nausicaa,
that is the problem, you have indulged in those activities and now you want to justify those acts as being allowed by Allah but being prevented by Muslims. Nice try.
And no I am not saying what Allah should do. I am just saying what Allah would do and I am not saying that because he came to me in a dream and told me that, there is a book called Quran where in which he tells you that.
GodBless,
Mindless recitation of the quran is better than no recitation at all. But to believe that one needs faith.
The nature of "Aql"
Re: The nature of "Aql"
Inaction is always better than mindless actions of any sort. No recitation will never lead to the kind of extremism we have seen as of late.
Re: The nature of "Aql"
Godbless,
That is your opinion and you are entitled to one. Afterall, opinions are like assholes, everyone has one.
That is your opinion and you are entitled to one. Afterall, opinions are like assholes, everyone has one.
Re: The nature of "Aql"
Anajmi,
I don't think of those acts as being allowed or disallowed by Allah, Heck, I don't even believe in Allah. I was just saying those acts do not harm society and disallowing them seems rather arbitrary.
-N
I don't think of those acts as being allowed or disallowed by Allah, Heck, I don't even believe in Allah. I was just saying those acts do not harm society and disallowing them seems rather arbitrary.
-N
Re: The nature of "Aql"
nausicaa,
Please do not make claims that you cannot support. Drinking has caused a lot of families to be destroyed. Sex before marriage has destroyed the future of a lot of girls.
Show me one example where not drinking caused a problem or one example where not having sex before marriage caused a problem.
Today more and more people in America are saying that teenage sex and sex before marriage is destroying the social fabric of this country.
Again, the claims that you make are only your opinion. And as I said before, opinions are like assholes, everyone has one.
Please do not make claims that you cannot support. Drinking has caused a lot of families to be destroyed. Sex before marriage has destroyed the future of a lot of girls.
Show me one example where not drinking caused a problem or one example where not having sex before marriage caused a problem.
Today more and more people in America are saying that teenage sex and sex before marriage is destroying the social fabric of this country.
Again, the claims that you make are only your opinion. And as I said before, opinions are like assholes, everyone has one.
Re: The nature of "Aql"
Anajmi,
I do not get your point here. Driving causes accidents, does that mean we all start walking to our jobs? Airplanes crash, so do we all stop flying? Some people cannot regulate their alcohol intake and cause a problem to others, why should those of us who can consume in moderation suffer for their lack of temperance? Again, there is a reason why humans can digest alcohol, the reason is that alcohol has been a part of our diet for a very long time. Its only in the recent past (a few thousand years) that we've had the ability to distill and increase its potency. Alcohol is good in moderation, and a part of a lot of medicines both traditional and modern. I am not forcing it on anybody. If you don't like it, for whatever reasons, you are welcome to your decision. But respect my choice to make a decision which I feel is good for me.
Moderate drinking has several benefits, like stress reduction, reduction of the risk of coronary artery disease and increased appetite.
As far as sex before marriage goes, I feel there are major dangers in not having it. Sex is a major component of marriage, and a lot of people enter into it without knowing what the other partner might want in this area. Some people may want it four times a day, someone else may be happy with 4 times a month. Pair these two together and you have a lot of friction and trouble which could have been easily avoided. Sexual compatibility is as important as emotional compatibility when it comes to living your whole life together. I have generally seen people having had some sexual experience before marriage as happier and better adjusted.
-N
I do not get your point here. Driving causes accidents, does that mean we all start walking to our jobs? Airplanes crash, so do we all stop flying? Some people cannot regulate their alcohol intake and cause a problem to others, why should those of us who can consume in moderation suffer for their lack of temperance? Again, there is a reason why humans can digest alcohol, the reason is that alcohol has been a part of our diet for a very long time. Its only in the recent past (a few thousand years) that we've had the ability to distill and increase its potency. Alcohol is good in moderation, and a part of a lot of medicines both traditional and modern. I am not forcing it on anybody. If you don't like it, for whatever reasons, you are welcome to your decision. But respect my choice to make a decision which I feel is good for me.
Moderate drinking has several benefits, like stress reduction, reduction of the risk of coronary artery disease and increased appetite.
As far as sex before marriage goes, I feel there are major dangers in not having it. Sex is a major component of marriage, and a lot of people enter into it without knowing what the other partner might want in this area. Some people may want it four times a day, someone else may be happy with 4 times a month. Pair these two together and you have a lot of friction and trouble which could have been easily avoided. Sexual compatibility is as important as emotional compatibility when it comes to living your whole life together. I have generally seen people having had some sexual experience before marriage as happier and better adjusted.
-N
Re: The nature of "Aql"
nausicaa,
Baselss arguments, drunken driving is the cause of most accidents.
The quran says that whatever is bad in large quantities, should not be consumed even in small quantities.
Not driving to work will cause a problem, not flying will cause a problem, not drinking does not cause any problems. And when we talk about alcohol,at least I am talking about alcohol and not medicine. And just the way you have a right to choose what you think is good for you, I have a right to say that you have made a bad choice. If you do not like me saying that, you need to stop talking to me.
And we are talking apple and oranges over here. You are trying to justify alcohol and you do not believe in Allah. I am saying it is not allowed because I believe in Allah. If I were saying that it is not allowed and I too didn't believe in Allah, then we would've had an apple and apple discussion.
You do not believe in Allah and you are free to do what you want. And why do you want everyone else to say that Allah will not punish you for doing whatever you are doing. My belief is that you will suffer in hell. You do not believe that, fine.
As far as sex is concerned, you are talking about whims and fancies of a few for whom you want to change the thinking of all. Sex may be the most important thing for the likes of you, for the rest, it is just one amongst a whole lot of others. And as far as 4 times a day or a month is concerned, do you ask the partner before starting the pre-marital relationship or wait for a month to find out after starting the relationship?
