Hi.

Previous page 1 2 3 45 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
- Kenan
- Cultist
- Pub Regular
- Hwee cap-toored eet fohr kay-ohss !!!
- offline
Re: Hi.
Reply #90 - November 29, 2009, 11:21 PM

Quote from: doubtfool on November 29, 2009, 11:06 PM
muslims also believe
Muslims and christians (as you point out) believe that to..

Do they? I thought that belief in God is central to the theists? In my experience most believe the complete opposite. Do good for the sake of God.
The atheist stance is: to be truly moral one must ignore God.

Quote from: doubtfool on November 29, 2009, 11:06 PM
But as an atheist how do you know what is good?

I use reason and logic. And a few rules that reason and logic provide. Like The Golden Rule which is an ethical code that states that one has a right to just treatment, and a responsibility to ensure justice for others.
Or the Platinum Rule: treat others the way they want to be treated.

The main point is that there are no moral absolutes because moral absolutes are potentially evil.
- Kenan
- Cultist
- Pub Regular
- Hwee cap-toored eet fohr kay-ohss !!!
- offline
Re: Hi.
Reply #91 - November 29, 2009, 11:22 PM

Quote from: kodoque on November 29, 2009, 11:14 PM
Nay, I was more into supcom.

Shame, I don't play supcom.
- Stardust
- Founder of Neo-Hippiism
- Ex-Muslim
- Beneath The Veil
- offline
Re: Hi.
Reply #92 - November 29, 2009, 11:22 PM

Quote from: kodoque on November 29, 2009, 10:34 PM
uh sorry, theoritical or experimental, where do you study? (feel free to not repsond , of course :-D).

Experimental and theoretical, it's not applied physics if thats what you mean. Just plain physics. Id rather not say where I study.
Do you study anything?

"Between stimulus and response there is a space. In that space is our power to choose our response. In our response lies our growth and our freedom." - Viktor E. Frankl

'Life is just the extreme expression of complex chemistry' - Neil deGrasse Tyson
- kodoque
- Member
- offline
Re: Hi.
Reply #93 - November 29, 2009, 11:27 PM

Computer Science.
- Stardust
- Founder of Neo-Hippiism
- Ex-Muslim
- Beneath The Veil
- offline
Re: Hi.
Reply #94 - November 29, 2009, 11:35 PM

So, since this is your thread, care to share more about yourself? likes/dislikes etc? are you studying in the uk? I guess you don't live in th uk since English isn't your native language?

"Between stimulus and response there is a space. In that space is our power to choose our response. In our response lies our growth and our freedom." - Viktor E. Frankl

'Life is just the extreme expression of complex chemistry' - Neil deGrasse Tyson
- Kenan
- Cultist
- Pub Regular
- Hwee cap-toored eet fohr kay-ohss !!!
- offline
Re: Hi.
Reply #95 - November 29, 2009, 11:39 PM

Quote from: kodoque on November 29, 2009, 11:27 PM
Computer Science.

In UK?
(I'm in the final year btw.)
- kodoque
- Member
- offline
Re: Hi.
Reply #96 - November 29, 2009, 11:50 PM

Like:
Islam(obviously)
Books and cultural product in general (Yes, including video games)
Computer
Ping-Pong
Little logic trick, stuff like the Zeno proof, designing very theoretical (read scientifically laughable) machine to produce (incidentally) absurd proposition, etc...

Dislike:

the list is just too long.

Biggest defaults:

Epic lazyness, I don't even know how I was able to reach third year at my University...
Annoying Quirkyness from times to time. Obsessive-Compulsive behavior mainly.

