PDA

View Full Version : 9th July, beginning of Ramadan



Benedikt
09-07-2013, 20:52
Ramadan or as it is called Ramazan in Turkish - the holy Muslim holiday. In fact it is the ninth month of the Muslim calendar, which is the most honorable and important to devout Muslims around the world. The first day of Lent changes every year.

During this month to observe a strict fast, involving the rejection of food, water and sexual relations every day from dawn to dusk. In this case, the ban is removed at night. The meaning of Lent is the desire of every Muslim to strengthen their faith, to rethink the way of life, priorities, determine the values ​​of life, to attain spiritual growth through daily prayer and abstinence. Initially, the observance of this post can be quite difficult for those who do it for the first time. But practice shows that usually it is easy to transfer the majority of the people and even has a therapeutic effect on the body.

Fasting is one of the pillars of Islam. It is prescribed to observe every fertile Muslim, except for the elderly, people with chronic diseases and those who are in the way. In this case, the need to abstain every day to help those in need in the amount of the amount that they spend on food per day, and travelers will be required to make up the missed days of fasting in the next month.

ends with a monthly post Eid ul-Fitr or Ramadan Bairam, is the second value holiday for Muslims. It begins on the last day of the month of Ramadan, after sunset, and last for two days next month, called Shawwal.

As the Qur'an tells us all:
Good deed - Ramadan!
Since the beginning of this post
was condescending faith and beauty.

Wish I'll be able to
overcome all the hardships,
to cleanse the soul from sin,
That was your life easy!

Insight to let you come -
will bring the word of Allah,
will ignite Midnight Star,
from the house will take trouble!

***********

From prayer at dawn
to evening Maghreb
are adults and children
to keep their post continuously.
administer and do good,
and pray, and read.
gather all the family,
Ramadan will be met.
May the force you to add,
let's health will Allah
from adversity and misfortune deliver it
from the soul banish fear!

***********

praying, doing good, what happened mercy
during daylight fasting days ,
We all want, that we opened the
next divine hypostasis,
it struck us the blessings of data;
And soon too Eid al-Adha ...
My friends! With the start of Ramadan,
Good luck! Happiness! Eid Mubarak to you!
Author: Alexey Reznikov

***********

One of the five pillars of Islam - the
beginning of the fast of Ramadan.
Believe in yourself, Allah,
and give up the scope

for food, water and carnal life.
Happy these delights all unnecessary.
Endure, waiting for the night,
the Koran read lines.

All Muslims with the beginning of the post!
wish Spiritual growth,
an easy victory over desire,
and leadership over the mind.

***********

Here come the Great Ramadan -
This is month of fasting for Muslims.
This is a time for prayer, purification of the soul,
So let your thoughts be clean only.

Forget you about quarrels, live only in the world,
and Allah Almighty will add you to our strength.
And pray every day, reinforcing the belief
for friends and relatives to become an example of you.

***********

Again comes the holy month of Ramadan -
It will be held in fasting, prayer and deeds of good!
It all Muslims by Allah given
In cases reward healthy, heal the sick!
Ramadan will come to your house, clean fill
Soul, heart, thoughts and deeds!
This bright holiday let you give
joy, faith, strength, repentance.

***********

sacred duty of all Muslims to
observe Lent the whole month of Ramadan.
You're the first day pray
seven times to read the Koran you are not lazy.

cleanse the soul and repent of their sins,
and no matter what can not be tempted,
then Allah will always be with you
on the righteous path to lead the.

******* ****

Few know of Ramadan - it's fast,
and for Muslims it is really very difficult.
But you have to go through this long journey,
in celebration of this fact lies the point:
Cleaning souls to the faith of his,
that was not greed, evil, and shadows ,
clean and light to become a soul,
so that life on earth was all good!

rusmeister
10-07-2013, 06:21
I guess it really doesn't matter what you believe. At least that's what polls around here show.
What's the good of learning - or teaching - about these creeds, Muslim, Christian, Jewish, or whatever, if it really doesn't matter?

You may consider the question an honest one, not merely a rhetorical one.

Are you Muslim now, Benedikt? I had thought you were Catholic...

