focuses on the odds that something will occur. Statistics takes probability and lays it over past events to analyze the frequency. Even ignoring the human nature to exaggerate, and the human nature to forget events that are statistically common, there is a non-zero likelihood that a person will survive any given grenade exploding. If enough people are in that situation, eventually a few will survive.Thank you so no theory behind it,and i'm pleased to say today czech athiest DRs Otokar,Zdanek Stepan,Rostislav,Marek have converted to islam after hanging around my brother for 3 years, Ozymandias hope you find your way back too.

ScimitarXEdge
10-08-2011, 05:19 PM
Graveyard ....Ozymandias isn't supporting people who regularly murder Muslims and Afghans in particular

you however do ....he thus has more right here than you ever will.

graveyardofempires
10-08-2011, 05:21 PM
Who is bashing the culture? I am here to learn about it. Having different opinions is *not* bashing it. Bashing is about how you spread your message, as much as what the message is.



I have lots of respect for Pashtuns, it is only individuals that I have problems with. You are rapidly becoming one of those. You are being intolerant and hateful, and are attacking me for things I have not even done.
you called me closed minded and now you are saying im becoming someone you dont like.than you respect is fake cuz iam a PAshtun and you maybe like someone who says yes sir to you ,not me.
you americans are the most intolerant people ,you come to our country and kill people randomly and now you are calling me intolerant and hateful?

ozymandias
10-08-2011, 05:21 PM
Thank you so no theory behind it,and i'm pleased to say today czech athiest DRs Otokar,Zdanek Stepan,Rostislav,Marek have converted to islam after hanging around my brother for 3 years, Ozymandias hope you find your way back too.

Thank you for your honest best wishes. I do have one correction, though -- there is no 'back' for me. I have never been religious.

ozymandias
10-08-2011, 05:23 PM
Graveyard ....Ozymandias isn't supporting people who regularly murder Muslims and Afghans in particular

you however do ....he thus has more right here than you ever will.

I appreciate your comments, and history of this user, and defense of my posting.

I do, however, defend his rights to post what he wants. Let him exercise free speech, and suffer the consequences.

graveyardofempires
10-08-2011, 05:23 PM
Graveyard ....Ozymandias isn't supporting people who regularly murder Muslims and Afghans in particular

you however do ....he thus has more right here than you ever will.
another lie by mr big liar.

you might land in hell for your lioes let alone your deeds.

ozymandias
10-08-2011, 05:25 PM
you called me closed minded and now you are saying im becoming someone you dont like.than you respect is fake cuz iam a PAshtun and you maybe like someone who says yes sir to you ,not me.



I respect the community, this does not mean everyone in that community is worthy of respect. I am able to see people in a community for who they are and avoid stereotyping them all into one group.



you americans are the most intolerant people ,you come to our country and kill people randomly and now you are calling me intolerant and hateful?

And this is what I mean. You are stereotyping me without even reading my posts. You are attacking me without knowing anything about me.

graveyardofempires
10-08-2011, 05:26 PM
I appreciate your comments, and history of this user, and defense of my posting.

I do, however, defend his rights to post what he wants. Let him exercise free speech, and suffer the consequences.
the problem is you and these other half baked people around here think we need you guys to tell us how to act while in truth we dont need your arrogant approach.

scimitaredge liek you is not Pashtun and h etoo has disrespected Pashtuns on this forum and he thinks if you are against foreign invasion of Afghanistan that means you support killing o fAfghans.

now ownder you guys can agree with eachother.

one is an arrogant american and another a bengali yemeni wanna be Pashtun.

graveyardofempires
10-08-2011, 05:27 PM
I respect the community, this does not mean everyone in that community is worthy of respect. I am able to see people in a community for who they are and avoid stereotyping them all into one group.



And this is what I mean. You are stereotyping me without even reading my posts. You are attacking me without knowing anything about me.
since you say im the one who you dont like cuz im being real than it means you only like some non existing % of Pashtuns who share your views.

Iam the community get used to it.

ScimitarXEdge
10-08-2011, 05:30 PM
another lie by mr big liar.

you might land in hell for your lioes let alone your deeds.



Ok if I am lying answer these for me

1.) is Suicide bombing civilian Muslims allowed in Islam?
2.) do Taliban suicide bomb?
3.) Have innocent Afghans ever been killed in a suicide bombing?

If you can answer these questions honestly and with proof; I will retract my statement

ScimitarXEdge
10-08-2011, 05:31 PM
since you say im the one who you dont like cuz im being real than it means you only like some non existing % of Pashtuns who share your views.

Iam the community get used to it.



You're not the community nor will you ever be the community; get used to it.

If you were the community, you wouldn't whine on the forums about how the community sidelines you for being a Taiban supporter.

graveyardofempires
10-08-2011, 05:32 PM
Ok if I am lying answer these for me

1.) is Suicide bombing civilian Muslims allowed in Islam?
2.) do Taliban suicide bomb?
3.) Have innocent Afghans ever been killed in a suicide bombing?

If you can answer these questions honestly and with proof; I will retract my statement
Put your questions to mullah omar and after you are done go to hell.

graveyardofempires
10-08-2011, 05:33 PM
You're not the community nor will you ever be the community; get used to it.

If you were the community, you wouldn't whine on the forums about how the community sidelines you for being a Taiban supporter.
and you are nto even a Pashtun let alone being part of Pashtun community.

taliban are core part of PAshtun community,get used to it.

ScimitarXEdge
10-08-2011, 05:36 PM
Put your questions to mullah omar and after you are done go to hell.

I wouldn't be the one going to hell; I don't support crimes against Muslims, you do.

ScimitarXEdge
10-08-2011, 05:38 PM
and you are nto even a Pashtun let alone being part of Pashtun community.

taliban are core part of PAshtun community,get used to it.

haha I'm being accused of not being Pashtun by a Pakistani; that's like Donkey sayng a human being isn't a homo sapien sampien


If they're a core part of the Pashtun community, why do they hide in Pakistan?

graveyardofempires
10-08-2011, 05:38 PM
I wouldn't be the one going to hell; I don't support crimes against Muslims, you do.
i dont knwo if i will be going to hell or heaven neither do yuo know,only Allah can judge about that..

one thing is sure you just lied again.

ScimitarXEdge
10-08-2011, 05:43 PM
i dont knwo if i will be going to hell or heaven neither do yuo know,only Allah can judge about that..

one thing is sure you just lied again.

well I know that the Qur'an says that such crimes against the Muslims will be punished with hell, and you support those crimes, and I know the Qur'an speaks the truth

you do the math

graveyardofempires
10-08-2011, 05:46 PM
well I know that the Qur'an says that such crimes against the Muslims will be punished with hell, and you support those crimes, and I know the Qur'an speaks the truth

you do the math
you are not the judge as i said and you lie.

dont talk to me

ScimitarXEdge
10-08-2011, 05:48 PM
you are not the judge as i said and you lie.

dont talk to me



Apparently you disbelieve in the Qur'an; so I don't know what to say; you'll see what happens.

ozymandias
10-08-2011, 05:49 PM
you are not the judge as i said and you lie.

dont talk to me

You are welcome to stop posting in this thread if you don't want people to talk to you about the topics in this thread.

graveyardofempires
10-08-2011, 05:51 PM
Apparently you disbelieve in the Qur'an; so I don't know what to say; you'll see what happens.
you are not Allah neither do you knwo the Quran and i dont rust you since you are a big fat liar and you constantly lie,even about the holy Quran.

graveyardofempires
10-08-2011, 05:52 PM
You are welcome to stop posting in this thread if you don't want people to talk to you about the topics in this thread.
lets see

you told me to ignore your thread or ask you question but than you tell me to leave the thread when an off topic discussion is going on with your supporter?

ozymandias
10-08-2011, 06:07 PM
lets see

you told me to ignore your thread or ask you question but than you tell me to leave the thread when an off topic discussion is going on with your supporter?


No, I told you that you are welcome to leave in response to your repeatedly griping about the opinions other people expressed in this thread.

tor_khan
10-08-2011, 06:22 PM
Please avoid straying from the topic. Personal insults are not tolerated and will be deleted. For efficiency use the report tool for any comments that are in breach of forum postings rules rather than launching personal counter attacks.

ScimitarXEdge
10-08-2011, 10:45 PM
you are not Allah neither do you knwo the Quran and i dont rust you since you are a big fat liar and you constantly lie,even about the holy Quran.


There's an afghan joke where two Arab guys walk into a bathroom and there two other Afghan guys there too, the two Arab guys are there speaking Arabic to each other and when they leave the Afghan guys say "astaghfrullah ....onha Qur'an-e-Karim tilawat kaardand dar hamam ...toba toba"

that's basically your understanding of the Qur'an.

Admin Khan
10-08-2011, 11:10 PM
Hi,

And like I said before, that is outside the Wager. The Wager is equally valid if you were to plug the word 'Zeus' in for god, it would equally argue that one should worship Zeus. You are drawing in additional material *not* related to the Wager.

I'm not quite familiar with this 'wager' to be honest with you. What I am trying to explain to you is that no Muslim can deny their past. You asked me about Moses, Zeus, and long story short, all I am trying to tell you is that they could arguably be prophets of their generation. Prophet Muhammad on the other hand, sealed the prophethood. Prior to him, there is no denial that we had Jesus, Moses, or perhaps someone of your blood lineage as a prophet. Islam very triumphantly mentions that there were 100,000+ different types of messengers, for different areas of the world of which 25 I believe are mentioned explictly in the Quran.


You are starting to get off track here. You are ignoring the fact that the Torah, and Bible also describe *versions* of gods.

With all due respect, I'm not getting off track, nor am I ignoring anything. In fact, not only did I acknowledge it, but I gave you an explanation in regards to it. The Torah, and the Bible, are books we embrace and believe in. However, we feel as if they have been intentionally altered. That's why there are so many different versions of the Bible, and only one version of the Quran. I accept the messengers of the Torah and the Bible, as prophets of it's time. No denial here buddy.


You may believe they are compatible, but not all people agree.

To each their own, right? As I said, I would never look down upon an Atheist, that's just not me. We are humans, and we have to work on understanding each other, and clearing misconceptions about each other.

The Wager argues for the Baptist version of God equally well as the Allah version -- and to the Baptists, the two are incompatible.

Well, many Muslims have debated Christians to show them it does indeed make sense. I'm adhering to your rules, and not posting videos. So let's just say the point has already been made to the Christians.





And you are outside the Wager. The Wager needs to be able to stand on it's own, and address it's own flaws -- or it is flawed. In the larger scope of the world, your arguments have merit, but when discussing the Wager, they do not, as they are beyond what the Wager discusses.

Pardon my ignorance Ozy, please educate me on this 'wager'. I don't honestly know much about it.



Not to be insulting, but I simply do not find it to be any more amazing than any other historical document.

Have you read it?

It is a product of it's times, and to a scientific mind, does not contain anything that requires the 'divine' to have come about.

Before I comment, please elaborate further.

Most of the 'scientific discoveries' people claim existed in the Koran are vague and are not all that amazing, simply because they are so vague.
How so?

Thank's for your time J.

Alchemist
10-09-2011, 01:35 AM
Ozy, I don't like going by a point by point formate of argumentation as we end up parsing so much, we end up losing focus on the main issue.

Therefore I will try to bring about the wider gist of your argument together by pointing out to you the flaws in your way of thinking.

Firstly, you were the one to take Admin khan's original question and rephrase it as Pascal's wager. Pascal believed that God may not be known through reason, and that reason was not enough. Admin doesn't believe this to be true. We believe that Allah can be known through reason, as Ibrahim learned of Allah through reason at a time when no one worshipped Him as He ought to be.

If you know of Pascal's wager, then you must know of his arguments in general?

I quote to you Pascal:

"What say [the unbelievers] then? "Do we not see," say they, "that the brutes live and die like men, and Turks like Christians? They have their ceremonies, their prophets, their doctors, their saints, their monks, like us," etc. If you care but little to know the truth, that is enough to leave you in repose. But if you desire with all your heart to know it, it is not enough; look at it in detail. That would be sufficient for a question in philosophy; but not here, where everything is at stake. And yet, after a superficial reflection of this kind, we go to amuse ourselves, etc. Let us inquire of this same religion whether it does not give a reason for this obscurity; perhaps it will teach it to us"

Maybe you don't understand English, so I will paraphrase it for you. Pascal is saying that "if you desire with all your heart to know it" then you should study all the different religions, in details. Just wanting to know it is not enough, not for having a philosophical discussion on a forum. The stakes are high, and you can't have such a superficial reflection on the question, so as to muse over it with us, in passing. Inquire about all the religions, and discern for your self - which one is the one?
You are making the criticism against Pascal, because Voltaire reasoned that Pascal's wager would hold through for an Imam as well. For a Christian, Salvation can only be through Jesus Christ. We do not believe that salvation can only be through Mohammad (peace be upon them). And we believe that a monotheist, who worships The One God, be he Jewish (a follower of Moses), a unitarian Christain has just as much chance of success in the afterlife as a follower of Mohammad, peace be upon him. Only the people differ by the weight of their actions, and only God can judge us.
Your ignorance of our religion makes you seem shallow and condescending, which is why you get no love here. You give us an excuse that is obviously fowl.

More importantly, over and over again you have been using "Gravity" as a thing that is obvious in itself to believe, as if gravity can be "seen."
Here you are again exposing your ignorance, and the flaw in your argument.
There is no such thing as gravity. There is no proof for gravity. It is neither light, nor particle. In your own words, describe what gravity is? Why do things fall? Is it because of their masses? Then why does the earth not fall into the sun? Because centrifugal force is holding it back? Is that a real force? Do we have evidence for gravitons? So why do you believe in gravity?

Until newton had described the phenomena, nobody knew it as "gravity" or even had a concept of "force". So they believed something different in the same things you observed. Except they had a different understanding of it than you.


You are a victim of the myths of popular culture. Your reality is one that is defined by television soap operas, the internet and movies. In the real world people do not necessarily develop agoraphobia because they have a traumatic experience. In most cases it arises spontaneously. Of course, you want reference because your psychology textbooks from the 80s are outdated.
Agoraphobia in adults: incidence and longitu... [Br J Psychiatry. 2006] - PubMed - NCBI (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16648529)
You can still google it more.

Yes, you are a product of your environment, and sadly, your environment has had a corrosive effect on your ability to think clearly. And it has been designed to do so. (More on that later). No offence thought, but your point of view is not unique. It is a brand. People wear jeans because they think it makes them an individual, but really one jean is like any other. People eat at mcdonalds because they think they are expressing their individuality, their freedom of choice. But they are being conformists for preferring coke cola over pepsi. Your brand of belief is not unique. I can walk out of my door and everyone of you have it. Why would I ask you anything, as if you are something rare and unique.

All your arguments are rather silly though. That you would go to church in iran for hiding your atheism is an indication of your cowardice and stupidity. This goes to show that you wager being a christain pretender is safer for you than being an atheist - isn't this pascal's wager? Personally I don't think an iranian would care if you are atheist or christain, to whom both are the same, since christainity has slid off into idolatry and paganism, which carries just as bad a stigma for muslims as atheism. However your belief is based on your reasoning, which is faulty.






Many religions believe in a hierarchy or gods with no issues with that -- but that is not what I actually meant. I meant that any one of many gods could be the correct one.



Actually, no. It indicates that there are no supernatural actors, but that is a digression.



And what basis do you ground this assertion on? At my place of employment, I have many bosses, but we manage to have a consolidated, consistent approach to our business. Why would this *have* to be different?

[quote]



This is in-line with what I meant. Which of the monotheistic gods is correct? In christianity alone, I could likely name several dozen distinct different gods. Add in the Jewish sects, and the Islamic denominations, and we are looking at a large number of gods, many of which are angered by someone following any one of the other versions.



Not at all. You still have not presented which version is the correct one, which is something that Pascal's Wager, by design, omits. It is outside the scope of the wager.



This was not my argument, but a straw many you have created.



Bingo.



Again, bingo. This is a *HUGE* flaw in the wager, as you evidently agree.



I'm not sure how you can follow up with agreeing with my main point by saying I did not think it through enough.



This is thoroughly and completely false. Belief is in no way a matter of choice. You can act as if you believe something, but let's not be silly. Either an argument is convincing to you, or not.



Not true. You can preform and an action that is the result of a hidden belief, or you can act contrary to your beliefs to hide them. For instance, were I to visit Iran, I would likely act as if I were a Christian, and attend a church. This is not an indication of my belief in the reality of the Christian faith, but an indication that I am concerned I would be attacked, legally or physically, for being an atheist.



You are horribly abusing the word 'choice' here. Agoraphobics, by definition, do not chose to be agoraphobic, and are a perfect example of my point. They have experienced something in their lives that provided sufficient evidence *TO THEM* to convince them of the dangers of the outside. It is far from a matter of choice, and the cure for them is *not* to tell them to change their minds, but rather to provide them with evidence of the safety of the outside world, and overcome their belief.



But they are not choosing to change their belief. They are choosing to examine evidence that might sway their existing belief. You appear to be fluent enough in English to catch the difference. Please let me know if you miss it.



I do not disagree that I am the product of my environment.



I do disagree with this statement.



Who is being a sage yoga? I am not claiming to have all the answers, and my intention with this thread is *NOT* to provide them for others. I thought I was fairly clear with the first post and explaining that the point was to provide an alternative viewpoint than one that you may have experienced before, and open a dialog. I am merely discussion what I believe, and expect to impart no wisdom. I expect to have thought provoking questions asked of me, and for *ME* to gain wisdom and insight into a world I cannot experience first hand.

ozymandias
10-09-2011, 03:37 AM
Hi,


I'm not quite familiar with this 'wager' to be honest with you. What I am trying to explain to you is that no Muslim can deny their past. You asked me about Moses, Zeus, and long story short, all I am trying to tell you is that they could arguably be prophets of their generation. Prophet Muhammad on the other hand, sealed the prophethood. Prior to him, there is no denial that we had Jesus, Moses, or perhaps someone of your blood lineage as a prophet. Islam very triumphantly mentions that there were 100,000+ different types of messengers, for different areas of the world of which 25 I believe are mentioned explictly in the Quran.



Hence the source of this confusion. My comment was in regards to a person asking me about Pascals Wager, and not meaning anything beyond that.

The Wager is basically an argument for faith based on the idea that having faith, and no god exists, no harm done, but lacking faith when a god exists is a bad thing. It is often used to argue for religion, but is critically flawed in *many* ways.




With all due respect, I'm not getting off track, nor am I ignoring anything. In fact, not only did I acknowledge it, but I gave you an explanation in regards to it. The Torah, and the Bible, are books we embrace and believe in. However, we feel as if they have been intentionally altered. That's why there are so many different versions of the Bible, and only one version of the Quran. I accept the messengers of the Torah and the Bible, as prophets of it's time. No denial here buddy.



When you consider that I thought we were having a conversation about Pascal's Wager, you can easily see why I thought you were off-track. Now that I know you were not aware my comments were made in the scope of a Wager conversation, I see why you thought they were applicable. We can start a separate conversation about these points now.




To each their own, right? As I said, I would never look down upon an Atheist, that's just not me. We are humans, and we have to work on understanding each other, and clearing misconceptions about each other.



Again, in the context of the Wager, my comments have a completely different meaning, as I think you can get now. The Wager is equally applicable for *any* faith, even faiths that feel they are mutually incompatible with other faiths.



Well, many Muslims have debated Christians to show them it does indeed make sense. I'm adhering to your rules, and not posting videos. So let's just say the point has already been made to the Christians.



We will skip this point for a minute -- outside the Wager, I fully understand your points. Inside the Wager, they are irrelevant.






Pardon my ignorance Ozy, please educate me on this 'wager'. I don't honestly know much about it.



;-) It happens, and no need for a pardon. I gave a summary above. Here is a more detailed explanation:

If you erroneously believe in God, you lose nothing (assuming that death is the absolute end), whereas if you correctly believe in God, you gain everything (eternal bliss). But if you correctly disbelieve in God, you gain nothing (death ends all), whereas if you erroneously disbelieve in God, you lose everything (eternal damnation).

