Andre wrote:
>>> I thought you and your friend jack couldn't prove God's existence.
>>> What makes you think it's God who helped you or not some other unseen
>>> force. Do you have *any* factual base for your own conclusions?
>>
>>
>>
>> Sure.
>
>
> I'm not surprised by your response. If there's anything more to your
> being "sure" and "yes I've read it 3 times" and "its a waste of time"
> and blah blah, then speak up.
OK. I've had a good night's sleep and I feel livelier now.
Forget Islam. It's irrelevant to the core issue here, which is simply
this: can any religious system be "proven" as the rational mind
understands the term "proof." This is, simply put, why the "discussion"
you wish to have is a fool's errand, YOUR fool's errand, and your lame
ad hominemns aside, I choose not to waste my time by participating. If
you really want to have such a discourse, go to some apologetic website
like www.anwering-islam.com, pick out an issue, post it here, and then
refute your own post. Some of us might even read what you post, if
you're concise. (There was a guy on SRI that used to do this, but he was
mind-numbingly verbose, and I doubt if he writing to anyone but himself.)
> "We" are muslims, be it two, three of four. It doesn't matter to me
> whether there are less muslims or more... maybe to you it does. Then
> again, I'm not the one with insecurities here.
Yea? :-)
Mike
Andre wrote:
>> You know, I really don't see what's so hard to understand here. If one
>> takes the position that Muhammad was acting out of human motivation,
>> then one can speculate as to what his personal agenda was. His
>> occupation is a perfectly reasonable place to start. Would you care to
>> advance an alternative, making the assumption that he acted out of
>> human motivations? I'd be interested.
>
>
> Hah. Mike, if you're not forgetting, *youre* the one with problems and
> *youre* the one who doesn't believe the Quran has a factual base, not
> me.
Doubting the factual base of the Koran is not a "problem" from where I'm
sitting, Bubba. :-)
It's a nice way of turning the leaf over to my side but I'm sorry
> that's an old act of defense and another good reason why *you* shouldn't
> be trusted with your blasphemy. *Again*, come up with references and
> points and I *will* prove *you* wrong.
Shit. Are you new to USENET? Would you mind NOT clipping the part of my
prior post you're responding to?
*Again*, I have no intention of wasting my time. I engaged with this
exercise a few years back, and became personally satisfied that your
religious notions are crap. This is a closed issue with me, I've moved
on, and I don't have to reopen the issue every time a ARI gets a new
"prophet" (that would be you) obsessed with going over the some old
tired list of "proofs" that the Koran is something more than kitty
litter lining. I can read the apologetic websites if I want to do that.
I don't need you.
Mike
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 22:36:28 +1000
> I choose not to waste my time by participating.
Like I said. I never expect you to because you have nothing to say.
Don't twist the questions. The issue was and is the same: give me
references from the Quran that you *think* are false and I shall prove
you wrong.
>> "We" are muslims, be it two, three of four. It doesn't matter to me
>> whether there are less muslims or more... maybe to you it does. Then
>> again, I'm not the one with insecurities here.
>
>
> Yea? :-)
Definitely :)
>
> Mike
>
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 22:48:52 +1000
> Doubting the factual base of the Koran is not a "problem" from where I'm
> sitting, Bubba. :-)
Then why do I see you hiding in a corner? Come out and prove it wrong.
Why so afraid? Why do you keep posting irrelevant comments ... stick to
the point.
> Shit. Are you new to USENET? Would you mind NOT clipping the part of my
> prior post you're responding to?
I would.
> *Again*, I have no intention of wasting my time. I engaged with this
> exercise a few years back, and became personally satisfied that your
> religious notions are crap.
Language buddy... that clearly reflects your intellect and capabilities.
Why do I still see you blah blahing and not coming up with points from
the Quran? If it's "crap", tell me precisely what "crap" is... how will
I ever know when all you have to say is crap yourself and NOTHING
related to the issue.
> This is a closed issue with me, I've moved on, and I don't have to reopen the issue every time a ARI gets a new
> "prophet" (that would be you)
Typical. Verrry typical. Run, run.. you only keep proving my point. You
have nothing to say, you have no knowledge of what you claim and you
have been coming up with lame excuses and replies which still do NOT
prove the Quran wrong. If you want to close the issue, I take you've
lost you've lost the battle. You have *still* not given me a SINGLE
reference from the Quran that you think is incorrect. Very typical.
> obsessed with going over the some old tired list of "proofs"
Same old tired list? Which list? What list? I dont see any. If it's the
"same old list", then it should be a clear matter of copying and pasting
it down on my window. In fact, you should have memorized the list by now
if it's "that old" or tiring. Clearly, you have nothing to say.
> that the Koran is something more than kitty litter lining.
Nice. And you said you were trying to dig up the history? Dude, if you
don't have enough patience or gutts to come up with an argument then I
suggest you drop that fake act of yours and stop taking garbage about
the Quran and God and His prophets. You have proven nothing of yourself
and you have no right to talk trash about any faith, be it ISlam or
christianity or any other! Your kind simply have NO respect for their
own people, parents, prophets, beliefs and are nothing but liars. Don't
you dare say a single thing about the Quran again if you can't God damn
come up with PROOFS or SOLID REFERENCES. Got that?
> Mike
>
-Andre
Andre wrote:
>
>> Shit. Are you new to USENET? Would you mind NOT clipping the part of
>> my prior post you're responding to?
>
>
> I would.
>
>
OK. End of thread. If you can't have the common courtesy to follow the
simple rules of netiquette, no sense in trying to continue.
Mike
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 23:04:31 +1000
> OK. End of thread. If you can't have the common courtesy to follow the
> simple rules of netiquette, no sense in trying to continue.
Rules? What rules.... "Moron! This is USENET".. rememeber that phrase?
Hey, anyone does what they like. Why don't you follow the simple rules
of a discussion, which is: answer questions precisely and correctly and
not will posts with hog-wash.
Let's keep this down to a minimul, shall we? And proceed to hearing from
you about the list of things (or JUST *ONE*!!) that you think are
non-factual? :)
-Andre
>
> Mike
>
>
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 23:13:22 +1000
Okay, I apologize. I'll follow all the 'rules of netiquette'. Let us
then continue. I'll wait for you to come up with some points from the
Quran which you think have no facts. Hope to hear from you very soon,
-Andre
Andre wrote:
>
>> OK. End of thread. If you can't have the common courtesy to follow the
>> simple rules of netiquette, no sense in trying to continue.
>
>
> Rules? What rules.... "Moron! This is USENET".. rememeber that phrase?
> Hey, anyone does what they like. Why don't you follow the simple rules
> of a discussion, which is: answer questions precisely and correctly and
> not will posts with hog-wash.
>
> Let's keep this down to a minimul, shall we? And proceed to hearing from
> you about the list of things (or JUST *ONE*!!) that you think are
> non-factual? :)
>
>
> -Andre
>
>>
>> Mike
>>
>>
>
<snip Alfalfa Jarhead's BS>
Andre <food_crazy@no-spam> wrote in message news:<3EF65EFC.8020706@no-spam>...
> > But you will not be able to prove 'He' exists (let alone whether 'He'
> > is a 'he' or a 'she' or an 'it').
>
> You don't pay much attention do you. As he said, "benifits of becoming a
> Muslim". When you're a muslim, after of course knowing everything a
> muslims has to know and believe, you'll definitely be able to *prove*
> (oh my God, YES, did he say prove? Yes!!) HE exists.
Nobody can prove God exists. Muslims can't, Christians can't,
everybody can't.
> He didn't say
> "after you've decided to mock at a muslim and his beliefs".
You don't mock *at* you just mock.
I'm not mocking Muslims generally, I'm mocking Abu, who IMO isn't a
Muslim but pretends to be for reasons I don't understand.
And I'm mocking the untested and unprovable belief that the Quran
describes anything more than whatever was on its author's mind. We -
the human race - has moved on; we don't *need* this kind of blind
belief any more.
>
> > Nah. Your loyalty - if you're not very careful - will be to an Arabian
> > religion invented by an Arabian 'prophet',
>
> really? And what makes you say that?
