On Islam and rationality

[Firdousi]

You're sat here talking about how minorities shouldn't have the same privileges as the majority and just suck it up. By privileges I meant basic human rights btw, if you didn't understand. If you tell me a majority decision (no matter how brutal it is) can overrule the welfare of a minority, then yes that sounds fascist to me man.



You said liberalism leads to gays, loose women and drunk youth. You then said 'how could I support that bro'. Come on. Don't accuse me of twisting anything

I'm 500 years old

Thats my point: I never said that. You basically are not reading properly. I said majoritarianism but minorities rights must be protected. What liberals are doing in the Western is creating untouchable minority group with special privileges. Being gay is great, being straight is not. Being black is nice, being white is racist. Being Muslim or Buddhist is nice, being Christian is horrible... and so on. Lefties doesn't give a s hit about us. They are using us as a tool for their domestic anti-Western agenda. Since I despise such coward behavior I can't support your twisted premise.

Once again, FOR GOD SAKE, read my freaking comments properly, bro. I said this:

"I said liberalism creates weak people and leads to confused societies/cultures. I realize that the modern world was created by the liberal order and to some degree I even support it. But I can't support social liberalism. Loose women, gay parades, minority groups with privileges, drunk alcoholized youth, effeminate men,.. come on, dude.. how do you expect me to support that?"

Social liberalism with his cultural relativism, his aggressive individualism, his hardcore anti-identitarian tendencies is a huge mess...

[Akbar]

Thats my point: I never said that. You basically are not reading properly. I said majoritarianism but minorities rights must be protected. What liberals are doing in the Western is creating untouchable minority group with special privileges. Being gay is great, being straight is not. Being black is nice, being white is racist. Being Muslim or Buddhist is nice, being Christian is horrible... and so on. Lefties doesn't give a s hit about us. They are using us as a tool for their domestic anti-Western agenda. Since I despise such coward behavior I can't support your twisted premise.

Once again, FOR GOD SAKE, read my freaking comments properly, bro. I said this:

"I said liberalism creates weak people and leads to confused societies/cultures. I realize that the modern world was created by the liberal order and to some degree I even support it. But I can't support social liberalism. Loose women, gay parades, minority groups with privileges, drunk alcoholized youth, effeminate men,.. come on, dude.. how do you expect me to support that?"

Social liberalism with his cultural relativism, his aggressive individualism, his hardcore anti-identitarian tendencies is a huge mess...

secular ideas and religious tolerance was a concept borrowed from Islamic world.

[Firdousi]

secular ideas and religious tolerance was a concept borrowed from Islamic world.

Secularism and religious tolerance existed many centuries before Islam. Please, educate yourself my deluded friend. Or even better stop using drugs.

[Porus]

Thats my point: I never said that. You basically are not reading properly. I said majoritarianism but minorities rights must be protected. What liberals are doing in the Western is creating untouchable minority group with special privileges. Being gay is great, being straight is not. Being black is nice, being white is racist. Being Muslim or Buddhist is nice, being Christian is horrible... and so on. Lefties doesn't give a s hit about us. They are using us as a tool for their domestic anti-Western agenda. Since I despise such coward behavior I can't support your twisted premise.

Minorities have different experiences than the majority do. I think being a majority itself grants you privilege. If I'm a Sunni Punjabi Muslim in Pakistan, I clearly have more privilege than a Sindhi Hindu in most circumstances. Of course there's exceptions, you'll find that in every case. But communities in certain countries are disadvantaged for a variety of reasons and I don't think attempts to stand in solidarity with marginalised groups is 'weak'. All it is is recognising your privilege. I don't think 'gay is good and straight is not' either. I don't think I've ever heard anyone say it.

[quote]Once again, FOR GOD SAKE, read my freaking comments properly, bro. I said this:

"I said liberalism creates weak people and leads to confused societies/cultures. I realize that the modern world was created by the liberal order and to some degree I even support it. But I can't support social liberalism. Loose women, gay parades, minority groups with privileges, drunk alcoholized youth, effeminate men,.. come on, dude.. how do you expect me to support that?"

Social liberalism with his cultural relativism, his aggressive individualism, his hardcore anti-identitarian tendencies is a huge mess...

There you go. That's just proving what I said. You're saying social liberalism creates weak people and therefore creates a culture where gay people, loose women and minorities with 'privileges' run a muck. 'How do you expect me to support that'.