As you can see, there are several flaws, and several things that lie *outside* the wager, such as selecting Islam over any other religion. The Wager can be used to argue for worshiping Zeus just as well as Allah -- because it contains nothing specific to any god.




Have you read it?

[quote]

Indeed I have, cover to cover, and several of the Hadiths. Before anyone brings the point up, it was an English translation with parallel text, but since I do not speak Arabic, yes, the translation was flawed, and I am aware of your beliefs regarding that matter.

[quote]

Before I comment, please elaborate further.

How so?



I will cite two specific examples at this time. I have more, but these are arguments I see pop up fairly often:

1) The Koran predicted the modern view of the solar system. The verses dealing with this, however, tend to be fairly vague and open for interpretation. To say that they match modern cosmology is not a convincing point because even if modern cosmology resulted in something different than it currently states. The statements are so vague as to agree with most cosmological ideas -- and furthermore, were *not* novel at the time. Many of the basics of the current system were discovered by the Ancient Greeks and Romans, and were not uncommon knowledge.

Here is a sample argument to illuminate my point:

“He coils the night upon the day and the day upon the night.” Qur’an, 39:5
The original meaning of the verb kis to coil a turban around the head. This is a totally valid comparison; yet at the time the Qur’an was revealed, the astronomical data necessary to make this comparison were unknown. It is not until man landed on the moon and observed the earth spinning on its axis, that the dark half of the globe appeared to wind itself around the light and the light half appeared to wind itself around the dark.





Anyone whom has noticed night follows day, and vice versa could easily have made that comparison. I do not find this at all convincing, as mankind, though out it's entire history knew this fact.



2) The argument that the Koran correctly identifies modern embryology -- it simply does not *accurately* do so -- and what facts it gets right were commonplace knowledge to anyone that has had experience with livestock could discuss. In fact, the description in the Koran parallels writing from 150 CE, and appears to be based on that -- it even borrows words from this earlier texts to describe the stages observed. To add to the pot, modern embryologists quickly deny that the Koran is even accurate on this topic.


These are just two select examples, and I am not going into much detail at this time, but it gives a decent example of how things appear to a non-believer.



Thank's for your time J.

ozymandias
10-09-2011, 04:13 AM
Ozy, I don't like going by a point by point formate of argumentation as we end up parsing so much, we end up losing focus on the main issue.

Therefore I will try to bring about the wider gist of your argument together by pointing out to you the flaws in your way of thinking.

Firstly, you were the one to take Admin khan's original question and rephrase it as Pascal's wager.



The original quote is "Wouldn't you agree that it's better to believe in a God, as opposed to rejecting him and finding out that he did indeed exist?" This argument *is* Pascal's Wager. It is not rephrasing it to apply it's common label to it.




Pascal believed that God may not be known through reason, and that reason was not enough. Admin doesn't believe this to be true. We believe that Allah can be known through reason, as Ibrahim learned of Allah through reason at a time when no one worshipped Him as He ought to be.

If you know of Pascal's wager, then you must know of his arguments in general?

I quote to you Pascal:

"What say [the unbelievers] then? "Do we not see," say they, "that the brutes live and die like men, and Turks like Christians? They have their ceremonies, their prophets, their doctors, their saints, their monks, like us," etc. If you care but little to know the truth, that is enough to leave you in repose. But if you desire with all your heart to know it, it is not enough; look at it in detail. That would be sufficient for a question in philosophy; but not here, where everything is at stake. And yet, after a superficial reflection of this kind, we go to amuse ourselves, etc. Let us inquire of this same religion whether it does not give a reason for this obscurity; perhaps it will teach it to us"

Maybe you don't understand English, so I will paraphrase it for you. Pascal is saying that "if you desire with all your heart to know it" then you should study all the different religions, in details. Just wanting to know it is not enough, not for having a philosophical discussion on a forum. The stakes are high, and you can't have such a superficial reflection on the question, so as to muse over it with us, in passing. Inquire about all the religions, and discern for your self - which one is the one?
You are making the criticism against Pascal, because Voltaire reasoned that Pascal's wager would hold through for an Imam as well.



This is true, among many other points I raised.



For a Christian, Salvation can only be through Jesus Christ. We do not believe that salvation can only be through Mohammad (peace be upon them). And we believe that a monotheist, who worships The One God, be he Jewish (a follower of Moses), a unitarian Christain has just as much chance of success in the afterlife as a follower of Mohammad, peace be upon him. Only the people differ by the weight of their actions, and only God can judge us.



But the Wager is *NOT* limited to just one god, nor to monotheism at all -- and that is the flaw I pointed out.




Your ignorance of our religion makes you seem shallow and condescending, which is why you get no love here. You give us an excuse that is obviously fowl.

[quote]

I apologize if you mistook my points for a misunderstanding of your religion, but it appears you misunderstood my points, and used that as an excuse to be offended. Take the original quote: "Wouldn't you agree that it's better to believe in a God, as opposed to rejecting him and finding out that he did indeed exist?" You can *easily* substitute many other gods into it, and that exact quote is equally valid for any of them: "Wouldn't you agree that it's better to believe in (Zeus, a flying purple unicorn, Odin, Thor, Osiris, etc), as opposed to rejecting him and finding out that he did indeed exist?"

This Wager is not an Islamic specific argument, so any offense you took from my reply is based on your mistaken assumption that I was only speaking of Islam.

[quote]


More importantly, over and over again you have been using "Gravity" as a thing that is obvious in itself to believe, as if gravity can be "seen."
Here you are again exposing your ignorance, and the flaw in your argument.
There is no such thing as gravity. There is no proof for gravity. It is neither light, nor particle. In your own words, describe what gravity is? Why do things fall? Is it because of their masses? Then why does the earth not fall into the sun? Because centrifugal force is holding it back? Is that a real force? Do we have evidence for gravitons? So why do you believe in gravity?



Seriously? I am *not* going to go into basic, elementary physics at this time. Gravity is a very well known, and well understood concept in physics, and I see no reason to waste my time rehashing it simply so you can waste my time -- and it is irrelevant to the conversation. I brought gravity up as an example of something that all rational adults believe in because the evidence for it that they have seen in their lives is easily enough to convince them that it exists. The basics of how it works, or what you label the phenomena is moot.



Until newton had described the phenomena, nobody knew it as "gravity" or even had a concept of "force". So they believed something different in the same things you observed. Except they had a different understanding of it than you.



Since the details are irrelevant, and the only fact that matters is that they were exposed to enough evidence that something existed -- thanks for making my point for me.



You are a victim of the myths of popular culture. Your reality is one that is defined by television soap operas, the internet and movies. In the real world people do not necessarily develop agoraphobia because they have a traumatic experience. In most cases it arises spontaneously. Of course, you want reference because your psychology textbooks from the 80s are outdated.
Agoraphobia in adults: incidence and longitu... [Br J Psychiatry. 2006] - PubMed - NCBI (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16648529)
You can still google it more.



I think you are deliberately misunderstanding me here, as you are easily fluent enough in English to understand my point. "They have experienced something in their lives that provided sufficient evidence *TO THEM* to convince them of the dangers of the outside." This does not mean that they actually have had a traumatic experience, only that they *perceive the evidence that the outside is dangerous as convincing* Regardless of if they had a traumatic experience, or their threshold for convincing changed, or as you put it 'spontaneously' occured, the fact of the matter is that it is *NOT* a matter of choice. You are not even arguing against my point -- you provided additional evidence to verify my point that it is *NOT* a choice. The exact mechanisms do not matter. What matters is that it was not a choice the agoraphobic made to decide to believe the outside world is dangerous.



Yes, you are a product of your environment, and sadly, your environment has had a corrosive effect on your ability to think clearly. And it has been designed to do so. (More on that later). No offence thought, but your point of view is not unique. It is a brand. People wear jeans because they think it makes them an individual, but really one jean is like any other. People eat at mcdonalds because they think they are expressing their individuality, their freedom of choice. But they are being conformists for preferring coke cola over pepsi. Your brand of belief is not unique. I can walk out of my door and everyone of you have it. Why would I ask you anything, as if you are something rare and unique.



Feel free to not ask anything then -- but it is *very* clear that at least some of the people here are not exposed to Americans, or atheists very often -- and to them, it is something new, and novel, and worth exposing them to.



All your arguments are rather silly though. That you would go to church in iran for hiding your atheism is an indication of your cowardice and stupidity. This goes to show that you wager being a christain pretender is safer for you than being an atheist - isn't this pascal's wager?



Not at all. Iran has laws against being an atheist -- atheists are required to declare a religion in order to receive all their rights, or so I have been lead to believe by the International Federation of Human Rights. To not declare myself one of the recognized religions leaves me unprotected by Iranian law, and subject to legalized discrimination.

This is not a form of Pascal's Wager, as it is not even a wager. The report I read states that only Muslims, Christians, Jews, and Zoroastrians are protected against short term and long term imprisionment on the basis of their religious affiliation, protection from the seizure of private property and assets, the right to assemble, and various other legal protections. To quote the report:
Of particular concern is the status of religious minorities who are not able to freely exercise their religion, are treated like second-class citizens, and are being discriminated against both in law and in practice.
Deprived of any legal status, the non-recognized religious minorities, as far as they are concerned, see their basic rights constantly violated by the authorities in total impunity.

If I were to travel to Iran, I would look into this in more detail, but those seem to be important rights to give away so freely.



Personally I don't think an iranian would care if you are atheist or christain, to whom both are the same,



Not legally speaking. Legally speaking, it appears the Christians have at least *some* rights.



since christainity has slid off into idolatry and paganism,



Since when? I know many Christians, and none of them have done either of those. I know it is common place for people with no actual knowledge of the religion to claim that -- but they are just showing their ignorance when they claim that about Christianity as a whole.



which carries just as bad a stigma for muslims as atheism. However your belief is based on your reasoning, which is faulty.



Feel free to show me some of these faults. I would be interested in you pointing them out if you ever have the time.

Tjanaparh
10-09-2011, 04:29 AM
The report I read states that only Muslims, Christians, Jews, and Zoroastrians are protected against short term and long term imprisionment on the basis of their religious affiliation, protection from the seizure of private property and assets, the right to assemble, and various other legal protections.

The report you read shouldn't be risht.
Many of our people with our traditional belief travelled and even live in Iran. The Iranian police even helped them in situations where the police in other places would say "that'S not our job".

Tjanaparh
10-09-2011, 04:52 AM
The rest of our discussion I will stop at the point we left.
Bacause any of my words You won't understand if you do not study and understand the life of a ethnic nation. The Us are not an ethnic nation but just an economic aglomeration - the moral and human You for traders is completely immoral for us.

I repeat my words once again after what all the discussion about human rights looses sense.
My friend, one of our heroes that defended our people in the war was ordered by one of your congressmen to bring him to jail when we had the zionist president L.Ter-Petrosyan.
My friend qouted that it is antinational and sick promuoving gay culture in Armenia, beacuse our nation is on the border of dying! He didn'T tell "kill the gays" - he told , treat the gays at is just - as sick people and don't promuove this way of life as normal.
You USA mixed in our national affairs without even knowing our history bringing my friend to jail for antisemitism and anti gay. Fortunately people protested and he didn't go to jail but the accuses weren'T canceled. Interestingly even the leader of the jews of Armenia told that he newer told anything against jews and that Zionist and Jew is not the same, one thing that your congressman didn'T understand.
If you want you can keep in the USA making gays to a normal type of lifestyle - but in our nation that is already in disastrous situations(actually even to some economic interests of some superpowers....) we do not want to create of what remained of our nation a sick minded comunity that will siucide itsels in some years.

And one last point - man and woman have not the same rights as they are different.
You are equal with your wife? So go and make a child, go ang give your child some milk.
IT is natural that a woman has as obligations to give life to a child , to feed and protect him in the first lifeyears and to educate him.
After the education is part of fathers obligations. While the mother is bringing up the children only the father can protect the family, that is why men are warriors. While a woman is more material(in our faith she is compared to the earth that gives life - the earth is also material) , beacuse she has to feed a child she has more materialistic thought(how to get food, what food is right....), the man is more spiritual(that is why mostly thinkers, composers, writers are men).
The best woman will become reflection of a spiritually low man! That is why almost in every nation parents are so worring about who can be the husband of their daughter.
While it is not so with men, as they are the spiritual pole of a family and a woman is a material one.
A woman has a natue giuded by feeling - she can feel the pain of other and her love is based on feelings.
A man has a nature of justice and spirit and his love is based on that aspects.
How can you tell that with that differences woman and man can have same rights?
Their rights are different - a woman shouldn'T have a mans right and a man a womans right. This destroys the society(and I have seen this destruction too much).

ozymandias
10-09-2011, 01:17 PM
The rest of our discussion I will stop at the point we left.
Bacause any of my words You won't understand if you do not study and understand the life of a ethnic nation. The Us are not an ethnic nation but just an economic aglomeration - the moral and human You for traders is completely immoral for us.

I repeat my words once again after what all the discussion about human rights looses sense.
My friend, one of our heroes that defended our people in the war was ordered by one of your congressmen to bring him to jail when we had the zionist president L.Ter-Petrosyan.
My friend qouted that it is antinational and sick promuoving gay culture in Armenia, beacuse our nation is on the border of dying! He didn'T tell "kill the gays" - he told , treat the gays at is just - as sick people and don't promuove this way of life as normal.
You USA mixed in our national affairs without even knowing our history bringing my friend to jail for antisemitism and anti gay. Fortunately people protested and he didn't go to jail but the accuses weren'T canceled. Interestingly even the leader of the jews of Armenia told that he newer told anything against jews and that Zionist and Jew is not the same, one thing that your congressman didn'T understand.
If you want you can keep in the USA making gays to a normal type of lifestyle - but in our nation that is already in disastrous situations(actually even to some economic interests of some superpowers....) we do not want to create of what remained of our nation a sick minded comunity that will siucide itsels in some years.



I'm sorry -- I am not sure what you are trying to say here.



And one last point - man and woman have not the same rights as they are different.
You are equal with your wife? So go and make a child, go ang give your child some milk.




What does this have to do with the right to free speech, to vote, freedom of religion, education, or the right to be free from oppression?



IT is natural that a woman has as obligations to give life to a child , to feed and protect him in the first lifeyears and to educate him.




What does this have to do with the right to free speech, to vote, freedom of religion, education, or the right to be free from oppression?



After the education is part of fathers obligations. While the mother is bringing up the children only the father can protect the family, that is why men are warriors. While a woman is more material(in our faith she is compared to the earth that gives life - the earth is also material) , beacuse she has to feed a child she has more materialistic thought(how to get food, what food is right....),



What does this have to do with the right to free speech, to vote, freedom of religion, education, or the right to be free from oppression?



the man is more spiritual(that is why mostly thinkers, composers, writers are men).



Actually, it is far more likely that this is the result of sexist attitudes like yours preventing them from getting a fair education.

[/quote]

The best woman will become reflection of a spiritually low man! That is why almost in every nation parents are so worring about who can be the husband of their daughter.
While it is not so with men, as they are the spiritual pole of a family and a woman is a material one.



What does this have to do with the right to free speech, to vote, freedom of religion, education, or the right to be free from oppression?



A woman has a natue giuded by feeling - she can feel the pain of other and her love is based on feelings.
A man has a nature of justice and spirit and his love is based on that aspects.
How can you tell that with that differences woman and man can have same rights?
Their rights are different - a woman shouldn'T have a mans right and a man a womans right. This destroys the society(and I have seen this destruction too much).[/QUOTE]

No, you have not. Name one place where equal rights destroyed society.

ozymandias
10-09-2011, 01:19 PM
The report I read states that only Muslims, Christians, Jews, and Zoroastrians are protected against short term and long term imprisionment on the basis of their religious affiliation, protection from the seizure of private property and assets, the right to assemble, and various other legal protections.

The report you read shouldn't be risht.
Many of our people with our traditional belief travelled and even live in Iran. The Iranian police even helped them in situations where the police in other places would say "that'S not our job".

What does risht mean?

I may be wrong about Iranian laws -- but I honestly have not looked into it too much to read the specifics. It was an example used up above, and that is all.

Tjanaparh
10-09-2011, 01:39 PM
right - excuse me ! Sometimes I am not typing very well.

ozymandias
10-09-2011, 02:18 PM
right - excuse me ! Sometimes I am not typing very well.


Fair enough. I assumed that it was a non-English word, sorry about that.

Alchemist
10-09-2011, 08:24 PM
Basically ozy basis his belief in gravity on blind faith in a science which he himself doesn't understand. He didn't need to be convinced that gravity is a force, but he has to be convinced that God created him.

He either deliberately doesn't want to understand Pascal's wager, or his subconcious mind cannot accept that the wager only applies to One God, and not many gods. If he can't even bother to know the difference between polytheism and monotheism, and how the wager only applies to one and not the other, then why bother with such self deceptive laziness?

So I googled = belief + choice and a whole list of references to atheist sites popped up. It appears that it is a central tenant of atheism to believe that "belief is not a choice". Of course, years of psycho babble and aggressive marketing by the pharmaceutical companies has everyone in the west convinced that their depression is not their choice, and not as a result of their way of thinking. They have us convinced that we are by nature irrational beings and so we act on baser impulses. The most archaic of which is the belief that ozy is himself a demi god of a sort - which is why he believes that in his company a whole number of demi gods work towards a defined objective and succeed - I suppose success here is quantified by montary compensation - I forgot how zues paid posidon or apollo.

I will say this in passing, the human rights commission here in canada is an absolute failure. The supreme court has now allowed for the opening of heroine shooting galleries in vancouver. Soon they will even supply the drugs for the addicts - because they have the right to life, liberty and security.

kakargirl
10-09-2011, 08:51 PM
Thank you for your honest best wishes. I do have one correction, though -- there is no 'back' for me. I have never been religious.There is back as all babies are born believers ,what they become is up to themselves, so ozy there is a back i hope one day you do find your way back.


“Allah chooses for Himself whom He pleases, and guides to Himself those who turn (to Him) [42:13].”“Allah knows best where He places His message [6:124].”

IamDZJ
10-09-2011, 08:57 PM
There is back as all babies are born believers ,what they become is up to themselves, so ozy there is a back i hope one day you do find your way back.


“Allah chooses for Himself whom He pleases, and guides to Himself those who turn (to Him) [42:13].”“Allah knows best where He places His message [6:124].”

all babies are born believers?! where?!

randolph85
10-09-2011, 09:10 PM
well recently its been proven by studies that belief in a higher power is an inherent human trait. its disbelief that is unnatural to human beings.

IamDZJ
10-09-2011, 09:17 PM
kakargirl don't avoid me. I want to know how and where babies are born believers.

kakargirl
10-09-2011, 09:26 PM
all babies are born believers?! where?!Quran uses the word FITRAH(PURE NATURE)SO CHILDREN ARE BORN CLEAN PURE BELIEVERS.

IamDZJ
10-09-2011, 09:31 PM
Quran uses the word FITRAH(PURE NATURE)SO CHILDREN ARE BORN CLEAN PURE BELIEVERS.

children are born pure and innocent but they are not believers. You can't be a believer prior to having knowledge of something. It's plain common sense. I am not going to ask you to prove it because I m pretty sure there is no such thing in quraan regarding this silly claim of yours.

kakargirl
10-09-2011, 09:44 PM
children are born pure and innocent but they are not believers. You can't be a believer prior to having knowledge of something. It's plain common sense. I am not going to ask you to prove it because I m pretty sure there is no such thing in quraan regarding this silly claim of yours.
Narrated Abu Hurairah (ra): The Messenger of Allah (sa) said:
مَا مِنْ مَوْلُودٍ يُولَدُ إِلَّا عَلَى الْفِطْرَةِ فَأَبَوَاهُ يُهَوِّدَانِهِ أَوْ يُنَصِّرَانِهِ أَوْ يُمَجِّسَانِهِ،كَمَا تُنْتَجُ الْبَهِيمَةُ بَهِيمَةً جَمْعَاءَ، هَلْ تُحِسُّونَ فِيهَا مِنْ جَدْعَاءَ؟
“No child is born except in a state of Fitrah (instinct), then his parents make him a Jew or a Christian or a Zoroastrian, just as each animal produces a perfect animal like itself -- do you see any among them that are born mutilated?”
Then Abu Hurairah (ra) recited the verse:
فِطْرَةَ اللَّهِ الَّتِى فَطَرَ النَّاسَ عَلَيْهَا لاَ تَبْدِيلَ لِخَلْقِ اللَّهِ ذَلِكَ الدِّينُ الْقَيِّمُ
“[Adhere to] the fitrah of Allah upon which He has created [all] people. No change should there be in the creation of Allah. That is the correct religion...”
[Surat Ar-Rum 30:30;

kakargirl
10-09-2011, 09:47 PM
Biggest proof is surah al imran , where Isa salam pbuh spoke as a newborn to protect him mother.