Benedikt
10-07-2013, 07:07
Are you Muslim now, Benedikt? I had thought you were Catholic...[/QUOTE]


i don't smoke, but i still know what cigarettes are...
and i don't drink Whisk(e)y but know how it is made...

cadiguzel
10-07-2013, 09:15
Actually it's a pity to ask someone about her/his religion. Anyways; Benedikt wrote it pretty well. The main goal of Ramazan is to understand poor people and to control your self-will.

But now people (especially earning more than average) after dawn eating in expensive restaurants or banqueting for other rich people which is definitely reverse of the main idea.

But for me best thing of Ramazan always were the first day of the feast after 30 days. All family members gathers in grandma's home and with a huge table we drink Raki. I'm missing those days.

PS: I never follow this prey, I think when I was young I felt that I'll be a future atheist ahaha

Benedikt
10-07-2013, 19:14
[QUOTE=cadiguzel;1188367]Actually it's a pity to ask someone about her/his religion. Anyways; Benedikt wrote it pretty well. The main goal of Ramazan is to understand poor people and to control your self-will.



(i have no problem about my religion or if/when/why Rusmeister asked me about it.)

but i have another problem. i have worked in Indonesia, the biggest Moslem nation in the world. the cooks got up earlier to finish the breakfast buffet when than the Muezzin allowed the faithful that it is allowed to eat. when we opened the dining room doors, the rush hour at the Moscow metro was tame compared to that. one would have thought this was the last meal or the people did not eat at least for 2 weeks.
the same in the evening.
and THIS is no fasting in my opinion.actually, during Ramadan were were using more food than during a normal month. So be it, but on top of it, the amount of food that got wasted, plates got piled up high and than half left over. This is no fasting in my eyes. This is simple and pure gluttony.

I know it is hard to fast the whole day, it was even harder for the cooks, who are surrounded by food all day long.
it is not for me to judge others, each to his or her believe. but than try not to pretend something that is not done.

rusmeister
12-07-2013, 03:50
Actually it's a pity to ask someone about her/his religion.

“Religious liberty might be supposed to mean that everybody is free to discuss religion. In practice it means that hardly anybody is allowed to mention it.” GKC

Even in a section specially titled "religion"...

rusmeister
12-07-2013, 04:16
(i have no problem about my religion or if/when/why Rusmeister asked me about it.)


it is not for me to judge others, each to his or her believe. but than try not to pretend something that is not done.


I respect when a serious (as opposed to nominal) Muslim states what he believes, precisely because he believes it to be true, and is much more likely to be careful about getting the understandings right.

I am much more suspicious when a person who is disinterested speaks about a creed in which he doesn't believe. For the first principle of man is that what we REALLY believe (as often opposed to what we CLAIM to believe) really does affect our actions.

So here, my curiosity would be around why you post this, as if this should be of special interest to us, when what you actually believe is not interesting enough to post about. Why should we be MORE interested in something that is not true than something that is true?

Benedikt
12-07-2013, 06:57
on the site we are believers of many different faith's and the post was ment for those who are of moslem faith.
i just thought the poem was very nice and wanted to post and share it.

rusmeister
12-07-2013, 07:51
on the site we are believers of many different faith's and the post was ment for those who are of moslem faith.
i just thought the poem was very nice and wanted to post and share it.

That's wonderful!
And as I said, I have considerable respect for Muslims who take their faith seriously. One thing I know such Muslims would not do, though, would be to post quotes from the New Testament, precisely BECAUSE they take their faith seriously.

Still, I don't recall you ever posting a psalm from the holy book of your own faith. Many of those are very nice, too. I'm sure the Christians on this site would appreciate it.


“These are the days when the Christian is expected to praise every creed except his own.” GKC

Benedikt
14-07-2013, 06:54
Still, I don't recall you ever posting a psalm from the holy book of your own faith. Many of those are very nice, too. I'm sure the Christians on this site would appreciate it.

GKC[/QUOTE]

or that seem logically to others.therefore i just posted the article because i thought it was nice and well written.

rubyrussia
14-07-2013, 13:21
I think one mistake some people make with "tolerance", which I don't believe in btw, is that somehow we should believe that all religions and aspects belonging are beautiful and that we should genuinely consider everything interesting and special... some kind of rosy mumbo jumbo feeling...

VicY
14-07-2013, 15:55
I think one mistake some people make with "tolerance", which I don't believe in btw, is that somehow we should believe that all religions and aspects belonging are beautiful and that we should genuinely consider everything interesting and special... some kind of rosy mumbo jumbo feeling...