Baselss arguments, drunken driving is the cause of most accidents.
The quran says that whatever is bad in large quantities, should not be consumed even in small quantities.
Not driving to work will cause a problem, not flying will cause a problem, not drinking does not cause any problems. And when we talk about alcohol,at least I am talking about alcohol and not medicine. And just the way you have a right to choose what you think is good for you, I have a right to say that you have made a bad choice. If you do not like me saying that, you need to stop talking to me.
And we are talking apple and oranges over here. You are trying to justify alcohol and you do not believe in Allah. I am saying it is not allowed because I believe in Allah. If I were saying that it is not allowed and I too didn't believe in Allah, then we would've had an apple and apple discussion.
You do not believe in Allah and you are free to do what you want. And why do you want everyone else to say that Allah will not punish you for doing whatever you are doing. My belief is that you will suffer in hell. You do not believe that, fine.
As far as sex is concerned, you are talking about whims and fancies of a few for whom you want to change the thinking of all. Sex may be the most important thing for the likes of you, for the rest, it is just one amongst a whole lot of others. And as far as 4 times a day or a month is concerned, do you ask the partner before starting the pre-marital relationship or wait for a month to find out after starting the relationship?
Re: The nature of "Aql"
And by the way, most americans I know are divorced, some even twice and all of them had sex before marriage. Most Indians I know are happily married and never had sex before marriage.
Re: The nature of "Aql"
Anajmi,
I thought everyone had one too until I read your posts, now I don't know. You seem to be spewing a lot from another orifice.
"Most Indians I know are happily married and never had sex before marriage". Please refer me to this scientific study.
"most americans I know are divorced". It is a common misconception to equate lack of divorce with happiness. The fact is that bigotry and insecurity in men of certain cultures prevents them from marrying a divorced woman, therefore, divorce is not a viable option for women in those cultures. Furthermore, if American's could marry 4 times, the divorce rate would be reduced by 3/4. (Get my drift
Pre-marital sex is a non-issue compared to marrying and having sex with 10-year olds as documented in the Quran. Which does more harm ? How about killing infidels as documented in the Quran ?
Mindless recitation will never replace responsibility, moderation and common sense.
I thought everyone had one too until I read your posts, now I don't know. You seem to be spewing a lot from another orifice.
"Most Indians I know are happily married and never had sex before marriage". Please refer me to this scientific study.
"most americans I know are divorced". It is a common misconception to equate lack of divorce with happiness. The fact is that bigotry and insecurity in men of certain cultures prevents them from marrying a divorced woman, therefore, divorce is not a viable option for women in those cultures. Furthermore, if American's could marry 4 times, the divorce rate would be reduced by 3/4. (Get my drift
Pre-marital sex is a non-issue compared to marrying and having sex with 10-year olds as documented in the Quran. Which does more harm ? How about killing infidels as documented in the Quran ?
Mindless recitation will never replace responsibility, moderation and common sense.
Re: The nature of "Aql"
Khairan,
Sorry for this delayed reply, I sometimes miss posts as this board is not threaded and too many posts means I may scroll down too fast.
I have noticed in conversations with my atheist friends that they cannot, as I do, separate the actions of a religion's followers from the message of the religion itself. Because they do not believe in a Divine Being, and do not accept the existence of His plan or intentions, for them a religion is simply a manifestation of the society at the time. Is this true for you?
To a large extent this is true for me. The reason I do not separate the two is that religious people play a dishonest game with regard to this. They tend to ascribe anything good that happens in a society as due to the religion, and anything bad that happens as due to deviating from the religion. Once you have chosen your definitions this way, you can never go wrong.
Rape is so rare in Saudi Arabia (woohoo, Islam is great). Girls burnt in a school as the religious police didn't allow them to come out. (That was their personal decision, Islam had nothing to do with it). I have problems with this kind of duplicitous thinking. If I hung out with a bunch of crack addicts all the time, I would not fault you for thinking I was one of them. One of the big things said in the favor of religion is that it leads to a better life for its followers. If that is not happening, I think I can be excused for putting at least some of the fault on the religion itself.
This kind of thinking is very commonly used by all religions. They have a radical fringe which does the dirty stuff(Bajrang Dal, Al-Qaeda, Black Panthers, etc.) while the majority seems to overtly dislike them but still supplies them with funds and often secretly admires them for keeping the 'others' in check. Moreover, most religious texts, like Quran, are wide open to interpretation. When you want to show it to the others' you select things like "There is no compulsion in religion." while conveniently ignoring parts which call for killing pagans and jews and unbelievers. Of course, the radical fringe uses the same book for justifying attacks on others.
In all, I think its fair to judge a social system or religion by how it works out in the real world and not how it works out theoretically. Communism seems pretty fine in theory, its a shame that it would never work out in the real world. Same for a lot of other sytems.
-N
Sorry for this delayed reply, I sometimes miss posts as this board is not threaded and too many posts means I may scroll down too fast.
I have noticed in conversations with my atheist friends that they cannot, as I do, separate the actions of a religion's followers from the message of the religion itself. Because they do not believe in a Divine Being, and do not accept the existence of His plan or intentions, for them a religion is simply a manifestation of the society at the time. Is this true for you?
To a large extent this is true for me. The reason I do not separate the two is that religious people play a dishonest game with regard to this. They tend to ascribe anything good that happens in a society as due to the religion, and anything bad that happens as due to deviating from the religion. Once you have chosen your definitions this way, you can never go wrong.