I read the Quran, for a start, and I read half a dozen books on Islam
and comparaitve religion - and I made damn sure I didn't do something
really silly like convert to a religion.
> Did God Himself whisper into your
> ears or do you speak of the unknown?
What the hell is that supposed to mean? Do you really think human
beings are so incapable of free will they have to have their thoughts
and opinions 'whispered' to them by 'god', or by anything else? I
reached my conclusions by studying and making up my mind about what I
had studied, as any free-thinking rational being does. You ought to
try it some day.
> Not *once* have I read of such
> blasphemy in the Quran itself.
Of course you haven't. The Quran *pretends* to be universal - it's
written in Arabic, by an Arabian, who lived in Arabia, was intended
for an Arabian audience, was kept alive by Arabians, is full of
references to Arabian legends (of djins etc. which appear in no other
culture's mythology), is written in a style usually judged to be
Arabian of that period (passionate, even overwrought, logic-chopping,
prideful) and above all is clearly meant to convey that the author is
'one of us', is 'our' leader, 'speaks for us', demands 'we' do what is
in 'our' interests, the 'we', 'our' and 'us' in each case being the
Arabian people - yet it claims to be universal. It isn't universal.
If Islam wants to be regarded as a universal religion it must:
1) Drop all the Arabic names
2) Drop the Arabic customs, including the anti-clockwise walkking and
kissing of the Black Stone and Kaba
3) Drop the pilgrimage to Mecca, which is an Arabian city, and drop
the demand that those at prayer should face Mecca
4) Drop the Arabian history and claims of an Arabian 'golden age' in
the distant past
5) Drop the traditional Arabian clothing restrictions and styles,
especially for women, the traditional dislike of alcohol
6) Drop the Arabian concepts of God as an imageless 'force' and allow
portrayal of religious icons, as in the western tradition
7) Drop the traditional Arabian architectural style for mosques,
especially the tower for the call for prayer - in fact, drop the
notion that mosques should be built in prominent places
8) Translate the Quran into a comprehensible English style with as few
references to Arabian places, people and concepts as possible
9) In the interests of pluralism and ecumenicalism, drop the idea that
the Quran represents the 'final' word of God, and the middle eastern
concept of 'prophet', so that Islam is no longer perceived as a
religion 'superior' to any other
...all of which probably means:
10) Drop the Quran
Which doesn't get us very far in our attempts to universalise Islam,
does it?
The trick is not to take the Quran by its own estimation, free your
mind and read it for what it *really* is. Then all becomes clear.
> You're being judgmental.
I'm making a judgement, yes. So are you.
> Know what you're
> talking about before you try answering questions you have no clue of.
'Of which I have no clue'. Don't end sentences with prepositions.
I know what I'm talking about as far as I know what I'm talking about
- more than some, less than others. I don't take the Quran to be
literal truth, which is the *only* rational position to take (on the
grounds that there is no proof whatsoever, nor evidence of any kind,
that the Quran is literal truth). Any other position is untennable for
rational debate - if you are to argue from the subjective position of
accepting one text at its own estimation what is to stop me taking the
subjective position of accepting a contrdictory text at its own
estimation?
If you take the Quran to be literally true, what is to stop me taking
the Christian text to be literally true, in which case I must take you
to be a blasphemer and, by ancient Christian tradition, burn you at
the stake. What hope then for debate? You *must* take an objective
position, and refuse to take the Quran to be literally true - if only
for the sake of argument - or else all debate ceases. You must be able
to see this.
> No
> where has it been mentioned in the Quran about "Arabs", mind you, and no
> where does Islam as you to be loyal to "Arabs" or their stories.
That is part of the problem. If Islam didn't claim to be a universal
religion - if it wasn't prosyletised, if Muslims didn't dream of an
Islamic empire (some Muslims anyway), the middle east probably
wouldn't be in the mess it's in today and we wouldn't be constantly
guarding against Islamist terrorism.
It doesn't matter what the Quran *claims* - any book can claim
anything it wants - it matters what the *context* for its writing was,
who Muhammed was, what theArabs believed at the time, what their
social and political situation was, what pressures they were under,
what standing other reluigions had in their community, and so on. THIS
is what matters.
>
> > who wrote a book
>
> If you're so truthful, write a book which is an equal of that which you
> claim is not from God Himself.
I claim every single book ever written is not from God, on the grounds
that nobody has ever proved that god ever wrote a book, and I depend
on proof of something before I believe in it (because I am a rational
being, not a superstitious fatalist).
I have no idea how the Quran reads in Arabic - it is said to be a work
of great beauty and passion - but I have read a great deal of it in
English and I am in the most part unimpressed. It is certainly full of
passion and commitment, and is clever in its methods of persuasion if
not particularly intelligent in terms of its original thought. It's a
book of sermons, and it bashes you over the head, again and again,
with the force of its author's belief. If you happen to have a
predeliction for unquestioning belief, and if you are the sort of
person who is impressed by the force of another's belief and
simplistic argument to justify them - and above all, if you feel the
need for a sense of belonging to a religious tribe - then you will be
impressed by the Quran.
If you want to read the about human nature and the meaning and
consequences of free choice (which some believe is God's greatest gift
to the human race) you will find more truth about the complex nature
of man in a single play by Shakespeare, or any book by Goethe,
Dostyovsky or even Dickens, than you will in the Quran.
Could I write the Quran? Given enough time I could probably invent a
couple of suras in the Koranic style which might fool the uninitiated.
But - and I don't want to hurt your feelings here - I wouldn't
consider imitating the Quran as a genuine test of writerly skill. But
of course, as I said, I ahven't read it in the language in which it
should be read.
> Again... if you haven't read the Quran,
> don't judge it!
Why? I mean, I've read about two-thirds of it I suppose, and I'll
probably finish reading it one day - but even if I hadn't read a
single word, why shouldn't I judge it? You don't have to agree with a
single thing I say, if you don't want to.
> If you haven't read the Quran (which I can safely assume
> you haven't reading your lovely ignorant comments), allow me to
> enlighten you: most of what "science" (mind you, science is man-made,
> man-found, man-discovered, man-weaved, man-built and is no grounds for a
> comparison to anything) has "discovered" today has already been
> described and mentioned in the Quran..
Crap. There isn't a single modern scientific sentence in the Quran. It
isn't a science manual, it uses what passed for science 1,500 years
ago to persuade people to convert. The science itself is meaningless -
Muhammed believed in Ptolemaic astronomy (he thought the sun orbitted
the earth). Nobody in their right mind would look in any holy book for
science.
> and book you say an arab wrote (a
> person who's lived all his life in a desert.. a person who didn't know
> how to read, a person who didn't know anytihng other than what he had
> seen himself).
That's crap too. Muhammed was the wealthy nephew of a rich trader, who
married money more than once. With his wealth there is no possibility
that he didn't get an education, even if it wasn't the usual kind for
his age.
This idea that Muhammed wasn't educated probably depends on a
mistranslation - that, asked to read what had been told to him
(allegedly by the 'Angel Gabriel') he supposedly said 'I cannot read'.
More likely, he would have said, 'I cannot recite,' meaning he had
nothing to recite because he hadn't been told anything - a far liklier
explanation than the myth of ignorance.
Those who have always had a vested political interest in the spread of
Islam also have a vested interest in maintaining the belief that
Muhammed was uneducated, because they think it backs up their claims
of 'holy revelation'. Don't believe it. It's far too unlikely.
> No one but the Creator Himself can know about His
> Creation. Take some time out, read the Quran and *then* talk.
I have, and I've read the Bible (have you?). There is no 'Creator'
other than that which you imagine, that exists inside your head. You
have been strung a line, and so has your father, and his father, and
his father, back and back for hundreds of years. You are mesmerised by
myth and an emotional attachment to a tribal faith. Sooner or later
you must break free.
>
>
> > in the Arabic language, full of references to Arabic legends and stories,
>
> No.. then again, you haven't read the Quran.
Repeat it as much as you like, it's starting to look like you need to
convince yourself. Yes it is possible for someone to read the Quran
and understand it for what it is - a deliberate attempt to play on
your emotions, as an Arab, a Muslim and a believer in a faceless god
who interferes in your life.
