Pictures of Mo
Offline So I was doing some research on the Quaran and I found that it actually does not say "you can't draw Muhammad". Apparently only third party teachings are the reason why Muslims are so upset. These third party teachings are sort of like the precepts in Buddhism or what they call the "8 Fold Path". These opinions are modified by each sect and used differently through out the world. Some believe one set, the other believers follow another set.
So what or why is it that so many Muslims say "The Quaran said so..."?
I find this to be a good example of how Christians claim "The bible said so..." but when you exam the bible for the actual quote given it doesn't exist.
So this is an eye opener to me. When people tell me they are Muslim I assumed that they were practicing and were well versed in the Quaran. However after this little bit of research it has shown me that Muslims don't know their holy teachings as well as they seem to profess. It also shows me that the followers of ISIS and other radical views are just opinions. They aren't following actual teachings of Muhammad. They are following third party teachings and most likely are fighting for greedy purposes.
Greedy purposes like land, power, money and fulfillment of their own egotistical desires.
(edit)
Which brings me to an amazing revelation about Muslims.
They say that you aren't allowed to depict Muhammad because it might lead to worshiping of of an idol. Yet as all of us know, if you say, "Hey I met this girl the other day and she had giant tits and brown hair..." You would most likely form a visual representation in your mind of what they are describing.
Given that the Quaran gives the physical description of Muhammad in the Quaran, I mean literally in detail, ALL MUSLIMS FORM A DEPICTION OF MUHAMMAD IN THEIR MINDS. They all have a picture of what he looks like in their mind.
Hmmm. Wow. That blows my mind that this is a possible wide spread example of hypocrisy in the world of Islam.
- Login to post comments
There have been 5 mass extinctions in our planet's history. And even with those prior species now extinct, they are evidence that religion is NOT required for evolution to occur. Even with our species today, the fact that atheists reproduce and have kids also proves that religion is not a requirement. And atheists along with theists will go extinct too, our universe does not give one fuck about us or the clubs we invent.
If you want to coddle superstitious thinking and think it is ok for religious people to hide behind it, you can. But really all you are doing is allowing your sense of empathy allow them to ignore reality. Humans wanting their religions to feel special, that I do buy. But the fact is we are not special. And I think it is far more important to face that harsh reality than it is to coddle the insecurities of humans who refuse to grow up.
Our species creates these clubs to justify wrongly far too much moral superiority. Our ability to be cruel or compassionate is in our evolution, that includes atheists too. Lables are what we invent, but our evolution itself is independent of that and will go on regardless of which labels survive and which end up in the future as dead myths. No different than the dead myths of the past.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Irrelevant.
And absolutely NO intelligent species went into space before that species first invented and lived with religion for thousands of years, rendering your point moot.
It has already been established that religion isn't required for sex. Everything else, however, is another story.
Irrelevant.
Liar. I never coddle. Period. Go fuck yourself. In a tub of acid. Please.
You are doing more to allow them to ignore reality than I ever will.
Your ignorance is showing.
You keep railing against labels yet you use them more than anyone. The pope and the god hates fags people are more rational and intelligent than you will ever even dream of being.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
NO IT IS NOT, go fuck a women, get her pregnant. THERE IS YOUR FUCKING EVIDENCE!
Mixing bad guesses and conflating those bad guesses in with our evolutionary ability to make discoveries is what you are enabling. You are perpetuating the problem. The co existence of religion and discovery STILL does not make it a requirement. Otherwise by proxy of being an atheist it would be impossible for you to fuck.
No one is expecting a godless utopia. I am get pissed at anyone suggesting that telling a fact about reality means I am trying to set up a utopia myself. If humans never questioned social norms we would still be living in the dark ages. I see nothing wrong with telling the truth. We are finite. Religion is a placebo. Telling that truth enables humans to deal with the reality the way it is and not the way they wish it would be.
People think they need religion, and yes it is part of our evolution, but it is a flaw in our perceptions. What you are doing is no different a kneejerk reaction the church had when Galelio had in telling the truth about our sun centered solar system.