IamDZJ
10-09-2011, 09:53 PM
Narrated Abu Hurairah (ra): The Messenger of Allah (sa) said:
مَا مِنْ مَوْلُودٍ يُولَدُ إِلَّا عَلَى الْفِطْرَةِ فَأَبَوَاهُ يُهَوِّدَانِهِ أَوْ يُنَصِّرَانِهِ أَوْ يُمَجِّسَانِهِ،كَمَا تُنْتَجُ الْبَهِيمَةُ بَهِيمَةً جَمْعَاءَ، هَلْ تُحِسُّونَ فِيهَا مِنْ جَدْعَاءَ؟
“No child is born except in a state of Fitrah (instinct), then his parents make him a Jew or a Christian or a Zoroastrian, just as each animal produces a perfect animal like itself -- do you see any among them that are born mutilated?”
Then Abu Hurairah (ra) recited the verse:
فِطْرَةَ اللَّهِ الَّتِى فَطَرَ النَّاسَ عَلَيْهَا لاَ تَبْدِيلَ لِخَلْقِ اللَّهِ ذَلِكَ الدِّينُ الْقَيِّمُ
“[Adhere to] the fitrah of Allah upon which He has created [all] people. No change should there be in the creation of Allah. That is the correct religion...”
[Surat Ar-Rum 30:30;



every child born in the state of firtah doesn't translate in to every child is born a believer.

kakargirl
10-09-2011, 09:59 PM
45. (Remember) when the angels said: "O Maryam (Mary)! Verily, Allah gives you the glad tidings of a Word ["Be!" - and he was! i.e. 'Iesa (Jesus) the son of Maryam (Mary)] from Him, his name will be the Messiah 'Iesa (Jesus), the son of Maryam (Mary), held in honour in this world and in the Hereafter, and will be one of those who are near to Allah."46. "He will speak to the people in the cradle and in manhood, and he will be one of the righteous."

IamDZJ
10-09-2011, 10:03 PM
yeah well you are not an angel so just because you said it i am not going to believe it. explain to me in your own words how every child can be born a believer in allah if they have no knowledge or understanding of him.

kakargirl
10-09-2011, 10:17 PM
yeah well you are not an angel so just because you said it i am not going to believe it. explain to me in your own words how every child can be born a believer in allah if they have no knowledge or understanding of him.
Children are born believers in God, academic claims Children are "born believers" in God and do

not simply acquire religious beliefs through i

ndoctrination, according to an academic

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01119/Prayer_1119932c.jpg

Dr Justin Barrett, a senior researcher at the University of Oxford's Centre for Anthropology and Mind, claims that young people have a predisposition to believe in a supreme being because they assume that everything in the world was created with a purpose.

He says that young children have faith even when they have not been taught about it by family or at school, and argues that even those raised alone on a desert island would come to believe in God.

"The preponderance of scientific evidence for the past 10 years or so has shown that a lot more seems to be built into the natural development of children's minds than we once thought, including a predisposition to see the natural world as designed and purposeful and that some kind of intelligent being is behind that purpose," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.

"If we threw a handful on an island and they raised themselves I think they would believe in God."

In a lecture to be given at the University of Cambridge's Faraday Institute on Tuesday, Dr Barrett will cite psychological experiments carried out on children that he says show they instinctively believe that almost everything has been designed with a specific purpose.



In one study, six and seven-year-olds who were asked why the first bird existed replied "to make nice music" and "because it makes the world look nice".
Another experiment on 12-month-old babies suggested that they were surprised by a film in which a rolling ball apparently created a neat stack of blocks from a disordered heap.
Dr Barrett said there is evidence that even by the age of four, children understand that although some objects are made by humans, the natural world is different.
He added that this means children are more likely to believe in creationism rather than evolution, despite what they may be told by parents or teachers.
Dr Barrett claimed anthropologists have found that in some cultures children believe in God even when religious teachings are withheld from them.
"Children's normally and naturally developing minds make them prone to believe in divine creation and intelligent design. In contrast, evolution is unnatural for human minds; relatively difficult to believe

IamDZJ
10-09-2011, 10:36 PM
yeah boogeyman is their satan and santa claus their God. of course we don't have those two back where we come from because we are never given a chance to think up our own idea of what God might be. it's considered blasphemy to even think otherwise. to believe in a greater form of evil and goodness is part of human nature. it doesn't necessarily mean one has belief in God.
if we were all born believers in God than there would be no need for anyone to preach us further.
someone didn't bother to explain what being born in a state of fitrah meant so he gave you the short cut or you thought it up for yourself because being born in a state of fitrah does not mean you are born a believer in God (allah).
it is a pity how so many of you muslims grow up in such a wishy washy wold with such ridiculous ideas of what islam is. maybe if you didn't raise your children as a bunch of brainwashed cows, the world would have more respect for islam and muslims.

kakargirl
10-09-2011, 11:05 PM
yeah boogeyman is their satan and santa claus their God. of course we don't have those two back where we come from because we are never given a chance to think up our own idea of what God might be. it's considered blasphemy to even think otherwise. to believe in a greater form of evil and goodness is part of human nature. it doesn't necessarily mean one has belief in God.
if we were all born believers in God than there would be no need for anyone to preach us further.
someone didn't bother to explain what being born in a state of fitrah meant so he gave you the short cut or you thought it up for yourself because being born in a state of fitrah does not mean you are born a believer in God (allah).
it is a pity how so many of you muslims grow up in such a wishy washy wold with such ridiculous ideas of what islam is. maybe if you didn't raise your children as a bunch of brainwashed cows in a cattle, the world would have more respect for islam and muslims.Believer is purity ,free of sin, a child is free of sin a parent society turns a child a into what ever they later become, the main thing is the soul the soul is created way before the child was born or created, they say you can't stop the souls that allah swt has destined to come into the world ,the soul is the believer but over time with the wrong surroundings the child grows up starts to sin it needs guidance to bring it back to right path so if everyone was innocent we wouldn't need anything everything would be pure and simple , but we lose our purity our innocence as we out grow our childhood, that's when we are accountable for our sins before that we are natural believers ,naturally pure and simple free of sin.


So if you look at it the child is the best believer among us, a child's prayer is accepted far more better than a adult's who's thinking all sort's in that all sorts we doubt things we think malice jealousy vilolence ect: the sins are endless

tor_khan
10-09-2011, 11:06 PM
Ozymandias. I've often wondered if we take one scientific viewpoint that life is just a chance thing that happened on this planet but that all it comes down to is bags of chemical reactions. On this planet that is part of a solar system/galaxy expanding out into vast universal space along some haphazard evolutionary path, why should we bother with human-made concepts that don't affect the inevitability of the power of the universe?

Why would humans care about each other or the survival of the planet? What is it to be driven by conscience? That's what separates us from other life forms. Animals/plants for example don't have a conscience like people do. Arguably they are just bags of chemicals that happen to be 'alive', but humans are more than that. So what is conscience if some aspect of it is not about searching for God?

kakargirl
10-09-2011, 11:19 PM
A: Indeed Allah has the knowledge of The Hour (time of the Day of Judgment) and He sends down the rain and He knows what is in the wombs (before the fetus is made) and no soul knows what is going to earn tomorrow (what will happen) and no soul knows in what land it is going to die; Indeed Allah is All-Knowledgeable, All-Expert.
Translation of: Ayah 34, Surat Luqman.
Words: Indahu = He has, Ilm = Knowledge, AlSa'ah = The Hour - Day of Judgment, Yunazil = Sends down, Ghay(s)th = Rain, Ya'lam = Knows, Ar'ham = Wombs, Tadri = Knows, Nafs = Soul, Taksib = Earns, Ghad = Tomorrow, Ardh = Land, Tamout = Dies.

IamDZJ
10-09-2011, 11:25 PM
Believer is purity ,free of sin, a child is free of sin innocent, free of sin and pure but not a believer a parent society turns a child a into what ever they later become, the main thing is the soul the soul is created way before the child was born or created, they say you can't stop the souls that allah swt has destined to come into the world ,the soul is the believer but over time with the wrong surroundings the child grows up starts to sin it needs guidance to bring it back to right path so if everyone was innocent we wouldn't need anything everything would be pure and simple , but we lose our purity our innocence as we out grow our childhood, that's when we are accountable for our sins before that we are natural believers ,naturally pure and simple free of sin.


So if you look at it the child is the best believer among us, a child's prayer is accepted far more better than a adult's who's thinking all sort's in that all sorts we doubt things we think malice jealousy vilolence ect: the sins are endless[/QUOTE] irrelevant

A: Indeed Allah has the knowledge of The Hour (time of the Day of Judgment) and He sends down the rain and He knows what is in the wombs (before the fetus is made) and no soul knows what is going to earn tomorrow (what will happen) and no soul knows in what land it is going to die; Indeed Allah is All-Knowledgeable, All-Expert.
Translation of: Ayah 34, Surat Luqman.
Words: Indahu = He has, Ilm = Knowledge, AlSa'ah = The Hour - Day of Judgment, Yunazil = Sends down, Ghay(s)th = Rain, Ya'lam = Knows, Ar'ham = Wombs, Tadri = Knows, Nafs = Soul, Taksib = Earns, Ghad = Tomorrow, Ardh = Land, Tamout = Dies.
but i thought we were all given an equal chance to redeem ourselves..

long story shot, children are not born believers in islam or God. they are pious and innocent no doubt but that is about it.
good night

kakargirl
10-09-2011, 11:32 PM
Believer is purity ,free of sin, a child is free of sin innocent, free of sin and pure but not a believer a parent society turns a child a into what ever they later become, the main thing is the soul the soul is created way before the child was born or created, they say you can't stop the souls that allah swt has destined to come into the world ,the soul is the believer but over time with the wrong surroundings the child grows up starts to sin it needs guidance to bring it back to right path so if everyone was innocent we wouldn't need anything everything would be pure and simple , but we lose our purity our innocence as we out grow our childhood, that's when we are accountable for our sins before that we are natural believers ,naturally pure and simple free of sin.


So if you look at it the child is the best believer among us, a child's prayer is accepted far more better than a adult's who's thinking all sort's in that all sorts we doubt things we think malice jealousy vilolence ect: the sins are endless irrelevant


but i thought we were all given an equal chance to redeem ourselves..

long story shot, children are not born believers in islam or God. they are pious and innocent no doubt but that is about it.
good night[/QUOTE]What is a believer , it means not to think up sin, why do we prayer whats in the salah we read, in all the salahs we read in arabic we are asking allah swt to guide us ,to purify us ,to make us better people ,to stop the sins we do or think, so there children are the natural purity free of sin what causes disaster sin if we are free of sin we are believers we wont cause harm to no one we wont commit any wrong.

IamDZJ
10-09-2011, 11:40 PM
irrelevant


but i thought we were all given an equal chance to redeem ourselves..

long story shot, children are not born believers in islam or God. they are pious and innocent no doubt but that is about it.
good nightWhat is a believer , it means not to think up sin, why do we prayer whats in the salah we read, in all the salahs we read in arabic we are asking allah swt to guide us ,to purify us ,to make us better people ,to stop the sins we do or think, so there children are the natural purity free of sin what causes disaster sin if we are free of sin we are believers we wont cause harm to no one we wont commit any wrong.[/QUOTE]

awal kalima duwayum lmunz dreyum roja saloram zakat penzum haj...
five pillars of islam..you can't be a muslim if you don't acknowledge and practice those regardless of how sinless your lifestyle is or will be.
you sound like cayta sher...children this.. children that. GET REAL.

kakargirl
10-09-2011, 11:53 PM
What is a believer , it means not to think up sin, why do we prayer whats in the salah we read, in all the salahs we read in arabic we are asking allah swt to guide us ,to purify us ,to make us better people ,to stop the sins we do or think, so there children are the natural purity free of sin what causes disaster sin if we are free of sin we are believers we wont cause harm to no one we wont commit any wrong.

awal kalima duwayum lmunz dreyum roja saloram zakat penzum haj...
five pillars of islam..you can't be a muslim if you don't acknowledge and practice those regardless of how sinless your lifestyle is or will be.
you sound like cayta sher...children this.. children that. GET REAL.[/QUOTE]who said you can be a muslim with out these things, basically what are these things well again to keep order in one self to remain on the right path zakat to think of poor to help them,salah to prayer to remain pure ask for protection from satan,Roza to fast to feel others hunger and learn to be humble,kalimah again being under allah swt protection believing in the almighty the one that will save you the one that created you and sent his messenger prophet Muhammed pbuh to give the message to help you stay on right path, and final hajj to enjoy travel and to submit one self to feel what it will be like on the day of judgement when everyone will be gathered .

IamDZJ
10-09-2011, 11:58 PM
awal kalima duwayum lmunz dreyum roja saloram zakat penzum haj...
five pillars of islam..you can't be a muslim if you don't acknowledge and practice those regardless of how sinless your lifestyle is or will be.
you sound like cayta sher...children this.. children that. GET REAL.who said you can be a muslim with out these things, basically what are these things well again to keep order in one self to remain on the right path zakat to think of poor to help them,salah to prayer to remain pure ask for protection from satan,Roza to fast to feel others hunger and learn to be humble,kalimah again being under allah swt protection believing in the almighty the one that will save you the one that created you and sent his messenger prophet Muhammed pbuh to give the message to help you stay on right path, and final hajj to enjoy travel and to submit one self to feel what it will be like on the day of judgement when everyone will be gathered .[/QUOTE]

how about you stick to what you have to say rather then repeating what i am saying so i dont end up getting a headache as the result of going around in circles with you??
ukkhhh, :lal18:

ozymandias
10-10-2011, 08:46 AM
Basically ozy basis his belief in gravity on blind faith in a science which he himself doesn't understand. He didn't need to be convinced that gravity is a force, but he has to be convinced that God created him.



Please stop making up lies. This is not even remotely true.




He either deliberately doesn't want to understand Pascal's wager, or his subconcious mind cannot accept that the wager only applies to One God, and not many gods.



Unfortunately, you are wrong. The Wager is equally true, no matter *what* you put into the 'god' portion. You use the word 'cat', and the Wager argues that you should worship a cat.



If he can't even bother to know the difference between polytheism and monotheism, and how the wager only applies to one and not the other, then why bother with such self deceptive laziness?



Only one of use is being self deceptive -- and it appears to be you.



So I googled = belief + choice and a whole list of references to atheist sites popped up. It appears that it is a central tenant of atheism to believe that "belief is not a choice". Of course, years of psycho babble and aggressive marketing by the pharmaceutical companies has everyone in the west convinced that their depression is not their choice, and not as a result of their way of thinking.



Depression is not a belief, let alone a choice. Please stick to one topic with your arguments.



They have us convinced that we are by nature irrational beings and so we act on baser impulses. The most archaic of which is the belief that ozy is himself a demi god of a sort - which is why he believes that in his company a whole number of demi gods work towards a defined objective and succeed - I suppose success here is quantified by montary compensation - I forgot how zues paid posidon or apollo.



... what? This is just gibberish. Why are you claiming that I think I am a demigod?



I will say this in passing, the human rights commission here in canada is an absolute failure. The supreme court has now allowed for the opening of heroine shooting galleries in vancouver. Soon they will even supply the drugs for the addicts - because they have the right to life, liberty and security.

....?

ozymandias
10-10-2011, 08:48 AM
There is back as all babies are born believers



Actually, all babies are born non-believers. They have to be taught religion by adults. This is why Mohammad had to exist -- no one is born even knowing the first thing about religion.




,what they become is up to themselves, so ozy there is a back i hope one day you do find your way back.



Nope, no 'back'.




“Allah chooses for Himself whom He pleases, and guides to Himself those who turn (to Him) [42:13].”“Allah knows best where He places His message [6:124].”

ozymandias
10-10-2011, 08:49 AM
well recently its been proven by studies that belief in a higher power is an inherent human trait. its disbelief that is unnatural to human beings.

Actually, no. It has been proven that faith in your parents, and what they teach is inherent. Studies time after time have shown that children need to be taught to look for supernatural explanations.

ozymandias
10-10-2011, 08:50 AM
Quran uses the word FITRAH(PURE NATURE)SO CHILDREN ARE BORN CLEAN PURE BELIEVERS.

Got any actual evidence?

ozymandias
10-10-2011, 08:52 AM
Biggest proof is surah al imran , where Isa salam pbuh spoke as a newborn to protect him mother.

So no, you don't have any proof.

ozymandias
10-10-2011, 08:54 AM
45. (Remember) when the angels said: "O Maryam (Mary)! Verily, Allah gives you the glad tidings of a Word ["Be!" - and he was! i.e. 'Iesa (Jesus) the son of Maryam (Mary)] from Him, his name will be the Messiah 'Iesa (Jesus), the son of Maryam (Mary), held in honour in this world and in the Hereafter, and will be one of those who are near to Allah."46. "He will speak to the people in the cradle and in manhood, and he will be one of the righteous."

Off topic. First of all, this doesn't even claim one child was born a believer -- it claims that he will speak to the people in the 'cradle and in manhood' -- that he would speak to people of all ages -- unless something was lost in translation. That said, this is one person specifically, not all people, and is a *very* special case.

ozymandias
10-10-2011, 08:57 AM
Believer is purity ,free of sin, a child is free of sin a parent society turns a child a into what ever they later become, the main thing is the soul the soul is created way before the child was born or created, they say you can't stop the souls that allah swt has destined to come into the world ,the soul is the believer but over time with the wrong surroundings the child grows up starts to sin it needs guidance to bring it back to right path so if everyone was innocent we wouldn't need anything everything would be pure and simple , but we lose our purity our innocence as we out grow our childhood, that's when we are accountable for our sins before that we are natural believers ,naturally pure and simple free of sin.



So, other than pulling this out of your ass, do you have any evidence?



So if you look at it the child is the best believer among us, a child's prayer is accepted far more better than a adult's who's thinking all sort's in that all sorts we doubt things we think malice jealousy vilolence ect: the sins are endless


Ok, so prove that *ANY* prayers are answered -- and then prove the rates for various ages -- and then prove that adult prayers and children's prayers are substantially the same (i.e. children are not praying for a piece of candy while an adult is praying for a promotion), and then we can talk. Until that point, you are once again making things up.

ozymandias
10-10-2011, 09:04 AM
Ozymandias. I've often wondered if we take one scientific viewpoint that life is just a chance thing that happened on this planet but that all it comes down to is bags of chemical reactions. On this planet that is part of a solar system/galaxy expanding out into vast universal space along some haphazard evolutionary path, why should we bother with human-made concepts that don't affect the inevitability of the power of the universe?

Why would humans care about each other or the survival of the planet? What is it to be driven by conscience? That's what separates us from other life forms. Animals/plants for example don't have a conscience like people do. Arguably they are just bags of chemicals that happen to be 'alive', but humans are more than that. So what is conscience if some aspect of it is not about searching for God?

You ask a lot of different things here, so bear with me: conscience is just an evolutionary advantage that allows us a much better chance at survival. Mankind, by being conscious was able to deliberately adapt to it's environment, and to deliberately adapt it's environment to itself. That's enough right there to explain it, but we can continue.