You can too, and you can be free, if you only try.
[snip]
> Which planet have you come from? Which book have you been reading? The
> tales of Arabia? The Arabian nights? Ali baba and the 40 theives? The
> thief of Baghdad?
All those things are from the Arabian Nights, and yes I have read them
- and it is a true example of great Arabian literature (even if it
originated in India).
> What are you talking about? There is *NO* such
> intention or mentioning of any state, empire, house, bulding, hut,
> lobby, lounge.... it describes a way of living, a way which is only
> devoted to God Himself (no nothing about making an empire! If the
> prophet wrote the book and intended that, surely he would have filled it
> with his praises and worldy things and objects and objectives and laws).
He did fill it with laws. Can you drink alcohol? I can. You can't.
Why? Because your religion has imposed a law on you preventing you
from doing so.
Would you like to see a ban on alcohol throughout, say, Britain? If
so, you want your law imposed on an entire nation - just as British
laws were onced imposed on all India.
This is empire. The 'worldly things' needn't be described.
I'm not trying to insult you, I'm telling you what I see. I don't
object to you living by any religious law you like as long as you
don't attempt ever to make your personal religious laws the political
law of any land, or imposed on any other person. That is the unspoken
contract between us.
At the very least - even if you are incapable of perceiving things
from my p.o.v. - you should acknowledge my point of view exists, as I
acknowledge yours.
[snip]
>
> No, it's not an indian religion. Please know your facts before you post
> something next time. Hinduism is about idolatory, a religion very old.
> It has nothing to do with India - it was the religion of most men in the
> early age when people forgot God, the One, the AlMighty. Hinduism has
> traces from all over the world, and most parts of the middle east before
> Judism, Christianity of Islam came.
You are confusing Hinduism, which is a religion specific to India and
the Indian diaspora, with the general phenomeon of pantheism, which is
or was common to all cultures.
The very fact that you can't see that - that you perceive Islam as
religion and Hinduism as non-religion - indicates to me that you
cannot imagine a pluralist society - a pluralist society in which
Hinduism is as respected as Islam, as the 'true' subjective faith of a
specific community, of equal worth, equal meaning, equal profundity,
as Islam, Christianity, or any other major religion. If you believe
Islam is the only 'true' religion you cannot be trusted to help build
pluralist democracy - and if you won't respect another person's
religion why should anyone else respect yours?
>
>
> you know, it's easy saying all that crap about people who you don;t
> know, who you see on telivision burning, killing themselves and thinking
> "ahh a bunch of madmen". Have you never stopped for a moment and
> wondered WHAT made them do that?
Stopped for a moment? Are you kidding? I'm constantly asking people on
these NGs to explain it in terms I can understand - what the hell can
make someone so desperately unhappy? I just don't get it at all. But
nobody seems to be able to do it for me.
> You believe in human rights, dont you?
Yyyyyes.
> You believe that children in schools should be "understood" and not
> judged or treated alike as every child has his/her own ability to
> learn/grasp concepts.
Um ... depends. Go on...
> You believe in all of that and yet you overlook at
> those that give their life for something you don't try to understand.
Well, I don't know if I do believe it because I don't understand it. i
think children at school should be taught properly, do as they're told
and stop fighting in the playground. I fail to see what this has to do
with someone setting light to himself in London.
> What.. WHAT made them do that? what was SO bad in their life, that they
> decided to kill themselves? What? Nothing but brutality!
What brutality? These people are fairly well off middle class British
Iranians living on one of the most expensive and well heeled towns -
South Kensington, London - in the entire world (and good luck to them;
South Ken has been improved since the Iranians arrived). I doubt any
one of them has been treated with sustained brutality in his or her
entitre life.
>If your mother,
[snip rant]
er ... I think you should read a newspaper. The ostensible 'reason'
these Iranians set fire to themselves is that they are supporters of a
Marxist-Islamist political grouping opposed to the regime in Iran and
linked to a terrorist group which has been banned throughout the
world. That political group was recently banned too, in France, and so
their compadres in London are setting light to themselves. It has
nothing to do with Iraq, and nothing to do with nuclear bombs.
My point is, the 'beliefs' of this Marxist-Islamist poluitical group
are mad, crazy, lunatic, silly, impossible, anti-social, and many
other things. Marxism doesn't work, and Islamism doesn't work. They
would be much better off getting a hobby.
The idea that a belief can lead you to self-sacrifice is a nobel one;
the idea that a stupid, unworkable and dangerous belief can lead you
to self-sacrifice is asburd.
[snip]
>
> No, that's what you guys do.
You guys? What does that mean ... white people? Black people?
Non-Arabs? Kaffirs? Jews? Do tell.
> Drugs, alcohol, beer.
Beer is alcohol. I like a drink, yes - you should try it some time.
Might help you relax. I shouldn't try and make cultural comparisons of
creativity if I were you - when the Muslim Louvre or Prado is built
and filled, the Islamic Beethoven and Bach and Beatles, and the the
Koranic Shakespeare, Tolstoy, Darwin, Freud and Jeffersonian
Constitution have all been created - then we'll talk about creativity.
You cannot create without dissent from the commonplace; you cannot
dissent if you have literal belief in a holy text, and if all forms of
human creativity take place through its prism, and if all the fruits
of creativity are found to be its inferior even before conception.
Literal belief in 'revealed' text - and not just Islamic 'revealed'
text - *kills* creativity.
> Let's talk about women. [snip]
No, let's not. Not until you've got something to say about them.
> And yet you're all blind.
Because 'we' - us Kaffirs - don't force women to cover their faces,
their bodies, their sexualities, their personalities, for fear of
inflaming our all-so uncontrollable lusts? Is that what you're trying
to say?
>
Some women like to have multiple boyfriends - so do some men. Some men
like to have multiple girlfriends - so do some women. We have choice,
we have self-responsibility. We have free will.
And by 'we' I mean we - I mean you and me and everyone, if we are
courageous enough to take it.
>
> > Uh-huh. People in the middle east are among the most hospitable in the
> > world (as long as you happen to be male) but I don't think religion
> > has anything to do with it.
>
> It has everything to do with it.
Based on ... what? Most people I've met from the ME are no more
religious than I am, and are generally - and it is a generalisation -
hospitable. it is a cultural trait. It probably existed before Islam
was invented and will more than likely exist when Islam has faded
away.
>
>
> >>9. By performing pilgrimage to Makkah, you will transcend yourself
> >>from being nationalistic, sectarian, or denominational into being
> > .... Arabic.
>
> No, for God.
No, Arabic.
>
>
> > ....but you may be expected to kill Jews. And Hindus. Oh, and
> > Christians.
>
> Really? Who told you this?
Abu Alwafa, who, if you'd read what I said properly you'd realise was
the target of everything I said. In his version of Islam all
non-Muslims are kaffirs, less than human. You may be, or may think you
are, a friendlier kind of chap. Good for you, although your talk of
'you people', with our rapes and drunken violence, tends to indicate
otherwise.
> I can name a million and one such people from the west that were
> known to be serial killers, mad men, crazy people who did it for nothing
> but a thist for kill.
Really? One million eh? I bet you couldn't reach a thousand.
I have no racial claims to make. Whitey is no less violent than yer
average African, Indian, Arab or Chinese person, or anyone else. Every
culture in the world has produced men of peace and men of violence,
perhaps to different degrees, but not so it would prove anyone's
racial theory. There is no difference between human nature anywhere.
> No where have I read, heard or seen such a thing
> in the Quran or from a muslim or from a scholar of Islam
If you've read the Quran you have read of the most terrible tortures
and violence to be meted out to Jews and Christians - the Quran is
full of hatred of non-Muslims - as well as tolerance toward them, when
it took Muhammed's fancy. And the Muslim community is as capable of
violence as any other - as the people of Indonesia, USA, Australia,
Phillipines, Israel, Tunisia, Kashmir, Afghanistan, Sudan, Kenya,
Nigeria, Somalia, Yemen, Saudi, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Kurdistan, Lebanon,
Egypt, Algeria, Mauritania, Britain, France, Belgium etc. would
testify.