If you think living in an antiquated past is good for humanity you are nuts. It made sense when people didn't know any better, we know better now.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
I don't see how you can make such a stupid argument if you have read Sagan's Pale blue dot speech. And if you had seen every episode of the new COSMOS series with Tyson, you'd know I am not trying to force religion out of existence, but challenging people to leave the past behind. Humans having thought religion was a requirement is not the same as it actually being a requirement. Otherwise if religion was a requirement then you and I would be religous ourselves. I see nothing wrong with challenging NOT FORCING, but challenging my fellow humans to think about the reallity that they don't need it they just think they do.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Really? #1 - There is suffering. That's false? Holy shit dude. Your a fucking god damn buddha.
Sorry, but that specific picture is specifically of one radical nut job hijacking a sect.
YES IT IS. You go fuck a woman. Repeating stupid claims doesn't make them more accurate, idiot.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
That's not the first "truth".
"Dukkha:[note 2] all temporary things and states are unsatisfying;"
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Noble_Truths
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
I can't believe I'm finally getting to say this... "That's your own fault for using Wikipedia.."
http://www.dharmanet.org/Della4nobletruths.htm
You have to start somewhere. It made you give me a link.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Here are the exact words, give or take a translation
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn56/sn56.011.than.html
Upon cursory examination it would appear that the first truth is lacking somewhat. It is similar to what I have acknowledged about existence, but kind of self centred instead of all encompassing.
It also makes assumptions. There is no evidence that birth is suffering. Even for the mother, humans are the only species that we know certainly suffer pain during standard childbirth.
Things get worse with the second. Craving is the cause of suffering my left testicle. The cause of suffering is existence, not some emotional desire. Craving may very well exacerbate suffering, but it literally cannot be the cause.
I'd also say that after a certain level of self awareness, craving can no longer lead to suffering. I crave some things I don't have, but do not suffer for not having them. In a few cases I'm actually pleased that I don't have them. Like a button that would destroy Earth. I'd love to have one. But if I had one then I'd have to decide whether to use it, and that would be unpleasant.
Or perhaps I should look at ignorance. In my experience, ignorance is bliss. Literally. It is certainly not the cause of suffering. It can be, but so can knowledge. So it's a non-issue.
I'm definitely not a buddhist. > >
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Ignorance is bliss.
And being religious is tantamount to being ignorant. Take from that what you will.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
A statement so true as to be incontrovertible and why the concept of antinatalism exists ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinatalism )
Well.. fortunately or not, life is a unavoidable result of increasing entropy in the universe. Sentient life increases entropy even faster, and thus is the 'goal' (and I use the term only in the absence of a better one) of the universe. Thus any attempt to resist existence is futile. Another will take form and continue the work.
I recommend waiting it out. Eventually a superior form of life which can increase entropy beyond our capability will replace us. It may even be ourselves that creates it. Kinda cool, if you can ignore the obvious consequences.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
It is unavoidable that every living thing suffers. It does not matter when or where or for how long. Suffering exists.
What causes suffering is the question, but it isn't existing itself. There are times when you have pleasure but still exist. Therefore merely existing can't be the cause of suffering.
Fallacious reasoning. Just because existing allows you to feel pleasure doesn't mean it isn't the cause behind both pleasure and suffering. Existence MUST be the cause, as only the non-existent can never suffer.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Again, a simple but true statement. Euthanasia ( ie, "good death" ) ends pain by terminating existence. To live is to suffer. Not living = no pain.
No, that only demonstrates that existence is a necessary condition for suffering to occur. That doesn't even guarantee that it is a cause, let alone the sole cause.
As for me, I think existence is joy. But I'm one of those annoying glass half full kind of guys. One of my problems with Buddhism, or indeed most religions, is their obsession with the suffering part of life. Life is too short to worry about the pain. Enjoy the simple things in life, because tomorrow you will be dead and then there will be nothing.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
You are flawed. You must be destroyed. Exterminate! Exterminate!
You're more buddha than you think.