Very well said! That's how I feel too. I don't believe in tolerance towards EVERY kind of religion.

rusmeister
14-07-2013, 16:08
Orthodox Christianity actually has fasting and asceticism, too, as well as feasting and "partying", and knows the appropriate place and measure of both, and is much closer to your Catholic roots. Even traditional Catholicism has some fasting, though it was heavily gutted by Vatican II.

Your post drew my fire because it appears to be founded in an attitude that what we believe doesn't matter, as if we could, from the outside, "admire" the "beauty" of disciplines we have no intention of attempting ourselves. A similar post, from a serious Muslim, would not get such a reaction from me, because I know that they take the practice seriously, as something that one actually ought to do, and not merely to be "admired for nice and beautiful ideas".

So I would stand shoulder to shoulder with that serious Muslim, despite our differences, against the attitude that reduces our beliefs to "nice", but irrelevant to our own lives. I would rather see a world ruled by Islam than by that towering indifference to the truth about the nature of man and our purpose in life.

penka
14-07-2013, 21:12
“Religious liberty might be supposed to mean that everybody is free to discuss religion. In practice it means that hardly anybody is allowed to mention it.” GKC

Even in a section specially titled "religion"...

Here we go again....

Would you be offended if I, not being an American, would congratulate the American members of the forum with the Independence day?

It's called being nice to the members of community! Besides, Benedikt, as a Chef knows a thing or two about the culinary celebrations of Ramadan.

penka
14-07-2013, 21:14
I think one mistake some people make with "tolerance", which I don't believe in btw, is that somehow we should believe that all religions and aspects belonging are beautiful and that we should genuinely consider everything interesting and special... some kind of rosy mumbo jumbo feeling...

Tolerance of the set of religious views has hardly anything to do with how some people exercise or interpret their religious beliefs or their freedoms.

rusmeister
15-07-2013, 07:53
Here we go again....

Would you be offended if I, not being an American, would congratulate the American members of the forum with the Independence day?

It's called being nice to the members of community! Besides, Benedikt, as a Chef knows a thing or two about the culinary celebrations of Ramadan.

I don't think you've tried to understand what I have said. I have laid out rather clearly why I have said it. If you had, you would not make the nationality comparison, which is irrelevant to what I said. The despicable view is the one that says that it doesn't matter what you believe, but let us "admire" it anyway.

And as I pointed out, you and he and pretty much everyone here is never similarly "nice to the Christian members of the community", so the whole bit about "being nice" is just hypocrisy, which I mean in the sense of a literal understanding of the word - insufficiently self-critical.

rusmeister
15-07-2013, 07:59
Tolerance of the set of religious views has hardly anything to do with how some people exercise or interpret their religious beliefs or their freedoms.

???
Any tolerance of religious views is PRECISELY an attitude towards the exercise or interpretation of beliefs, so this statement makes zero sense to me. And tolerance is an opposite of love. It means to put up with something you don't like. It is NOT a virtue; it can be good or bad to tolerate a thing. You can tolerate your children's music, or their addiction to alcohol or drugs. Some things should NOT be tolerated.

JanC
15-07-2013, 15:33
???
It means to put up with something you don't like. It is NOT a virtue; it can be good or bad to tolerate a thing.

And sometimes, it is impossible to tell whether something is good or bad, correct or incorrect. What is left is opinion on intangible subjects. If my favourite colour is blue and yours is green, do you think tolerance of opinion is not common sense?
When you have 2 preachers arguing over which of their gods is real, nobody can win that argument any better than you and I can arguing about the best colour. Stuff like a drug addiction is factually established to be a very bad thing indeed.


Some things should NOT be tolerated.

Somehow my mind went straight to something about creationists here.

quincy
15-07-2013, 15:35
The main goal of Ramazan is to understand poor people and to control your self-will.



for this month Islam forces everyone to think about those who may not have enough to eat and drink every day. But in Muslim societies where people - usually those with more money - eat too much after sunset, then this is probably not very Islamic

rusmeister
15-07-2013, 16:39
And sometimes, it is impossible to tell whether something is good or bad, correct or incorrect. What is left is opinion on intangible subjects. If my favourite colour is blue and yours is green, do you think tolerance of opinion is not common sense?
It IS impossible for a blind man to make any distinctions requiring sight. If the nature of the truth about the nature of man and our purpose in life WERE a matter of taste, then tolerance of opinion would indeed be common sense. The fact that it never HAS been the common sense, sensus communis of mankind is evidence, in addition to both logic and common sense, that it is NOT a matter of taste, that, whether we know that truth or not, that there MUST be objective truth about how man came into existence, and that truth is NOT a matter of taste, any more than the question of evolution is.