I don't think the violent nature of humankind is at issue here, it is
the political or religious justification granted it that we should
worry about.
>
> > Oh, and homosexuals.
>
> No one has to kill them, what'll be the fun in that? They're amusing
> creatures who we all find very entertaining (be it a muslim or no muslim).
How 'enlightened' of you.
>
> Read my comment on your "sex" related thoughts above. I admire the way
> YOU respect YOUR women.
I can't imagien what you think I think about 'my' women, but I know I
don't want to know. It's enough to know you can generalise about the
majority of he human race; I know where you're coming from.
>
[snip more rants about sex]
As I suspected, the largest part of religious fundamentalism is sexual
frustration. If you only *tried* to meet a nice girl, have a nice
non-committal affair for a few years, then another, and another,
without trying to force them to conform to your parochial and outdated
prejudices about a woman's 'place' in the scheme of things, you would
learn to respect women and women's choices about their lives (not to
mention men and men's choices about theirs'). You'd probably learn a
good deal about people, and life - and you'd learn how to enjoy
yourself, and how to relax, and who knows, maybe how to enjoy a drink
down the pub with a few friends after work without imagining you'll go
to hell or that you've 'betrayed' your upbringing, or some such
rubbish. You might even be able to stop yourself seeing the entire
universe through the wrong end of your Koranic telescope.
You'd begin to be a social being, like the rest of us. It isn't *much*
to ask is it?
If you tried I promise you, you'd never once consider setting yourself
alight over someone else's numbskull ideology.
>
> > No argument there - no sex, no risk of sexual diseases. Or fun. Or
> > life at all. No wonder there are so many suicides.
>
...among Muslims, I mean. After I posted the original, another one set
himself alight in South Ken. On such a lovely evening too. What a
waste...
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 11:08:33 +1000
You didn't make sense Jack. You've only come up with your "own" religion
with your "own" set of "dos and donts". All the "drops" that you
mentioned are not there in Islam except for the last "drop" you made on
Quran being God's final words. It is and it will remain to be final,
unless you really HAVE been whispered in by God Himself?
Yes, human beings aren't capable of having a choice whether God can
whisper into their ears or not - just the point I was trying to make.
It's "God's will"
-Andre
jackkincaid wrote:
> Andre <food_crazy@no-spam> wrote in message news:<3EF65EFC.8020706@no-spam>...
>
>>>But you will not be able to prove 'He' exists (let alone whether 'He'
>>>is a 'he' or a 'she' or an 'it').
>>
>>You don't pay much attention do you. As he said, "benifits of becoming a
>>Muslim". When you're a muslim, after of course knowing everything a
>>muslims has to know and believe, you'll definitely be able to *prove*
>>(oh my God, YES, did he say prove? Yes!!) HE exists.
>
>
> Nobody can prove God exists. Muslims can't, Christians can't,
> everybody can't.
>
>
>>He didn't say
>>"after you've decided to mock at a muslim and his beliefs".
>
>
> You don't mock *at* you just mock.
>
> I'm not mocking Muslims generally, I'm mocking Abu, who IMO isn't a
> Muslim but pretends to be for reasons I don't understand.
>
> And I'm mocking the untested and unprovable belief that the Quran
> describes anything more than whatever was on its author's mind. We -
> the human race - has moved on; we don't *need* this kind of blind
> belief any more.
>
>>>Nah. Your loyalty - if you're not very careful - will be to an Arabian
>>>religion invented by an Arabian 'prophet',
>>
>>really? And what makes you say that?
>
>
> I read the Quran, for a start, and I read half a dozen books on Islam
> and comparaitve religion - and I made damn sure I didn't do something
> really silly like convert to a religion.
>
>
>>Did God Himself whisper into your
>>ears or do you speak of the unknown?
>
>
> What the hell is that supposed to mean? Do you really think human
> beings are so incapable of free will they have to have their thoughts
> and opinions 'whispered' to them by 'god', or by anything else? I
> reached my conclusions by studying and making up my mind about what I
> had studied, as any free-thinking rational being does. You ought to
> try it some day.
>
>
>>Not *once* have I read of such
>>blasphemy in the Quran itself.
>
>
> Of course you haven't. The Quran *pretends* to be universal - it's
> written in Arabic, by an Arabian, who lived in Arabia, was intended
> for an Arabian audience, was kept alive by Arabians, is full of
> references to Arabian legends (of djins etc. which appear in no other
> culture's mythology), is written in a style usually judged to be
> Arabian of that period (passionate, even overwrought, logic-chopping,
> prideful) and above all is clearly meant to convey that the author is
> 'one of us', is 'our' leader, 'speaks for us', demands 'we' do what is
> in 'our' interests, the 'we', 'our' and 'us' in each case being the
> Arabian people - yet it claims to be universal. It isn't universal.
>
> If Islam wants to be regarded as a universal religion it must:
> 1) Drop all the Arabic names
> 2) Drop the Arabic customs, including the anti-clockwise walkking and
> kissing of the Black Stone and Kaba
> 3) Drop the pilgrimage to Mecca, which is an Arabian city, and drop
> the demand that those at prayer should face Mecca
> 4) Drop the Arabian history and claims of an Arabian 'golden age' in
> the distant past
> 5) Drop the traditional Arabian clothing restrictions and styles,
> especially for women, the traditional dislike of alcohol
> 6) Drop the Arabian concepts of God as an imageless 'force' and allow
> portrayal of religious icons, as in the western tradition
> 7) Drop the traditional Arabian architectural style for mosques,
> especially the tower for the call for prayer - in fact, drop the
> notion that mosques should be built in prominent places
> 8) Translate the Quran into a comprehensible English style with as few
> references to Arabian places, people and concepts as possible
> 9) In the interests of pluralism and ecumenicalism, drop the idea that
> the Quran represents the 'final' word of God, and the middle eastern
> concept of 'prophet', so that Islam is no longer perceived as a
> religion 'superior' to any other
> ....all of which probably means:
> 10) Drop the Quran
>
> Which doesn't get us very far in our attempts to universalise Islam,
> does it?
>
> The trick is not to take the Quran by its own estimation, free your
> mind and read it for what it *really* is. Then all becomes clear.
>
>
>>You're being judgmental.
>
>
> I'm making a judgement, yes. So are you.
>
>
>>Know what you're
>>talking about before you try answering questions you have no clue of.
>
>
> 'Of which I have no clue'. Don't end sentences with prepositions.
>
> I know what I'm talking about as far as I know what I'm talking about
> - more than some, less than others. I don't take the Quran to be
> literal truth, which is the *only* rational position to take (on the
> grounds that there is no proof whatsoever, nor evidence of any kind,
> that the Quran is literal truth). Any other position is untennable for
> rational debate - if you are to argue from the subjective position of
> accepting one text at its own estimation what is to stop me taking the
> subjective position of accepting a contrdictory text at its own
> estimation?
>
> If you take the Quran to be literally true, what is to stop me taking
> the Christian text to be literally true, in which case I must take you
> to be a blasphemer and, by ancient Christian tradition, burn you at
> the stake. What hope then for debate? You *must* take an objective
> position, and refuse to take the Quran to be literally true - if only
> for the sake of argument - or else all debate ceases. You must be able
> to see this.
>
>
>>No
>>where has it been mentioned in the Quran about "Arabs", mind you, and no
>>where does Islam as you to be loyal to "Arabs" or their stories.
>
>
> That is part of the problem. If Islam didn't claim to be a universal
> religion - if it wasn't prosyletised, if Muslims didn't dream of an
> Islamic empire (some Muslims anyway), the middle east probably
> wouldn't be in the mess it's in today and we wouldn't be constantly
> guarding against Islamist terrorism.
>
> It doesn't matter what the Quran *claims* - any book can claim
> anything it wants - it matters what the *context* for its writing was,
> who Muhammed was, what theArabs believed at the time, what their
> social and political situation was, what pressures they were under,
> what standing other reluigions had in their community, and so on. THIS
> is what matters.