Caring about others, and the survival of the planet *also* have an evolutionary basis. If you care about others, and work with others, rather than compete with everyone, you are able to provide a more secure environment for yourself and your children. This is clearly an eveolutionary advantage -- and caring for the planet is just an extension of that, as well as the drive to leave your children a secure place to live.

There are a lot more interactions going on, though -- like the fact that we appear to be hard wired to find similarities and differences between people and to related to those like ourselves, and build a community with them. Or the fact that humans appear hard wired to have certain reactions to the facial features ob babies -- large heads, small noses, and large eyes tend to evoke a particular reaction -- and this reaction holds true with the young of other animals as well.

ozymandias
10-10-2011, 09:04 AM
A: Indeed Allah has the knowledge of The Hour (time of the Day of Judgment) and He sends down the rain and He knows what is in the wombs (before the fetus is made) and no soul knows what is going to earn tomorrow (what will happen) and no soul knows in what land it is going to die; Indeed Allah is All-Knowledgeable, All-Expert.
Translation of: Ayah 34, Surat Luqman.
Words: Indahu = He has, Ilm = Knowledge, AlSa'ah = The Hour - Day of Judgment, Yunazil = Sends down, Ghay(s)th = Rain, Ya'lam = Knows, Ar'ham = Wombs, Tadri = Knows, Nafs = Soul, Taksib = Earns, Ghad = Tomorrow, Ardh = Land, Tamout = Dies.

Off topic.

graveyardofempires
10-10-2011, 09:05 AM
Ozy
how about you stop being arrogant and intolerant?
its funny how you try to tell me to be tolerant while you dont even know about your own intolerance.

when she says the Quran says so is because Quran is a book of facts and not theories.

Babies are born believers because they do not commit sins in the belly of their mother neither they do when they are of small age.
it is when their parents make them eat pork and encourage them to do things which are prohibited by Allah.

so a kid being a believer is the most logical thing to say and saying a kid being disbeliever is total non sense cuz the kid was created by Allah and he is in his natural state when in belly or up until young age.

ozymandias
10-10-2011, 09:07 AM
irrelevant


but i thought we were all given an equal chance to redeem ourselves..

long story shot, children are not born believers in islam or God. they are pious and innocent no doubt but that is about it.
good nightWhat is a believer , it means not to think up sin,



No, it means to *know about something* and to *think that something is true*

You cannot just make up false definitions of words to back up your claims.



why do we prayer whats in the salah we read, in all the salahs we read in arabic we are asking allah swt to guide us ,to purify us ,to make us better people ,to stop the sins we do or think, so there children are the natural purity free of sin what causes disaster sin if we are free of sin we are believers we wont cause harm to no one we wont commit any wrong.

Wow. Just... Wow. Belief itself does not stop sin.

graveyardofempires
10-10-2011, 09:13 AM
believe means being consious about the truth ,disbelief is when you want to avoid the truth for material wishes.

Belief does stop your from sin cuz belief comes with sets of rules and norms.
for example : you believe in "freedom" as if it were something limiteless ,while i believe in freedom where i set the limits. if we were to take your version of freedom serious than i can be disrespectful to you all i want and you cant limit my freedom to be disrespectful and even freedom to spit in your face everytime i see you,but in my freedom i would have limits which tells me what i should and not do to be a good person towards another person.

thats why what you are claiming is false cuz you are talking about open mindness while the first thing you do when you come here you is closing your mind for different views and rejecting them cuz they arent compareable to your sets of beliefs.

ozymandias
10-10-2011, 09:17 AM
Ozy
how about you stop being arrogant and intolerant?



Let me know when I start, and I will try to stop.



its funny how you try to tell me to be tolerant while you dont even know about your own intolerance.



What am I doing that is intolerant? Offering my opinion? Answering questions? Asking you to abide by the rules of this forum?

Or is it simply that I have an opinion different than yours?



when she says the Quran says so is because Quran is a book of facts and not theories.



You cannot use that as justification in an argument with a non-believer, though. You need to use something that is either agreed upon by both parties as true, or something that can be independently verified. I don't believe the Koran is anything other than a book, so claiming something is proven by the Koran carries no merit to me. Not only that, but anything that is true in the Koran would, by definition, be provable without the Koran.

She is making claims about all babies being born believers, and science shows her that she is wrong -- and it appears that even using the Koran, she is unable to prove her point, so let's move on.



Babies are born believers because they do not commit sins in the belly of their mother neither they do when they are of small age.



A) Babies don't do *ANYTHING* in the womb, other than twitch around and wait for birth

B) Young infants are not much better -- they eat, sleep, and poop. That's about it.

C) Lack of sin does not prove belief. In order for a baby to believe in a god, they must first know about that god.



it is when their parents make them eat pork and encourage them to do things which are prohibited by Allah.



This may be true -- but does nothing to prove the child believed in anything prior to that.



so a kid being a believer is the most logical thing to say



Not at all. The kid not knowing about deities is the most logical thing to say.



and saying a kid being disbeliever is total non sense cuz the kid was created by Allah and he is in his natural state when in belly or up until young age.

That's not proof of anything. Your opinion is not *proof*. Do you not understand that idea? Especially when it appears your opinion is based on a poor understanding of the word 'belief'. Belief is not a state of sinlessness, it is a state of accepting something as true, which implies you know the facts, *AND* do not reject them.

ozymandias
10-10-2011, 09:24 AM
believe means being consious about the truth ,



Well, you are half right:

be·lief/biˈlēf/

Noun:

An acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.
Something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion or conviction.


Being true or false in reality does not matter.



disbelief is when you want to avoid the truth for material wishes.



Again, half right. disbelief is when you do not believe something. Motivation, nor the fact's 'trueness' comes into play.




Belief does stop your from sin cuz belief comes with sets of rules and norms.



Belief might stop you from sinning, but lack of sin does not mean you believe. See the above definition, it should be pretty clear.




for example : you believe in "freedom" as if it were something limiteless



False. There are many limits to freedom.



,while i believe in freedom where i set the limits. if we were to take your version of freedom serious than i can be disrespectful to you all i want and you cant limit my freedom to be disrespectful



True. There is no such thing as the right to be respected.



and even freedom to spit in your face everytime i see you,



False. Your rights end where mine begin. The only time it is acceptable to infringe on the rights of someone is when it is required to do so to protect the rights of many.



but in my freedom i would have limits which tells me what i should and not do to be a good person towards another person.



Interestingly enough, I don't need religion to have the same concept of limits.



thats why what you are claiming is false cuz you are talking about open mindness while the first thing you do when you come here you is closing your mind for different views and rejecting them cuz they arent compareable to your sets of beliefs.

And the first thing *you* appeared to have done is make up some stance you *wish* I would make, and then proceeded to make up arguments against this mythical stance that I never took. I'm sorry if you cannot be bothered to actually read what I have to say, or get to know me before judging my. Perhaps one day you will be strong enough to actually read what I say, and not cower in fear.

graveyardofempires
10-10-2011, 09:35 AM
Let me know when I start, and I will try to stop.


What am I doing that is intolerant? Offering my opinion? Answering questions? Asking you to abide by the rules of this forum?

Or is it simply that I have an opinion different than yours?
Thats typical atheist reponse,avoiding ,the same way with their spaghetti monster story.
as far as im concerned you can havve all the opinions you can have but that will still not make them facts.



You cannot use that as justification in an argument with a non-believer, though. You need to use something that is either agreed upon by both parties as true, or something that can be independently verified. I don't believe the Koran is anything other than a book, so claiming something is proven by the Koran carries no merit to me. Not only that, but anything that is true in the Koran would, by definition, be provable without the Koran.
Why should i?

how about you use something from a devine book?
you want me to play it along on your rules and your sources just to satisfy your needs.Like you said you didnt want someone to convert you to Islam.As far as im concerned you can believe whatever you want and you thinking that Quran is just another book? show me another book like th Quran?


She is making claims about all babies being born believers, and science shows her that she is wrong -- and it appears that even using the Koran, she is unable to prove her point, so let's move on.
since babies dont commit sin and they are pure and innocent that makes them believer in Allah and how about you prove to us that babies dont know About God?


A) Babies don't do *ANYTHING* in the womb, other than twitch around and wait for birth
How do you know they waite for their birth if according to your logic they arent doing anything and arent aware of anything?
B) Young infants are not much better -- they eat, sleep, and poop. That's about it.
Young infants dont go around killing looting plundering raping using alcohol drugs prostitutes,eat pork,be blaphemous,talk trash to their parents which means they are not sinners,unless they are taught at early age for example if the parents are talking trash to eachother the kid will pick it up.


C) Lack of sin does not prove belief. In order for a baby to believe in a god, they must first know about that god.
How can you prove this?
how do you know that a kid does not know God?



This may be true -- but does nothing to prove the child believed in anything prior to that.
How can you prove that?



Not at all. The kid not knowing about deities is the most logical thing to say.
we are nto talking about deities ,we are talking about one and only.
so before we proceed you shoudl understand that you are not having a discussion with hindus or all reliogions at once.
you are having a diussion with muslims and saying deities is being intellectually dishonest.



That's not proof of anything. Your opinion is not *proof*. Do you not understand that idea? Especially when it appears your opinion is based on a poor understanding of the word 'belief'. Belief is not a state of sinlessness, it is a state of accepting something as true, which implies you know the facts, *AND* do not reject them.
how does the word belief concerned a disbeliever?

i mean how can a disbeliever define the word belief to me?

the word beliefused as : i believe what you are saying is different than i believe in the judgement day.

if belief is a state of accepting the facts than why are you beating around the bush?

tor_khan
10-10-2011, 09:45 AM
Caring about others, and the survival of the planet *also* have an evolutionary basis. If you care about others, and work with others, rather than compete with everyone, you are able to provide a more secure environment for yourself and your children. This is clearly an eveolutionary advantage -- and caring for the planet is just an extension of that, as well as the drive to leave your children a secure place to live.

See the one lesson we learn from evolution is that the fittest survive - generosity doesn't come into it. If we accept that line of thinking, then who knows, in the due course of time, humans might (and should?) be replaced. In evolutionary terms, few will go on past their ability to adapt and survive.
Whilst many sophisticated life forms have an instinct of 'care' for the young (and sometimes old) of their species, it's pointless being sentimental about species demise.

This doesn't rest comfortably with humans, even if it is inevitable. Why, I wonder? Unless we are here completely by fluke and accident, many of us subscribe to the idea of our existence as being part of a purpose that goes beyond simplistic evolutionary theories.

ozymandias
10-10-2011, 09:52 AM
Thats typical atheist reponse,avoiding ,the same way with their spaghetti monster story.
as far as im concerned you can havve all the opinions you can have but that will still not make them facts.


Then we agree.


Why should i?



Because you will never convince the other side if you do not use something they believe is true to justify your statements.



how about you use something from a devine book?



Because there are no divine books.



you want me to play it along on your rules and your sources just to satisfy your needs.



Well, unless we have some middle ground upon which we agree, there is no point in even having a discussion. We might as well both be speaking a language the other does not understand if there is no middle ground.



Like you said you didnt want someone to convert you to Islam.As far as im concerned you can believe whatever you want and you thinking that Quran is just another book? show me another book like th Quran?



The bible. The book of mormon. Harry Potter. The Torah. Lord of the Rings. Epic of Gilgamesh. The Veda. I am not attempting to be insulting, but you asked.



since babies dont commit sin and they are pure and innocent that makes them believer in Allah



See the definition of 'belief'. I have already proven this wrong.



and how about you prove to us that babies dont know About God?



Ok. If we are all born knowing about Allah, how come we need someone to teach us about him? Logically, if what you say is true, there woul dbe no need for prophets, and all children would be born Islamic -- and would have to forget what they know in order to be re-taught. There is no evidence of this in any scientific study.



How do you know they waite for their birth if according to your logic they arent doing anything and arent aware of anything?



I do not understand. They wait for birth because they don't just pop out as soon as the egg is fertilized. There is about 9 months between the two events, which obviously means time passes....


Young infants dont go around killing looting plundering raping using alcohol drugs prostitutes,eat pork,be blaphemous,talk trash to their parents which means they are not sinners,unless they are taught at early age for example if the parents are talking trash to eachother the kid will pick it up.



That's because they are not *PHYSICALLY ABLE TO DO SO*. Aside from that pretty important point, lack of sin does not mean belief. I did none of those things yesterday, so by your insane definition, I would have been a believer yesterday. That's just asinine.


How can you prove this?



With the definition of the word 'belief', and the context of this discussion. The word belief does *not* mean 'lack of sin', it means 'knowledge and acceptance that that knowledge is true'.



how do you know that a kid does not know God?



See above.


How can you prove that?



Easily. See above.


we are nto talking about deities ,we are talking about one and only.



And the 'one and only' is a deity.



so before we proceed you shoudl understand that you are not having a discussion with hindus or all reliogions at once.
you are having a diussion with muslims and saying deities is being intellectually dishonest.

[quote]

Intellectually dishonest? Not at all. I think your understanding of English caused you to misunderstand what I said. My statement is true about any and all deities, not just the one you believe in.

[quote]

how does the word belief concerned a disbeliever?



I don't understand the question.



i mean how can a disbeliever define the word belief to me?



Easily. The definition is in a dictionary, and exists outside the scope of a person's belief in a god.



the word beliefused as : i believe what you are saying is different than i believe in the judgement day.



Could you please restate this? I do not understand what you are trying to say.



if belief is a state of accepting the facts than why are you beating around the bush?



Belief has nothing to do with facts. You can believe in something regardless if it is true or false.

ozymandias
10-10-2011, 09:59 AM
See the one lesson we learn from evolution is that the fittest survive - generosity doesn't come into it.



Not true at all. Generosity is easily an evolutionarily learned trait. You could say that it would be generous for a chimp not to attack young that is not it's own -- but it also means that the other parent would not seek revenge -- and would be generous by not taking an opportunity to attack it's own young.

Being generous to my friends, means that I now have a social group. If someone were to attack me, my friends would protect me.

Being generous to other people means that other people will like me, and attempt not to hurt or attack me.

Not only that, but as a society, generosity is a good thing. If a society values feeding the poor, more members of that society will survive hard times, for instance.

I can go on and on, but social traits are easily covered by evolution.



If we accept that line of thinking, then who knows, in the due course of time, humans might (and should?) be replaced. In evolutionary terms, few will go on past their ability to adapt and survive.
Whilst many sophisticated life forms have an instinct of 'care' for the young (and sometimes old) of their species, it's pointless being sentimental about species demise.



I agree.



This doesn't rest comfortably with humans, even if it is inevitable. Why, I wonder? Unless we are here completely by fluke and accident, many of us subscribe to the idea of our existence as being part of a purpose that goes beyond simplistic evolutionary theories.

There is nothing 'simplistic' about evolution, other than the common understanding of it. It is a very complicated concept.

There are many scientific theories as to where religion came from, and interestingly enough evolution is one of them, but that is a digression. The fact that something is commonly believed does not make it true. At one point, it was commonly believed the world was flat -- and we all know that is not true.

graveyardofempires
10-10-2011, 10:34 AM
Then we agree.



Because you will never convince the other side if you do not use something they believe is true to justify your statements.
But you said in your first post that you didnt want to be convinced.



Because there are no divine books.

thats your opinion,how about the content of the book?


Well, unless we have some middle ground upon which we agree, there is no point in even having a discussion. We might as well both be speaking a language the other does not understand if there is no middle ground.

What middle ground are we talking about?
here is the middle ground but your refuse to have understanding for why others do belief and try to portray them as being backward for doing so.Hence the atheist quote "i may be openminded but not so much that my brains fall out of my sckull".


The bible. The book of mormon. Harry Potter. The Torah. Lord of the Rings. Epic of Gilgamesh. The Veda. I am not attempting to be insulting, but you asked.

You are being insulting but hey you are an atheist and have no understanding of Islam and might be confused about your own belief.
How can you say those books are like Quran?Explain further.



See the definition of 'belief'. I have already proven this wrong.

Thats your atheistic defination ,just like deity.According to you the word deity is something which is like having a football club you support.so everyone has their own deity etc.


Ok. If we are all born knowing about Allah, how come we need someone to teach us about him? Logically, if what you say is true, there woul dbe no need for prophets, and all children would be born Islamic -- and would have to forget what they know in order to be re-taught. There is no evidence of this in any scientific study.

How about your science prove to us that its not the case?
and what you call science is what i call anti scinece cuz you are denying the possibility.

Now Prove to me why this kid from a non muslim family was reciting Quran and praying when he was one and knew around 4 languages and memorised whole quran when he was 4?
Child Imam Dua - Sheikh Khalifa Sherifdeen - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=favNiBBLhNo)
5-year-old Tanzanian boy converts thousands of people to Islam - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOrPr_GiJRY&feature=fvwrel)


I do not understand. They wait for birth because they don't just pop out as soon as the egg is fertilized. There is about 9 months between the two events, which obviously means time passes....

Waiting means they are thinking to do something,how do you knwo that they arent feelign that will stay in the womb forever and that is their reality?
thats why they cry when they are out(joking).

That's because they are not *PHYSICALLY ABLE TO DO SO*. Aside from that pretty important point, lack of sin does not mean belief. I did none of those things yesterday, so by your insane definition, I would have been a believer yesterday. That's just asinine.

Spare me the personal attacks(another typical atheist method when having a discussion).

They would do the same when they grow up and are physically fit to do so cuz they might have been taught some norms and rules.

Yesterday you werent a believer like you arent today.
you remind of this kid eating as much pork as possible cuz the muslims dont eat it whiel not knowing that he is actually helping create a health problem for himself.



With the definition of the word 'belief', and the context of this discussion. The word belief does *not* mean 'lack of sin', it means 'knowledge and acceptance that that knowledge is true'.

its true and knowledge of truth and acceptance of that knowledge leads to reduction in sin.total lack of sin is impossible.

See above.

saw the above and there is no proof.


Easily. See above.
?


And the 'one and only' is a deity.

the One and Only is Allah
[quote]

[/B]so before we proceed you shoudl understand that you are not having a discussion with hindus or all reliogions at once.
you are having a diussion with muslims and saying deities is being intellectually dishonest.

[quote]

Intellectually dishonest? Not at all. I think your understanding of English caused you to misunderstand what I said. My statement is true about any and all deities, not just the one you believe in.

[B]thats called being dishonest,i just told you you werent discussing with people who believed in deities but one and only yet you try to have a poke at it and put all in one.


I don't understand the question.

How do you knwo the defination of belief or believing while you are a non believer,i mean your defination would be irrelevant when we are talking abotu religion.

Easily. The definition is in a dictionary, and exists outside the scope of a person's belief in a god.

in dictionary the
be·lief (bhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/ibreve.gif-lhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/emacr.giffhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/prime.gif)n.1. The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in another: My belief in you is as strong as ever.
2. Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something: His explanation of what happened defies belief.
3. Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons.
belief n[B]1. a principle, proposition, idea, etc., accepted as true
2. opinion; conviction
3. religious faith
4. trust or confidence, as in a person or a person's abilities, probity, etc


the dictionary puts religious faith as an irrelevant meaning of the word belief and puts many others forth while to me the other definations are irrlevant.




Could you please restate this? I do not understand what you are trying to say.

what im trying to say is to you the word belief means something else and since you dont believe in the one and only you use the word belief losely.



Belief has nothing to do with facts. You can believe in something regardless if it is true or false.Ok so you know the facts yet you want to believe whatever you want cuz you can right?

ozymandias
10-10-2011, 11:26 AM
But you said in your first post that you didnt want to be convinced.

Convinced and converted are two different words. I am not here to be converted, but to hold a discussion.


thats your opinion,how about the content of the book?
See above.Already answered.


What middle ground are we talking about?
The middle ground is the ground we both have in common. Without this, no conversation can take place.



here is the middle ground but your refuse to have understanding for why others do belief and try to portray them as being backward for doing so.Hence the atheist quote "i may be openminded but not so much that my brains fall out of my sckull".



Huh? Who said you were backwards? Please stop makign up things and pretending I said them. It's demeaning to us both.



You are being insulting but hey you are an atheist and have no understanding of Islam and might be confused about your own belief.
How can you say those books are like Quran?Explain further.