Rape is so rare in Saudi Arabia (woohoo, Islam is great). Girls burnt in a school as the religious police didn't allow them to come out. (That was their personal decision, Islam had nothing to do with it). I have problems with this kind of duplicitous thinking. If I hung out with a bunch of crack addicts all the time, I would not fault you for thinking I was one of them. One of the big things said in the favor of religion is that it leads to a better life for its followers. If that is not happening, I think I can be excused for putting at least some of the fault on the religion itself.
This kind of thinking is very commonly used by all religions. They have a radical fringe which does the dirty stuff(Bajrang Dal, Al-Qaeda, Black Panthers, etc.) while the majority seems to overtly dislike them but still supplies them with funds and often secretly admires them for keeping the 'others' in check. Moreover, most religious texts, like Quran, are wide open to interpretation. When you want to show it to the others' you select things like "There is no compulsion in religion." while conveniently ignoring parts which call for killing pagans and jews and unbelievers. Of course, the radical fringe uses the same book for justifying attacks on others.
In all, I think its fair to judge a social system or religion by how it works out in the real world and not how it works out theoretically. Communism seems pretty fine in theory, its a shame that it would never work out in the real world. Same for a lot of other sytems.
-N
Re: The nature of "Aql"
Anajmi,
I hope you are smart enough to tell the difference between drinking and drunken driving. I was not advocating the latter. Drinking does not automatically lead to drunken driving anymore than holding knives automatically leads to stabbing them into people.
The quran says that whatever is bad in large quantities, should not be consumed even in small quantities.</I>
This is obviously asinine. Even water will kill you in large quantities. I hope you don't want to stop people from drinking water. Or pure oxygen at normal pressure can be harmful to adults and even kill babies, I don't think you would advocate stopping breathing. Same with alcohol.
You do not believe in Allah and you are free to do what you want.
I certainly don't believe I am free to do what I want. My actions are constrained by society and my own ethical beliefs. e.g. I will not harm someone who hasn't done anything to harm me. One of the reasons I believe atheists, agnostics and the like are more reasonable than religious people is we are not automatically forgiven for a wrong action by a prayer. You have to forgive yourselves and that is much harder.
And as far as 4 times a day or a month is concerned, do you ask the partner before starting the pre-marital relationship or wait for a month to find out after starting the relationship?
You find that out in the course of the relationship. Asking is a poor way of finding out such things. People tend to answer what they think is appropriate rather than what they actually want.
-N
I hope you are smart enough to tell the difference between drinking and drunken driving. I was not advocating the latter. Drinking does not automatically lead to drunken driving anymore than holding knives automatically leads to stabbing them into people.
The quran says that whatever is bad in large quantities, should not be consumed even in small quantities.</I>
This is obviously asinine. Even water will kill you in large quantities. I hope you don't want to stop people from drinking water. Or pure oxygen at normal pressure can be harmful to adults and even kill babies, I don't think you would advocate stopping breathing. Same with alcohol.
You do not believe in Allah and you are free to do what you want.
I certainly don't believe I am free to do what I want. My actions are constrained by society and my own ethical beliefs. e.g. I will not harm someone who hasn't done anything to harm me. One of the reasons I believe atheists, agnostics and the like are more reasonable than religious people is we are not automatically forgiven for a wrong action by a prayer. You have to forgive yourselves and that is much harder.
And as far as 4 times a day or a month is concerned, do you ask the partner before starting the pre-marital relationship or wait for a month to find out after starting the relationship?
You find that out in the course of the relationship. Asking is a poor way of finding out such things. People tend to answer what they think is appropriate rather than what they actually want.
-N
Re: The nature of "Aql"
GodBless,
You need to start making sense more often, I was referring to most indians I know and most americans I know. Whatever you are saying is nothing but senseless spin. And as far as marrying 4 times is concerned, how many muslims do you know that are married to four wives??
Mindless recitation is not supposed to replace responsibility, moderation or common sense. That is what idiots think Islam wants one to do.
Nausicaa,
I am smarter that you think and the fact still remains that drinking is the cause of most accidents.
And far as the the statement of the quran is concerned what I wrote was wrong, the correct statement is, "Whatever is prohibited in large quantities, should not be consumed even in small quantities", the key word is "prohibited". So yeah, you can kill yourself by drinking all the water you want, as long as it is not suicide (you may need to be drunk to consume enough water to kill yourself), it is allowed.
Well, I do not want my son to be sleeping with your daughter before marriage, cause if he does not like her, she becomes damaged goods for somebody else.
You need to start making sense more often, I was referring to most indians I know and most americans I know. Whatever you are saying is nothing but senseless spin. And as far as marrying 4 times is concerned, how many muslims do you know that are married to four wives??
Mindless recitation is not supposed to replace responsibility, moderation or common sense. That is what idiots think Islam wants one to do.
Nausicaa,
I am smarter that you think and the fact still remains that drinking is the cause of most accidents.
And far as the the statement of the quran is concerned what I wrote was wrong, the correct statement is, "Whatever is prohibited in large quantities, should not be consumed even in small quantities", the key word is "prohibited". So yeah, you can kill yourself by drinking all the water you want, as long as it is not suicide (you may need to be drunk to consume enough water to kill yourself), it is allowed.
Well, I do not want my son to be sleeping with your daughter before marriage, cause if he does not like her, she becomes damaged goods for somebody else.
Re: The nature of "Aql"
and yeah, holding a knife is not the cause of most stabbings.
Re: The nature of "Aql"
> The reason I do not separate the two is that religious people play a dishonest game with regard to this. They tend to ascribe anything good that happens in a society as due to the religion, and anything bad that happens as due to deviating from the religion. Once you have chosen your definitions this way, you can never go wrong.
nausicaa,
Ultimately, I don't disagree with the points that you have raised. However, this leads us right back to the question of whether or not these issues can be discussed in a useful manner at all, and I think they need to be. Else, we are doomed to living in a world that can never truly transcend conflict and embrace Cosmopolitanism...