When you have 2 preachers arguing over which of their gods is real, nobody can win that argument any better than you and I can arguing about the best colour. Stuff like a drug addiction is factually established to be a very bad thing indeed.
Your idea of facts and factual establishment is predicated on your own assumptions held in your world view, which I certainly dispute. (I've still got the MC thread on my to-do list, never fear)
My own understanding of facts is that I must choose to believe in them, that I accept them on the basis of authority that I trust. You do, too. Your certainty of your own birthday is an act of faith. Documents can be forged, parents can lie, some children are adopted, etc. All knowledge begins with an act of faith, in your reason and senses, first of all, then in the data supplied to them.



Somehow my mind went straight to something about creationists here.

That says nothing about whether a thing should be tolerated or not. Your resistance to the truth that there ARE things that ought not be tolerated is telling. Ideas ARE dangerous, and they are most dangerous to the people that do not have any. If you do not know that some mushrooms really are poisonous, you might object to discrimination against certain mushrooms, and call for a general tolerance of mushrooms. But that only results in poisoning of the individual, as a bad religion - or irreligion - poisons a society, be they Thuggees in India or Stalin's civil religion of the cult of personality. And the great poison of our age, the heresy of our time is this massive indifference to cosmic truth, next to which Communist atheism отдыхает, takes a back seat.

cadiguzel
15-07-2013, 16:43
for this month Islam forces everyone to think about those who may not have enough to eat and drink every day. But in Muslim societies where people - usually those with more money - eat too much after sunset, then this is probably not very Islamic

My next sentence tells exactly the same.

JanC
15-07-2013, 19:45
If the nature of the truth about the nature of man and our purpose in life WERE a matter of taste, then tolerance of opinion would indeed be common sense......whether we know that truth or not, that there MUST be objective truth about how man came into existence, and that truth is NOT a matter of taste, any more than the question of evolution is.

Yes, yes, all that....but you're once again going in a circle around the point: that you have (shown) nothing that sets your religious convictions apart from those others we should or should not be tolerant about.
Yes, there must be an objective truth, but as long as you can't show that you actually know it all you have is a competing idea that we can be "tolerant" about if we wish.




My own understanding of facts is that I must choose to believe in them, that I accept them on the basis of authority that I trust.

That's.....convenient. But not how we go about discovering things and make technological and medical progress. It probably works up to a point, though, as long as you stay within a topic that the authority is relevant to. The Bible for example would not be relevant to discovering the origin of man, but it could be relevant to understanding how you should plan your family life.


Your certainty of your own birthday is an act of faith. Documents can be forged, parents can lie, some children are adopted, etc. All knowledge begins with an act of faith, in your reason and senses, first of all, then in the data supplied to them.

Whether my birthday is my true birthday or not is not a particularly important thing to be right about. Because it is such a trivial matter, nothing really changes whether it is true or not. There is no motive for anyone to lie about a meaningless date, and there are multiple independent sources which confirm this particular date so there is no reason not to accept it. But it certainly does not give me 100 percent certainty.
You know the "extraordinary claims" bit I'm sure. My birthday is not extraordinary, nothing of importance depends on it being correct.
If the same people who told me my birthday claimed to have seen a ghost in the room at the time of my birth, I would be inclined to doubt the claim (though no doubt they might be sincere in thinking that is what they saw)

You keep ignoring (either that or don't understand) that not all claims are alike and the amount of trust involved is not always the same.



Your resistance to the truth that there ARE things that ought not be tolerated is telling

What resistance? I consider it common sense that not everything can be tolerated, in fact the list of things we cannot tolerate is probably larger than what we can.
But that's not the point, you are swapping things around. My resistance is to you saying that tolerance in general is not a good thing. We tend to understand "tolerance" in context where it is more specific about common issues like race or religion. It is not a word that is normally used in a context of things we consider crimes.
Certainly you seem to frown upon religious tolerance so if we all jumped on your cart the world would be in a constant state of war between people who are convinced they are right but have nothing to convince others of a different religion (who are equally convinced they alone are right)


a bad religion

What are the characteristics of a bad religion and how are they opposed to your own?

rusmeister
15-07-2013, 23:13
Jan, it seems obvious that you have more time on your hands than I do. (Children are a great cure for that, by the way!)