Edit: Added some stuff.
- Baal
- Arab Slave Overlord
- Pub Regular
- offline
Re: Hi.
Reply #97 - November 30, 2009, 01:05 AM

Quote from: kodoque on November 29, 2009, 05:38 PM
Sir, I ask you proof, because the acharism from wich AG ideas came were violently persecuted by the dominating mutazilah, wich were putting reason at the forefront, and it was their biggest error (the persecution) considering how big the backlash was against not only them but the use of reason , wich AG actually defended to a certain mesure, a quote from him:

"The second drawback arises from the man who is loyal to Islam but ignorant. He thinks that religion must be defended by rejecting every science connected with the philosophers", and the philosophers then suppose that Islam must be based on ignorance. "A grievous crime indeed against religion has been committed by the man who imagines that Islam is defended by the denial of the mathematical sciences".

I think that our main point of disagreement here is that you seem to consider reason as something inherently good, where I consider it only as a tool.

That is not our disagreement. Regardless what we both think about reason, I happen to think both the mutazila and AG are backwards & useless. We can even argue which is more useless, on some other thread. Although I would rather watch paint dry. Because, they are both useless.

What I assert is, the islamic systems, results/ed in stagnation. The islamic experiment, which had been tried and tested again and again and again, fails.

You introduce the koran to a society, and the more the society applies the koran, the worst that society becomes.

"Ask the slave girl; she will tell you the truth.' So the Apostle called Burayra to ask her. Ali got up and gave her a violent beating first, saying, 'Tell the Apostle the truth.'"
- kodoque
- Member
- offline
Re: Hi.
Reply #98 - November 30, 2009, 11:55 AM

Interesting, could you show me why you consider the mutazilah and AG as "Backward & useless". And even before that could you tell me if you consider that only contribution were their Greek traduction?
- pakman
- Ex-Muslim
- Come into my Life
- offline
Re: Hi.
Reply #99 - November 30, 2009, 02:09 PM

Islam applied in its purest forms does contribute towards the stagnation of society and thought in general. Islam has only thrived when it has taken on some local flavour and dulited its harsh orginal doctrine.

Take the Pakman challenge and convince me there is a God and Mo was not a murdering, power hungry sex maniac.
- Baal
- Arab Slave Overlord
- Pub Regular
- offline
Re: Hi.
Reply #100 - December 01, 2009, 09:06 PM

Quote from: kodoque on November 30, 2009, 11:55 AM
Interesting, could you show me why you consider the mutazilah and AG as "Backward & useless". And even before that could you tell me if you consider that only contribution were their Greek traduction?

You keep comparing Ghazali vs Mutazila as if it matters. It does not matter. the fruits the tree produces(d) are bad. 1400yrs of trying and experimenting and the fruits keep coming bad. In the last 100yrs a lot of new countries were formed. All the countries that started with the Koran, lagged.

I am not talking whether this is the word of god or whether if it is divine. We are a bit beyond this conversaion, I am talking about what good is this book, to those who acquire it? Mind you the only proof the book offers is itself, if that book is not 'doing' it for us, then why? and then threatens hell? What is the algorithm being used here?

"Ask the slave girl; she will tell you the truth.' So the Apostle called Burayra to ask her. Ali got up and gave her a violent beating first, saying, 'Tell the Apostle the truth.'"
- kodoque
- Member
- offline
Re: Hi.
Reply #101 - December 01, 2009, 09:47 PM

Well, yes it matters. Because those (Muta and AG) are fruits produced by the Tree,and excuse my feeble mind sir, I will hardly take "They suck" as a thoughtful argument.

What does the Quran offer? Jannah (ie Heaven).
- Saif Rahman
- Ex-Muslim
- Je suis Haram
- offline
Re: Hi.
Reply #102 - December 01, 2009, 09:57 PM

Quote from: kodoque on December 01, 2009, 09:47 PM
What does the Quran offer? Jannah (ie Heaven).

but isnt that cancelled by hell?
In which case, lets ask the question again, what does the Quran offer? I have just come back from visiting a widow, who is not allowed to leave her house until January. She is imprisoned in her own house for 3 months, and this is after learning her lifelong partner died?