You asked. I stated the answer in the least insulting way I know how. If you are insulted, that is your own fault. All books are the same in some regards. These books are all thick. They are all popular. They all contain magic and superstition. They all describe a world that is not *quite* like the one we live in. They all made the authors famous.



Thats your atheistic defination ,just like deity.According to you the word deity is something which is like having a football club you support.so everyone has their own deity etc.



I must insist that you stop making up lies about what I believe. It really does not help the conversation for you to lie about what I have said. Isn't lying a sin? Or is that garbage about it being "ok to lie to the non-believer' actually true, in your mind? Most Muslims I have talked to have said that verse is out of context.



How about your science prove to us that its not the case?
and what you call science is what i call anti scinece cuz you are denying the possibility.



At least this time you admit you are making things up. It is not the job of science to disprove your extraordinary claims. You make the claim, you prove it.



Now Prove to me why this kid from a non muslim family was reciting Quran and praying when he was one and knew around 4 languages and memorised whole quran when he was 4?



Prove to me that the video is not faked.



Waiting means they are thinking to do something,how do you knwo that they arent feelign that will stay in the womb forever and that is their reality?
thats why they cry when they are out(joking).



How's that fistful of straws treating you?



Spare me the personal attacks(another typical atheist method when having a discussion).

They would do the same when they grow up and are physically fit to do so cuz they might have been taught some norms and rules.

Yesterday you werent a believer like you arent today.
you remind of this kid eating as much pork as possible cuz the muslims dont eat it whiel not knowing that he is actually helping create a health problem for himself.



Huh? Please restate. I am not sure what you are trying to say. One minute you are saying that not sinning makes you a believer, but the next you are saying that is not true. Which is it?



its true and knowledge of truth and acceptance of that knowledge leads to reduction in sin.total lack of sin is impossible.

saw the above and there is no proof.

?



I already answered these questions -- not more than a handful of posts ago. You can look back to find the answers, or crack open a dictionary if you need to. I am not repeating myself to you, as you are clearly refusing to even read what I am posting.

the One and Only is Allah



You may think so. If the 'one and only' is Allah, or if the 'one and only' is *not* Allah, either way, Allah is a deity.

de·i·ty/ˈdē-itē/

Noun:

A god or goddess: "a deity of ancient Greece".
Divine status, quality, or nature: "a ruler driven by delusions of deity".



thats called being dishonest,i just told you you werent discussing with people who believed in deities but one and only yet you try to have a poke at it and put all in one.

And I have repeatedly told you that your god, any god, is also called a deity. The word deity is a word that means "a god". Just like you are a poster on this board, you are also a human. There is nothing 'dishonest' about using a word according to it's definition. Deity is a classification. Just like a person from Afghan is an Afghan, and a person from the US is an American, a god is a deity.



How do you knwo the defination of belief or believing while you are a non believer,i mean your defination would be irrelevant when we are talking abotu religion.



A believer and a non-believer can both use a dictionary. I still don't understand why you think that belief in a deity is required to understand the English language.
in dictionary the
be·lief (bhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/ibreve.gif-lhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/emacr.giffhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/prime.gif)n.1. The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in another: My belief in you is as strong as ever.
2. Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something: His explanation of what happened defies belief.
3. Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons.
belief [bɪˈliːf]n1. a principle, proposition, idea, etc., accepted as true
2. opinion; conviction
3. religious faith
4. trust or confidence, as in a person or a person's abilities, probity, etc


the dictionary puts religious faith as an irrelevant meaning of the word belief and puts many others forth while to me the other definations are irrlevant.


So you are wrong. Consider this a free lesson in the English language. Those are all parts of the definition of a word -- and no one said any of that is irrelevant.



what im trying to say is to you the word belief means something else and since you dont believe in the one and only you use the word belief losely.



No, I use it correctly. You are trying to use the word to mean something so narrow that the dictionaries don't even agree with you. The word 'belief' is not nearly as narrow as you make it out to be. You will be *very* hard pressed to find a dictionary that even has 'sin' as part of the definition of 'belief'.



Ok so you know the facts yet you want to believe whatever you want cuz you can right?



I am going to assume that you mistranslated this -- because what you actually wrote is far too incomprehensible to be deliberate. I have already stated repeatedly that belief is not a matter of choice, nor is it a matter of what is true or false -- it is simply a matter of what you *think* is true or false.

As an aside, could you please make an effort to format your posts? This random format makes it very hard to read.

goblin
10-10-2011, 02:11 PM
I would like to ask you the following:

You are an atheist/agnostic, etc.
I assume you are White by race and it is highly possible that you drink alcohol.

my question to you is,

do you think the minimum drinking age (21) in the usa is absurdly high compared to 18 in most countries?

ozymandias
10-10-2011, 03:24 PM
I would like to ask you the following:

You are an atheist/agnostic, etc.
I assume you are White by race



This is correct.



and it is highly possible that you drink alcohol.



Only in moderation, and this is unrelated to my atheism. I come from a religious family that drinks, and I did pick up these behaviors from them, and society.

In the interest of full disclosure, I consume 1-2 alcoholic beverages a month, on average.



my question to you is,

do you think the minimum drinking age (21) in the usa is absurdly high compared to 18 in most countries?

Yes. I think that setting a drinking age at *all* was actually a bad idea. It turns out that in the USA, turning 21 is often a big deal to people, as it is the first time they can legally drink, and often over indulge -- and even before then, the fact that it is illegal only adds to the appeal. Many people are interested in drinking because they are told not to. Countries that do not make a big deal out of drinking tend to have lower frequency of teen drinking, and it eliminates that "I'm finally 21, let's go drink legally" mentality.

As a final note, in all other respects, you are legally an adult at 18. You can smoke, you can legally enter contracts, you can buy a firearm, you can drop out of public schools, be tried as an adult for crimes, and you can serve in the military. If they are old enough to decide to join the military, they are, by any reasonable measure, old enough to decide if they want to drink or not.

goblin
10-10-2011, 03:29 PM
Thank you for answering.

Another question:


Why in your signature, is there a Persian sentence explaining that you don't speak Arabic?

ozymandias
10-10-2011, 03:45 PM
Thank you for answering.

Another question:


Why in your signature, is there a Persian sentence explaining that you don't speak Arabic?


I am trying to be considerate, and accommodate those that do not speak English very well. I translated that using Google translate to help those that ask me things in Arabic, or mixed Arabic/English. I would hate to see language issues cause additional confusion.

Would the following be more correct or appropriate?
أنا آسف ، أنا لا أقرأ أو لا يتكلم اللغة العربية. وسوف تبذل جهدا لترجمة مع ترجمة جوجل. يرجى أن يكون فهم من هذا الحاجز.
(I'm sorry, I do not read or speak Arabic. I will make an effort to translate with Google translate. Please be understanding of this barrier.)

graveyardofempires
10-10-2011, 04:08 PM
Convinced and converted are two different words. I am not here to be converted, but to hold a discussion.

you dont want to be convinced either and im not here to convince you or convert you.Holding a discussion is great

See above.Already answered.

See above is pointing me to something written by you which is not clear enough.you need to elaborate.

QUOTE=ozymandias;525520]The middle ground is the ground we both have in common. Without this, no conversation can take place.[/QUOTE]

We both believe we breath oxygen(air),do we?


QUOTE=ozymandias;525520]Huh? Who said you were backwards? Please stop makign up things and pretending I said them. It's demeaning to us both.[/QUOTE]

Thats what atheists think about people who are religious.


QUOTE=ozymandias;525520]You asked. I stated the answer in the least insulting way I know how. If you are insulted, that is your own fault. All books are the same in some regards. These books are all thick. They are all popular. They all contain magic and superstition. They all describe a world that is not *quite* like the one we live in. They all made the authors famous.[/QUOTE]

How me being insulted by you is my fault? maybe its out of your ignorance or it is a cultural thing,not that you dont have the right to insult.

Quran is hardly as thick as the bible and you can also have it in MP3 or PDF format.

Magic and superstition? where did people get the idea of Magic since you believe these books were authored by people?
Can you explain how Quran doesnt discribe the world as we live in it?

you are right you tried the less insulting way which still is kind of insulting.

QUOTE=ozymandias;525520]I must insist that you stop making up lies about what I believe. It really does not help the conversation for you to lie about what I have said. Isn't lying a sin? Or is that garbage about it being "ok to lie to the non-believer' actually true, in your mind? Most Muslims I have talked to have said that verse is out of context.[/QUOTE]

I dont make up lies i just assume after hearing so many atheist using the "spaghetti monster" line.
yes lying is a sin but you dont believe anyway so why would you care?Ok now tell em the truth.


QUOTE=ozymandias;525520]At least this time you admit you are making things up. It is not the job of science to disprove your extraordinary claims. You make the claim, you prove it.[/QUOTE]

Now you actually made the claim that Quran is a book like any other book with magic and superstition.so you need to prove to me.
I dont make the claim ,its stated in the Book and if you can you should challenge it.


QUOTE=ozymandias;525520]Prove to me that the video is not faked. [/QUOTE]


Prove is the walking talking picture of the kid who knows whole Quran by heart and has had christian parents and he started by himself praying at the age of one and he speaks 4 or 5 languages and speaks with utmost knowledge and respect.

Prove to me that it was faked than we can discuss the parts you think were faked.

QUOTE=ozymandias;525520]How's that fistful of straws treating you?[/QUOTE]

Straws?Straw man's argument? sorry i dont know what that exactly means and neither does it apply to me.

QUOTE=ozymandias;525520]Huh? Please restate. I am not sure what you are trying to say. One minute you are saying that not sinning makes you a believer, but the next you are saying that is not true. Which is it?[/QUOTE]

How in the hell does not sining make you a believer ,if you are grown up and you sin yet you believe that does not make you a non believer,it makes you a sinner cuz to understand you sinned you need to be a believer first.some peopel might not sin yet they could be non believers.
as for the babies they arent obliged to pray and they do not fully understand or are able to sin.



QUOTE=ozymandias;525520]I already answered these questions -- not more than a handful of posts ago. You can look back to find the answers, or crack open a dictionary if you need to. I am not repeating myself to you, as you are clearly refusing to even read what I am posting.[/QUOTE]

When you write something here it gets challenged and you cant escape the challenge by saying look at my previous posts as if your previous posts are words carved in stones.

QUOTE=ozymandias;525520]You may think so. If the 'one and only' is Allah, or if the 'one and only' is *not* Allah, either way, Allah is a deity.

de·i·ty/ˈdē-itē/

Noun:

A god or goddess: "a deity of ancient Greece".
Divine status, quality, or nature: "a ruler driven by delusions of deity". [/QUOTE]


This is not accurate cuz it mentions it according to greek mythology and does not apply to Allah.

QUOTE=ozymandias;525520]And I have repeatedly told you that your god, any god, is also called a deity. The word deity is a word that means "a god". Just like you are a poster on this board, you are also a human. There is nothing 'dishonest' about using a word according to it's definition. Deity is a classification. Just like a person from Afghan is an Afghan, and a person from the US is an American, a god is a deity.[/QUOTE]

But thats when you fail to realise that the word deity can hardly be used for Allah.I dont think you understand fully or you are just not cooperating to understand.

you want to have a discussion with Pashtuns but you are trying to have us first accept and use a word for Allah which doesnt apply to him.Plus according to you we need to understand that Allah is just another what you call gods?Woudl that be correct observation?


QUOTE=ozymandias;525520]A believer and a non-believer can both use a dictionary. I still don't understand why you think that belief in a deity is required to understand the English language.[/QUOTE]

Just like if you were to open a dictionary some hundreds of years ago the meaning of belief would be something else.So dictionaries could also be altered and words added and deleted.


QUOTE=ozymandias;525520]So you are wrong. Consider this a free lesson in the English language. Those are all parts of the definition of a word -- and no one said any of that is irrelevant. [/QUOTE]

But where did the word come from and did it had so many menanings lets say a thousand years ago?



QUOTE=ozymandias;525520]No, I use it correctly. You are trying to use the word to mean something so narrow that the dictionaries don't even agree with you. The word 'belief' is not nearly as narrow as you make it out to be. You will be *very* hard pressed to find a dictionary that even has 'sin' as part of the definition of 'belief'.[/QUOTE]

Dictionaries nto agreeing with me does not mean anything.
sin is not the definition of the word belief.So if there isnt a dictionary with such a definition of the word belief where sin is also used lets say in a sentence.That shows the unprofesionalism of the ones responsible for the dictionary.



QUOTE=ozymandias;525520]I am going to assume that you mistranslated this -- because what you actually wrote is far too incomprehensible to be deliberate. I have already stated repeatedly that belief is not a matter of choice, nor is it a matter of what is true or false -- it is simply a matter of what you *think* is true or false. [/QUOTE]

Can you clarify what you just wrote? are we discussing the same word ""belief"?

QUOTE=ozymandias;525520]As an aside, could you please make an effort to format your posts? This random format makes it very hard to read.[/QUOTE]
Allright?

graveyardofempires
10-10-2011, 04:10 PM
I am trying to be considerate, and accommodate those that do not speak English very well. I translated that using Google translate to help those that ask me things in Arabic, or mixed Arabic/English. I would hate to see language issues cause additional confusion.

Would the following be more correct or appropriate?
أنا آسف ، أنا لا أقرأ أو لا يتكلم اللغة العربية. وسوف تبذل جهدا لترجمة مع ترجمة جوجل. يرجى أن يكون فهم من هذا الحاجز.
(I'm sorry, I do not read or speak Arabic. I will make an effort to translate with Google translate. Please be understanding of this barrier.)
so when you did that you mistoke persian for arabic? or did you think arabs spoke persian?Or did you think we pashtuns actually speak arabic?

Alchemist
10-10-2011, 05:57 PM
http://cdnw.resistanceisfruitful.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/circular-reasoning1.jpg

ozymandias
10-10-2011, 08:11 PM
http://cdnw.resistanceisfruitful.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/circular-reasoning1.jpg

Indeed. Perhaps we can move on now?

ozymandias
10-10-2011, 08:13 PM
so when you did that you mistoke persian for arabic? or did you think arabs spoke persian?Or did you think we pashtuns actually speak arabic?

I'm not sure what happened. I *think* it had to do with Google autodetecting the language on a page, and I didn't notice it selected Persion, and not Arabic.

shehazadi
10-10-2011, 08:22 PM
How do you think this world came to place? Where do you get your morals from?

Toramana
10-10-2011, 08:29 PM
Morals are intrinsic to our human nature....no need for an outsider agency...

ozymandias
10-10-2011, 08:31 PM
you dont want to be convinced either and im not here to convince you or convert you.Holding a discussion is great


Actually, I would love for you to convince me your points are valid -- that would mean I learned something new, or was exposed to an interesting, intelligent opposing view point.



See above is pointing me to something written by you which is not clear enough.you need to elaborate.



What was unclear about my opinion of the Koran?



We both believe we breath oxygen(air),do we?



But that is not enough for the discussion to have any merit. Not only do we need to breathe the same gasses, and speak the same language, we need to agree on some facts -- otherwise we are just stating our opinions needlessly.



Thats what atheists think about people who are religious.

And all Muslims are terrorists who marry multiple underage girls. See? I can state unfounded stereotypes too. I personally don't think that even a significant number of Muslims even support terrorism, have multiple lives, or marry young girls -- but some ignorant people think that those stereotypes are true.



How me being insulted by you is my fault? maybe its out of your ignorance or it is a cultural thing,not that you dont have the right to insult.

Quran is hardly as thick as the bible and you can also have it in MP3 or PDF format.

Magic and superstition? where did people get the idea of Magic since you believe these books were authored by people?
Can you explain how Quran doesnt discribe the world as we live in it?

you are right you tried the less insulting way which still is kind of insulting.



I made an effort to be delicate around the issue. You asked for my opinion, and I can think of no other way to clearly state my opinion. I am sorry if you were insulted -- but I tried not to be insulting, but I honestly do not think that there is any way I could state that I do not believe the Koran is special without you being offended.



I dont make up lies i just assume after hearing so many atheist using the "spaghetti monster" line.
yes lying is a sin but you dont believe anyway so why would you care?Ok now tell em the truth.



I see. I'm sorry you are unwilling to have a discussion with me as a person, and would rather pretend I am some fictitious person you met elsewhere.

As for you lying, it does not matter if I believe lying is a sin (as an aside, I still believe it is immoral, but that doesn't matter), my point is that you should at least pretend to abide by your own rules.



Now you actually made the claim that Quran is a book like any other book with magic and superstition.so you need to prove to me.
I dont make the claim ,its stated in the Book and if you can you should challenge it.



Scroll up. I already pointed out cosmology and embryology above as flawed.

Also:
http://cdnw.resistanceisfruitful.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/circular-reasoning1.jpg



Prove is the walking talking picture of the kid who knows whole Quran by heart and has had christian parents and he started by himself praying at the age of one and he speaks 4 or 5 languages and speaks with utmost knowledge and respect.

Prove to me that it was faked than we can discuss the parts you think were faked.



I'm not presenting it as evidence of anything. You are. It is up to you to prove that it is valid and can be used as evidence. Sorry, but that is not how rational discussions work.



Straws?Straw man's argument? sorry i dont know what that exactly means and neither does it apply to me.




It refers to the fact that you keep making up flimsy, fictitious arguments, attributing them to me, and then claiming to rebuked them.



How in the hell does not sining make you a believer



You tell me. You are the one using the fact that children are physically unable to sin as proof they are believers in your god. I have been arguing all along that that is completely false.



,if you are grown up and you sin yet you believe that does not make you a non believer,it makes you a sinner cuz to understand you sinned you need to be a believer first.some peopel might not sin yet they could be non believers.
as for the babies they arent obliged to pray and they do not fully understand or are able to sin.

So now you admit that they do not understand -- so how can they *possibly* be believers?

ozymandias
10-10-2011, 08:38 PM
How do you think this world came to place?



Physics, and cosmology easily explain that. This world is a result of the stellar cycle.



Where do you get your morals from?

My morals come from an ability to reason, and feel compassion.

I do not steal, because I do not want to live in a world where theft is acceptable. I do not murder, lie cheat, or any such thing for the same reasons.

I donate to charity, because I feel compassion for those suffering. I volunteer because I want to improve the lives of those around me. I want to make the world a better place, because I live here, and my future children will live here.

kakargirl
10-10-2011, 08:45 PM
Actually, all babies are born non-believers. They have to be taught religion by adults. This is why Mohammad had to exist -- no one is born even knowing the first thing about religion.



Nope, no 'back'.So the babies who spoke in their cradles what were they, one spoke up to save his mothers honor and the other spoke up to save the honor of a young man a prophet.

Anyway thank you for your polite answer i have 0 questions left i had two very strong atheist teachers miss crane and miss flinch both converted to islam later on as they continued to teach maths and science in a all female muslim girls school .

ozymandias
10-10-2011, 08:49 PM
So the babies who spoke in their cradles what were they, one spoke up to save his mothers honor and the other spoke up to save the honor of a young man a prophet.



I would love to see the proof of this.



Anyway thank you for your polite answer i have 0 questions left i had two very strong atheist teachers miss crane and miss flinch both converted to islam later on as they continued to teach maths and science in a all female muslim girls school .


It would be interesting to hear there stories.

kakargirl
10-10-2011, 08:57 PM
I would love to see the proof of this.



It would be interesting to hear there stories.First of all i think you would find it shocking that a school that was opened by strict pashtun muslim's managed by masjid had 5 female atheist teachers ?

ozymandias
10-10-2011, 09:08 PM
First of all i think you would find it shocking that a school that was opened by strict pashtun muslim's managed by masjid had 5 female atheist teachers ?