My point is obviously different from yours, and since I see yours as irrelevant to what I am saying, I will certainly go around it. Truth is not a matter of taste, whoever may be right. Period.

I don't think you fully understood what I said. ALL of your knowledge, that which you think important as well as that which you think unimportant, is founded on your faith in the objectivity of your reason, experience, or authority that delivered that knowledge to you, and even technical and medical progress, branches of human knowledge far less important than philosophy and theology (I can even get that you dismiss the latter, but dismissing the importance of the former would be simply inexcusable. And when we come to cosmic philosophy, we find that it is relevant to EVERYTHING. Anything can be irrelevant to the proposition that the Christian worldview is false; nothing can be irrelevant to the proposition that it is true.

I say that tolerance in general is a thing neither good nor bad; that each thing proposed to be tolerated should be examined to determine whether it may or ought to be tolerated. The modern assumption skips this question with an automatic assumption that all beliefs of any sort should be tolerated (except those such as the traditional Christian one that see themselves to be actually true and therefore should affect our lives and actions, of course).

There's a great quote in the Father Brown detective stories about seeing ghosts; I'll see if I can find it for you.

rusmeister
15-07-2013, 23:19
Here it is:


‘Do you mean to say,’ demanded Tarrant, ‘that we can really be killed now by something that happened in the thirteenth century?’

Father Brown shook his head and answered with quiet emphasis: ‘I won’t discuss whether we can be killed by something that happened in the thirteenth century; but I’m jolly certain that we can’t be killed by something that never happened in the thirteenth century, something that never happened at all.’

‘Well,’ said Tarrant, ‘it’s refreshing to find a priest so sceptical of the supernatural as all that.’

‘Not at all,’ replied the priest calmly; ‘it’s not the supernatural part I doubt. It’s the natural part. I’m exactly in the position of the man who said, ‘I can believe the impossible, but not the improbable.’‘

‘That’s what you call a paradox, isn’t it?’ asked the other.

‘It’s what I call common sense, properly understood,’ replied Father Brown. ’It really is more natural to believe a preternatural story, that deals with things we don’t understand, than a natural story that contradicts things we do understand. Tell me that the great Mr Gladstone, in his last hours, was haunted by the ghost of Parnell, and I will be agnostic about it. But tell me that Mr Gladstone, when first presented to Queen Victoria, wore his hat in her drawing - room and slapped her on the back and offered her a cigar, and I am not agnostic at all. That is not impossible; it’s only incredible. But I’m much more certain it didn’t happen than that Parnell’s ghost didn’t appear; because it violates the laws of the world I do understand. So it is with that tale of the curse. It isn’t the legend that I disbelieve - it’s the history.’

JanC
16-07-2013, 00:47
Jan, it seems obvious that you have more time on your hands than I do.

Indeed. I'm stuck in my homeland waiting for my wednesday morning flight back to Moscow.


Truth is not a matter of taste, whoever may be right. Period.

And I think it was clear from the start that this was not a contested point.
I was pointing at your (apparent?) religious intolerance when other religions have as much evidence of their truth as your own.
It's like I would have to choose between several competing scientific theories for which evidence has not yet been found. I can have a preference, I can have a strong personal preference to favor a particular one but I would not be intolerant of others while they are all still in play.


ALL of your knowledge, that which you think important as well as that which you think unimportant, is founded on your faith in the objectivity of your reason, experience, or authority that delivered that knowledge to you

Well the difference here is that I am dealing testable, repeatable things and not something like interpretations. In fact, the "scientific way" revolves around finding flaws, rather than depend on any authority. Even the most comprehensively proven and nigh undoubtable theories are still being tested time and again and if anomalous results occur at any point everything is placed in doubt. I only need the very minimum of assumption: that I am indeed thinking and communicating with other humans. If I am really doing this everything else can be testable.