Needless to say the only decree on men when their wife dies is that he wait 3 days until he remarries.

My Book
My Blog
- kodoque
- Member
- offline
Re: Hi.
Reply #103 - December 01, 2009, 10:10 PM

"but isnt that cancelled by hell?"

I don't see why.

As for your history, it's emotionaly charged (sincere sympathy, may I add) and I'm not a specialist on fiqh, I have nothing interesting to say.
- allat
- Euphoria
- Administrator
- offline
Re: Hi.
Reply #104 - December 01, 2009, 10:15 PM

Quote from: kodoque on December 01, 2009, 09:47 PM
What does the Quran offer? Jannah (ie Heaven).

Quote from: IsLame on December 01, 2009, 09:57 PM
but isnt that cancelled by hell?

Quote from: kodoque on December 01, 2009, 10:10 PM
"but isnt that cancelled by hell?"
As for your history, it's emotionaly charged (sincere sympathy, may I add)...

So a desire for "heaven" is not emotionally charged, but a distaste for "hell" is?

"Blessed are they who can laugh at themselves, for they shall never cease to be amused."
- Kenan
- Cultist
- Pub Regular
- Hwee cap-toored eet fohr kay-ohss !!!
- offline
Re: Hi.
Reply #105 - December 01, 2009, 10:59 PM

Quote from: kodoque on December 01, 2009, 09:47 PM
What does the Quran offer? Jannah (ie Heaven).

Do you mean this literally? Jannah as reward as in Akhirah in Jannah?
- kodoque
- Member
- offline
Re: Hi.
Reply #106 - December 01, 2009, 11:07 PM

Yep. Pascal's Wager. Pragmatism.

Wihch makes me think I should add Pascal Pens?es to my reading list.
- Kenan
- Cultist
- Pub Regular
- Hwee cap-toored eet fohr kay-ohss !!!
- offline
Re: Hi.
Reply #107 - December 01, 2009, 11:12 PM

Quote from: kodoque on December 01, 2009, 11:07 PM
Yep. Pascal's Wager. Pragmatism.

Ok. Do you see any moral issues associated with such position?
- kodoque
- Member
- offline
Re: Hi.
Reply #108 - December 01, 2009, 11:55 PM

Well trough my islamic moral framework, no. This is is subject I would like to develop.

But first I have to read this:

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0908/0908.1803v1.pdf

And then get some rest, cya.
- Baal
- Arab Slave Overlord
- Pub Regular
- offline
Re: Hi.
Reply #109 - December 02, 2009, 12:02 AM

Quote from: kodoque on December 01, 2009, 09:47 PM
Well, yes it matters. Because those (Muta and AG) are fruits produced by the Tree,and excuse my feeble mind sir, I will hardly take "They suck" as a thoughtful argument.

All 4 Mzhabs of islam. All philosophies based on islam. Produced stagnant cultures. They produced the cultures 1400yrs ago, 100yrs ago, as well as today. Yet you are debating Mutazila & Ghazali. As if it matters.
Quote from: kodoque on December 01, 2009, 09:47 PM
What does the Quran offer? Jannah (ie Heaven).

Yes it does. It does offer Jannah. It offers the reward and punishment. It offers certain rules, and offer the framework on how to follow those rules. Unfortunately, the rules the koran imposed, did not work. If you want that religion because it maintains a decent, coherant stable society, for your kids and family. Then you are not leaving them a good framework.

As for Pascal's wager. Quite a cowardly wager. Being a comp sci myself, I would say this wager was my last obstacle that kept me a deist. I hope you will One day, see through that wager like I did. What's sad in my case, is that I came up with the wager, years before I knew Blaise Pascal came up with it, and that it is his wager.