>
>>>who wrote a book
>>
>>If you're so truthful, write a book which is an equal of that which you
>>claim is not from God Himself.
>
>
> I claim every single book ever written is not from God, on the grounds
> that nobody has ever proved that god ever wrote a book, and I depend
> on proof of something before I believe in it (because I am a rational
> being, not a superstitious fatalist).
>
> I have no idea how the Quran reads in Arabic - it is said to be a work
> of great beauty and passion - but I have read a great deal of it in
> English and I am in the most part unimpressed. It is certainly full of
> passion and commitment, and is clever in its methods of persuasion if
> not particularly intelligent in terms of its original thought. It's a
> book of sermons, and it bashes you over the head, again and again,
> with the force of its author's belief. If you happen to have a
> predeliction for unquestioning belief, and if you are the sort of
> person who is impressed by the force of another's belief and
> simplistic argument to justify them - and above all, if you feel the
> need for a sense of belonging to a religious tribe - then you will be
> impressed by the Quran.
>
> If you want to read the about human nature and the meaning and
> consequences of free choice (which some believe is God's greatest gift
> to the human race) you will find more truth about the complex nature
> of man in a single play by Shakespeare, or any book by Goethe,
> Dostyovsky or even Dickens, than you will in the Quran.
>
> Could I write the Quran? Given enough time I could probably invent a
> couple of suras in the Koranic style which might fool the uninitiated.
> But - and I don't want to hurt your feelings here - I wouldn't
> consider imitating the Quran as a genuine test of writerly skill. But
> of course, as I said, I ahven't read it in the language in which it
> should be read.
>
>
>>Again... if you haven't read the Quran,
>>don't judge it!
>
>
> Why? I mean, I've read about two-thirds of it I suppose, and I'll
> probably finish reading it one day - but even if I hadn't read a
> single word, why shouldn't I judge it? You don't have to agree with a
> single thing I say, if you don't want to.
>
>
>>If you haven't read the Quran (which I can safely assume
>>you haven't reading your lovely ignorant comments), allow me to
>>enlighten you: most of what "science" (mind you, science is man-made,
>>man-found, man-discovered, man-weaved, man-built and is no grounds for a
>>comparison to anything) has "discovered" today has already been
>>described and mentioned in the Quran..
>
>
> Crap. There isn't a single modern scientific sentence in the Quran. It
> isn't a science manual, it uses what passed for science 1,500 years
> ago to persuade people to convert. The science itself is meaningless -
> Muhammed believed in Ptolemaic astronomy (he thought the sun orbitted
> the earth). Nobody in their right mind would look in any holy book for
> science.
>
>
>>and book you say an arab wrote (a
>>person who's lived all his life in a desert.. a person who didn't know
>>how to read, a person who didn't know anytihng other than what he had
>>seen himself).
>
>
> That's crap too. Muhammed was the wealthy nephew of a rich trader, who
> married money more than once. With his wealth there is no possibility
> that he didn't get an education, even if it wasn't the usual kind for
> his age.
>
> This idea that Muhammed wasn't educated probably depends on a
> mistranslation - that, asked to read what had been told to him
> (allegedly by the 'Angel Gabriel') he supposedly said 'I cannot read'.
> More likely, he would have said, 'I cannot recite,' meaning he had
> nothing to recite because he hadn't been told anything - a far liklier
> explanation than the myth of ignorance.
>
> Those who have always had a vested political interest in the spread of
> Islam also have a vested interest in maintaining the belief that
> Muhammed was uneducated, because they think it backs up their claims
> of 'holy revelation'. Don't believe it. It's far too unlikely.
>
>
>>No one but the Creator Himself can know about His
>>Creation. Take some time out, read the Quran and *then* talk.
>
>
> I have, and I've read the Bible (have you?). There is no 'Creator'
> other than that which you imagine, that exists inside your head. You
> have been strung a line, and so has your father, and his father, and
> his father, back and back for hundreds of years. You are mesmerised by
> myth and an emotional attachment to a tribal faith. Sooner or later
> you must break free.
>
>>
>>>in the Arabic language, full of references to Arabic legends and stories,
>>
>>No.. then again, you haven't read the Quran.
>
>
> Repeat it as much as you like, it's starting to look like you need to
> convince yourself. Yes it is possible for someone to read the Quran
> and understand it for what it is - a deliberate attempt to play on
> your emotions, as an Arab, a Muslim and a believer in a faceless god
> who interferes in your life.
>
> You can too, and you can be free, if you only try.
>
> [snip]
>
>
>>Which planet have you come from? Which book have you been reading? The
>>tales of Arabia? The Arabian nights? Ali baba and the 40 theives? The
>>thief of Baghdad?
>
>
> All those things are from the Arabian Nights, and yes I have read them
> - and it is a true example of great Arabian literature (even if it
> originated in India).
>
>
>>What are you talking about? There is *NO* such
>>intention or mentioning of any state, empire, house, bulding, hut,
>>lobby, lounge.... it describes a way of living, a way which is only
>>devoted to God Himself (no nothing about making an empire! If the
>>prophet wrote the book and intended that, surely he would have filled it
>>with his praises and worldy things and objects and objectives and laws).
>
>
> He did fill it with laws. Can you drink alcohol? I can. You can't.
> Why? Because your religion has imposed a law on you preventing you
> from doing so.
>
> Would you like to see a ban on alcohol throughout, say, Britain? If
> so, you want your law imposed on an entire nation - just as British
> laws were onced imposed on all India.
>
> This is empire. The 'worldly things' needn't be described.
>
> I'm not trying to insult you, I'm telling you what I see. I don't
> object to you living by any religious law you like as long as you
> don't attempt ever to make your personal religious laws the political
> law of any land, or imposed on any other person. That is the unspoken
> contract between us.
>
> At the very least - even if you are incapable of perceiving things
> from my p.o.v. - you should acknowledge my point of view exists, as I
> acknowledge yours.
>
> [snip]
>
>>No, it's not an indian religion. Please know your facts before you post
>>something next time. Hinduism is about idolatory, a religion very old.
>>It has nothing to do with India - it was the religion of most men in the
>>early age when people forgot God, the One, the AlMighty. Hinduism has
>>traces from all over the world, and most parts of the middle east before
>>Judism, Christianity of Islam came.
>
>
> You are confusing Hinduism, which is a religion specific to India and
> the Indian diaspora, with the general phenomeon of pantheism, which is
> or was common to all cultures.
>
> The very fact that you can't see that - that you perceive Islam as
> religion and Hinduism as non-religion - indicates to me that you
> cannot imagine a pluralist society - a pluralist society in which
> Hinduism is as respected as Islam, as the 'true' subjective faith of a
> specific community, of equal worth, equal meaning, equal profundity,
> as Islam, Christianity, or any other major religion. If you believe
> Islam is the only 'true' religion you cannot be trusted to help build
> pluralist democracy - and if you won't respect another person's
> religion why should anyone else respect yours?
>
>>
>>you know, it's easy saying all that crap about people who you don;t
>>know, who you see on telivision burning, killing themselves and thinking
>>"ahh a bunch of madmen". Have you never stopped for a moment and
>>wondered WHAT made them do that?
>
>
> Stopped for a moment? Are you kidding? I'm constantly asking people on
> these NGs to explain it in terms I can understand - what the hell can
> make someone so desperately unhappy? I just don't get it at all. But
> nobody seems to be able to do it for me.
>
>
>>You believe in human rights, dont you?
>
>
> Yyyyyes.
>
>
>>You believe that children in schools should be "understood" and not
>>judged or treated alike as every child has his/her own ability to
>>learn/grasp concepts.
>
>
> Um ... depends. Go on...
>
>
>>You believe in all of that and yet you overlook at
>>those that give their life for something you don't try to understand.
>
>
> Well, I don't know if I do believe it because I don't understand it. i
> think children at school should be taught properly, do as they're told
> and stop fighting in the playground. I fail to see what this has to do
> with someone setting light to himself in London.
>
>
>>What.. WHAT made them do that? what was SO bad in their life, that they
>>decided to kill themselves? What? Nothing but brutality!