I say that tolerance in general is a thing neither good nor bad

I think tolerance is essential to have a civilized and prosperous society. We are all different in our own ways. Without tolerance of others opinions, race and traits we could not hope to achieve what we already have by working together. Tolerance is not just a good thing, it is a necessary thing. Of course, it CAN be misplaced. But that does not make it neutral, because the world would undoubtedly be worse off without it.
I think just about any religion sees itself as absolutely true...can't really have a religion without it. For the outside observer there is nothing at all to declare a winner between religions so tolerance is appropriate (as long as they don't actively do any damage obviously)

I like that quote, thanks for digging it up. What it describes is intuitive reasoning and sticking to what makes sense in light of what you think you understand best - which is only natural. It's just not the most reliable method for determining what is real.

rusmeister
16-07-2013, 09:08
And I think it was clear from the start that this was not a contested point.
I was pointing at your (apparent?) religious intolerance when other religions have as much evidence of their truth as your own.
It's like I would have to choose between several competing scientific theories for which evidence has not yet been found. I can have a preference, I can have a strong personal preference to favor a particular one but I would not be intolerant of others while they are all still in play.

I had wanted to add a separate post (maybe I still will) insisting that my purpose in this thread is absolutely NOT to attack the other major world religions (the only ones really worth considering) but only to challenge indifference toward them, the attitude of "admiring" what we do not take seriously, the attitude that it does not really matter what you believe, that beliefs are to be admired in theory and disdained in practice. When we speak about either ancient Judaism, or traditional Christianity or Islam, we are talking about religions that see themselves as really true, as being the actual state of affairs, and that what they teach is not at all meant to be admired, but acted upon. I have no wish at all to attack Benedikt, who is, gosh darn it, a really likeable poster even if he does post all those German news reports that I can't read; only that particular attitude that I would and do find highly offensive in regards to my own religion, and know that everybody from Augustine, Aquinas and Wesley to al Ghazali would similarly find offensive. That's the company I see myself in, in opposition to the modern pluralism that reduces what they believed true to an irrelevant piece of art to be admired for a moment before moving on to other this.


Well the difference here is that I am dealing testable, repeatable things and not something like interpretations. In fact, the "scientific way" revolves around finding flaws, rather than depend on any authority. Even the most comprehensively proven and nigh undoubtable theories are still being tested time and again and if anomalous results occur at any point everything is placed in doubt. I only need the very minimum of assumption: that I am indeed thinking and communicating with other humans. If I am really doing this everything else can be testable.

I actually have a podcast for you, a single ten minute one, that is entirely relevant to this part of the discussion (which is outside of the scope of what I want to say on this thread, though not of the general discussion between you and I).
http://podgallery.org/faith-and-philosophy/
(I'd refer you to the Ancient Faith Radio page, but currently am blocked from their server.) It should be the very first one, currently on the top, "Understandng the Modern and Post Modern Mind". It goes right to what I see to be your assumptions, the roots of your thought. You could see whether it actually does or not.


I think tolerance is essential to have a civilized and prosperous society. We are all different in our own ways. Without tolerance of others opinions, race and traits we could not hope to achieve what we already have by working together. Tolerance is not just a good thing, it is a necessary thing. Of course, it CAN be misplaced. But that does not make it neutral, because the world would undoubtedly be worse off without it.
I think just about any religion sees itself as absolutely true...can't really have a religion without it. For the outside observer there is nothing at all to declare a winner between religions so tolerance is appropriate (as long as they don't actively do any damage obviously)
"I think". Understood. IF the Christian version of truth is NOT true, then it really IS a thing to be tolerated - or not.
But I think my case to be stronger than just that. It is also built on exactly how we arrived at this "civilized and prosperous society", certainly at what I think to be both really civilized and really prosperous, and it was a particular civilization which had adopted a particular religion that rose from the ashes of the Roman Empire, and made all of the modern discoveries and attitudes POSSIBLE. That civilization was Europe and that religion was the Christian one. Any perceived achievement of any much more recent cooperation between differences is entirely dependent on what was achieved by what was common and NOT different in cooperation between people of that European, and much later American civilization, also wholly dominated by the Christian world view.


I like that quote, thanks for digging it up. What it describes is intuitive reasoning and sticking to what makes sense in light of what you think you understand best - which is only natural. It's just not the most reliable method for determining what is real.


Nor do I say that it IS the most reliable method. But it is certainly an appropriate response to your comment on a claim of having seen a ghost, and a reason to NOT rush to an attitude of skepticism on the matter, to remain open to the possibility that their experience was of a real nature of something we actually DON'T understand.