I guess I just assumed that that would be no big deal. Why would it matter that they were atheists, as long as they are qualified to teach the material they were hired for? I can see no reason that atheism or religion would even have a place in a math classroom -- and science and religion only conflict when you fail to understand the appropriate places for each.

kakargirl
10-10-2011, 09:45 PM
I guess I just assumed that that would be no big deal. Why would it matter that they were atheists, as long as they are qualified to teach the material they were hired for? I can see no reason that atheism or religion would even have a place in a math classroom -- and science and religion only conflict when you fail to understand the appropriate places for each.So basically yes my father, uncles and the masjid mullahs hired who was suitable for the job, and the girls grew up around these teachers and at break times they would come and sit with the girls ask questions they would tell us what their thoughts are and explain atheism they got invited to our eid celebrations to meet our mothers ,any question that was beyond our answering was answered by the qualified islamic teachers or christian teachers but we never doubted anything in islam even though we were around these teachers from the age of 5 to the age of 18.The reason i mentioned this is because of the stereotype that has built up by the west about islam.


The two incidents i mentioned of the babies are well known both are in the bible and quran.

ozymandias
10-10-2011, 09:48 PM
So basically yes my father, uncles and the masjid mullahs hired who was suitable for the job, and the girls grew up around these teachers and at break times they would come and sit with the girls ask questions they would tell us what their thoughts are and explain atheism they got invited to our eid celebrations to meet our mothers ,any question that was beyond our answering was answered by the qualified islamic teachers or christian teachers but we never doubted anything in islam even though we were around these teachers from the age of 5 to the age of 18.The reason i mentioned this is because of the stereotype that has built up by the west about islam.



And that is why I am here -- the stereotypes are not helpful -- and I am sure that it works both ways -- look at graveyardofempires idea of America, and atheists...




The two incidents i mentioned of the babies are well known both are in the bible and quran.


So no evidence, then?

IamDZJ
10-10-2011, 09:49 PM
you don't let go of a single opportunity to boast about that freaking school or university your father made once upon a time kakargirl, do you??

kakargirl
10-10-2011, 10:12 PM
you don't let go of a single opportunity to boast about that freaking school or university your father made once upon a time kakargirl, do you??Whats boastful about it, the fact that my father finally put his foot down in 1981 and said enough is enough no pashtun should send his 10 year old daughter back home who would end up married by 13 to 14 years old or die in child birth, pashtuns in uk use to take their daughters out by 9 to 10 years old, now more girls are getting a education, right now the majority of pashtuns girls in that school are swat ,swabi ,ghourgushti ,quetta nartopa , kunar ,qanduz,jalalabad mardan kohat girls and some arabs and english converts.

IamDZJ
10-10-2011, 10:16 PM
i will make you a thread if you promise to keep all the talks related to that matter in that one thread...give me the name and location too. i might send my daughter there someday.

IamDZJ
10-10-2011, 10:40 PM
i would rather shoot it in the forehead.

Alchemist
10-11-2011, 12:33 AM
Morals are intrinsic to our human nature....no need for an outsider agency...

So basically all humans are moral...the outside agency corrupts them ...hmm that makes logical sense

;)

ScimitarXEdge
10-11-2011, 12:43 AM
so then we dont have intrinsic fitrah for Islam Alchemist, is that what you're saying?

Toramana
10-11-2011, 12:45 AM
So basically all humans are moral...the outside agency corrupts them ...hmm that makes logical sense

;)

The capacities for both proclivities i.e., that of goodness/virtue and... that of evilness/sin are found in us to equal degrees...

ozymandias
10-11-2011, 12:58 AM
The capacities for both proclivities i.e., that of goodness/virtue and... that of evilness/sin are found in us to equal degrees...



I would say that mankind is born neither moral or immoral, but rather amoral. You are right that the capacity for both good and evil is there, but it is only through growing and learning that a child is exposed to morals, and learns what is right and wrong.

Alchemist
10-11-2011, 01:10 AM
I would say that mankind is born neither moral or immoral, but rather amoral. You are right that the capacity for both good and evil is there, but it is only through growing and learning that a child is exposed to morals, and learns what is right and wrong.

Another successful circular argument.

Child is born, grows and learns what is right and wrong but is amoral.

Born Child grows and learns morals.

Born amoral learns morals, grows good and evil.

Beautiful!

ozymandias
10-11-2011, 01:27 AM
Another successful circular argument.

Child is born, grows and learns what is right and wrong but is amoral.



Free English lesson of the day: what you just said is gibberish. Amoral means, literally 'Lacking a moral sense; unconcerned with the rightness or wrongness of something." If it has learned right and wrong, it is no longer amoral.



Born Child grows and learns morals.

Thanks for repeating exactly what was already stated by several other people.



Born amoral learns morals, grows good and evil.



I can't even guess what this is supposed to mean. I recognize the words, but it appears that you just selected them out of a hat, and placed them in your post in a random order. In fact, I am pretty sure that there is no coherent way to rearrange them that is *not* in fact, gibberish.



Beautiful!Almost poetry, really.

ScimitarXEdge
10-11-2011, 01:33 AM
lol Alchemist is getting humiliated by an infidel, I'm getting some snacks and watching the brutal pummeling, it's nice to not be the one obliterating Alchemist for change.

Alchemist
10-11-2011, 01:51 AM
Free English lesson of the day: what you just said is gibberish. Amoral means, literally 'Lacking a moral sense; unconcerned with the rightness or wrongness of something." If it has learned right and wrong, it is no longer amoral.

Thanks for repeating exactly what was already stated by several other people.



I can't even guess what this is supposed to mean. I recognize the words, but it appears that you just selected them out of a hat, and placed them in your post in a random order. In fact, I am pretty sure that there is no coherent way to rearrange them that is *not* in fact, gibberish.

Almost poetry, really.


What I was trying to tell you was that your original statement it self was gibberish, dear sir.


A child is born without care for morals, but then willfully learns what is right and what is wrong?

Isn't that circular?

Obviously a baby doesn't have the ability to think, but how can it know what is right or wrong, unless it has an innate sense of rightness or wrongness. Otherwise culture dictates what is right and what is wrong, and that too would be relative, and therefore, what is right for one, wrong for another, and all sense of morality would merely mean is "preference"...so really there either is such a thing as a right and wrong, or there isn't.

So really, if anyone pulled an argument out of a hat, it was you.

(Your cheerleader is affecting your judgement by sere

ozymandias
10-11-2011, 01:57 AM
What I was trying to tell you was that your original statement it self was gibberish, dear sir.


A child is born without care for morals, but then willfully learns what is right and what is wrong?

Isn't that circular?




No one said they willfully learn -- they are taught. Even using your flawed description, how would that be circular? Everyone learns as they grow up -- that's part of growing up. How is 'learning' circular?



Obviously a baby doesn't have the ability to think, but how can it know what is right or wrong, unless it has an innate sense of rightness or wrongness.

The baby doesn't. That's the point.



Otherwise culture dictates what is right and what is wrong, and that too would be relative, and therefore, what is right for one, wrong for another, and all sense of morality would merely mean is "preference"...so really there either is such a thing as a right and wrong, or there isn't.



Correct. Morals are relative. Some people find it moral to suicide bomb. Others don't. Some find it moral to repress the rights of women. Some don't. Pretty simple, really.



So really, if anyone pulled an argument out of a hat, it was you.

Care to show me which argument came 'out of a hat' -- that was not *your argument*?



(Your cheerleader is affecting your judgement by sere

Alchemist
10-11-2011, 02:07 AM
So answer me this ...

Do humans have an innate sense of rightness or wrongness?

Soldat_Amir
10-11-2011, 05:52 AM
Let me know when I start, and I will try to stop.



What am I doing that is intolerant? Offering my opinion? Answering questions? Asking you to abide by the rules of this forum?

Or is it simply that I have an opinion different than yours?



You cannot use that as justification in an argument with a non-believer, though. You need to use something that is either agreed upon by both parties as true, or something that can be independently verified. I don't believe the Koran is anything other than a book, so claiming something is proven by the Koran carries no merit to me. Not only that, but anything that is true in the Koran would, by definition, be provable without the Koran.

She is making claims about all babies being born believers, and science shows her that she is wrong -- and it appears that even using the Koran, she is unable to prove her point, so let's move on.



A) Babies don't do *ANYTHING* in the womb, other than twitch around and wait for birth

B) Young infants are not much better -- they eat, sleep, and poop. That's about it.

C) Lack of sin does not prove belief. In order for a baby to believe in a god, they must first know about that god.



This may be true -- but does nothing to prove the child believed in anything prior to that.



Not at all. The kid not knowing about deities is the most logical thing to say.



That's not proof of anything. Your opinion is not *proof*. Do you not understand that idea? Especially when it appears your opinion is based on a poor understanding of the word 'belief'. Belief is not a state of sinlessness, it is a state of accepting something as true, which implies you know the facts, *AND* do not reject them.

Its very simple a child will become the result of its upbringing.

If a child from a Muslim country becomes an Orphan lets say in Palestine, and a European couple adopt him/her and they happen to be Christian, that child will be raised as a Christian regardless of its real parents religion.

No child is born a Muslim,Jew or Christian. The child develops its identity through its enviorment and upbringing.

Its a wrong to say a child is born a Muslim,Jew or Christian, there is a chance that child may become something else in the future, or not even believe in god as a whole.

The enviroment and culture contributes most towards the childs upbringing but that has nothing to do with the child being in his/her mothers womb.

When the child is in the Mothers womb, he/she is not exposed to anything outside, even after birth, there eyes open after some time, and find it difficult to communicate, how would they know if they are a Muslim, Jew or Christian.

The Quran is not logical fact. I do not intend to offend members here, but its a collection of stories,events and mythology taken from other past Ambrahmic faiths i.e Christianity,Judaism and Greek Mythology.

The Quran, has Arabised biblical prophets and one can see by the names...Ambraham/Ibrahim, Jesus/Musa etc.

Again I do not intend to offend members here, but talking jinns in form of snakes, angels that curse women at night, a flying man-mule(Baraq) and talking trees are not logical nor scienctific facts.

Its very dangerous to claim the Quran is fact especially when its in regards to science, as science has proven many times the fallacy of Christianity i.e men living in a fishes belly, Noah taking all the animals in the world onto one boat(Illogical Logistics) and Jesus being born to a Virgin mother(highly unlikely).

Religion should be respected on the context of its positive contribution towards family values etc however, Religion needs to be confined to the individual, not be broadcasted in any political matter.

Thanks

Again I do not intend to offend.

Soldat_Amir
10-11-2011, 05:56 AM
So answer me this ...

Do humans have an innate sense of rightness or wrongness?

From birth no, a child is taught right from wrong, by observing its enviroment and how others react to situations.

If a boy is raised in Norway and is taught that fighting back will land you in prison, that boy would consider fighting back as wrong, while a boy in Palestine, will be taught, that fighting back is right.

The only thing a baby knows is to suckle its mothers nipple as it knows food will come out of it. The morals come later during their upbringing.

However, Morals change with time, for instance, women who voted were deemed immoral, now its a common practice, a child born with a disability such as downs syndrome was seen as immoral and corrupted, now its a moral duty to help such people with difficulities.

graveyardofempires
10-11-2011, 05:58 AM
This Amir is trying to be offensive against muslims again.

should the staff not be doing their job?

Tjanaparh
10-11-2011, 06:06 AM
What a child surely has is the capacity to believe! A child believes in an adults words as he is free of the ideas of lie.
To lie a child learns from the others ony later. That is why false education is the biggest crime!

ozymandias
10-11-2011, 09:15 AM
So answer me this ...

Do humans have an innate sense of rightness or wrongness?

Clearly not, at least not in the sense of higher morals.

ozymandias
10-11-2011, 09:18 AM
This Amir is trying to be offensive against muslims again.

should the staff not be doing their job?

You cannot say he is trying to be offensive, when all he has done is expressed an opinion different than yours. He very carefully stated his case in a very mild way in an effort not to offend.

Shayesta
10-11-2011, 01:19 PM
Please refrain from putting up offensive comments, guys. Manena.

ozymandias
10-11-2011, 07:07 PM
Anyone mind if I turn the tables for a second? What are people's opinions on murdering apostates? This article recently showed up on one of my RSS feeds:
Link (http://www.pashtunforums.com/thedailywh.at/2011/09/29/this-is-all-kinds-of-wrong-of-the-day-21)

goblin
10-11-2011, 07:14 PM
are you racist?

ozymandias
10-11-2011, 07:15 PM
are you racist?

No. Are you?

goblin
10-11-2011, 07:27 PM
no

i am sorry i dont know why i wrote that.

graveyardofempires
10-11-2011, 08:10 PM
why arent you racist?

goblin
10-11-2011, 08:12 PM
^ good question. i am not racist because i am a goblin. we do not have races. but i hate them gay little elves though.

graveyardofempires
10-11-2011, 08:13 PM
^
ok

ozymandias
10-11-2011, 08:51 PM
no

i am sorry i dont know why i wrote that.

It's a fair question.

ozymandias
10-11-2011, 08:54 PM
why arent you racist?

Personally, I'm not racist, because I would rather judge a man on the color of his character, than the color of his skin. The color of his skin is not a very accurate predictor of character. Racism is a form of stereotyping -- only what you are stereotyping is not some self selected quality, but an involuntary one.

Alchemist
10-12-2011, 10:21 AM
Anyone mind if I turn the tables for a second? What are people's opinions on murdering apostates? This article recently showed up on one of my RSS feeds:
Link (http://www.pashtunforums.com/thedailywh.at/2011/09/29/this-is-all-kinds-of-wrong-of-the-day-21)


Since according to you morals aren't universal, then you don't have the right to judge what is wrong and what is right. It's all relative. So if in their culture killing apostates is the right thing to do ...then it is the right to do ...and you should accept that...if you don't ...then you are a confused hypocrite.

ozymandias
10-12-2011, 11:15 AM
Since according to you morals aren't universal, then you don't have the right to judge what is wrong and what is right. It's all relative. So if in their culture killing apostates is the right thing to do ...then it is the right to do ...and you should accept that...if you don't ...then you are a confused hypocrite.

Not true at all. Morals can be defined without the need for an absolute reference point. My morals are defined off of not infringing upon the rights of others. All humans have the right to choose their own religion -- or lack of religion, and it is infringing upon their rights to impose upon them, through the threat of violence, a religion.

It's surprising to me that you need to have this explained to you this seems to be a fairly obvious fact.

shehazadi
10-12-2011, 01:43 PM
What evidence do you have that God does not exist? What do you think of the billions who follow God?

ozymandias
10-12-2011, 02:00 PM
What evidence do you have that God does not exist?



Exactly as much as the believers have that one does exist -- none. I simply see no evidence to believe, so I don't. The extraordinary claims that one does exist would require extraordinary evidence to justify. What once required a god to explain, such as storms, death, earthquakes, and volcanoes can be explained without a god -- so I don't have one.



What do you think of the billions who follow God?

I have a hard time generalizing, especially on that scale. I have met faithful that were good, honest people, who were very intelligent, but still believed in a god. On the other hand, I have met rationalists that were every bit as good, and smart, without a god. I have seen horrible things done in the name of religion, and I have seen wonderful things done in the name of religion.

I find it near impossible to judge the billions who believe based simply on the fact that they believe. Look at this forum, and you can see what I mean. There are kindly, educated people on both sides of the issue -- and there are despicable people as well, who are full of hate and fear for the non-believers.

Believers come in all varieties.

al-arab
10-12-2011, 02:49 PM
What is this? A American insulting Islam?

You americans are evil imperialists. You attack Iraq and did not show any respect, killing civilians, destroying our ancient culture. You are a disgrace to the world. Now you do the same in Afghanistan and you wonder why we hate america? You just wanted Iraqi oil.

nigga
10-12-2011, 02:51 PM
^ very well said al arab.


ozymandias, i want to ask you about the masonic/satanic agenda of you and your jewish collaborators.

ozymandias
10-12-2011, 03:00 PM
What is this?



An attempt for me to knock down stereotypes Americans hold of you, and you hold of Americans.



A American insulting Islam?



That is by no means my intention, however it appears that some people are offended by my existence, or the fact that I do not believe what they believe.

Please accept my apologies if that is the case. I am not intending to offend, and hope you are willing to look past that and come to know me, and that I mean well.



You americans are evil imperialists. You attack Iraq and did not show any respect, killing civilians, destroying our ancient culture. You are a disgrace to the world.



I'm sorry you feel that way, and would like to have you get to know me, so you can see that not all Americans fit your stereotype.



Now you do the same in Afghanistan and you wonder why we hate america?



Nope. I don't wonder. I am fairly confident that the Middle East hates us because of poor political decisions, as well as fear and hate mongering by our respective news sources.

Ideally, since we are talking to each other, and there is no media or government with an agenda putting spin on our conversations, we can come to learn about each other.



You just wanted Iraqi oil.

That may be true for some of the politicians, but the common person just wanted peace and safety. The US government might have had a motive involving oil, but even they knew that would not be enough to convince the common citizen, and they tried to spin it into a War on Terror -- fighting extremists that were going to stop at nothing to harm Americans. While this is true (to some extent), they needed to drum up support by painting Islam in a negative picture -- and it worked.

Shamefully many Americans fell for the spin -- which is only causing the more violent in your faith to lash back. I am trying to break that cycle, in some small way. I want to learn about you, and who you really are, so I don't HAVE to accept the news and government reports as my only interaction with a culture on the other side of the world.

I hope, as well, that by getting to know me, you I can have an impact as well - and show you that there are many Americans that do not fit your stereotype, and are not the evil you accuse us of being.

ozymandias
10-12-2011, 03:04 PM
^ very well said al arab.


ozymandias, i want to ask you about the masonic/satanic agenda of you and your jewish collaborators.

You may ask anything you want, but unfortunately, I do not have any Jewish collaborators -- unless one of the forum members that messaged me and asked me to either post here initially, or to return are Jewish. I assume that they are not, but I am not sure.

As for a masonic agenda, if there is one, I am more in the dark about it than you, as I have never seen any realistic evidence that it exists.

As for a satanic agenda, I don't believe in Satan any more than I believe in any other supernatural being. I no more support the satanic agenda than I do the Islamic one, the Christian one, the Hindi one, or the Buddhist one -- not at all.

Once again, feel free to ask anything, but I confess to being in the dark on this topic and cannot really answer much about it.

al-arab
10-12-2011, 03:18 PM
Ok but tell my why there were not more americans who said this is wrong. Saddam was a evil dictator but he did not harm you. You lied to you people and the world and attacked us, destroyed our country, have created conflict between our tribes, and have shown disrespect to other arabs as well.

I don't understand. You do the same in Afghanistan know.

Do you want to attack whole Middle East for oil? You government is corrupt and you divide us arab people. You government support arab dictators who are hated by their peoples (saudis, syrians etc.) but you support them because of only money. And you americans don't see this or ignore it.

Not every american is like your government but you people live in so called "democracy" and you have on your own chosen this tyrans. You people should have a bigger resposibility.

Why do you also don't punish your soldiers who have killed civilians. Wikileaks has proven this! See youtube!

This speaks for it self!

Collateral Murder - Wikileaks - Iraq - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU3G0)

12 million views!

ozymandias
10-12-2011, 03:35 PM
Ok but tell my why there were not more americans who said this is wrong. Saddam was a evil dictator but he did not harm you.



No, but he did violate the rights of human beings. This alone is enough for any moral person to be involved.

That said, at the time of the most recent Iraqi invasion, the public was operating under the information that Saddam *did* harm us -- by supporting the terrorists that attacked us.

Many people said this was wrong, but I suspect that outside the US, the media displayed a bias on reporting.



You lied to you people and the world and attacked us,



Politicians may have. I have done no such thing. Please do not lump me in with them. You are being no different than the people that say that all Muslims are responsible for the attacks on 9-11. You are falsely assuming support for actions I do not agree with.



destroyed our country, have created conflict between our tribes, and have shown disrespect to other arabs as well.



Mistakes have been made, in an attempt to do good, I admit.



I don't understand. You do the same in Afghanistan know.



Actually, Afghanistan is simply still ongoing. You imply the actions in Afghanistan are a new occurrence started after Iraq, when the reality is that both actions were decided upon and started at the same time.



Do you want to attack whole Middle East for oil?



No. I do not. I am not sure of the secret motives of some politicians, but many Americans are against Blood for Oil.