>
>
> What brutality? These people are fairly well off middle class British
> Iranians living on one of the most expensive and well heeled towns -
> South Kensington, London - in the entire world (and good luck to them;
> South Ken has been improved since the Iranians arrived). I doubt any
> one of them has been treated with sustained brutality in his or her
> entitre life.
>
>
>>If your mother,
>
> [snip rant]
>
> er ... I think you should read a newspaper. The ostensible 'reason'
> these Iranians set fire to themselves is that they are supporters of a
> Marxist-Islamist political grouping opposed to the regime in Iran and
> linked to a terrorist group which has been banned throughout the
> world. That political group was recently banned too, in France, and so
> their compadres in London are setting light to themselves. It has
> nothing to do with Iraq, and nothing to do with nuclear bombs.
>
> My point is, the 'beliefs' of this Marxist-Islamist poluitical group
> are mad, crazy, lunatic, silly, impossible, anti-social, and many
> other things. Marxism doesn't work, and Islamism doesn't work. They
> would be much better off getting a hobby.
>
> The idea that a belief can lead you to self-sacrifice is a nobel one;
> the idea that a stupid, unworkable and dangerous belief can lead you
> to self-sacrifice is asburd.
>
> [snip]
>
>>No, that's what you guys do.
>
>
> You guys? What does that mean ... white people? Black people?
> Non-Arabs? Kaffirs? Jews? Do tell.
>
>
>>Drugs, alcohol, beer.
>
>
> Beer is alcohol. I like a drink, yes - you should try it some time.
> Might help you relax. I shouldn't try and make cultural comparisons of
> creativity if I were you - when the Muslim Louvre or Prado is built
> and filled, the Islamic Beethoven and Bach and Beatles, and the the
> Koranic Shakespeare, Tolstoy, Darwin, Freud and Jeffersonian
> Constitution have all been created - then we'll talk about creativity.
>
> You cannot create without dissent from the commonplace; you cannot
> dissent if you have literal belief in a holy text, and if all forms of
> human creativity take place through its prism, and if all the fruits
> of creativity are found to be its inferior even before conception.
> Literal belief in 'revealed' text - and not just Islamic 'revealed'
> text - *kills* creativity.
>
>
>>Let's talk about women. [snip]
>
>
> No, let's not. Not until you've got something to say about them.
>
>
>>And yet you're all blind.
>
>
> Because 'we' - us Kaffirs - don't force women to cover their faces,
> their bodies, their sexualities, their personalities, for fear of
> inflaming our all-so uncontrollable lusts? Is that what you're trying
> to say?
>
> Some women like to have multiple boyfriends - so do some men. Some men
> like to have multiple girlfriends - so do some women. We have choice,
> we have self-responsibility. We have free will.
>
> And by 'we' I mean we - I mean you and me and everyone, if we are
> courageous enough to take it.
>
>>>Uh-huh. People in the middle east are among the most hospitable in the
>>>world (as long as you happen to be male) but I don't think religion
>>>has anything to do with it.
>>
>>It has everything to do with it.
>
>
> Based on ... what? Most people I've met from the ME are no more
> religious than I am, and are generally - and it is a generalisation -
> hospitable. it is a cultural trait. It probably existed before Islam
> was invented and will more than likely exist when Islam has faded
> away.
>
>>
>>>>9. By performing pilgrimage to Makkah, you will transcend yourself
>>>
>>>>from being nationalistic, sectarian, or denominational into being
>>
>
>>>.... Arabic.
>>
>>No, for God.
>
>
> No, Arabic.
>
>>
>>>....but you may be expected to kill Jews. And Hindus. Oh, and
>>>Christians.
>>
>>Really? Who told you this?
>
>
> Abu Alwafa, who, if you'd read what I said properly you'd realise was
> the target of everything I said. In his version of Islam all
> non-Muslims are kaffirs, less than human. You may be, or may think you
> are, a friendlier kind of chap. Good for you, although your talk of
> 'you people', with our rapes and drunken violence, tends to indicate
> otherwise.
>
>
>> I can name a million and one such people from the west that were
>>known to be serial killers, mad men, crazy people who did it for nothing
>>but a thist for kill.
>
>
> Really? One million eh? I bet you couldn't reach a thousand.
>
> I have no racial claims to make. Whitey is no less violent than yer
> average African, Indian, Arab or Chinese person, or anyone else. Every
> culture in the world has produced men of peace and men of violence,
> perhaps to different degrees, but not so it would prove anyone's
> racial theory. There is no difference between human nature anywhere.
>
>
>>No where have I read, heard or seen such a thing
>>in the Quran or from a muslim or from a scholar of Islam
>
>
> If you've read the Quran you have read of the most terrible tortures
> and violence to be meted out to Jews and Christians - the Quran is
> full of hatred of non-Muslims - as well as tolerance toward them, when
> it took Muhammed's fancy. And the Muslim community is as capable of
> violence as any other - as the people of Indonesia, USA, Australia,
> Phillipines, Israel, Tunisia, Kashmir, Afghanistan, Sudan, Kenya,
> Nigeria, Somalia, Yemen, Saudi, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Kurdistan, Lebanon,
> Egypt, Algeria, Mauritania, Britain, France, Belgium etc. would
> testify.
>
> I don't think the violent nature of humankind is at issue here, it is
> the political or religious justification granted it that we should
> worry about.
>
>>>Oh, and homosexuals.
>>
>>No one has to kill them, what'll be the fun in that? They're amusing
>>creatures who we all find very entertaining (be it a muslim or no muslim).
>
>
> How 'enlightened' of you.
>
>>Read my comment on your "sex" related thoughts above. I admire the way
>>YOU respect YOUR women.
>
>
> I can't imagien what you think I think about 'my' women, but I know I
> don't want to know. It's enough to know you can generalise about the
> majority of he human race; I know where you're coming from.
>
> [snip more rants about sex]
>
> As I suspected, the largest part of religious fundamentalism is sexual
> frustration. If you only *tried* to meet a nice girl, have a nice
> non-committal affair for a few years, then another, and another,
> without trying to force them to conform to your parochial and outdated
> prejudices about a woman's 'place' in the scheme of things, you would
> learn to respect women and women's choices about their lives (not to
> mention men and men's choices about theirs'). You'd probably learn a
> good deal about people, and life - and you'd learn how to enjoy
> yourself, and how to relax, and who knows, maybe how to enjoy a drink
> down the pub with a few friends after work without imagining you'll go
> to hell or that you've 'betrayed' your upbringing, or some such
> rubbish. You might even be able to stop yourself seeing the entire
> universe through the wrong end of your Koranic telescope.
>
> You'd begin to be a social being, like the rest of us. It isn't *much*
> to ask is it?
>
> If you tried I promise you, you'd never once consider setting yourself
> alight over someone else's numbskull ideology.
>
>>>No argument there - no sex, no risk of sexual diseases. Or fun. Or
>>>life at all. No wonder there are so many suicides.
>>
> ....among Muslims, I mean. After I posted the original, another one set
> himself alight in South Ken. On such a lovely evening too. What a
> waste...
In article <eb35fbed.0306231258.1d45a73f@no-spam>,
theovermind@no-spam (jackkincaid) wrote:
> If Islam wants to be regarded as a universal religion it must:
> 1) Drop all the Arabic names
> 2) Drop the Arabic customs, including the anti-clockwise walkking and
> kissing of the Black Stone and Kaba
> 3) Drop the pilgrimage to Mecca, which is an Arabian city, and drop
> the demand that those at prayer should face Mecca
> 4) Drop the Arabian history and claims of an Arabian 'golden age' in
> the distant past
> 5) Drop the traditional Arabian clothing restrictions and styles,
> especially for women, the traditional dislike of alcohol
> 6) Drop the Arabian concepts of God as an imageless 'force' and allow
> portrayal of religious icons, as in the western tradition
> 7) Drop the traditional Arabian architectural style for mosques,
> especially the tower for the call for prayer - in fact, drop the
> notion that mosques should be built in prominent places
> 8) Translate the Quran into a comprehensible English style with as few
> references to Arabian places, people and concepts as possible
> 9) In the interests of pluralism and ecumenicalism, drop the idea that
> the Quran represents the 'final' word of God, and the middle eastern
> concept of 'prophet', so that Islam is no longer perceived as a
> religion 'superior' to any other
> ...all of which probably means:
> 10) Drop the Quran
Oh this is a classic! WTG Jack!