JanC
16-07-2013, 23:52
only to challenge indifference toward them, the attitude of "admiring" what we do not take seriously, the attitude that it does not really matter what you believe, that beliefs are to be admired in theory and disdained in practice.

Just a short reply since I've got to hit my bed for an early flight.

Indifference is disconnected from tolerance, we can be very opinionated but that is no excuse to arbitrarily dismiss others' beliefs or ideas.



I actually have a podcast for you, a single ten minute one, that is entirely relevant to this part of the discussion

Replying to specific points in the podcast would end up as another large post, unfortunately.



IF the Christian version of truth is NOT true, then it really IS a thing to be tolerated - or not.

I think it's slightly different, it doesn't necessarily need to be false, it suffices that we do not know whether it is true or not. Whenever there is no certainty over who (if anyone) is right, intolerance is not justified.


That civilization was Europe and that religion was the Christian one.

I think you're in danger of overestimating the historical influence of the religion. It is true that Christianity is a fairly "good" religion where we can consider Islam "worse" when we consider how much of a braking force the religion is on scientific and moral progress. In fact we can even thank the Christian faith for getting science off the ground, while Islam was busy putting the most enlightened region in the world at a certain time back into the stone age. But to claim that our advanced society is not only a direct result of a specific religion having been prevalent, but also that it could not have happened without it does not appear very well founded at this point.

Either way it would be like arguing that the result is positive therefore all the claims must be true, which is non sequitur.




But it is certainly an appropriate response to your comment on a claim of having seen a ghost, and a reason to NOT rush to an attitude of skepticism on the matter, to remain open to the possibility that their experience was of a real nature of something we actually DON'T understand.

I disagree for the reason that experience has taught us that ghost claims, countless of them, have never managed to support themselves any better than the Loch Ness monster. And people have looked. Some people have dedicated their lives investigating ghost claims and the result has been much the same as James Randi's search for the paranormal. Plenty of claims, none have ever stood the tests.
So after 1.000.000 unfounded ghost claims, colour me skeptical concerning the 1.000.000 +1 claim.
Sure, hypothetically it is an open question. Because you can't prove a negative. But I see no reason to be open to the idea of ghosts any more than I am open to the idea of alien abduction, the loch Ness monster and telekinesis. They all follow the same pattern which traces back to the human mind's peculiarities and imagination. The complete failure throughout history of such claims is enough to not take them seriously until they have some extraordinary evidence.

rusmeister
17-07-2013, 04:13
Just a short reply since I've got to hit my bed for an early flight.

Have a safe flight! (Really. I'll even say a prayer for you, you old atheist, you.)


Indifference is disconnected from tolerance, we can be very opinionated but that is no excuse to arbitrarily dismiss others' beliefs or ideas.

This seems to be the only point relevant to my response to the thread in general. I'll iterate that I am NOT attacking or dismissing Islam, ONLY the attitude of multicultural admiration that masks indifference.
If an idea IS bad, we are right to arbitrate and dismiss it. Your words here implies that no ideas are bad.


Replying to specific points in the podcast would end up as another large post, unfortunately.

You don't need to respond to specific points; just get how I understand your hermeneutics.



I think it's slightly different, it doesn't necessarily need to be false, it suffices that we do not know whether it is true or not. Whenever there is no certainty over who (if anyone) is right, intolerance is not justified.

Perhaps. Only I AM certain, because I have chosen to be so. Therefore, I CAN justify intolerance of the things I have found to be evil, wicked, and full of lies and falsehood. It is on that basis I similarly refuse to tolerate many other things that you might join me in condemning.



I think you're in danger of overestimating the historical influence of the religion. It is true that Christianity is a fairly "good" religion where we can consider Islam "worse" when we consider how much of a braking force the religion is on scientific and moral progress. In fact we can even thank the Christian faith for getting science off the ground, while Islam was busy putting the most enlightened region in the world at a certain time back into the stone age. But to claim that our advanced society is not only a direct result of a specific religion having been prevalent, but also that it could not have happened without it does not appear very well founded at this point.

Either way it would be like arguing that the result is positive therefore all the claims must be true, which is non sequitur.

For my part, I think you're in danger of losing Pascal's (and Puddleglum's) Wager.