You government is corrupt and you divide us arab people. You government support arab dictators who are hated by their peoples (saudis, syrians etc.) but you support them because of only money.



And many are working to fix that. No violation of human rights should be allowed, but you have to pick fights that are big enough to be worth fighting, small enough to win, and not harmful to your own efforts.



And you americans don't see this or ignore it.



And you are proof that the same can be said on many middle-easterners. You either do not see that these actions are not universally supported by Americans, or you choose to ignore it. I prefer to assume that your media and news sources are biased, and you are all good people at heart, at least for the most part.



Not every american is like your government but you people live in so called "democracy" and you have on your own chosen this tyrans. You people should have a bigger resposibility.



We do have a huge responsibility, and we are working every day to fix things.



Why do you also don't punish your soldiers who have killed civilians. Wikileaks has proven this! See youtube!



I cannot speak for the military, as I am not a member -- but the American public is asking the same questions, and is working to bring military criminals to justice.



This speaks for it self!

[/URL][URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU3G0"]Collateral Murder - Wikileaks - Iraq - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU3G0)

12 million views!

First off, the number of views means nothing. Second off, I already stated I am not going to watch videos, and this is a perfect example of why -- you are trying to convince me of something you have not bothered to find out if I agree or disagree -- and I am not going to spend 20 minutes watching youtube videos. I have better uses of my time.

al-arab
10-12-2011, 03:46 PM
I admit that and he was not real muslim although he claimed this. The Bath party were socialist they just claimed to support panarabism!

But what about Iran? What about Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States? What about Syria, Egypt, Yemen etc. Al dictators not liked by their people or us arabs at all whether in Morocco in West or Oman in east!

You are blind and claim to be pretectors of so called democracy and civil rights but you are the biggest criminals in the world. The worst is that you lie and claim to be good people but everyone know this is not true. You are just after money and power but this has ended for you!

They are YOUR politicians. It is YOUR people that have chosen them. Not anybody is. This is hypocrisy!

"Mistakes have been made" you say. How many mistakes have you made in the last 50 years? How many more mistakes can you do under false protext?

Working to fix that? How many, if any have been punished for their crimes against humanity in america? Crimes comitted in Iraq, Afghanistan etc. ?

I am not brainwashed or what you call it. Arabs are clever people (the oldest civilization) we can think self. Everyone can see that you are evil empiralist that are ruled by money and power, not honour, dignity or admit your wrong-doings!

Look, you will soon leave Afghanistan like you stopped support Afghan people in 1989 after Soviets. And you wan't care with the people and caos you have created and left!

I will be asame of most of your people and government chosen by your people!

ozymandias
10-12-2011, 03:57 PM
I admit that and he was not real muslim although he claimed this. The Bath party were socialist they just claimed to support panarabism!

But what about Iran? What about Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States? What about Syria, Egypt, Yemen etc. Al dictators not liked by their people or us arabs at all whether in Morocco in West or Oman in east!

You are blind and claim to be pretectors of so called democracy and civil rights but you are the biggest criminals in the world. The worst is that you lie and claim to be good people but everyone know this is not true. You are just after money and power but this has ended for you!

They are YOUR politicians. It is YOUR people that have chosen them. Not anybody is. This is hypocrisy!



And you know what happens? They get voted out and replaced.



"Mistakes have been made" you say. How many mistakes have you made in the last 50 years? How many more mistakes can you do under false protext?



Me? More than I can count. But I always try to fix my mistakes.



Working to fix that? How many, if any have been punished for their crimes against humanity in america? Crimes comitted in Iraq, Afghanistan etc. ?



Many. I don't have exact statistics handy, but it's taken pretty seriously around here.



I am not brainwashed or what you call it.



I did not say brainwashed. What I said was that your news might not be unbiased, and you are not getting the full story, either deliberately, or because of time constraints.

It's either that you are not exposed to the news of anti-war protests, or you are lying about not knowing about them. I choose to assume you are not a dishonest person without evidence to back that up.



Arabs are clever people (the oldest civilization) we can think self. Everyone can see that you are evil empiralist that are ruled by money and power, not honour, dignity or admit your wrong-doings!



Something appears to have been lost in translation. You think that Saddam was not interested in money or power? Or the governments of any Islamic state? You seem to pretend that this is something novel about the US.



Look, you will soon leave Afghanistan like you stopped support Afghan people in 1989 after Soviets. And you wan't care with the people and caos you have created and left!



And this is another instance of you missing something on the news. The reason we have *NOT* left Afghanistan once we elected Obama, is precisely that. The military is attempting to have an organized, structured withdrawal to avoid creating chaos and further problems down the road. Not only that, but you just protested the fact that the troops are still there, and in the same breath bad mouthed them for how they are *NOT* planning on leaving.



I will be asame of most of your people and government chosen by your people!

I am not sure what this means.

There are plenty of problems with a representative democracy, but the problems are still much less severe than other forms of government. At least with democracy, there is an effort made for stability, continuity, preventing tyrants, and insuring everyone is able to exercise their basic rights. No other government can claim that.

Afghanistan2010
10-12-2011, 04:12 PM
Your state is terrorizing the world since people know that there is america...

it started with the killing of the red indians ( who bravely resisted you)...

it continued til you got your independence with shedding the blood of people.

it continued and and , til today...and the wish of every one around the world is nothing more than a atom bomb or a earthquake or a tsunami strikes USA.

ozymandias
10-12-2011, 04:25 PM
Your state is terrorizing the world since people know that there is america...

it started with the killing of the red indians ( who bravely resisted you)...

it continued til you got your independence with shedding the blood of people.

it continued and and , til today...and the wish of every one around the world is nothing more than a atom bomb or a earthquake or a tsunami strikes USA.


You are welcome to your opinions. Personally, I find them despicable. I would not wish nuclear annihilation on anyone.

al-arab
10-12-2011, 04:26 PM
What voted out? You tell me you did not chose Bush and Clinton? All tyrants?

I was speaking about america not you but you are american right? So you have resposnbility also.

Many? Show me? Why do you persecate Wikileaks who reveal your war crimes? Who have been in trial for the killings of civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan?

What do you think I am? Do you not thing that I can see American presh and all you americans can see? I see it also but I have experienced how you lie, manipulate, invade, exploit people. Always the same. Always the same mistakes. Always, I did not anything, not my responsibility, I don't control my government.

You know what? The difference between Saddam and other dictators is that you have helped them in power and they have not been chosen by own people. Unlike your governments. So please stop your hypocrisy if you want a serious debat.

You believe that? Your educate Afghans only because they have no other choice. Because of your caos. They prefer to fight their own people because of money. You can't change other people's mentality in 10 years? Their forfathers ancient mentality, customs, religion.

It took Europeans 1000 years to get democracy. For half of it they lived under communism 20 years ago. And you want to transform countries in Middle East and Afghanistan over 10 years only? Are you crazy?

You think Afghanistan will change when you leave in 2-3 years? You really belive that after all you did in the country? Divided people, created new conflicts? Afghanistans fake government can't even defend one self with american presence and you expect them to do it themselves in 3 years time?

And you wonder why we don't look positive on america and your people? Because of ignorant people like you who claim to "know" more than us.

Toramana
10-12-2011, 04:48 PM
What voted out? You tell me you did not chose Bush and Clinton? All tyrants?

I was speaking about america not you but you are american right? So you have resposnbility also.

Many? Show me? Why do you persecate Wikileaks who reveal your war crimes? Who have been in trial for the killings of civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan?

What do you think I am? Do you not thing that I can see American presh and all you americans can see? I see it also but I have experienced how you lie, manipulate, invade, exploit people. Always the same. Always the same mistakes. Always, I did not anything, not my responsibility, I don't control my government.

You know what? The difference between Saddam and other dictators is that you have helped them in power and they have not been chosen by own people. Unlike your governments. So please stop your hypocrisy if you want a serious debat.

You believe that? Your educate Afghans only because they have no other choice. Because of your caos. They prefer to fight their own people because of money. You can't change other people's mentality in 10 years? Their forfathers ancient mentality, customs, religion.

It took Europeans 1000 years to get democracy. For half of it they lived under communism 20 years ago. And you want to transform countries in Middle East and Afghanistan over 10 years only? Are you crazy?

You think Afghanistan will change when you leave in 2-3 years? You really belive that after all you did in the country? Divided people, created new conflicts? Afghanistans fake government can't even defend one self with american presence and you expect them to do it themselves in 3 years time?

And you wonder why we don't look positive on america and your people? Because of ignorant people like you who claim to "know" more than us.

Intellectual discsusions are beyond the comprehension of camel minds ...go enjoy your harem and bottle of whisky in your Arab shiekhdom....

Who the hell you are to comment on Afghanistan affair Mr Beduine?

graveyardofempires
10-12-2011, 04:56 PM
do you like to avoid questions?

Alchemist
10-12-2011, 06:47 PM
Not true at all. Morals can be defined without the need for an absolute reference point. My morals are defined off of not infringing upon the rights of others. All humans have the right to choose their own religion -- or lack of religion, and it is infringing upon their rights to impose upon them, through the threat of violence, a religion.

It's surprising to me that you need to have this explained to you this seems to be a fairly obvious fact.

Your absolute reference point is now "the charter of human rights"?

You keep contradicting your self.

Not really half as smart as you think you are.

Even though scientists and philosophers all believe that people are born with an innate sense of morality, you disagree with them. Then when one society defines it's set of morals and ethics, you disagree with them because they don't match against your society's.

Every society has the right to determine their own way of life. In the same vein, if in your society an individual chooses to consume intoxicating drinks and pills, then you grant them the right to kill cells of their bodies. Substitute cells for individuals, and body for society, and the argument is the same. Killing apostates is no different than giving life imprisonment for High Treason. You can argue whether living your whole life in prison is any more moral than being killed, but that is just petty. And you make petty arguments.

ozymandias
10-12-2011, 09:50 PM
What voted out? You tell me you did not chose Bush and Clinton? All tyrants?

I was speaking about america not you but you are american right? So you have resposnbility also.

Many? Show me? Why do you persecate Wikileaks who reveal your war crimes? Who have been in trial for the killings of civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan?



Once again, I don't. I support them.



What do you think I am? Do you not thing that I can see American presh



What's this word mean?



and all you americans can see? I see it also but I have experienced how you lie, manipulate, invade, exploit people. Always the same. Always the same mistakes. Always, I did not anything, not my responsibility, I don't control my government.



Let's turn the tables. All Muslims are terrorists. All Muslims support the Taliban. All Muslims support suicide bombers.

See? I can stereotype, too.



You know what? The difference between Saddam and other dictators is that you have helped them in power and they have not been chosen by own people.



Almost no dictators are picked by their own people. Most seize power by force.



Unlike your governments. So please stop your hypocrisy if you want a serious debat.



Stop stereotyping and making assumptions about me and we can have an adult conversation.



You believe that? Your educate Afghans only because they have no other choice. Because of your caos. They prefer to fight their own people because of money. You can't change other people's mentality in 10 years? Their forfathers ancient mentality, customs, religion.



What are you even asking?



It took Europeans 1000 years to get democracy. For half of it they lived under communism 20 years ago. And you want to transform countries in Middle East and Afghanistan over 10 years only? Are you crazy?



You are the one upset that efforts are taking too long. Are you upset that it is taking too long, or going too fast? Pick one.



You think Afghanistan will change when you leave in 2-3 years?



Yes and no. I, and many Americans, hope that infrastructure will be in place, and a stable government of the people will be in place, so that we don't leave a power vacuum that invites criminals to seize power, or terrorist organizations from gaining strength.



You really belive that after all you did in the country? Divided people, created new conflicts? Afghanistans fake government can't even defend one self with american presence and you expect them to do it themselves in 3 years time?



What fake government?



And you wonder why we don't look positive on america and your people?



Once again, no. I, and many other Americans, do not.


Because of ignorant people like you who claim to "know" more than us.

Funny. You are the one claiming to know more than me, and ignoring what I actually say.

ozymandias
10-12-2011, 10:13 PM
Your absolute reference point is now "the charter of human rights"?



No. There is no absolute reference point. Please try and understand what I actually say, rather than make up straw men.



You keep contradicting your self.



Only because you ignore what I actually write, and deliberately misconstrue what I say.



Not really half as smart as you think you are.

Even though scientists and philosophers all believe that people are born with an innate sense of morality,



They don't. Not even most of them.



you disagree with them. Then when one society defines it's set of morals and ethics, you disagree with them because they don't match against your society's.



Again, nope. I disagree because they are forcing their morals upon others. If everyone in the society chose to follow those morals *of free choice*, I have no problem with them. Since this is not the case, I have a problem with it.

That's my morality.



Every society has the right to determine their own way of life.



Every person has that right, as long as they do not infringe upon others.



In the same vein, if in your society an individual chooses to consume intoxicating drinks and pills, then you grant them the right to kill cells of their bodies. Substitute cells for individuals, and body for society, and the argument is the same.



Next time you have evidence of a fully conscious single cell, let me know.



Killing apostates is no different than giving life imprisonment for High Treason.



Actually, it is, for the most part. In most countries, if you don't like the country, you can leave, and become a citizen of another country -- and any actions against your former country would not be High Treason. If I would rather associate with the UK, I could leave the US, and could not possibly commit treason against it.

By the very definition of apostacy, this is not true. If a Muslim becomes atheist, you call him apostate and many call for his blood.

See the difference? It's as plain as night and day.



You can argue whether living your whole life in prison is any more moral than being killed, but that is just petty. And you make petty arguments.

I'll just ignore yet another personal attack instead of actual arguments on your part. That's all you have? Personal attacks and faulty comparisons?

khushal
10-12-2011, 11:52 PM
And you know what happens? They get voted out and replaced.


While I agree with you that the average american citizen or earth citizen for that matter dont wish ill on its fellow man, the problem that al arab and people like him have with america is that amreica is slowly losing its original idea.

While people get voted in and out, the policy the bush administration was enforcing is being enforced by a different man from a different party. It does not really matter if people change, what matters is the change in policy.
the framers of amreica figured they could deconstruct the monarchy and recreate it with checks and balances by creating three branches of governmnet which they imported from the native americans. The Idea was to create a system where the private individual would be in a cooperative with the governmnet that would be of the people, by the people and for the people. At the same time this private individual would have the right and opportunity to rise up and create wealth according to his /her talent and the key is for the private individual to have this right and opportunity without becoming dictatorial.

Today we are witnessing the destruction of this system. The original idea was to prevent a plutacracy, but eventually the eltiists fugure a way out around the system to take it over and create tyranny. You can look back at many empires and see the same pattern. even Soviet Foreign minister Shevardnadze resigned and warned of dictatorship in the soviet union right before its collapse.
http://articles.latimes.com/1990-12-21/news/mn-6903_1_soviet-foreign-policy

If your familiar with pashtun history, khushal khan khattak who was a general in the Moghul army under Shaw Jahan fought against Shah Jahan's son Arengzeb and warned of dictatorship after he imprisoned his father.

Americas interference with other societies is linked to this plutacracy, and the criticism you are witnessing from people like al arab and others is not because they are misinformed but because they are informed(come on this is the information age) and should be expected because it is natural.

Al arabs criticism is not that much different than Thomas Jeffersons criticism of King George.

R3SISTANC3
10-13-2011, 01:31 AM
Not true at all. Morals can be defined without the need for an absolute reference point. My morals are defined off of not infringing upon the rights of others. All humans have the right to choose their own religion -- or lack of religion, and it is infringing upon their rights to impose upon them, through the threat of violence, a religion.

It's surprising to me that you need to have this explained to you this seems to be a fairly obvious fact.

You are being intellectually dishonest here. The notion that humans have "rights", is a man made, which is not backed by any natural or scientific dictation.

It is surprising that you admit humans are born amoral, environment and society programs them with moral values, yet you go on to state that humans have certain universal "rights", which itself is a notion dictated by the environment/society you are born into. It is not something you are born with, it is something you are thought by your society.

An intellectually honest atheist would realize the futility of such man made notions and not preach them as absolute "facts".

al-arab
10-13-2011, 07:54 AM
My problem with you Ozymandias is that you don't take any responsibility and just marginalize what you did. Don't you understand that you have done it over and over again in the last 50 years? Always the same mistakes? Do you wan't people to belive that you are not hypocrits? Or evil imperalists that only wan't Arab oil?

You supported Taliban in the 1980's togehter with Arab countries. You left the same day the Soviets left and did not care with Afghans. 10 years after you attack them.

You did nothing in Iraq when Saddam was killing the population from the Gulf War until the Iraq War. Why did you not attack other Arab dictatorships?

Why did you attack Libya and not Algeria/Tunisia/Egypt? Only because of oil. That is the truth.

I am talking about your government. Can you not understand the difference between so called democratic eletctions and dictators. I don't remember that you had a dictator in America? Dictators in Arab world were not chosen by their people that is the difference. You are FREE to chose. YOU chose your tyrants, not anyone else. And because of that you have a responsibility!

I am not upset about it taking a long time. We have had a ancient civilization for centuries (the oldest in the world) and we did fine. 50 years of dictatorship will not change that.

What my PROBLEM is, is that those dictators were SPONSORED by you, america. And after 50 years of dictatorship you now attack those same people you helped to power because they don't suit your interest anymore. What HYPOCRISY!

And now you just expect us to get democracy over a period of 5-10 years after you invaded us, divided us, destroyed our infrastructure, oil fields etc.

Why don't you attack North Korea? They were and are a bigger threat than all Arab countries? What are you waiting for? Ah, no oil.

graveyardofempires
10-13-2011, 07:56 AM
are you fat?

al-arab
10-13-2011, 08:05 AM
are you fat?

Is this to my? No, why should I be fat? What is this for an post? Don't understand the meaning of it?

graveyardofempires
10-13-2011, 08:18 AM
Is this to my? No, why should I be fat? What is this for an post? Don't understand the meaning of it?
it was for the american,the thread says aska an american not you..

ozymandias
10-13-2011, 09:43 AM
You are being intellectually dishonest here. The notion that humans have "rights", is a man made, which is not backed by any natural or scientific dictation.

It is surprising that you admit humans are born amoral, environment and society programs them with moral values, yet you go on to state that humans have certain universal "rights", which itself is a notion dictated by the environment/society you are born into. It is not something you are born with, it is something you are thought by your society.

An intellectually honest atheist would realize the futility of such man made notions and not preach them as absolute "facts".

I can understand your confusion. I believe that humans do have universal rights for several reasons -- one, the UN decided as a whole that they do, so now they do, but more importantly, because any intelligent human can build a system of morals out or mutual respect, and self interest.

I think that all humans have a basic set of rights, because as an intelligent, compassionate being, I sympathize with my fellow human. I can feel the desire to minimize their suffering, and in turn minimize the risk that I will be in a similar situation. I can look at a person living under an oppressive government, and imagine how I would feel. I can look at the situation from the government's stand point and imagine why they feel they have the right to do what they do. It's not hard for a rational being to construct a logical ethical system that addresses the worst of the problems and construct a moral system that is geared towards minimizing needless suffering and oppression, and protecting the choices I find important, and should be left up to the individual. I can look at certain issues and see that the decisions made regarding that issue impact no one but the person making the decision, and thus that decision should be left to them to make.

It's not impossible, it's not even hard, to come up with rights that are valuable, and not destructive to outside parties, and decide that every human should possess those rights.

ozymandias
10-13-2011, 09:55 AM
My problem with you Ozymandias is that you don't take any responsibility and just marginalize what you did. Don't you understand that you have done it over and over again in the last 50 years?



I'm not 68 years old. I'm not even 50. The actions before my birth cannot be blamed on me in any way, shape, or form.



Always the same mistakes? Do you wan't people to belive that you are not hypocrits? Or evil imperalists that only wan't Arab oil?



I've already addressed this. Repeatedly.



You supported Taliban in the 1980's togehter with Arab countries.



Nope. I did not. My country may have, and that was a terrible decision, that we are trying not to repeat.



You left the same day the Soviets left and did not care with Afghans. 10 years after you attack them.