I can't say much to that either. If you don't like that kind of thing well... maybe the West just isn't for you

[Porus]

thats exactly what we need to perform on you to see if you actually have a brain or its all straw.

Believe me dude, that's exactly what I thought the minute you even started talking LOL

so you need to see De Creator to believe in Him?
why?
Have you ever read the Qur'an?

Yes, demonstrate he exists otherwise I won't believe in him. Who cares what the Quran says? The Quran is a book. Have you ever read Lord of the Rings? Great book.

secular ideas and religious tolerance was a concept borrowed from Islamic world.

Joke of the year. That's why Islamic countries know nothing about, and neither support secularism.

[Akbar]

Believe me dude, that's exactly what I thought the minute you even started talking LOL




Yes, demonstrate he exists otherwise I won't believe in him. Who cares what the Quran says? The Quran is a book. Have you ever read Lord of the Rings? Great book.

why should i waste my time on you , i dont care about you.
i guess you really feel highly of yourself.

[Akbar]

Believe me dude, that's exactly what I thought the minute you even started talking LOL




Yes, demonstrate he exists otherwise I won't believe in him. Who cares what the Quran says? The Quran is a book. Have you ever read Lord of the Rings? Great book.



Joke of the year. That's why Islamic countries know nothing about, and neither support secularism.

you are simply dumb.

[Porus]

why should i waste my time on you , i dont care about you.
i guess you really feel highly of yourself.

God isn't real lolololol

Pa khair raghalay kana

[Akbar]

God isn't real lolololol

Pa khair raghalay kana

you are showing clear signs of mythomania.

[Porus]

you are showing clear signs of mythomania.

Wror jana, I no mythomania. Za da belief in god etemad nalaarum. Either Saabat wakro or Laar sho

[Akbar]

wror jana, i no mythomania. Za da belief in god etemad nalaarum. Either saabat wakro or laar sho

پښتو هم نه درزی
ما درنه پښتنه وکړه چی تا کله قران پاک لوستلی دی نو تا خبره بلی خوا
ته ویوړله.
نو ته چی په جحالت کښی خوشحاله یی نو منږ څه ویلی شو.

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

Rational mind will always lead you to atheism. Period. There isn't a single argument which proves God so why bother?

I'm sorry but this statement itself isn't rational, because there's an epistemological limit of what you can prove, because there's always a something we must accept on first principle to demonstrate anything factually.

I'm not saying that we accept God as "first principle" on the grounds of special pleading. However, there are many rational ways to arrive at a God conclusion, belief and custom are not the only ways. So this statement is patently false, and thus not rational.

[Porus]

I'm sorry but this statement itself isn't rational, because there's an epistemological limit of what you can prove, because there's always a something we must accept on first principle to demonstrate anything factually.

My principle is this: if God could be proved logically, then there wouldn't be any need for faith. Nearly all arguments between theologians and atheists have come down to this point; one must have faith to believe that a God exists.

I'm not saying that we accept God as "first principle" on the grounds of special pleading. However, there are many rational ways to arrive at a God conclusion, belief and custom are not the only ways. So this statement is patently false, and thus not rational.

Okay explain to me how we can rationally arrive to that conclusion

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

My principle is this: if God could be proved logically, then there wouldn't be any need for faith. Nearly all arguments between theologians and atheists have come down to this point; one must have faith to believe that a God exists.



Okay explain to me how we can rationally arrive to that conclusion

This isn't true, there's something called "first principles" it's a type of epistemological foundation where we have to a priori accept some criteria to form a logical way of extracting information or knowledge. For example we need to accept a priori that information is extractable and that when we're receiving information it's maintained fidelity, meaning we're receiving precisely the information as it is. This basically means we kind of take certain things on faith to make other things make sense when we make predictions. It's one of the paradoxes of epistemology.

[Porus]

This isn't true, there's something called "first principles" it's a type of epistemological foundation where we have to a priori accept some criteria to form a logical way of extracting information or knowledge. For example we need to accept a priori that information is extractable and that when we're receiving information it's maintained fidelity, meaning we're receiving precisely the information as it is. This basically means we kind of take certain things on faith to make other things make sense when we make predictions. It's one of the paradoxes of epistemology.

Are you saying it's necessary to a priori accept God before we even begin the argument? If so explain why.