You can accept the wager of course but I feel obliged to transfer to you my conclusion for that wager. The wager offers no excuse for my Catholic God. The wager might be satisfied by any other god. It can be satisfied by Baal, Akbar, Shaddad, Rahman, Zeus, Allat, Uzzat, Manat or any of the Thousands of baals that existed and exist. Then there are the Krishnas, the Zeus, the Thors. Worse. the wager can be satisfied, if the god himself, only wants people who will transcend religions. People who will finally become good humans without any consideration for heaven or hell.

In short, the wager is useless as in it does not offer the simple yes/no it purports to offer.

"Ask the slave girl; she will tell you the truth.' So the Apostle called Burayra to ask her. Ali got up and gave her a violent beating first, saying, 'Tell the Apostle the truth.'"
- Saif Rahman
- Ex-Muslim
- Je suis Haram
- offline
Re: Hi.
Reply #110 - December 02, 2009, 12:32 AM

Quote from: kodoque on December 01, 2009, 11:07 PM
Yep. Pascal's Wager. Pragmatism.

Wihch makes me think I should add Pascal Pens?es to my reading list.

Why dont you be an agnostic, as they are covered by Pascals Wager? They dont deny the possibility of a supernaturals existence so I guess they are off the hook

My Book
My Blog
- Heyjustlooking
- Ex-Muslim
- You know what time it is
- offline
Re: Hi.
Reply #111 - December 02, 2009, 01:54 AM

Welcome. You seem like a fair-minded, reasonable Muslim, very hard to find these days, but I am sure there are many of you still out there.

"The ideal tyranny is that which is ignorantly self-administered by its victims. The most perfect slaves are, therefore, those which blissfully and unawaredly enslave themselves."
- Kenan
- Cultist
- Pub Regular
- Hwee cap-toored eet fohr kay-ohss !!!
- offline
Re: Hi.
Reply #112 - December 02, 2009, 10:22 AM

Quote from: kodoque on December 01, 2009, 11:55 PM
But first I have to read this:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0908/0908.1803v1.pdf

Interesting read, I'll go through it myself. Thx for sharing.

As far as morals go consider this:

1. Doing good because of Jannah. Motivation: reward; this is immoral
2. Doing good because of Jahannam. Motivation: fear; this is immoral too

3. Doing good for the sake of it. Motivation: because it is the right thing to do; this is the only true moral stance

Theists do what they perceive as good deeds in order to fulfil God's will and to earn salvation; atheists do them simply because it is the right thing to do. Is this also not our most elementary experience of morality? When I do a good deed, I do so not with an eye toward gaining God's favour; I do it because if I did not, I could not look at myself in the mirror. A moral deed is by definition its own reward.

The only way to show true respect for God (and hence be trully moral) is to act morally while ignoring god's existence.

This was written by somebody who is much, much smarter then me - Slavoj Zizek - he is one of the most important philosophers alive today. If you are really serious about "Morals are a subject I would like to develop." and about The Truth then I wholeheartedly recommend his books.

I have posted this before but in case you missed it here it is again (requires a careful read though):

FOR centuries, we have been told that without religion we are no more than egotistic animals fighting for our share, our only morality that of a pack of wolves; only religion, it is said, can elevate us to a higher spiritual level. Today, when religion is emerging as the wellspring of murderous violence around the world, assurances that Christian or Muslim or Hindu fundamentalists are only abusing and perverting the noble spiritual messages of their creeds ring increasingly hollow. What about restoring the dignity of atheism, one of Europe's greatest legacies and perhaps our only chance for peace?

More than a century ago, in "The Brothers Karamazov" and other works, Dostoyevsky warned against the dangers of godless moral nihilism, arguing in essence that if God doesn't exist, then everything is permitted. The French philosopher Andr? Glucksmann even applied Dostoyevsky's critique of godless nihilism to 9/11, as the title of his book, "Dostoyevsky in Manhattan," suggests.