On the other hand, you can also spin this the other way -- often, indictments of religion focus on only the bad things that come of it (war, fundamentalism, discrimination) and none of the good. So, for sake of argument lets assume that it is a balanced equation. The next question then becomes, what point does religion serve, if one cannot establish that on this earth it creates as many wrongs in society as rights?
Let me say that although I consider myself a Muslim, I don't think that everyone must be a Muslim or even that everyone should have a religion.
Ultimately, however, I am a dualist and not a materialist, and I see religion as a study of the Hereafter (and an attempt by man to understand what the Hereafter may be). Religion is important because it gives us a way of studying (or at the very least contemplating) that which is beyond the material plane. Why do I believe in the Hereafter at all?
I strongly doubt that I can offer arguments that you haven't heard before. However, I will say that I find atheism to be a fundamentally unreasonable position to hold, and agnosticism to be the most objective. Simply put, you can't prove a negative. That's why we have a "Theory of Gravity" and not a Law of Gravity. No one can ever definitively show that the next time you throw an apple in the air it will in fact fall to the ground. My point is that atheism is as much a religion as any belief in God or gods is, and requires an equal amount of "faith."
But perhaps this is another issue entirely...
salaam
nausicaa,
Ultimately, I don't disagree with the points that you have raised. However, this leads us right back to the question of whether or not these issues can be discussed in a useful manner at all, and I think they need to be. Else, we are doomed to living in a world that can never truly transcend conflict and embrace Cosmopolitanism...
On the other hand, you can also spin this the other way -- often, indictments of religion focus on only the bad things that come of it (war, fundamentalism, discrimination) and none of the good. So, for sake of argument lets assume that it is a balanced equation. The next question then becomes, what point does religion serve, if one cannot establish that on this earth it creates as many wrongs in society as rights?
Let me say that although I consider myself a Muslim, I don't think that everyone must be a Muslim or even that everyone should have a religion.
Ultimately, however, I am a dualist and not a materialist, and I see religion as a study of the Hereafter (and an attempt by man to understand what the Hereafter may be). Religion is important because it gives us a way of studying (or at the very least contemplating) that which is beyond the material plane. Why do I believe in the Hereafter at all?
I strongly doubt that I can offer arguments that you haven't heard before. However, I will say that I find atheism to be a fundamentally unreasonable position to hold, and agnosticism to be the most objective. Simply put, you can't prove a negative. That's why we have a "Theory of Gravity" and not a Law of Gravity. No one can ever definitively show that the next time you throw an apple in the air it will in fact fall to the ground. My point is that atheism is as much a religion as any belief in God or gods is, and requires an equal amount of "faith."
But perhaps this is another issue entirely...
salaam
Re: The nature of "Aql"
Anajmi,
"Most Indians I know" and "Most Americans I know" ?
With you intellect, you may know 1 Indian and 2 Americans, and we are supposed to respond to the revelations of your experiences and statistics? This is even worse than I thought.
Please get off this damn board and quit wasting everyone's time, unless you begin using common sense, instead of stereotypes based on your obviously limited encounters.
"Most Indians I know" and "Most Americans I know" ?
With you intellect, you may know 1 Indian and 2 Americans, and we are supposed to respond to the revelations of your experiences and statistics? This is even worse than I thought.
Please get off this damn board and quit wasting everyone's time, unless you begin using common sense, instead of stereotypes based on your obviously limited encounters.
Re: The nature of "Aql"
those who does not have aql are actually speaking about aql here. in reality !!! the dushmani with dawath has brought you all to a standstill and only argument
Abde sayedna tus
Raheel
Abde sayedna tus
Raheel
Re: The nature of "Aql"
Anajmi,
If I recall correctly, speeding is the cause of most accidents, drunken driving is second on the list.
And if I had a daughter and someone thought of her as 'damaged goods' just because she had sex with someone I think it would be good if he stayed away from her. I don't like people who think of human beings as 'goods'.
-N
If I recall correctly, speeding is the cause of most accidents, drunken driving is second on the list.
And if I had a daughter and someone thought of her as 'damaged goods' just because she had sex with someone I think it would be good if he stayed away from her. I don't like people who think of human beings as 'goods'.
-N
Re: The nature of "Aql"
Khairan,
Its nice arguing with you. Its rare to get a religious person who can talk reasonably with you without condemning you to hell or telling me how immoral I am.
Else, we are doomed to living in a world that can never truly transcend conflict and embrace Cosmopolitanism...</I>
I am not very optimistic on the human race transcending conflict anytime in the near future. Aggression is pretty much hardwired into our brains. If anything, all signs point to an increase in aggression with time. We are killing people off faster than anytime in the human history.
The next question then becomes, what point does religion serve, if one cannot establish that on this earth it creates as many wrongs in society as rights?
Religion serves as a very, very effective control mechanism in society. A religion can be effectively used to get people to do what they would not normally do. As Seneca said, "Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful." For a person seeking to establish his authority on people, nothing is better than to claim that he has divine authority to do it. All he needs is a charismatic personality to pull it off. Once in place the system becomes self-perpetuating.
Let me say that although I consider myself a Muslim, I don't think that everyone must be a Muslim or even that everyone should have a religion.
Great. You are in a minority though. I don't plan to convert everyone to atheism either.
Why do I believe in the Hereafter at all?</I>
Probably because you fervently want to believe that you will live on forever, if not here than somewhere else. That the world is just. That people who do wrong will suffer and people who are right will get their vindication. You may believe very strongly in this. I don't see any evidence for any of this though. Maybe your reasons are completely different. I do believe there are other ways to go above the material plane without using concepts that involve killing those who disagree with you.
As far as the atheism vs agnosticism debate goes, there is quite a bit of overlap between the two positions. I think the difference between strong atheists and weak atheists or weak agnostics is mostly one of emphasis. The strong atheist (or at least this one) considers the fact that 1% is a hell of a lot less than 50% more important for the determination of belief than the fact that 1% is still greater than 0%. This is a personal choice; there are perfectly valid mathematical bases of comparison where the decision would go the other way. It's also possible that there are some people who don't think that the evidence is as lopsided as I do and thus might choose weak atheism or weak agnosticism as a result of that.
I actually think that there's a lot more common ground between strong atheism and strong agnosticism. Both, I think, are aware of the fact that any element of the class god-concept can be chosen as to be arbitrarily close to unfalsifiability. It's just that the strong agnostic says, "So there!" and the strong atheist says, "So what's your point?"
-N
Its nice arguing with you. Its rare to get a religious person who can talk reasonably with you without condemning you to hell or telling me how immoral I am.
Else, we are doomed to living in a world that can never truly transcend conflict and embrace Cosmopolitanism...</I>
I am not very optimistic on the human race transcending conflict anytime in the near future. Aggression is pretty much hardwired into our brains. If anything, all signs point to an increase in aggression with time. We are killing people off faster than anytime in the human history.
The next question then becomes, what point does religion serve, if one cannot establish that on this earth it creates as many wrongs in society as rights?
Religion serves as a very, very effective control mechanism in society. A religion can be effectively used to get people to do what they would not normally do. As Seneca said, "Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful." For a person seeking to establish his authority on people, nothing is better than to claim that he has divine authority to do it. All he needs is a charismatic personality to pull it off. Once in place the system becomes self-perpetuating.
Let me say that although I consider myself a Muslim, I don't think that everyone must be a Muslim or even that everyone should have a religion.
Great. You are in a minority though. I don't plan to convert everyone to atheism either.
Why do I believe in the Hereafter at all?</I>
Probably because you fervently want to believe that you will live on forever, if not here than somewhere else. That the world is just. That people who do wrong will suffer and people who are right will get their vindication. You may believe very strongly in this. I don't see any evidence for any of this though. Maybe your reasons are completely different. I do believe there are other ways to go above the material plane without using concepts that involve killing those who disagree with you.
As far as the atheism vs agnosticism debate goes, there is quite a bit of overlap between the two positions. I think the difference between strong atheists and weak atheists or weak agnostics is mostly one of emphasis. The strong atheist (or at least this one) considers the fact that 1% is a hell of a lot less than 50% more important for the determination of belief than the fact that 1% is still greater than 0%. This is a personal choice; there are perfectly valid mathematical bases of comparison where the decision would go the other way. It's also possible that there are some people who don't think that the evidence is as lopsided as I do and thus might choose weak atheism or weak agnosticism as a result of that.
I actually think that there's a lot more common ground between strong atheism and strong agnosticism. Both, I think, are aware of the fact that any element of the class god-concept can be chosen as to be arbitrarily close to unfalsifiability. It's just that the strong agnostic says, "So there!" and the strong atheist says, "So what's your point?"
-N
Re: The nature of "Aql"
My second last paragraph might make more sense with this added info where I put numbers in there. I choose not to believe in the existence of a god because of the evidence against all such god-concepts that I am aware, coupled with the lack of evidence for any of them. I cannot prove it in a mathematical sense. I freely admit that the judgement is based on a personal weighing of
evidence. I also freely admit that I cannot get to 100% certainty and totally rule out the possibility of a god somewhere. However, 99% is
pretty trivial to get to. And, when it's a choice between 99% plus and less than 1% possibilities, I pick the 99% plus.
-N
evidence. I also freely admit that I cannot get to 100% certainty and totally rule out the possibility of a god somewhere. However, 99% is
pretty trivial to get to. And, when it's a choice between 99% plus and less than 1% possibilities, I pick the 99% plus.
-N
Re: The nature of "Aql"
nausicaa,
It seems that you like the idea of having sex with different people. No wonder you want to find a reason so that it becomes permissible. Your nafs hissiyya is in control of you. May Allah show you the right path.
It seems that you like the idea of having sex with different people. No wonder you want to find a reason so that it becomes permissible. Your nafs hissiyya is in control of you. May Allah show you the right path.
Re: The nature of "Aql"
nausicaa,
Just because you cannot see God you are content to believe that He is not there. What a foolish conclusion ! God is outside the understanding of the faculties that we have been possessed. Not even the greatest genius can understand how God exists and How He works. He is the Supreme Being. In fact it is wrong to even call Him a being. He is without shape, without form and timeless. He existed before the creation of the universe and will exist after its destruction. He is Full of Grace and Kindness. We are paying for our slack and defect in obeying Him. If we bow to Him and ask for the forgiveness of our sins we enter that place from where we have come. A place of long-lasting peace.
Just because you cannot see God you are content to believe that He is not there. What a foolish conclusion ! God is outside the understanding of the faculties that we have been possessed. Not even the greatest genius can understand how God exists and How He works. He is the Supreme Being. In fact it is wrong to even call Him a being. He is without shape, without form and timeless. He existed before the creation of the universe and will exist after its destruction. He is Full of Grace and Kindness. We are paying for our slack and defect in obeying Him. If we bow to Him and ask for the forgiveness of our sins we enter that place from where we have come. A place of long-lasting peace.
Re: The nature of "Aql"
Huzaif,
I never said I don't believe in God because I cannot see him. Don't put words in my mouth.
God is outside the understanding of the faculties that we have been possessed. Not even the greatest genius can understand how God exists and How He works.
In that case I think I can be excused if I don't care for him. He would be smart enough to understand that he was outside my reasoning faculties.
In fact, extending my above argument let's just say maybe there is a 1% chance that God exists. Now, it doesn't straightaway follow that it is a Islamic God. Maybe he just created the world and doesn't care what happens. Maybe he is a sadistic bastard who likes seeing people in pain and misery, and incidentally there seems to be a lot of that going around in parts of the world which are more religious. Just maybe, he has a thing for atheists . You never know, after all its all speculation?
-N
I never said I don't believe in God because I cannot see him. Don't put words in my mouth.
God is outside the understanding of the faculties that we have been possessed. Not even the greatest genius can understand how God exists and How He works.
In that case I think I can be excused if I don't care for him. He would be smart enough to understand that he was outside my reasoning faculties.
In fact, extending my above argument let's just say maybe there is a 1% chance that God exists. Now, it doesn't straightaway follow that it is a Islamic God. Maybe he just created the world and doesn't care what happens. Maybe he is a sadistic bastard who likes seeing people in pain and misery, and incidentally there seems to be a lot of that going around in parts of the world which are more religious. Just maybe, he has a thing for atheists
. You never know, after all its all speculation?-N
Re: The nature of "Aql"
GodBless,
You certainly made a lot of sense this time around.
Nausicaa,
Now that drunken driving is the second largest cause of accidents, I guess it is ok to drink.
And yeah I guess I will allow my son to sleep with your daughter even if they do not plan to get married.
You certainly made a lot of sense this time around.
Nausicaa,
Now that drunken driving is the second largest cause of accidents, I guess it is ok to drink.
And yeah I guess I will allow my son to sleep with your daughter even if they do not plan to get married.
Re: The nature of "Aql"
And no doubt it is no fun arguing with me, I hit where it hurts!!
Re: The nature of "Aql"
All the people who says sex before marriage is needed to figure out compatibility want nothing other than a 30 day money back guarantee and they say we treat women as goods.
Re: The nature of "Aql"
And no God and everything about him is speculation for you. For the Muslims who believe in him it is pretty definitive. And where did you come up with the figure of 1% chance that God exists? Speculating?
Re: The nature of "Aql"
The human brain contains somewhere around 100 billion neurons and 100 trillion synapses. That's the hardware. The software of the human brain is the result of millions of years of evolution and contains perhaps tens of thousands of complex functional adaptations. The brain itself is not a uniform lump but a highly modular supersystem; each of the two hemispheres of the cerebral cortex is divided into 52 areas, most of which can be further subdivided into five or six maps. The evolutionarily ancient subcortical structures are more modular still.
<A HREF="http://www.singinst.org/seedAI/general. ... GET=_blank>The Size of a Real Mind:</font></a> Beyond the Physicist's Paradigm
...Love is 'intelligence'. Intelligence means reading between the lines. It uses the physical or the factual knowledge for strictly the biological well-being of humanity. It understands the limitations of thought. It does not allow thought to enter the realm where it has no place. Intelligence guides thought and not vice versa. Thought is essentially a physical and chemical process. Intelligence is truth which is truly spiritual. It is sacred and holy. Intelligence is creative while thought is mechanical. Being limited, thought must inevitably create the problems. And it cannot solve the problems it creates. Intelligence is the freedom which is not the product of time and environment. It alone solves the plight brought about by thought and knowledge - the conditioned consciousness.
<A HREF="http://www.here-now4u.de/eng/the_philos ... GET=_blank>[color="#Red Orange"]The Philosophy of K</font></a>
“David Bohm: We were saying the other day that, when the brain is kept busy with intellectual activity and thought, it does not decay and shrink.
Krishnamurti: As long as it is thinking, moving, living.
DB: Thinking in a rational way; then it remains strong.
K: Yes, as long as it is functioning, moving, thinking rationally.
DB: If it starts irrational movement, then it breaks down. Also, if it gets caught in a routine it begins to die.
K: That’s it. If the brain is caught in any routine, a meditation routine, or the routine of the priests ...
DB: Or the daily life of the farmer ...
K: ... the farmer, and so on, it must gradually become dull.
DB: Not only that, but it seems to shrink. Perhaps some of the cells die?
K: To shrink physically, and the opposite of that is the eternal occupation with business, a routine job, thinking, thinking, thinking!
DB: Surely experience seems to show that it does shrink, from measurements that have been made. The brain starts to shrink at a certain age, just as when the body is not being used the muscles begin to lose their flexibility.
K: So, take lots of exercise!
DB: Well, they say exercise the body and exercise the brain.
K: Yes. If it is caught in any pattern, any routine, it must shrink.
dB: Could we go into what makes it shrink?
K: That is fairly simple. It is repetition.
dB: Repetition is mechanical, and doesn’t really use the full capacity of the brain.
K: One has noticed that people who have spent years and years in meditation are the dullest people on earth.”
---The Ending of Time
<A HREF="http://www.singinst.org/seedAI/general. ... GET=_blank>The Size of a Real Mind:</font></a> Beyond the Physicist's Paradigm
...Love is 'intelligence'. Intelligence means reading between the lines. It uses the physical or the factual knowledge for strictly the biological well-being of humanity. It understands the limitations of thought. It does not allow thought to enter the realm where it has no place. Intelligence guides thought and not vice versa. Thought is essentially a physical and chemical process. Intelligence is truth which is truly spiritual. It is sacred and holy. Intelligence is creative while thought is mechanical. Being limited, thought must inevitably create the problems. And it cannot solve the problems it creates. Intelligence is the freedom which is not the product of time and environment. It alone solves the plight brought about by thought and knowledge - the conditioned consciousness.
<A HREF="http://www.here-now4u.de/eng/the_philos ... GET=_blank>[color="#Red Orange"]The Philosophy of K</font></a>
“David Bohm: We were saying the other day that, when the brain is kept busy with intellectual activity and thought, it does not decay and shrink.
Krishnamurti: As long as it is thinking, moving, living.
DB: Thinking in a rational way; then it remains strong.
K: Yes, as long as it is functioning, moving, thinking rationally.
DB: If it starts irrational movement, then it breaks down. Also, if it gets caught in a routine it begins to die.
K: That’s it. If the brain is caught in any routine, a meditation routine, or the routine of the priests ...
DB: Or the daily life of the farmer ...
K: ... the farmer, and so on, it must gradually become dull.
DB: Not only that, but it seems to shrink. Perhaps some of the cells die?
K: To shrink physically, and the opposite of that is the eternal occupation with business, a routine job, thinking, thinking, thinking!
DB: Surely experience seems to show that it does shrink, from measurements that have been made. The brain starts to shrink at a certain age, just as when the body is not being used the muscles begin to lose their flexibility.
K: So, take lots of exercise!
DB: Well, they say exercise the body and exercise the brain.
K: Yes. If it is caught in any pattern, any routine, it must shrink.
dB: Could we go into what makes it shrink?
K: That is fairly simple. It is repetition.
dB: Repetition is mechanical, and doesn’t really use the full capacity of the brain.
K: One has noticed that people who have spent years and years in meditation are the dullest people on earth.”
---The Ending of Time
Re: The nature of "Aql"
“Meditation is never control of the body. There is no actual division between the organism and the mind. The brain, the nervous system, and the thing we call the mind are all one, indivisible. It is the natural act of meditation that brings about the harmonious movement of the whole. To divide the body from the mind and to control the body with intellectual decisions is to bring about contradiction, from which arise various forms of struggle, conflict and resistance. Every decision to control only breeds resistance, even the determination to be aware. Meditation is the understanding of the division brought about by decision. Freedom is not the act of decision but the act of perception. The seeing is the doing. It is not a determination to see and then to act. After all, will is desire with all its contradictions. When one desire assumes authority over another, that desire becomes will. In this, there is inevitable division. And meditation is the understanding of desire, not the overcoming of one desire by another. Desire is the movement of sensation, which becomes pleasure and fear. This is sustained by the constant dwelling of thought upon one or the other. Meditation is really a complete emptying of the mind.”
---Beginnings of Learning
"The brain is not forcing itself to be quiet. If it is forcing itself
to be quiet then it is still in operation of the past. In that there
is division, there is conflict, there is discipline and all the rest
of it. But if the old brain understands, or sees the truth - that as
long as it is in constant response to any stimulus, it must operate
along the old lines - if the old brain sees the truth of that, then it
becomes quiet. It is the truth that brings about quietness - not the
intention to be quiet."
---From J. Krishnamurti, <A HREF="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/ ... GET=_blank>'The Awakening of Intelligence' </font></a>p. 377
"Thought has created the problems which surround us and our brains are
trained, educated, conditioned, to the solving of problems...It is
essential that we understand the nature of our thinking and the nature
of our reactions which arise from our thinking." (page 20)
"From experience we acquire knowledge, from knowledge memory; the
response of memory is thought, then from thought to action, from that
action you learn more, so the cycle is repeated. That is the pattern
of our life. That form of learning will never solve our problems
because it is repetition." (page 25)
"Suppose I have great sorrow for the death of someone with whom I have
lived for many years. Then there is this sorrow which is the essence
of isolation; we feel totally isolated, completely alone. Now, remain
completely with that feeling, not verbalizing it, not rationalizing
it, or escaping from it, or trying to transcend it - all of which is
the movement that thought brings about. When there is that sorrow and
thought does not enter into it at all - which means you are completely
sorrow, not trying to overcome sorrow, but totally sorrow - then there
is the disappearance of it. It is only when there is the fragmentation
of thought that there is travail." (page 65)
From J. Krishnamurti "The Network of Thought"
Krishnamurti: Yes, sir, that is conditioning. How does one free oneself from this conditioning? How do I free myself from my conditioning of the culture in which I was born? First, I must be aware that I am conditioned — not somebody telling me that I am conditioned. You understand the difference? If somebody tells me I am hungry, that’s something different from actually being hungry. So I must be aware of my conditioning, which means, I must be aware of it not only superficially, but at the deeper levels. That is, I must be aware totally. To be so aware, means that I am not trying to go beyond the conditioning, not trying to be free of the conditioning. I must see it as it actually is, not bring in another element, such as wanting to be free of it, because that is an escape from actuality. I must be aware. What does that mean? To be aware of my conditioning totally, not partially, means my mind must be highly sensitive, mustn’t it? Otherwise, I can’t be aware. To be sensitive means to observe everything very, very closely — the colors, the quality of people, all the things around me. I must also be aware of what actually is without any choice. Can you do that — not trying to interpret it, not trying to change it, not trying to go beyond it or trying to be free of it — just to be totally aware of it?
When you observe a tree, between you and the tree there is time and space, isn’t there? And there is also the botanical knowledge about it, the distance between you and the tree — which is time — and the separation which comes through knowledge of the tree. To look at that tree without knowledge, without the time-quality, does not mean identifying yourself with the tree, but to observe the tree so attentively that the boundaries of time don’t come into it at all; the boundaries of time come in only when you have knowledge about the tree. Can you look at your wife, or your friend, or whatever it is, without the image? The image is the past, which has been put together by thought, as nagging, bullying, dominating, as pleasure, companionship, and all that. It is the image that separates; it is the image that creates distance and time. Look at that tree, or the flower, the cloud, or the wife or the husband, without the image!
If you can do that, then you can observe your conditioning totally; then you can look at it with a mind that is not spotted by the past, and therefore the mind itself is free of conditioning.
To look at myself — as we generally do — I look as an observer looking at the observed: myself as the observed, and the observer looking at it. The observer is the knowledge, is the past, is time, the accumulated experiences — he separates himself from the thing observed.
Now, to look without the observer! You do this when you are completely attentive. Do you know what it means to be attentive? Don’t go to school to learn to be attentive! To be attentive means to listen without any interpretation, without any judgment — just to listen. When you are so listening there is no boundary, there is no ‘you’ listening: there is only a state of listening. So, when you observe your conditioning, the conditioning exists only in the observer, not in the observed. When you look without the observer, without the ‘me’ — his fears, his anxieties, and all the rest of it — then you will see, you enter into a totally different dimension."
April 24, 1971, New York.
Reprinted from The Awakening of Intelligence
---Beginnings of Learning
"The brain is not forcing itself to be quiet. If it is forcing itself
to be quiet then it is still in operation of the past. In that there
is division, there is conflict, there is discipline and all the rest
of it. But if the old brain understands, or sees the truth - that as
long as it is in constant response to any stimulus, it must operate
along the old lines - if the old brain sees the truth of that, then it
becomes quiet. It is the truth that brings about quietness - not the
intention to be quiet."
---From J. Krishnamurti, <A HREF="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/ ... GET=_blank>'The Awakening of Intelligence' </font></a>p. 377
"Thought has created the problems which surround us and our brains are
trained, educated, conditioned, to the solving of problems...It is
essential that we understand the nature of our thinking and the nature
of our reactions which arise from our thinking." (page 20)
"From experience we acquire knowledge, from knowledge memory; the
response of memory is thought, then from thought to action, from that
action you learn more, so the cycle is repeated. That is the pattern
of our life. That form of learning will never solve our problems
because it is repetition." (page 25)
"Suppose I have great sorrow for the death of someone with whom I have
lived for many years. Then there is this sorrow which is the essence
of isolation; we feel totally isolated, completely alone. Now, remain
completely with that feeling, not verbalizing it, not rationalizing
it, or escaping from it, or trying to transcend it - all of which is
the movement that thought brings about. When there is that sorrow and
thought does not enter into it at all - which means you are completely
sorrow, not trying to overcome sorrow, but totally sorrow - then there
is the disappearance of it. It is only when there is the fragmentation
of thought that there is travail." (page 65)
From J. Krishnamurti "The Network of Thought"
Krishnamurti: Yes, sir, that is conditioning. How does one free oneself from this conditioning? How do I free myself from my conditioning of the culture in which I was born? First, I must be aware that I am conditioned — not somebody telling me that I am conditioned. You understand the difference? If somebody tells me I am hungry, that’s something different from actually being hungry. So I must be aware of my conditioning, which means, I must be aware of it not only superficially, but at the deeper levels. That is, I must be aware totally. To be so aware, means that I am not trying to go beyond the conditioning, not trying to be free of the conditioning. I must see it as it actually is, not bring in another element, such as wanting to be free of it, because that is an escape from actuality. I must be aware. What does that mean? To be aware of my conditioning totally, not partially, means my mind must be highly sensitive, mustn’t it? Otherwise, I can’t be aware. To be sensitive means to observe everything very, very closely — the colors, the quality of people, all the things around me. I must also be aware of what actually is without any choice. Can you do that — not trying to interpret it, not trying to change it, not trying to go beyond it or trying to be free of it — just to be totally aware of it?
When you observe a tree, between you and the tree there is time and space, isn’t there? And there is also the botanical knowledge about it, the distance between you and the tree — which is time — and the separation which comes through knowledge of the tree. To look at that tree without knowledge, without the time-quality, does not mean identifying yourself with the tree, but to observe the tree so attentively that the boundaries of time don’t come into it at all; the boundaries of time come in only when you have knowledge about the tree. Can you look at your wife, or your friend, or whatever it is, without the image? The image is the past, which has been put together by thought, as nagging, bullying, dominating, as pleasure, companionship, and all that. It is the image that separates; it is the image that creates distance and time. Look at that tree, or the flower, the cloud, or the wife or the husband, without the image!
If you can do that, then you can observe your conditioning totally; then you can look at it with a mind that is not spotted by the past, and therefore the mind itself is free of conditioning.
To look at myself — as we generally do — I look as an observer looking at the observed: myself as the observed, and the observer looking at it. The observer is the knowledge, is the past, is time, the accumulated experiences — he separates himself from the thing observed.
Now, to look without the observer! You do this when you are completely attentive. Do you know what it means to be attentive? Don’t go to school to learn to be attentive! To be attentive means to listen without any interpretation, without any judgment — just to listen. When you are so listening there is no boundary, there is no ‘you’ listening: there is only a state of listening. So, when you observe your conditioning, the conditioning exists only in the observer, not in the observed. When you look without the observer, without the ‘me’ — his fears, his anxieties, and all the rest of it — then you will see, you enter into a totally different dimension."
April 24, 1971, New York.
Reprinted from The Awakening of Intelligence
Re: The nature of "Aql"
"You certainly made a lot of sense this time around."
Thank you "brother" Anajmi. I can finally articulate my thoughts in a way that you can understand, and even agree with .
Thank you "brother" Anajmi. I can finally articulate my thoughts in a way that you can understand, and even agree with .
Re: The nature of "Aql"
Well actually I didn't mean what I said (as if you didn't know that already!!). I just didn't want to continue a lame discussion. But I thought you would have at least that much sense to understand that. I guess I was wrong. (Now let's see if you get that joke)