A distinction that is still mostly moot. It almost sounds like someone saying after being slapped in the face "I'm not in pain, but my nerve-endings are." So what ? The two are bound together. Without nerve endings you are incapable of feeling. It's true, the nerve-endings didn't cause the pain but they are so intrinsically bound to the process that to try and seperate them would be naive. Likewise, the relationship of life and suffering are bound so tightly, you can't have one without the other. They are synonomous ( for the purposes of this argument ) regardless of the particulars. For some reason the dead and those who have never been born don't suffer. Why ? Because both categories are lacking that one key ingredient upon which everything else depends. Life itself.
Yes, but the exact same could be said of anything that is experienced in life- negative, positive or neutral, and clearly suffering is not equally experienced among things that exist. So why the focus on suffering? It is as arbitrary as deciding to focus on any other feeling or emotion. Not that there is anything wrong with being arbitrary, but it certainly is nothing worthy of being declared The Truth with a capital t.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
Buddhism has built into it the same bad idea of the virtue of suffering. In evolution we obsurve it without woo or patitudes or "wise men". There is nothing in Buddhism that makes observations about the good or bad humans do, that other religions express themselves in other ways.
Buddhism holds no unique patent on humanity's behavior and just like every other religion it too was not arround 200,000 years ago, and it should suprise no one if any religion dies like the dead polytheism of the past.
It is simply another label in human history people try to make themselves feel special with. The universe was around prior to this planet and all of our human invented religions will go extinct when we do.
I am fair to everyone in stating this fact. It isn't sexy, but facts do not have to be sexy. Just like the sun was never a god even though the Egptians falsely believed it for 3,000 years. Centering a religion around one man is flawed because evolution tells us factually, that no individual in our species history is special to our planet or universe. The clubs we join and call religion, are temporary like we are.
Religion is simply a matter of our predelections, our personal wishes, reflecting the societies they are centered around. But they have never been a nessity to evolution. It is quite concievable we can kill ourselves off or have a meteor hit this planet and kill us off like the dinosaurs and still have other life continue on after we go extinct. And regardless of what we concoct with our imaginations, the entire planet in the future WILL run out of energy and get to the point of not supporting any life at all.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
I don't see any distinction between necessary condition and cause, in this particular example.
I also don't think suffering is the only symptom of existence. If I did, I would probably have killed myself by now. It is merely one symptom out of many.
You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Suffering ( physical, emotional ) is different from the positive or neutral things that also exist within our lives in that large numbers of humans are actually willing to kill themselves to negate it's effects. Pain focuses the mind in a way that nothing else does or is even capable of doing. Choosing to not focus on suffering is only an option for as long the pain remains below a certain threshold. Once that threshold has been crossed you will think of nothing else, and there will nothing arbitrary about it. The only way to stop thinking about it and letting it influence you would either involve unconsciousness or death.
The man falling to his death from the WTC jumped to expedite his already certain doom. Why ? He ...and many others... jumped to prevent any further suffering. He accomplished this by dying. The fear of pain and suffering motivates the mind like nothing else can and the knowledge of life's "positives" are a miserable counterpoint that matter little in the face of true agony.
FACT, a sperm no matter what dick it comes from, when healthy, can firtalize any egg, when it is healthy and they meet. The likes and desires of the two fucking does not change that biological fact.
What we are raised with as far as labels come after birth. They are not a requrement for the sperm or egg themselves. They are things humans get sold after birth.
If evolution depended on religion, then cocroaches would have religions. If evolution depended on religion there would be no mass extinctions to the point of 99% of prior life being now extinct.
Atheists reproduce and that by itself PROVES religion is NOT required for evolution to take place. Plants don't need religion either.
Mr Goody Twoshoes you need to stop flipping out about stating facts. All you are doing is allowing your empathy rule you. Empathy is not a bad thing, but your failure to see that religion merely exists as a result of our flawed perceptions is NOT good.
Dawkins God Delusion explains the evolutionary existence of god belief. Stenger's "New Atheism" also gives scientific reasons to why humans bad logic leads them to bad claims.
If that meteor had not killed off the dinosuars we would not exist and other forms of life would have evolved without our existence. We also could kill ourselves off or have a planetary or meteror event that kills us off. Other life like bacteria which has no religion itself is perfectly capble of going on without us.
Again, you might as well have a god belief if you are going to act like the Church flipping out like a brat when someone tells you that the earth rotates around the sun.
EVOLUTION DOES NOT REQUIRE RELIGION TO OCCUR. Other life including plants and bacteria and the flu virus do it withour prayer or holy books. Humans liking it as a placebo does not make it a requirement. It merely means they hide beind flawed logic.
I swear you are as bad as any dark age fundy, or Islamic nut when someone merely says "The moon is not made of cheese".
Sperm works the same way, eggs work the same way, no matter the believe of the people having sex. We know this because other mamals and species have sperm and eggs too.
DNA was arround long before humans concocted the first cave god or written religion.
If you can accept you don't need belief in Thor or Apollo then you can accept that wich people think they need now they don't need but think they do. Claiming religion brought us to today is like saying genocide was ok because Germany kept it's highways.
Religion exists as a manifestation of our flawed perceptions. It is gap filling. It is nothing to cling to and that has nothing to do with using force, but more a challenge to give up on bad claims even if some don't.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
no, it literally does not. buddhism sees absolutely no virtue in suffering and is geared completely toward ending it. stop acting like you know the first fucking thing about asian religions because it's obvious to all present you don't.
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
I was going to comment but iwbiek already responded in a manner I would have responded.
There are so many things wrong with your comments...
Irrelevant. Sex is not evolution.
The rest of your post is jibberish, as usual.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
What about the sexual revolution? oh, sorry, wrong noun.
A person exists. They suffer. They don't suffer. Is their existence the cause of their suffering? No. It is the medium for the suffering.
A person desires. They suffer. They don't suffer. Is their desire the cause of their suffering? Yes. It is the root for the suffering.
A person existing does not promote suffering. Yes, they must exist for their suffering to take place, but it is not the cause of the suffering. The cause of the suffering is wanting something they can not have or having something they do not want.
A person existing does not promote pleasure. Yes, they must exist for their pleasure to take place, but it is not the vause of the pleasure. The cause of the pleasure is their getting something they wanted or getting rid of something they do not want.
I do not include physical pain with suffering of the mind. It is completely different even though studies have shown that mind control or mind meditation has helped troops returning from war over come the pain of physical injuries.
The religion itself disagrees with you. Birth is suffering, and birth is the beginning of independent life. Therefore the mere act of beginning to exist necessarily results in suffering. Therefore the cause of suffering must be existence. Anything and everything that follows depends on existing. Existence is the cause of everything. QED.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Do footprints exist? Do they suffer?
No.
But footprints exist, the must suffer?
No. Existing does not cause suffering.
QED.
Argument fail.
1: Prove footprints don't suffer.
2: Footprints cannot exist unless life exists, and suffers.
Existence causes suffering. QED
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
You are a fool.
Your logic is poopy.
QED
Foot prints are not sentient, self aware or alive. If you believe otherwise then prove it.
The Moon exists. The Solar System exists. The Galaxy exists. The subject doesn't not need to be sentient, self aware or alive to exist.
Existing - verb (used without object)
1. to have actual being; be:
The world exists, whether you like it or not.
2. to have life or animation;
live.
3. to continue to be or live:
Belief in magic still exists.
4. to have being in a specified place or under certain conditions; be found; occur:
Hunger exists in many parts of the world.
5. to achieve the basic needs of existence, as food and shelter:
He's not living, he's merely existing.
Live people exist. Dead people exist. Only one subset of people is capable of suffering.
You final see the truth. Existing alone is not the cause of suffering.
That was never my point. Ever. You are addressing a statement that Vastet made in post #86.
I'm not sure why Vastet chose "existence" to focus upon as the foundation to suffering. Perhaps he can clarify. In any case my point is that sentience, self-awareness, biological life is required in order for one to suffer.
Okay, we are in agreement in a general sense, but we disagree upon where we put the emphasis in the chain of causality.
Personally, I don't see the need to differentiate if one is simply regarding human suffering in and of itself, but that is your prerogative.
Yes, but you seem to confine your view of mental / emotional suffering to the esoteric and appear to only touch upon existential angst and matters of wish fullfillment. What good is philosophical fluff about "desire" and "ego" to people who suffer acute mental and emotional pain because of organic conditions such as severe bi-polar disorder, schizophrenia, psychosis, dementia, personality disorders, etc, ?
1)Yes. I sort of was wondering about his use of the word. Maybe he can clarify.
2)Where do you put the emphasis in the chain of causality?
3)Each of the disabilities you mentioned have a different severity of the disability and some are so severe that they are outside the boundry of repair. Some can be helped with pharmecuitcal drugs, mental health services and assisted living. A person who is completely normal all their life grows older and has diminished mental abilities. This is no different than a baseball player who grows older and can not throw a baseball any more. It happens in old age.
There are too many variables to consider. A person who can train their mind while they have the opportunity is likely to be prepared for other problems which arise later on in life. While it is not a 100% guarantee that a person will succeed I would compare this mental training to that of a player of sports who trains their self to be a better athlete.
I'm rubber and you're glue.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Yep. Logic bounces right off you and sticks to me.
I agree with you that in a sense, life itself does not cause suffering but it is nevertheless and indispensable and inseperable element of suffering. With regard to the chain of causality, suppose a defendant is on trial for murder for shooting to death another person. Under cross examination the defendant tries to deflect guilt by claiming "I didn't kill John Doe, the bullets from my gun did." While legally that distinction affords absolutely no defense, forensically the defendant is 100% correct. The defendant never physically interfaced with the victim. What actually killed the deceased were little flying pieces of metal that pierced his body and did the actual damage.
This micro focus upon bullets doing the actual killing within the chain of causality is utterly meaningless in a legal sense, but it is absolutely acurate in a medical sense. Yet without the defendant's participation the bullets would have never done any damage to begin with.
Yes, biological life itself doesn't cause suffering but without it no vulnerability to pain exists to begin with. You may focus upon primary causes ( the defendants actions ) or secondary causes ( the lethal effects of bullets wounds ) but the two elements are so tightly intertwined that to try and seperate the two seems ludicrous to me.
And the statement in you signature "...People always choosed the path of greatest pleasure" should be tempered with the knowledge that that principal is not always true. The picture of the 911 jumper that I posted earlier in this thread is evidence contrary to Scott Adams over-reaching assertion . Apparently a stronger basic human urge is to minimize and avoid pain ( even without the possibility of pleasure as a payoff. ) The 911 jumpers trapped within the burning towers were faced with only two choices, both choices involved certain violent death.
1 ) Either remain within the building and experience a protracted and utterly excruciating death by fire or
2 ) die a comparatively quick death by falling 90 plus stories and being instantly obliterated upon impact.
I feel safe in assuming that either choice involved absolutely no pleasure. Period. Their choices were made based upon which method afforded the least amount of pain and suffering. There could be not possibly be pleasure in being forced to make such a drastic decision as pleasure was not even among the list of options ( unless one considers terror and panic to be pleasurable. )
Agreed.
Agreed.
Fail logic does, anyway. Actual logic flies right through you like neutrino's.
@PDZ
I won't use the terms life and sentience because they are poorly defined and poorly understood, and therefore cannot be utilised in this context. Existence is the only term being used here that can actually be applied and understood by all parties. And there is no evidence to say that not all things that exist can suffer.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
The problem with 'existing' being the cause is that 'existing' causes a billion other results. When you do experiments you have test results which come out based on variables. A scientist might see that adding baking soda to vinegar causes a release of gases and bubbling foam. If measured the material used in the experiment is measured exactly then the results are the same. The displacement of the bubbling the foam is the same, in general terms.
What you propose in an experiment is that because a person exists they will have the same results from any given variable or combination of variables. If a young boy has his favorite blanket taken he cries. When he gets it back he is happy. Take it away from him again, he cries. Give it back to him, he is happy. Repeat this process over and over again, one thousand times. Does the boy cry each time the blanket is taken away? or does he learn that it will be returned to him each time and there is no need to cry. He just waits and it is returned.
While the boy exists he does not always suffer so the cause of the suffering is not the trigger mechanism. The taking of his blanket is not the cause either. It is an action which is viewed by the boy and then he reacts to it. The cause is in his mind. His ego. He wants the blanket. It is taken away. He cries. When it is returned the 'I want that blanket' is satisfied and the result turns from crying to joy.