This argument couldn't have been more wrong: the lesson of today's terrorism is that if God exists, then everything, including blowing up thousands of innocent bystanders, is permitted - at least to those who claim to act directly on behalf of God, since, clearly, a direct link to God justifies the violation of any merely human constraints and considerations. In short, fundamentalists have become no different than the "godless" Stalinist Communists, to whom everything was permitted since they perceived themselves as direct instruments of their divinity, the Historical Necessity of Progress Toward Communism.

During the Seventh Crusade, led by St. Louis, Yves le Breton reported how he once encountered an old woman who wandered down the street with a dish full of fire in her right hand and a bowl full of water in her left hand. Asked why she carried the two bowls, she answered that with the fire she would burn up Paradise until nothing remained of it, and with the water she would put out the fires of Hell until nothing remained of them: "Because I want no one to do good in order to receive the reward of Paradise, or from fear of Hell; but solely out of love for God." Today, this properly Christian ethical stance survives mostly in atheism.

Fundamentalists do what they perceive as good deeds in order to fulfil God's will and to earn salvation; atheists do them simply because it is the right thing to do. Is this also not our most elementary experience of morality? When I do a good deed, I do so not with an eye toward gaining God's favour; I do it because if I did not, I could not look at myself in the mirror. A moral deed is by definition its own reward. David Hume, a believer, made this point in a very poignant way, when he wrote that the only way to show true respect for God is to act morally while ignoring God's existence.

*excerpt from "Defenders of Faith" by Slavoj Zizek

Btw I am not judging, just giving my point of view. And this obviously based on "my" atheist moral framework. I do however think that this "atheist moral framework" is superior to the "theist moral framework". Why?
Because logic and reason led me to that conclusion.
- Saif Rahman
- Ex-Muslim
- Je suis Haram
- offline
Re: Hi.
Reply #113 - December 02, 2009, 02:20 PM

Quote from: Kenan on December 02, 2009, 10:22 AM
Btw I am not judging, just giving my point of view. And this obviously based on "my" atheist moral framework. I do however think that this "atheist moral framework" is superior to the "theist moral framework". Why?
Because logic and reason led me to that conclusion.

Me too

My Book
My Blog
- Rubaiyat
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: Hi.
Reply #114 - December 02, 2009, 04:18 PM

Quote
1. Doing good because of Jannah. Motivation: reward; this is immoral
2. Doing good because of Jahannam. Motivation: fear; this is immoral too

3. Doing good for the sake of it. Motivation: because it is the right thing to do; this is the only true moral stance

I have come to this conclusion too long time ago :-)

Challenge All Ideologies but don't Hate People.
- Omaar Khayaam
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: Hi.
Reply #115 - December 02, 2009, 07:06 PM

Quote from: Rubaiyat on December 02, 2009, 04:18 PM
I have come to this conclusion too long time ago :-)

So, how long has it been since you left Islam?
- kodoque
- Member
- offline
Re: Hi.
Reply #116 - December 03, 2009, 12:03 AM

"Btw I am not judging, just giving my point of view. And this obviously based on "my" atheist moral framework. I do however think that this "atheist moral framework" is superior to the "theist moral framework". Why?
Because logic and reason led me to that conclusion."

So you rely completely on logic and reason?

Those beast hurted me. My belief in Islam tamed them, I hope.

I think that to continue discussion on this theme, I really need to apply those note in the other thread. Moral nihilism ain't fun.

Btw:

Since it's my introductional topic, I may point my age: 19 years old.
- Saif Rahman
- Ex-Muslim
- Je suis Haram
- offline
Re: Hi.
Reply #117 - December 03, 2009, 12:08 AM

Which country are you from?

My Book
My Blog
- kodoque
- Member
- offline
Re: Hi.
Reply #118 - December 03, 2009, 12:10 AM

morrocco.
- Saif Rahman
- Ex-Muslim
- Je suis Haram
- offline
Re: Hi.
Reply #119 - December 03, 2009, 12:12 AM

have you heard of any ex-muslims in morocco? we have a few on this site if you havent

My Book
My Blog
Previous page 1 2 3 45 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »