Racial Discrimination? [Archive]

The Garbage Disposal Unit

14th February 2005, 02:42

Damn . . . my hip post got deleted in the crash a few nights back.

Again then - Communism the ideal of a stateless, classless society, and communists are the folk who are actively enguaged in trying to create such a society.
As such, communists tend to hold certain things as necessary steps on the way to the ideal of communism - though the particulars vary from communist to communist. Most, though not all, arguably, communists hold religion to be a barrier to creating class consciousness - generally held to be a crucial step. Does this mean you can't believe and god and be a communist? Not necessarily. It is however, arguable that you could be a "Better communist" by rejecting religion.

RedStarOverChina

14th February 2005, 02:46

Well its up to u. Personnally, I dont think believing in something that really discourages thinking is freedom.

but if u want a philosophical disgussion on God, it would certainly be a pleasure for me.

Lets start with the following:
Are u a muslim? If u are, how would u describe Allah? Is he all powerful, all knowing, all good, all merciful?

Iso-Socialist

14th February 2005, 13:21

Communism is the ultimate form of equality in all forms (every single attribute that a person can have). What more can I say? :rolleyes:

LSD

14th February 2005, 20:01

The fact is i do believe in God and it is logical to me. Yet in order for communism to exist in Middle East, Islam must be removed, no? I don't see how this is freedom. You should have freedom to believe what you want and freedom to practice what you want.

Of course, and with the exception of the most dogmatic here, I think you will find that no one really objects to the idea of you sitting at home praying to whatever the hell you want to.

You're right, that's freedom.

Where we disagree, I fear, is in the propagation of beliefs or teachings which are not only demonstrably false but demonstrably dangerous.

While I have no problem with your personal faith, I have great concern with you passing on that faith to others, especially the most vulnerable to indoctrnation, your children.

As i become more devout, i am learning communism is not for me. So instead of figuring out why or why shouldn't i believe in God, i instead am figuring out why or why shouldn't i believe in communism.

Come up with anything good yet? :lol:

I am saddened that you have decided to abandon reason in favour of "blind faith".

You stated that you find it "logical", to believe in God. Well continuing with that approach, is it truly "logical" to abandon an economic/political system solely because it contradicts so-called "holy" texts.

Tell me, which is truly "logical":

1.) A studied political conviction based on a rational analysis of the available data.

or

2.) Faith.

Domingo

14th February 2005, 22:07

Look guriellablack:

I am new to most of this, but I can already understand why out of everything that communism chooses to "restrict," it is religion.

Why? Look at it historically: alot of wars and alot more downfalls of governments have occured due to religous uprisings or holywars. Communism is justly defending its exsistance. And even then I belive that it is leniant.

An example of a religous dispute: the 9/11 attacks: The Shiite called it a "Jihad" (way of god).

Please correct me if I am wrong.

bur372

15th February 2005, 14:34

Actully Jihad means holy war. I am personally agaisnt all organized religons (and beliefs for that matter) In my opinion each person has to find (or create) his own beliefs and be respect the opinons of others ( and comprimise). Sure it's okay to folow a religon but make sure you understand what your religon truely and if you disagree with something don't be afraid to change your beliefs.

Domingo

15th February 2005, 14:38

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 02:34 PM
Actully Jihad means holy war.
It is the same thing. Way of God to the Muslims is war. Just thought you might want to know.

guerillablack

15th February 2005, 17:20

Why would the Shiite call 9/11 a Holy War when the shiite were not involved in the attacks?And Jihad does NOT mean holy war, stop listening to media. Please explain to me how religion is demonstrably false, because if that's the case then religion wouldn't be followed. 5-5= 883 is demonstrably false that is why it is not believed. So please prove to me how religion is false.

All i am saying, brothers, is that this is not freedom. People should be free to all information. What you are doing is censorship, which from what i gather most leftists are against. You cannot bar people from information and from practicing their beliefs. This is oppression.

Domingo

15th February 2005, 17:42

Call it what you will, man. Check it: The Shiite extremist were responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Do you actually think that the Taliban was purely government? NO! It was a bunch of religous Shiite extremist. religon is the source of war and termoil.

LSD

15th February 2005, 18:54

Please explain to me how religion is demonstrably false, because if that's the case then religion wouldn't be followed.

Ha! :lol:

Look at the number of people who join cults or fall for confidence schemes.

People believe lies every day.

5-5= 883 is demonstrably false that is why it is not believed. So please prove to me how religion is false.

"The world was created 6000 years ago" <--- Demonstrably False.
"The world was created in 6 days" <--- Demonstrably False.
"The sun orbits the earth" <--- Demonstrably False.
"The cure for leprosy is a dead dove" <--- Demonstrably False.
"The Mesiah returned in 1000 AD" <--- Demonstrably False.
"Donkeys can talk" <--- Demonstrably False.
"There are 'witches' among us" <--- Demonstrably False.
"There are 'giants'" <--- Demonstrably False.
"The earth doesn't rotate" <--- Demonstrably False.
"The earth 'rests on pillars'" <--- Demonstrably False.
etc...

All i am saying, brothers, is that this is not freedom. People should be free to all information. What you are doing is censorship, which from what i gather most leftists are against. You cannot bar people from information and from practicing their beliefs. This is oppression.

..and I would never suggest that it be made "illegal" to "worship", no matter how ridiculous that worship is.

BUT the indoctrination of others must be stopped. Now, I am not suggesting that you can't talk about your religion, but no resources/labour should go towards the furthering of oppressive/immoral "religions", nor should children be exposed to such lies.

Intifada

15th February 2005, 19:04

The Shiite extremist were responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

No they were not.

If Al Qaeda were indeed responsible for the dreadful attacks on 9/11, then it was Sunni extremists who committed the crime.

I am pretty sure that bin Laden is a Sunni Muslim, and moreover, he does not like the Shia Muslims.

Although, bin Laden does not want to wage war on the Shia Muslims because that would split the Islamist movement in their war against America.

guerillablack

15th February 2005, 19:30

Thank you Inta, my friend does not know what we is talking about.

Please in Quran show me where it says world was created in 6000 days. Your just talking out your ass now.

LSD

17th February 2005, 17:10

Please in Quran show me where it says world was created in 6000 days. Your just talking out your ass now.

Who said anything about the "Quran"?!?!

You asked for examples of how religion was "demonstrably false", not one specific religion (Islam).

If you want examples of how Islam is false, that's another issue. I was trying to provide examples from across the semetic religions.

...but since you want Quranic examples, here we go:

"All humanity descends from a single 'soul'" (Sutra 7:189) <---Demonstrably False
"There are eleven planets in the solar system" (Sutra 12:4) <---Demonstrably False
"The sun 'sets' on earth!" (Sutra 18:86) <---Demonstrably False
"The earth doesn't move" (Sutra 27:61) <---Demonstrably False
"The stars are 'missiles for the devils' " (Sutra 67:5) <---Demonstrably False
etc...

There, happy?

bolshevik butcher

17th February 2005, 17:22

Communism isn't really anti-religon, in the sense that in a communist society people would be free to believe what they want.

Domingo

17th February 2005, 17:53

Yeah, just as long as it didnt compromise anything in the government, correct.

LSD

17th February 2005, 18:11

Yeah, just as long as it didnt compromise anything in the government, correct.

1). In communism, there is no government.
2). Communism is concerned with all social phenomenon, not exclusively those which touch on politics.
3). Communism is opposed to all forms of oppression, be they political, economic, or religious.

With all that said.... you are largely correct in that, obviously, people cannot be "forced" to believe or to disbelieve. However, the allocation of resources and the education of children can and should be done in such a way as to promote responsbility and knowledge, not to preserve demonstrably false superstitions.

It will be to the great bennefit of the world when religion, in all its forms, is eliminated.

guerillablack

17th February 2005, 18:32

I opened my Quran to Surah 12:4 and it says "(Remeber) When Yusuf(Josheph) said to his father. "O my father!Verily, I saw(in a dream) eleven stars and the sun and the moon, I saw them prostrating themselves to me."

I don't know what commie/athiest/propraganda site you get your info from, but it'd be good if you did your OWN research and pick up the Quran and turn to those surah's such as I. Most of the things you said were slanted and extremely distorted.

Again belief in God is not demonstrably false, IE religion. Scientific theories in that case shouldn't be taught, so then schools shouldn't be built!

LSD

17th February 2005, 18:50

I opened my Quran to Surah 12:4 and it says "(Remeber) When Yusuf(Josheph) said to his father. "O my father!Verily, I saw(in a dream) eleven stars and the sun and the moon, I saw them prostrating themselves to me."

Well, I suppose it depends on the translation.

I don't speak arabic so I can't speak to the validity of your version over the the translation I read.

...however, I noticed you failed to address the other passaged I indicated, notable the rather ludicrous statement that "The stars are 'missiles for the devils" (sutra 67:5) or that "The sun 'sets' on earth!" (Sutra 18:86).

Most of the things you said were slanted and extremely distorted.

Really?

Let's take a look, shall we?

Here's Surah 67:
"5. And verily We have beautified the world's heaven with lamps, and We have made them missiles for the devils, and for them We have prepared the doom of flame.
6. And for those who disbelieve in their Lord there is the doom of hell, a hapless journey's end!
7. When they are flung therein they hear its roaring as it boileth up"

Can I disprove thatt? um....yeah..

Here's Surah 18:
"85. And he followed a road
86. Till, when he reached the setting-place of the sun, he found it setting in a muddy spring, and found a people thereabout. We said: O Dhu'l-Qarneyn! Either punish or show them kindness."

Can I disprove that? ..yup... think I can...

Here's Surah 86:
"5. So let man consider from what he is created.
6. He is created from a gushing fluid
7. That issued from between the loins and ribs."

Can I disprove that? ....well...yes...

Here's Surah 7:
"And Lot! (Remember) when he said unto his folk: Will ye commit abomination such as no creature ever did before you?
81 Lo! ye come with lust unto men instead of women. Nay, but ye are wanton folk."

Can I disprove that? ...biologists have been doing so for decades.

So... what have we learnt here?

Sure, some errors like the above could be attributed to translation errors, but all of them?

Sorry :(, no way.

So, done with the Quran then, what else you got?

RedAnarchist

17th February 2005, 19:00

Religious books like the Bible and the Qu'ran are ancient. They were written in a time when, due to the lack of scientific knowledge humanity had, explanations of what we are here for and how we came to be - and many other questions - were created. Most cultures formed a religion around one or multiple deities, believing that deity to be some celestial being which gave us all life.

Organized religion is wrong. It misleads people, giving them false hope. That iw hy Marx described it as the opium of the people - a drug used by the ruling classes to keep the working class timid and repressed. It is no coincedence that, with the growth of science, that Communism and other forms of Socialism also grew.

guerillablack

18th February 2005, 01:12

You keep saying you can disprove everything but i don't see you doing it.

Dwarf Kirlston

18th February 2005, 01:28

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2005, 01:12 AM
You keep saying you can disprove everything but i don't see you doing it.
Karl Marx said "religion is the opiate of the masses"

that's a large part of why communism is against religion.

guerillablack

18th February 2005, 03:49

Says, him. But who says his theory. Everything that he said is exactly correct.

LSD

19th February 2005, 10:15

You keep saying you can disprove everything but i don't see you doing it.

You want me to disprove " And verily We have beautified the world's heaven with lamps, and We have made them missiles for the devils, and for them We have prepared the doom of flame."?!?!

wel....alright.

Astronomical analyses of nearby stars as well as deep space radar telemetric studies of more distant ones, has shown us conclusively that not only are all stars save our own, billions of kilometers away from us, they are certainly not "lamps" nor "missiles for the devils"".

As to " Till, when he reached the setting-place of the sun, he found it setting in a muddy spring".

This has been demonstrably false since at least the sixteenth century, probably earlier.

Certainly once manned spacecraft were launched, there can now be no doubt that there is no "setting-place of the sun".

Switching, now, from astronomy to biology:

"And Lot! (Remember) when he said unto his folk: Will ye commit abomination such as no creature ever did before you? Lo! ye come with lust unto men instead of women. Nay, but ye are wanton folk."

The sheer number of examples of homosexual behaviour among animals quickly disproves this idea that "no creature ever did before you".

(However this raises an interesting question. If you believe the Quran to be divine law, which I'm assuming because you're so resistent to my demonstrations of falsehood within it, do you believe homosexuality to be a "sin"?

Do condemn homosexuals as "abomination"?

Ligeia

19th February 2005, 13:20

Why should religion be eliminated in communist society or generally?
Why shouldnt there be no need to believe in whatever you like?
The things written in the bible and the Quran are things you must interpret and get the right message on this way,you have to read between the lines and ignore some things since they are ancient and dont exist or whatever.
Is religion oppressive?Why should it?You can believe in a god and still believe in the human being and in religions you generally believe (and should believe) more in the human being then in an allmighty power since there is no action from that "power".So where is the concrete problem?
(just a question besides :huh: )

bunk

19th February 2005, 13:54

Organized and opressive structured religion must be abolished as it can brainwashes children and can trap people in their structure. People should be able to do whatever they want in small groups or by themselves.

LSD

19th February 2005, 14:05

Why should religion be eliminated in communist society or generally?

Well, "religion" is a tricky word...

Organized religion is clearly a danger and an oppressive force upon society.

But if you simply mean the belief in that which cannot be proven and which, for the most part, flies in the face of logical observation then it should be eliminated for the same reason that belief in a "flat earth" should be eliminated.

It's not true.

Any just society must be basedon reality, it is, furthermore, the duty of any such society to ensure that all members of that society are as well educated as possible.

Why should it?You can believe in a god and still believe in the human being and in religions you generally believe (and should believe) more in the human being then in an allmighty power since there is no action from that "power".So where is the concrete problem?

The "concrete problem" is that religion grants a "liscense" to act in the name of "God". Once "chosen", people feel that have a right to kill, assault, oppress, suppress, discriminate, indoctrinate, etc...

Once the premise is accepted that an innately groundless and unprovable hypothesis is true, logic and reason lose their meaning.

I know that this here Galileo says the earth orbits the Sun, but God tells me that the sun orbits the earth... so let's oppress his ass!!

Who cares what biologists and sociologists and phsychologists say... God tells me that homosexuals are abominations... so let's oppress their asses!!

Sound familiar?

Why shouldnt there be no need to believe in whatever you like?

"Belief" is mostly harmless and clearly it is difficult to deprogram those who genuinely believe in a "higher power".

But the indoctrination of others must be prevented.

The things written in the bible and the Quran are things you must interpret and get the right message on this way,you have to read between the lines and ignore some things since they are ancient and dont exist or whatever.

Right...

Someone needs to explain that to the billions of people who have died thanks to "misinterpretations".

At this point, how about we just forget about trying to "interpret" thousand year old manuscripts at all.

s religion oppressive?

Yes.

Ligeia

19th February 2005, 16:22

I still dont know what to believe in and what not.But maybe some want religion because humans still cant explain there existance or because we cant believe that we are....well,Im still unsure about these things.
Anyway,Misinterpretations are really the cause for some miseries but nevertheless there should be tolerance and more for those with a strong belief.
I once read the book "the life of Galileo Galilei" from Brecht,I think,that is a nice book relating to some aspects of that theme.
Why is religion oppresive?What makes religion oppresive?(if so)

alex d kid

19th February 2005, 17:31

They're called Nazis and are our sworn enemy.

guerillablack

19th February 2005, 21:18

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 19 2005, 10:15 AM

You keep saying you can disprove everything but i don't see you doing it.

You want me to disprove " And verily We have beautified the world's heaven with lamps, and We have made them missiles for the devils, and for them We have prepared the doom of flame."?!?!

wel....alright.

Astronomical analyses of nearby stars as well as deep space radar telemetric studies of more distant ones, has shown us conclusively that not only are all stars save our own, billions of kilometers away from us, they are certainly not "lamps" nor "missiles for the devils"".

As to " Till, when he reached the setting-place of the sun, he found it setting in a muddy spring".

This has been demonstrably false since at least the sixteenth century, probably earlier.

Certainly once manned spacecraft were launched, there can now be no doubt that there is no "setting-place of the sun".

Switching, now, from astronomy to biology:

"And Lot! (Remember) when he said unto his folk: Will ye commit abomination such as no creature ever did before you? Lo! ye come with lust unto men instead of women. Nay, but ye are wanton folk."

The sheer number of examples of homosexual behaviour among animals quickly disproves this idea that "no creature ever did before you".

(However this raises an interesting question. If you believe the Quran to be divine law, which I'm assuming because you're so resistent to my demonstrations of falsehood within it, do you believe homosexuality to be a "sin"?

Do condemn homosexuals as "abomination"?
are you kidding me? DO you know what setting means? It means disappearing below the horizon. Again you are horribly trying to twist the Quran around. It's not at all trying to be scientific but showing you a person's vision. IE, i saw the sun set behind a mountain. You don't see the sun set behind a mountain, but from my viewpoint it does. All that it is describing is by the time Dhu al-Qarnain the sun was setting in a murky lake, as if it was disspearing into the lake. I can't believe you actually try to use this as a scientific error in the Quran.

My brother, all your scientific errors, are stemmed from your misinterpretations and lack of knowledge of the Holy Text. Read the whole story of Lot, not just one line. It does not say that they were the only people to commit homosexuality. As you try to imply, it says they were first to commit wrong, ie, their actions were the opposite of good. Against every act of righteousess that ever existed. Whether homosexuality is natural or not, is not of a big point in this story. The point is, that at the time and place of this story, it was thought to be unnatural or against norm, so they committed it. If it was the norm or if they society thought it to be natural, they wouldn't commit it. Their condition was not innate, nor does the quran text so. It just illustrates the people's rebelliousness.

Karl Marx's Camel

19th February 2005, 21:21

Leftist ideologies are not racists.

Organized racism constructed in society exists because it makes exploitation so much more simple. Racism is a result of class society, and is based on classes. I doubt there are many cases where racism hasn't come a long with exploitation.

This is also true for the caste system.

LSD

19th February 2005, 21:59

My brother, all your scientific errors, are stemmed from your misinterpretations and lack of knowledge of the Holy Text.

*cough* "And verily We have beautified the world's heaven with lamps, and We have made them missiles for the devils, and for them We have prepared the doom of flame." *cough*

Read the whole story of Lot, not just one line. It does not say that they were the only people to commit homosexuality. As you try to imply, it says they were first to commit wrong, ie, their actions were the opposite of good. Against every act of righteousess that ever existed. Whether homosexuality is natural or not, is not of a big point in this story.

It isn't!? :lol:

It is the story, at least how its portrayed here.

"Lo! ye come with lust unto men instead of women. Nay, but ye are wanton folk." ..you think that's there for emphasis?!?

it is not used as an example of "societal norms", it is used as an example of devine norms (see Sura 26:165, "What! Of all creatures do ye come unto the males, And leave the wives your Lord created for you ? Nay, but ye are froward folk.").

Their condition was not innate, nor does the quran text so.

I'm not even sure what that is supposed to mean...

"their condition was not innate"

Right...I forgot... It's a "lifestyle choice" :huh:

Oh and while we're on the subject, I can't help but notice that my query was ignored.

In case you missed it: Do you condemn homosexuals as "abomination"?

Because your "Holy Text" certainly does.

*EDIT*
OH! Wait! There's more!

Here are some "holy" gems I've discovered:

"As for those of your women who are guilty of lewdness, call to witness four of you against them. And if they testify (to the truth of the allegation) then confine them to the houses until death take them or (until) Allah appoint for them a way (through new legislation)."

"They long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve, that ye may be upon a level (with them). So choose not friends from them till they forsake their homes in the way of Allah; if they turn back (to enmity) then take them and kill them wherever ye find them, and choose no friend nor helper from among them"

"Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great."

Let me guess, are these "social norms"?

And yet I thought the Quran was the "word of Allah"?

If so then why is he promoting backwards "social norms". It is abundently clear to any neutral schollar that "Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other" is no sociological analysis, it is pure and simple mysogeny.

And according to your "holy text" it is also the word of God.

So which one is it?

Do men "excel" women or is the Quran flat out wrong?

Which one?

guerillablack

20th February 2005, 00:01

Again and again, you try to prove something with your false unknowledgable interpretations of the Quran. How are you, going to tell me what this story is about. That is like me trying to tell an anarachists what's wrong with anarchism without even knowing one thing about anarchism. I am telling you what the story is about. Wanton, means casual and unrestrained sexual behavior. Which they were exhibiting. I already refuted you countless times due to your interpretations of whole stories and lines. As in the case of the so called holy gems you discovered. Those are again misinterpretations. I am sure you know what transliteration is and how this can effect an original text content.

Yawn. Get your facts straight.

LSD

20th February 2005, 00:06

As in the case of the so called holy gems you discovered. Those are again misinterpretations. I am sure you know what transliteration is and how this can effect an original text content.

Well then, what is the correct translation of ""Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great."

(It's Surah 4:34, by the way)

Yawn. Get your facts straight.

Answer my questions first:

1.) "Do men "excel" women or is the Quran flat out wrong?"
2.) "Do you condemn homosexuals as "abomination"?"

guerillablack

20th February 2005, 00:49

Men do not excel over women and it is not Quran which is wrong but you. Again as i keep saying this is due to tranliteration that you get the word excel."Men are qawwamun in relation to women, according to what God has favored some over others and according to what they spend from their wealth". This states that some men are privledged over others, ie, financially. This role of qawwamun is dependent on the male financial responsibility. Thus the husband is the wife's qawwamun only when he is the sole source of income. So therefore he is not the wife's qawwamun if they both share financial responsibilities or if she is sole source of income.

is that clear?this verse is a very difficult verse, especially when you have no knowledge of the Quran or Islam like yourself.

LSD

20th February 2005, 01:08

[quote]...thus the husband is the wife's qawwamun only when he is the sole source of income. So therefore he is not the wife's qawwamun if they both share financial responsibilities or if she is sole source of income.[/quote

Really?

It seems that is a contentious point:
"Even if a woman has millions, she is entitled to be completely supported by her husband and can have her marriage annulled if he is unable to. And it entails that a man has charge of his wife's interests, supervision, and discipline. And Allah knows best. - What is the meaning of "Qawwamuna" as used in Surat al-Nisa', verse 34? (http://www.ummah.org.uk/Al_adaab/qawwamun.html)

Clearly, a sexual dichotomy still exists.

And you have still not answered the question I've been asking for pages now.

For the fourth time, Do you condemn homosexuals as "abomination"?"

Yes or No.

guerillablack

20th February 2005, 01:26

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 20 2005, 01:08 AM

...thus the husband is the wife's qawwamun only when he is the sole source of income. So therefore he is not the wife's qawwamun if they both share financial responsibilities or if she is sole source of income.

Really?

It seems that is a contentious point:
"Even if a woman has millions, she is entitled to be completely supported by her husband and can have her marriage annulled if he is unable to. And it entails that a man has charge of his wife's interests, supervision, and discipline. And Allah knows best. - What is the meaning of "Qawwamuna" as used in Surat al-Nisa', verse 34? (http://www.ummah.org.uk/Al_adaab/qawwamun.html)

Clearly, a sexual dichotomy still exists.

And you have still not answered the question I've been asking for pages now.

For the fourth time, Do you condemn homosexuals as "abomination"?"

Yes or No.
What you have an italiacs is not from the Quran. I'm not going to even waste my time with what this paper says. Because true Men are the protectors of women, but this essay neglects to reflect to earlier surah's where it says men are the protectors of women AND women are the protectors of men. Argue using the Quran, since you believe it contains all these errors and said it is demonstrably false. But you havent' demonstrated nothing. 4-4=38 is demonstrably false. I have yet to see you prove anything. We are all waiting.

bunk

20th February 2005, 09:28

answer his question on homesexuality then

guerillablack

20th February 2005, 18:28

This is not about one's personal beliefs, this is about how he set out to prove that religion, islam, is demonstrably false. He has yet to do so. Demonstrably false means it's prove to be false. 4-3=3 is demonstrably false, it isn't sometimes false, it's always false.

bolshevik butcher

20th February 2005, 20:03

Karl Marx said; "Religon is the opium of the oppressed."

However, he also said; "Religon is love, in a loveless world."

I agree with both these statements, religon's often oppressive, it also often helps people through things, as do a lot of faith based charities.

bunk

20th February 2005, 20:17

Karl Marx said ' religion is the opium of the masses.'

bolshevik butcher

20th February 2005, 21:01

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 08:17 PM
Karl Marx said ' religion is the opium of the masses.'
Sorry, mis-quote, same idea though.

LSD

20th February 2005, 21:38

ut you havent' demonstrated nothing. 4-4=38 is demonstrably false. I have yet to see you prove anything. We are all waiting.

I hate to repeat myself.. but:

"All humanity descends from a single 'soul'" (Sutra 7:189) <---Demonstrably False
"The earth doesn't move" (Sutra 27:61) <---Demonstrably False
"The stars are 'missiles for the devils' " (Sutra 67:5) <---Demonstrably False

Oh and wait!

Homosexuality is an abomination <--- DEMONSTRABLY FALSE

I guess that takes us to:

answer his question on homesexuality then

This is not about one's personal beliefs, this is about how he set out to prove that religion, islam, is demonstrably false. He has yet to do so. Demonstrably false means it's prove to be false. 4-3=3 is demonstrably false, it isn't sometimes false, it's always false.

Oh I see.

I'm a bigot, but it's personal...

Sorry. :(

But I'm going to take that as a yes.

(I'm not American and hence do not recognize the fifth ammendment. I take your refussal to answer to be a sign of guilt! :P)

so....

Homosexuality is :o Abomination :o , eh?

I'd loooove to see you prove that one!

:lol:

guerillablack

20th February 2005, 22:13

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 20 2005, 09:38 PM

ut you havent' demonstrated nothing. 4-4=38 is demonstrably false. I have yet to see you prove anything. We are all waiting.

I hate to repeat myself.. but:

"All humanity descends from a single 'soul'" (Sutra 7:189) <---Demonstrably False
"The earth doesn't move" (Sutra 27:61) <---Demonstrably False
"The stars are 'missiles for the devils' " (Sutra 67:5) <---Demonstrably False

Oh and wait!

Homosexuality is an abomination <--- DEMONSTRABLY FALSE

I guess that takes us to:

answer his question on homesexuality then

This is not about one's personal beliefs, this is about how he set out to prove that religion, islam, is demonstrably false. He has yet to do so. Demonstrably false means it's prove to be false. 4-3=3 is demonstrably false, it isn't sometimes false, it's always false.

Oh I see.

I'm a bigot, but it's personal...

Sorry. :(

But I'm going to take that as a yes.

(I'm not American and hence do not recognize the fifth ammendment. I take your refussal to answer to be a sign of guilt! :P)

so....

Homosexuality is :o Abomination :o , eh?

I'd loooove to see you prove that one!

:lol:
Yawn. The Quran doesn't say all humanity descends form a single soul in surah 7:189. The Quran doesn't say that the earth doesn't move in Surah 27:61. You can't even prove the Quran demonstrably false if the Quran never says the things that you said!

Again, i never said whether homosexuality or heterosexuality is an abomination. You have yet to prove to me that the quran is demonstrably false. First because of your misinterpretations and second because you say the Quran says things that it doesn't.

LSD

20th February 2005, 22:40

The Quran doesn't say all humanity descends form a single soul in surah 7:189.

"He it is Who did create you from a single soul"

The Quran doesn't say that the earth doesn't move in Surah 27:61.

"Is not he Who made the earth a fixed abode, and placed rivers in the folds thereof, and placed firm hills therein, and hath set a barrier between the two seas?"

hmmm, I notice you didn't address the 'missiles for the devils' part...

Again, i never said whether homosexuality or heterosexuality is an abomination.

As I said, I am taking your refusal to answer as an affirmative response.

Besides, you've made it clear that you believe the Quran to be "devine" (for no particular reason, it appears) and the Quran is unequivical on this point.

You have yet to prove to me that the quran is demonstrably false. First because of your misinterpretations and second because you say the Quran says things that it doesn't.

OK, since you refuse to address the "missiles for devil" point, how about the talking ant in 2:261?

or "And all things We have created by pairs, that haply ye may reflect." (51:49) which is clearly not true.

or the earth as a carpet in 20:53?

or that mountains keep the earth "stable"? (21:31)

or the ridiculous "seven heavens" model? (2:29, 37:6, 67:3, 71:15)

and on and on and...

guerillablack

20th February 2005, 23:26

Yawn.

Amman jaAAala al-arda qararan wajaAAala khilalaha anharan wajaAAala laha rawasiya wajaAAala bayna albahrayni hajizan a-ilahun maAAa Allahi bal aktharuhum la yaAAlamoona.

Or Who created the earth for habitation and has placed upon its surface rivers and balanced it with firm hills and has set a barrier between the two seas? Can there be another God besides Allah? Nay, but most of them know not!

another translation
Or, Who made the earth a restingplace, and made in it rivers, and raised on it mountains and placed between the two seas a barrier. Is there a god with Allah? Nay! most of them do not know!

You take the poor translation of the earth a good habitat and twist it into a so-called scientific error.

LMAO! The earth as a carpet. Do you know what a similie is?Why are you trying to take things literal?

You keep chopping up pieces of the Quran to prove a point. When i post the full excerpt and show you are wrong not only in your accusations but in the translations and interpretations, you post a new verse. It will take me forever to refute each and every surah verse you say is invalid. Your going to believe what you will.

All you bring forth is lies. There IS no talking ant in 2:261. No story of a talking ant, never a mention of a word ant, not even a word with the suffix ant! So what are you talking about? How can that be demonstrably false when it's not even to be found.

LSD

20th February 2005, 23:41

All you bring forth is lies. There IS no talking ant in 2:261. No story of a talking ant, never a mention of a word ant, not even a word with the suffix ant! So what are you talking about? How can that be demonstrably false when it's not even to be found.

I'm sorry, typo, I meant 27:18.

You keep chopping up pieces of the Quran to prove a point. When i post the full excerpt and show you are wrong not only in your accusations but in the translations and interpretations, you post a new verse. It will take me forever to refute each and every surah verse you say is invalid. Your going to believe what you will.

Actually, there is one verse I've been pointing to since the beginning which you refuse to address!

so... ARE THE STARS MISSILES FOR DEVILS?

Oh and how about homosexuality?

Still unwilling to acknowledge that rather glarring error I see...

guerillablack

21st February 2005, 00:42

Sigh. One last time.

For the story of solomon and the ants.
From
http://www.understanding-islam.org/related...=article&aid=83 (http://www.understanding-islam.org/related/text.asp?type=article&aid=83)

"The arabic word used like its English counterpart 'said' does not necessarily imply verbal communication or communication through spoken words. On the contrary, both these words, in their respective languages may sometimes be used for communication of ideas, feelings and thoughts, through any mode of communication."

http://www.understanding-islam.org/related...cussion&did=198 (http://www.understanding-islam.org/related/text.asp?type=discussion&did=198)

By talk, it means communicate with the other ants, which ants do.

Again with the missles for devils, as well as other verses you brought up you take it literally. The verse is an allusion to astronomers and soothsayers. Nothing scientific at all which you try to imply. That is an honest mistake, for you are not intelligent enough to research things on your own, instead you goto sites that claim there are contradictions in their quran(these people also have no working knowledge of arabic or the quran) and claim it to be true. How can you claim something true when you yourself did not research it and see if it's true or not. If i tell you it is raining where you live, are you going to believe it to be true without first looking out window first?

You will be a much more powerful debator of Islam if you have a working knowledge on Arabic, the Quran and Islam.

Peace