In article <3EF7A491.3000005@no-spam>,
Andre <food_crazy@no-spam> wrote:
> You didn't make sense Jack. You've only come up with your "own" religion
> with your "own" set of "dos and donts". All the "drops" that you
> mentioned are not there in Islam except for the last "drop" you made on
> Quran being God's final words. It is and it will remain to be final,
> unless you really HAVE been whispered in by God Himself?
>
> Yes, human beings aren't capable of having a choice whether God can
> whisper into their ears or not - just the point I was trying to make.
> It's "God's will"
Jack took the time to give both an excellent and polite response to you.
Oh he made sense all right--- so much sense that, after a few degrading
remarks, you could only turn tail and run away like a weasel with a
purloined chicken. All you could muster was a few lines of rude,
incendiary drivel and some pseudo-pious nattering from which we can
safely infer your inability to fashion even a modicum of a cogent
response.
> jackkincaid wrote:
> > Andre <food_crazy@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:<3EF65EFC.8020706@no-spam>...
> >
> >>>But you will not be able to prove 'He' exists (let alone whether 'He'
> >>>is a 'he' or a 'she' or an 'it').
> >>
> >>You don't pay much attention do you. As he said, "benifits of becoming a
> >>Muslim". When you're a muslim, after of course knowing everything a
> >>muslims has to know and believe, you'll definitely be able to *prove*
> >>(oh my God, YES, did he say prove? Yes!!) HE exists.
> >
> >
> > Nobody can prove God exists. Muslims can't, Christians can't,
> > everybody can't.
> >
> >
> >>He didn't say
> >>"after you've decided to mock at a muslim and his beliefs".
> >
> >
> > You don't mock *at* you just mock......... <snip for brevity>
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 15:18:56 +1000
Excuse me? Run? Me? You're insane.
Phaedrine Stonebridge wrote:
> In article <3EF7A491.3000005@no-spam>,
> Andre <food_crazy@no-spam> wrote:
>
>
>>You didn't make sense Jack. You've only come up with your "own" religion
>>with your "own" set of "dos and donts". All the "drops" that you
>>mentioned are not there in Islam except for the last "drop" you made on
>>Quran being God's final words. It is and it will remain to be final,
>>unless you really HAVE been whispered in by God Himself?
>>
>>Yes, human beings aren't capable of having a choice whether God can
>>whisper into their ears or not - just the point I was trying to make.
>>It's "God's will"
>
>
>
> Jack took the time to give both an excellent and polite response to you.
> Oh he made sense all right--- so much sense that, after a few degrading
> remarks, you could only turn tail and run away like a weasel with a
> purloined chicken. All you could muster was a few lines of rude,
> incendiary drivel and some pseudo-pious nattering from which we can
> safely infer your inability to fashion even a modicum of a cogent
> response.
>
>
>
>
>>jackkincaid wrote:
>>
>>>Andre <food_crazy@no-spam> wrote in message
>>>news:<3EF65EFC.8020706@no-spam>...
>>>
>>>
>>>>>But you will not be able to prove 'He' exists (let alone whether 'He'
>>>>>is a 'he' or a 'she' or an 'it').
>>>>
>>>>You don't pay much attention do you. As he said, "benifits of becoming a
>>>>Muslim". When you're a muslim, after of course knowing everything a
>>>>muslims has to know and believe, you'll definitely be able to *prove*
>>>>(oh my God, YES, did he say prove? Yes!!) HE exists.
>>>
>>>
>>>Nobody can prove God exists. Muslims can't, Christians can't,
>>>everybody can't.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>He didn't say
>>>>"after you've decided to mock at a muslim and his beliefs".
>>>
>>>
>>>You don't mock *at* you just mock......... <snip for brevity>
>>
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 15:25:24 +1000
Also, read my post that answers jack's concerns about Islam. I guess you
were too busy taking sides when you didn't notice I've already replied
back with detail. If you've been paying attention, then you probably
witnessed how jack *hasn't* replied to my previous questions or hasn't
given me his point of view on things I had to say on his lovely assumptions.
-Andre
Andre wrote:
> Excuse me? Run? Me? You're insane.
>
> Phaedrine Stonebridge wrote:
>
>> In article <3EF7A491.3000005@no-spam>,
>> Andre <food_crazy@no-spam> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> You didn't make sense Jack. You've only come up with your "own"
>>> religion with your "own" set of "dos and donts". All the "drops" that
>>> you mentioned are not there in Islam except for the last "drop" you
>>> made on Quran being God's final words. It is and it will remain to be
>>> final, unless you really HAVE been whispered in by God Himself?
>>>
>>> Yes, human beings aren't capable of having a choice whether God can
>>> whisper into their ears or not - just the point I was trying to make.
>>> It's "God's will"
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Jack took the time to give both an excellent and polite response to
>> you. Oh he made sense all right--- so much sense that, after a few
>> degrading remarks, you could only turn tail and run away like a weasel
>> with a purloined chicken. All you could muster was a few lines of
>> rude, incendiary drivel and some pseudo-pious nattering from which we
>> can safely infer your inability to fashion even a modicum of a cogent
>> response.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> jackkincaid wrote:
>>>
>>>> Andre <food_crazy@no-spam> wrote in message
>>>> news:<3EF65EFC.8020706@no-spam>...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> But you will not be able to prove 'He' exists (let alone whether 'He'
>>>>>> is a 'he' or a 'she' or an 'it').
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You don't pay much attention do you. As he said, "benifits of
>>>>> becoming a Muslim". When you're a muslim, after of course knowing
>>>>> everything a muslims has to know and believe, you'll definitely be
>>>>> able to *prove* (oh my God, YES, did he say prove? Yes!!) HE exists.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Nobody can prove God exists. Muslims can't, Christians can't,
>>>> everybody can't.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> He didn't say "after you've decided to mock at a muslim and his
>>>>> beliefs".
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You don't mock *at* you just mock......... <snip for brevity>
>>>
>>>
>
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 15:30:16 +1000
And to name some cowards:
Mike Cray
Jack
These are the only ones I've met so far and I'm sure I'll be meeting
lots very soon.
Mike ran away when he couldn't answer back. Jack didn't reply to
anything and had no reason or logic OR proof but came up with his OWN
set of beliefs and religion. what you talk of islam is not islam but
your own fabrications. You should learn to be to the point with solid
material and proofs or be gone.
-Andre
Andre wrote:
> Excuse me? Run? Me? You're insane.
>
> Phaedrine Stonebridge wrote:
>
>> In article <3EF7A491.3000005@no-spam>,
>> Andre <food_crazy@no-spam> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> You didn't make sense Jack. You've only come up with your "own"
>>> religion with your "own" set of "dos and donts". All the "drops" that
>>> you mentioned are not there in Islam except for the last "drop" you
>>> made on Quran being God's final words. It is and it will remain to be
>>> final, unless you really HAVE been whispered in by God Himself?
>>>
>>> Yes, human beings aren't capable of having a choice whether God can
>>> whisper into their ears or not - just the point I was trying to make.
>>> It's "God's will"
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Jack took the time to give both an excellent and polite response to
>> you. Oh he made sense all right--- so much sense that, after a few
>> degrading remarks, you could only turn tail and run away like a weasel
>> with a purloined chicken. All you could muster was a few lines of
>> rude, incendiary drivel and some pseudo-pious nattering from which we
>> can safely infer your inability to fashion even a modicum of a cogent
>> response.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> jackkincaid wrote:
>>>
>>>> Andre <food_crazy@no-spam> wrote in message
>>>> news:<3EF65EFC.8020706@no-spam>...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> But you will not be able to prove 'He' exists (let alone whether 'He'
>>>>>> is a 'he' or a 'she' or an 'it').
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You don't pay much attention do you. As he said, "benifits of
>>>>> becoming a Muslim". When you're a muslim, after of course knowing
>>>>> everything a muslims has to know and believe, you'll definitely be
>>>>> able to *prove* (oh my God, YES, did he say prove? Yes!!) HE exists.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Nobody can prove God exists. Muslims can't, Christians can't,
>>>> everybody can't.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> He didn't say "after you've decided to mock at a muslim and his
>>>>> beliefs".
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You don't mock *at* you just mock......... <snip for brevity>
>>>
>>>
>
Andre wrote:
> Excuse me? Run? Me? You're insane.
You obviously ran. Evening before last, you got all huffy because I
short-answered you on a one sentence question you asked regarding if I
really KNEW that what I had knowledge of was God rather than some
"unseen force", I think you put it.
So, you tossed out about a 25 word question, I shot you a single word
answer which did, in fact, ANSWER the question (albeit without
elaboration), and you got bent because I didn't elaborate with an answer
that you could throw some of your prewritten antiChristian cliches at.
Now, Jack goes to the trouble of writing a damn TOME of perhaps a
thousand words of sensible and rational responses which DID, IF FACT
(although I notice you deny this in a follwup post) address your
responses, and you gladhand him with a 20 word cliched answer ("You made
up your own religon, Jack" -- like we haven't heard THAT one before)
that DIDN"T answer any question posed, or formulate any meaninful response.
Game, match, point to Jack.
BTW, you did exactly the same thing to Denis Giron, who posted a well
researched (and rather long) critical analysis of the extant Koranic
texts. Instead of answering his scholarly positions, you gave him the
"party line" of "HEY, UH, WE STILL GOT THE ORIGINAL KORAN."
Very intellectual response. Game, match, point to Denis.
Now, let's address all your other little whinings, you annoying little
toad. You wrote:
>>>>>>>>Also, read my post that answers jack's concerns about Islam. I
guess you were too busy taking sides when you didn't notice I've already
replied back with detail. If you've been paying attention, then you
probably witnessed how jack *hasn't* replied to my previous questions or
hasn't given me his point of view on things I had to say on his lovely
assumptions.<<<<<<<<<<<
Jack replied to you quite well by undermining your entire position.
Unless you can first prove the existence of a Supreme Being, nothing
else matters. (As an aside, he then detailed elements leading to the
conclusion of Islam being a tribal, rather than universal, religion, a
discussion which you now have dodged twice, both when I raised it, now
with Jack.)
To continue:
> And to name some cowards:
> Mike Cray
(I had written you a nasty paragraph about respect regading this
misspelling, but I notice that you corrected yourself and apologized.
Nice. Perhaps there's hope for you yet.)
> Jack
>These are the only ones I've met so far and I'm sure I'll be meeting
>lots very soon.
I'm sure you will, since you define "coward" as somebody who won't waste
their valuable time responding to your irrevancies.
>Mike ran away when he couldn't answer back. Jack didn't reply to
>anything and had no reason or logic OR proof but came up with his OWN
>set of beliefs and religion. what you talk of islam is not islam but
>your own fabrications.
For the record, Mike voiced his opinion, and then decided he didn;t have
time to waste with you. I work for living, it's the end of the fiscal
quarter, and I don't even have time to be writing this flame, for God's
sake, as I am still tasked with dragging another million dollars through
my company's door between now and next Monday.
Specifically, you want to engage on certain topics on which you are
obviously very comfortable, those apparently being the "scientific"
allusions in the Koran which are supposed to have been beyond the
abilities of the Arabian primitives to have written, thus proving
(allegedly) that the Koran came from God. I am simply not going to spend
valuable time engaging in tit for tat on this subject. The refutations
to "Koranic science" (talk about an oxymoron) can be found in any number
of apologetic websites, and it makes little difference to the debate you
want to have whether I work the reasoning myself (as I have, WRT the
Keith Moore - Saudi funded bullshit) and post it, or I go over to
www.answering-islam.org and cut and paste my post. Especially when, from
my perspective, the issue is completely irrelevant to whether or not the
Koran is from God or is actually just a comic book waiting for
illustrations.
> You should learn to be to the point with solid material and proofs or
> be gone.
YOU should review netiquette. AGAIN. I assume you did this after the
last time I flamed you WRT snipping relevant passages, because after you
first told me that you'd snip my postings any damn way you pleased, you
apologized and said you wouldn't do it any more. Now, go READ the
principles of netiquette again, with especial attention to the part
where it says when you subscribe to a new newsgroup, you ought to read
it for a while before posting, so you understand how the group dynamic
works.
But, since you didn't do that, let me explain. This group is mostly
populated by nonMuslims who are inordinately pissed off at Muslims
because of 911 and all the other crap you're causing throughout the
world. Then, you have a few Muslims, such as IMANFORALL, who do a pretty
good job of tempering the discussion, taking a more moderate view of
ther religion and attempting a balanced political position between the
concerned parties. We also have a few social liberals who carry some
anti-American angst, and we have recently witnessed a small influx of
Muslim terror supporters and apologists.
We also have an eloquent, well educated ex-Muslim here that, if and when
you two engage, I would buy tickets to observe.
Now, other than the immediate above poster, do you see any positions in
that group that lead you to think that we talk about religion here (much)?
Regardless, some folks have time (and the interest) to engage in
detailed tit-for-tat with you. Some of us don't. Some of us will, on
occassion, raise an opinion, and if you want to get into tit for tat,
cite sources, quote sources, etc.,etc., etc., we will refer you to a
website where you can do your own research. That is a legitimate answer
around here: a lot of posts simply contain links to additioanl
information which bolster the posters point.
So, WRT to your interest in Koranic science, and your position that
Koranic science proves the source of the Koran is from God, my position
(WHICH I STATE WITHOUT COMPUNCTION) is as follows:
1) I believe it to be bullshit
2) I say this having researched certain elements of the argument
3) Since I am educated as a scientist, I am qualified to judge in some
of these contested areas.
4) If you want to know specifics as to why I have said 1-3, please see
the appropriate sections of answering-islam.org.
That's a perfectly acceptable response, dammit. I am not going to be
your research monkey. I'll cite references when I can recall them, but
other than that, take things as they are offered. This is entirely
reasonable, it just doesn't give YOU the pleasure of getting into a
pissing contest. Damned if I'll waste my time on you. Already spent too
much.
Mike
>
> Phaedrine Stonebridge wrote:
>
>> In article <3EF7A491.3000005@no-spam>,
>> Andre <food_crazy@no-spam> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> You didn't make sense Jack. You've only come up with your "own"
>>> religion with your "own" set of "dos and donts". All the "drops" that
>>> you mentioned are not there in Islam except for the last "drop" you
>>> made on Quran being God's final words. It is and it will remain to be
>>> final, unless you really HAVE been whispered in by God Himself?
>>>
>>> Yes, human beings aren't capable of having a choice whether God can
>>> whisper into their ears or not - just the point I was trying to make.
>>> It's "God's will"
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Jack took the time to give both an excellent and polite response to
>> you. Oh he made sense all right--- so much sense that, after a few
>> degrading remarks, you could only turn tail and run away like a weasel
>> with a purloined chicken. All you could muster was a few lines of
>> rude, incendiary drivel and some pseudo-pious nattering from which we
>> can safely infer your inability to fashion even a modicum of a cogent
>> response.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> jackkincaid wrote:
>>>
>>>> Andre <food_crazy@no-spam> wrote in message
>>>> news:<3EF65EFC.8020706@no-spam>...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> But you will not be able to prove 'He' exists (let alone whether 'He'
>>>>>> is a 'he' or a 'she' or an 'it').
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You don't pay much attention do you. As he said, "benifits of
>>>>> becoming a Muslim". When you're a muslim, after of course knowing
>>>>> everything a muslims has to know and believe, you'll definitely be
>>>>> able to *prove* (oh my God, YES, did he say prove? Yes!!) HE exists.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Nobody can prove God exists. Muslims can't, Christians can't,
>>>> everybody can't.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> He didn't say "after you've decided to mock at a muslim and his
>>>>> beliefs".
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You don't mock *at* you just mock......... <snip for brevity>
>>>
>>>
>