Already addressed this. Repeatedly. But I will point out once again, that the reason we came back was to clean up terrorist cells we believed were operating out of your country with the support of your government. This may have been wrong, but that is what was told to the American people as justification. As for leaving the same day the Soviets left, I have already pointed out that this is why there is a plan in place for withdrawal this time around, to avoid making that mistake again.



You did nothing in Iraq when Saddam was killing the population from the Gulf War until the Iraq War. Why did you not attack other Arab dictatorships?



Because the American public did not believe that they were harboring terrorists, and because you must pick your battles. Big enough to matter, small enough to win. Look at how long this latest conflict has gone on -- it's barely small enough to win, and you are basically proposing all out war on many of the Islamic states? At the same time? Seriously?



Why did you attack Libya and not Algeria/Tunisia/Egypt? Only because of oil. That is the truth.



It's also the truth that attacking those nations could not occur under the pretext of the War on Terror.



I am talking about your government. Can you not understand the difference between so called democratic eletctions and dictators. I don't remember that you had a dictator in America? Dictators in Arab world were not chosen by their people that is the difference. You are FREE to chose. YOU chose your tyrants, not anyone else. And because of that you have a responsibility!



Indeed, we do. And we are working to exercise that responsibility. The latest president, and many of the lead politicians were elected on a campaign to pull out of Afghanistan, and to reform many of the things Bush did that were wrong -- and these things are happening. We are systematically pulling out of Afghanistan, while avoiding the 'chaos' that occurs with an unstructured withdrawal.



I am not upset about it taking a long time. We have had a ancient civilization for centuries (the oldest in the world) and we did fine. 50 years of dictatorship will not change that.

What my PROBLEM is, is that those dictators were SPONSORED by you, america. And after 50 years of dictatorship you now attack those same people you helped to power because they don't suit your interest anymore. What HYPOCRISY!



It's not that they "don't suit our interests", it's that they (supposedly) supported terrorist attacks against us! A government supporting terrorist acts against a foreign power is no different than an act of war.



And now you just expect us to get democracy over a period of 5-10 years after you invaded us, divided us, destroyed our infrastructure, oil fields etc.

Why don't you attack North Korea? They were and are a bigger threat than all Arab countries? What are you waiting for? Ah, no oil.

Also they have not attacked outside their borders -- and *we are already engaged in a large scale conflict*. Due to the actions in the middle east, many are sick of war here, and need massive justification to back starting another one. Not only that, but remember the comment about wars small enough to win? North Korea is now a nuclear power, with an insane dictator. There is a lot of concern that he would *use* those nukes, and we want to avoid that.

ozymandias
10-13-2011, 09:56 AM
are you fat?

No, are you?

What's with all these unimportant, uninteresting questions?

graveyardofempires
10-13-2011, 10:12 AM
No, are you?

What's with all these unimportant, uninteresting questions?
hey
you asked us to ask questions ,you are nto to tell us what is important question.

and you are nto to ask questions,but im not fat,or that fat.

why arent you fat?

ozymandias
10-13-2011, 10:16 AM
hey
you asked us to ask questions ,you are nto to tell us what is important question.



I was hoping for questions that were a little less trivial.




and you are nto to ask questions,but im not fat,or that fat.

why arent you fat?

Diet and exercise, combined with genetics. I could be fat if I wanted to, but I don't want to.

How about you?

graveyardofempires
10-13-2011, 10:22 AM
I was hoping for questions that were a little less trivial.



Diet and exercise, combined with genetics. I could be fat if I wanted to, but I don't want to.

How about you?
i said no questionsssssssssssssssssssssss

but im Fat mroe like phat.

do you use greece for cooking?
why are majority americans dumbasses when it comes to the world?

Alchemist
10-13-2011, 10:55 AM
I can understand your confusion. I believe that humans do have universal rights for several reasons -- one, the UN decided as a whole that they do, so now they do, but more importantly, because any intelligent human can build a system of morals out or mutual respect, and self interest.

I think that all humans have a basic set of rights, because as an intelligent, compassionate being, I sympathize with my fellow human. I can feel the desire to minimize their suffering, and in turn minimize the risk that I will be in a similar situation. I can look at a person living under an oppressive government, and imagine how I would feel. I can look at the situation from the government's stand point and imagine why they feel they have the right to do what they do. It's not hard for a rational being to construct a logical ethical system that addresses the worst of the problems and construct a moral system that is geared towards minimizing needless suffering and oppression, and protecting the choices I find important, and should be left up to the individual. I can look at certain issues and see that the decisions made regarding that issue impact no one but the person making the decision, and thus that decision should be left to them to make.

It's not impossible, it's not even hard, to come up with rights that are valuable, and not destructive to outside parties, and decide that every human should possess those rights.

The UN is now the universal reference for morality?

The same UN which has sanctioned the war on Iraq and Afghanistan can "feel" the suffering of the people and come up with a "rational and logical and ethical" system to heal us?

The same UN that has started war in Libya is suppose to be the paragon of "human rights?

What shameless hypocrisy.

Then we have the bombing of handicapped children's centres, the bombing of the Libyan water supply system, the bombing of the factory which produces the pipes to repair the system, the bombing of hospitals, and recently, the bombing of a children's facility...and we can hear the corporate interests behind the scenes.

Spare me the empty rhetoric. If we say that Islam, religion, is the paragon of morals, you'll argue forever on "human rights" ...but then if I tell you that the irreligious institutions have infringed more on the rights of people, you will make some b.s argument that it is "Rational" and "logical" for them to do so.


Like I said, you make petty arguments.

ozymandias
10-13-2011, 11:11 AM
i said no questionsssssssssssssssssssssss

but im Fat mroe like phat.

do you use greece for cooking?



Depends on the recipe, and what you mean by 'grease'. I add non-stick agents to the dishes that call for it, but I don't ever add grease -- only oils. I usually drain the grease out of fatty meats.



why are majority americans dumbasses when it comes to the world?

Because intelligent people reacting responsibly does not typically make the news, you assume that the majority of us are 'dumbasses'.

ozymandias
10-13-2011, 11:19 AM
The UN is now the universal reference for morality?



Nope. They are simply a group of nations that drafted, and agreed upon a universal declaration of human rights. This gives us a starting point, as these are all things that the majority of governments have agreed upon as being human rights, and the UN is situated to help insure these rights are enforced.



The same UN which has sanctioned the war on Iraq and Afghanistan can "feel" the suffering of the people and come up with a "rational and logical and ethical" system to heal us?

Oddly enough, that very declaration was used as part of the justification for these wars, so yes. Yes they can.



The same UN that has started war in Libya is suppose to be the paragon of "human rights?

Who said anything about paragons? I simply stated that they drew a line in the sand that was nearly universally agreed upon by all nations on this planet.



What shameless hypocrisy.

Where?



Then we have the bombing of handicapped children's centres, the bombing of the Libyan water supply system, the bombing of the factory which produces the pipes to repair the system, the bombing of hospitals, and recently, the bombing of a children's facility...and we can hear the corporate interests behind the scenes.

A quick fact check shows that you are being dishonest here. The UN does not appear to have targeted this places. Instead they targeted the nearby military installations that Gaddafi deliberately situated in these locations -- using these facilities as human shields, hoping to be able to spin these events. Evidently some people fell for it.



Spare me the empty rhetoric. If we say that Islam, religion, is the paragon of morals, you'll argue forever on "human rights" ...but then if I tell you that the irreligious institutions have infringed more on the rights of people, you will make some b.s argument that it is "Rational" and "logical" for them to do so.

And what is wrong with pointing out the truth?




Like I said, you make petty arguments.You keep claiming that, but have yet to show that to be the case. This is getting tiresome. Just because you repeat yourself does not make it true.

Alchemist
10-13-2011, 12:37 PM
well there you have it folks...

Afghans, Iraqis, Libyans, Yemenis all deserve to be bombed and attacked because the UN is protecting their human rights.

Thanks ozy for your rationalism.

ozymandias
10-13-2011, 12:47 PM
well there you have it folks...

Afghans, Iraqis, Libyans, Yemenis all deserve to be bombed and attacked because the UN is protecting their human rights.

Thanks ozy for your rationalism.

Alchemist, please stop being so dishonest. I never made that claim at all, and you know it. All you are doing is showing that you have no valid points to make, and instead need to sink to making up lies and spreading them, rather than supporting your own claims.

Alchemist
10-13-2011, 01:44 PM
Oddly enough, that very declaration was used as part of the justification for these wars, so yes. Yes they can.


How am I dishonest if you are the one saying that the wars sanctioned by the UN are "justified" on "humanitarian" grounds?

ozymandias
10-13-2011, 02:37 PM
How am I dishonest if you are the one saying that the wars sanctioned by the UN are "justified" on "humanitarian" grounds?

I never stated anything that even implies "Afghans, Iraqis, Libyans, Yemenis all deserve to be bombed and attacked because the UN is protecting their human rights." yet you attribute that to me. That is dishonest, and it is not the only instance of you doing such a thing.

If you cannot be civil, and honest, I am going to refrain from talking to you. It serves no point. You go out of your way to be insulting, to deliberately lie and misrepresent what anyone you disagree with says, you post evidence to things, and then claim they indicate the exact opposite of what they state. Since I do not believe you are actually a rude, ignorant person, I am forced to conclude you are nothing more than a troll, and no further discussion is worthwhile. I sincerely hope that you made honest mistakes and are willing to be civil, adult, and intelligent going forward, so I will give you a chance to straighten out.

I feel that if you chose to have an honest conversation, it would be a very entertaining one for the both of us. As it is, you do not appear to want to have an honest conversation.

Alchemist
10-13-2011, 03:44 PM
you didn't say it directly but that is what you implied...so spare me the theatrics.

ozymandias
10-13-2011, 03:52 PM
you didn't say it directly but that is what you implied...so spare me the theatrics.

I implied no such thing, so spare me the lies.

Alchemist
10-13-2011, 03:53 PM
did you not say that the UN is withholding the charter of rights?

And did you not say that they justified the war on Libya using the same declaration of rights?

al-arab
10-13-2011, 04:01 PM
You are 68 years old? If so you should be even more aware of your constant fauls and for your government than any single young american!

This is no excuse.

"Already addressed this. Repeatedly. But I will point out once again, that the reason we came back was to clean up terrorist cells we believed were operating out of your country with the support of your government. This may have been wrong, but that is what was told to the American people as justification. As for leaving the same day the Soviets left, I have already pointed out that this is why there is a plan in place for withdrawal this time around, to avoid making that mistake again."

This is complete nonsens. We did not even have a government when you attacked Iraq but a dictatorship. The government you have created is a puppet government ruled by Shia's. Nothing else.

Sunni Iraqi Arabs will no exept the fake puppet government you have made in Iraq. So you withdrawel in December Insha'Allah will not help anything. Your role in Iraq is very clear for all. You have divided even some Sunnis among each other who has the same goal to kick you out of Iraq again.

No I am upset because you government help Arab dictators to power, sponsored the with money (several example of that) and when they do not suit you, you remove them. And afterwards you critize us for lack of so called democracy.

Wonder why? Might it have something to do with your behaviour in Iraq, the war you created, the killings, the hypocrisy, the divition between Muslims, your wanting to control Iraqi Oil etc.

You don't care about so called democracy or human rights as seen from Wikileaks. The only think you care about is power, control and money. Nothing else. Everything else you claim is lies to brainwash people to think that you are some kind of saviour and different human beings that other's and the only nation on the world that only act in the name of "humanity".

I am sorry but I have little sympathy for your views, the government YOUR people have shown and your lack of more precise replies.

ozymandias
10-13-2011, 04:10 PM
did you not say that the UN is withholding the charter of rights?



Withholding? No. I said that the UN drafted and agreed to a definition of human rights. which was signed by many, if not all, member nations at the time, including Afghanistan, and Iran, among other Muslim countries.



And did you not say that they justified the war on Libya using the same declaration of rights?

You stated "The same UN which has sanctioned the war on Iraq and Afghanistan can "feel" the suffering of the people and come up with a "rational and logical and ethical" system to heal us?" to which I replied that the UN *DID* in fact use the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as part of the justification for going to war in Iraq and Afghanistan, which is true. One of the stated objectives of the UN was to allow all people in Iraq and Afghanistan the ability to exercise these rights, and this required removing an oppressive regime through military force.

This doesn't even mention the fact that there is a huge difference between my stating that the UN used Human Rights Violations to justify a military action, and your implication that I supported the attack of all people in Iraq, Afghan, Libya and Yemen.

You stated that I said "Afghans, Iraqis, Libyans, Yemenis all deserve to be bombed and attacked because the UN is protecting their human rights", which I clearly did not nor did I imply anything that a rational person could mistake for that. I stated nothing about civilians, nor did I even mention Libya, or Yemen, nor did I express universal support for the actions taken.

ozymandias
10-13-2011, 04:18 PM
You are 68 years old? If so you should be even more aware of your constant fauls and for your government than any single young american!



I said I am not. I have been accused of being guilty for everything the US has done in the last 50 years, which would require I be 68 years old -- old enough to vote for the last 50 years.

It is not feasible to even *try* to hold me accountable for things before I was born, or before I could vote. I had no say.



This is no excuse.

"Already addressed this. Repeatedly. But I will point out once again, that the reason we came back was to clean up terrorist cells we believed were operating out of your country with the support of your government. This may have been wrong, but that is what was told to the American people as justification. As for leaving the same day the Soviets left, I have already pointed out that this is why there is a plan in place for withdrawal this time around, to avoid making that mistake again."

This is complete nonsens. We did not even have a government when you attacked Iraq but a dictatorship. The government you have created is a puppet government ruled by Shia's. Nothing else.



And those dictators were believed to support terrorists. Why does it matter if they were a dictator or a legitimate government? They still instigated the conflict.



Sunni Iraqi Arabs will no exept the fake puppet government you have made in Iraq. So you withdrawel in December Insha'Allah will not help anything. Your role in Iraq is very clear for all. You have divided even some Sunnis among each other who has the same goal to kick you out of Iraq again.



I'm sorry, I don't understand what you are saying.



No I am upset because you government help Arab dictators to power, sponsored the with money (several example of that) and when they do not suit you, you remove them. And afterwards you critize us for lack of so called democracy.



That may have been true in the past, but the efforts are to set up a democracy safe from dictators this time around.



Wonder why? Might it have something to do with your behaviour in Iraq, the war you created, the killings, the hypocrisy, the divition between Muslims, your wanting to control Iraqi Oil etc.



??

Wonder why what?



You don't care about so called democracy or human rights as seen from Wikileaks.



I have never been on Wikileaks, and you don't even know my real name.



The only think you care about is power, control and money. Nothing else. Everything else you claim is lies to brainwash people to think that you are some kind of saviour and different human beings that other's and the only nation on the world that only act in the name of "humanity".



You are welcome to disagree, but the facts are clear.



I am sorry but I have little sympathy for your views, the government YOUR people have shown and your lack of more precise replies.

What would you like me to be more precise on?

Alchemist
10-13-2011, 04:29 PM
Withholding? No. I said that the UN drafted and agreed to a definition of human rights. which was signed by many, if not all, member nations at the time, including Afghanistan, and Iran, among other Muslim countries.



You stated "The same UN which has sanctioned the war on Iraq and Afghanistan can "feel" the suffering of the people and come up with a "rational and logical and ethical" system to heal us?" to which I replied that the UN *DID* in fact use the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as part of the justification for going to war in Iraq and Afghanistan, which is true. One of the stated objectives of the UN was to allow all people in Iraq and Afghanistan the ability to exercise these rights, and this required removing an oppressive regime through military force.

This doesn't even mention the fact that there is a huge difference between my stating that the UN used Human Rights Violations to justify a military action, and your implication that I supported the attack of all people in Iraq, Afghan, Libya and Yemen.

You stated that I said "Afghans, Iraqis, Libyans, Yemenis all deserve to be bombed and attacked because the UN is protecting their human rights", which I clearly did not nor did I imply anything that a rational person could mistake for that. I stated nothing about civilians, nor did I even mention Libya, or Yemen, nor did I express universal support for the actions taken.

You said it was "justified".

If you believe the war on Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya are justified on "Human Rights" grounds..then you are prejudiced and hypocritical.

We pointed out to you that the human charter of rights is a sham. If we tell you Islam is a religion of peace...then you smirk at us. But if the faults of your nation, your civilization are pointed out...you merely wash your hands and claim innocence for not being a party.

Why don't you man up and tell us who you actually support? What you stand for?
Are all "agnostic atheist americans" cynical cowards like your self?

al-arab
10-13-2011, 04:40 PM
68 years or not you are old enough to vote.

"Were belived" which turned out to be a lie. Saddam was a tyran and not a Muslim despite his Sunni upbringing. His whole family were just like Al-Assad and Al-Gaddafi. You also supported those dictators in the past and help them in power when you removed the Kings in both country.

See, you don't even know about history. Read about conflict between Sunnis from 2006-2007. This is fortunately past but it was you who offered money in return of hatred on fellow Muslim Brothers because you lost control of Al-Anbar, Ramadi and Fallujah. You needed Iraqis to defeat Iraqis. You did never control the whole country at no point. Not even Baghdad. You did not solve any problems you only made the hate toward USA bigger. You know very well what you have created. Fake Iraqi government will fall very soon.

It is not obvious? You only attacked Iraq because of oil. You could have attacked Syria, Algeria and other countries who supported Al-Qaeda. But you did not because they had not such rich natural wealth as Iraq. A lot of Iraqis never liked you and still don't like and never will but Al-Qaeda was not strong in Iraq. Now it is. Thanks to you. You create your own problems and I have no pity for you if you country face teh consequences of that policy.

Just like 9/11.

I am not talking about YOU when I say you but you americans. You are to afraid to see your genocide on wikileads. You did not even see the video I posted of US troops killing civilians for FUN.

THE US army knew about this but did NOTHING. Only thanks to Wikileaks the world saw your TRUE face.

Your hypocrits only deserve hate with that policy and view as people.

Which facts are clear? Your genocide, torture, hypocrisy and wrong wars?

Your yes and no answers and pointless excuses and claims of being civilized, human defenders but doing all the opposite in Iraq, rest of Arab world, Afghanistan, supporting fascist governments in Uzbekistan, Africa etc. just because it suit your interest. The same with Mubarak before and Al-Assad before, Pakistan etc.

ozymandias
10-13-2011, 04:41 PM
You said it was "justified".



No I did not. Please find a quote where I said that.



If you believe the war on Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya are justified on "Human Rights" grounds..then you are a prejudiced and hypocritical.



Not only is this incorrect, it is a non-issue, because I have never stated that I thought it was justified purely (or in part) on Human Rights issues.

You may be confused, as I *DID* say that the UN used human rights as part of their justification -- but that implies no support on my part.



We pointed out to you that the human charter of rights is a shame.



You are free to think that, and to even claim that, but you never proved that. You never even tried to prove that.



If we tell you Islam is a religion of peace...then you smirk at us.



No I don't. You are assuming something that is not true. I understand that a majority of Muslims are peaceful, decent human beings. There are some, even on this forum, that are not peaceful, but they are far from a majority.



But if the faults of your nation, your civilization are pointed out...you merely wash your hands and claim innocence for not being a party.



You accused me of supporting actions that occurred before I was even born. Of course I am innocent of those actions.



Why don't you man up and tell us who you actually support? What you stand for?



I support the UN Declaration of Human Rights. I support each and every person on this planet being allowed those rights. To that end, I support democracy, as that is the best way to ensure those rights. I support working towards peace. I support free speech. I support freedom of religion. I support minimizing needless death.

Anything specific you want my stance on?



Are all "agnostic atheist americans" cynical cowards like your self?

Technically, you are being the cynic here. I am not the one claiming the actions of everyone in the US is motivated by greed and selfishness. I have expressed repeatedly that I think many people are able to look beyond their one short sited self interest.

How am I a coward again? I am willing to but heads with you, and express my atheism in a predominately Muslim forum, and face the questions you have in an effort to bridge a communication gap here. I am willing to examine evidence and reject any belief I have if the evidence proves it wrong!