I do not say "It couldn't have happened without it." I note that as a matter of fact it did NOT happen anywhere else without it, despite the diversity of beliefs we find across the globe. All modern progress in Asia and everywhere else is built on or simply parasitically copied from Europe's.



I disagree for the reason that experience has taught us that ghost claims, countless of them, have never managed to support themselves any better than the Loch Ness monster. And people have looked. Some people have dedicated their lives investigating ghost claims and the result has been much the same as James Randi's search for the paranormal. Plenty of claims, none have ever stood the tests.
So after 1.000.000 unfounded ghost claims, colour me skeptical concerning the 1.000.000 +1 claim.
Sure, hypothetically it is an open question. Because you can't prove a negative. But I see no reason to be open to the idea of ghosts any more than I am open to the idea of alien abduction, the loch Ness monster and telekinesis. They all follow the same pattern which traces back to the human mind's peculiarities and imagination. The complete failure throughout history of such claims is enough to not take them seriously until they have some extraordinary evidence.


Actually, I see a huge difference between the claims of ghosts and other claims, and that is that the others are very local and/or limited, whereas ghosts are universally reported across space and time.

But the real problem is hermeneutics. Yours are founded in scientific rationalism (see that podcast). Can you say what mine are founded in?
That is why your argument is not compelling for me.

Again, have a safe trip!

JanC
18-07-2013, 20:56
Have a safe flight! (Really. I'll even say a prayer for you, you old atheist, you.)


Thanks! Don't know whether it helped or not but I got here lol.
Statistically speaking, the plane was the safest part of the trip of course...one of those wonderfully counter intuitive things of our time.



If an idea IS bad, we are right to arbitrate and dismiss it. Your words here implies that no ideas are bad.

I don't think they do. The whole issue is conclusively showing an idea or religion to be bad or false. We already established a long time ago that to prove it false is logically impossible due to the way religion is constructed. We can try to argue which religions are bad and which are not, but lack of certainty over the truth makes it difficult to dismiss any to the point that intolerance is justified.


Only I AM certain, because I have chosen to be so. Therefore, I CAN justify intolerance of the things I have found to be evil, wicked, and full of lies and falsehood.

The catch here is that this way any intolerant person can be intolerant about whatever he chooses to be certain about. So we're back at square one...where everyone can feel perfectly justified in their racism, bigotry or whatever.




For my part, I think you're in danger of losing Pascal's (and Puddleglum's) Wager.

Pascal's wager is a terribly dishonourable proposal which I will gladly lose. If there is such a thing as a just and moral supreme being I would be more confident of getting a holy slap on the back after dying an atheist than to give in to Pascal's wager and be inauthentic in my "belief". I can't fool myself so I wouldn't presume to be fooling an omnipotent being either.




All modern progress in Asia and everywhere else is built on or simply parasitically copied from Europe's.

Before I continue disagreeing, I'm not entirely sure what definition of "modern progress" we shall use?



Actually, I see a huge difference between the claims of ghosts and other claims, and that is that the others are very local and/or limited, whereas ghosts are universally reported across space and time.

Superstition goes back far and wide enough, ghost claims are just a small subset. And we have a very good, scientific, idea about why this is in our nature. Whether you like it or not, all evidence suggests that who we are and what we feel is entirely limited to our brain and its chemistry. As such we can rationally explain why humans tend to be superstitious, and even replicate it in animal experiments.

Because we evolved, and for traits to develop and survive they need to be beneficial to the organism's survival. Our brain's development goes back hundreds of millions of years. Our ancestors were pray. When you are at risk of being eaten, a "false positive" in detecting a predator is not costly compared to a "false negative" i.e. you get eaten. Our brain has shortcuts for pattern recognition (don't stop to analyze that sound in the bushes, just run) of which superstition is a direct result. It allows us to see shapes in clouds and the virgin Mary on toast, but needless to say it's seeing things that are not necessarily there. Likewise our visual inputs evolved for a specific purpose and can be pushed beyond what they are able to adequately interpret (optical illusions)
For us to be able to see ghosts, they either need to be luminous or be real enough to reflect light. Both things would be very measurable. That after this much searching and analysis none of the very abundant ghost claims has ever been confirmed in any shape or form puts them squarely on the same level as any psychic or other supernatural/superstitious claim. All the while we have a plausible and consistent explanation for those things, if you care to study the mechanics of our biology.

Benedikt
19-07-2013, 04:02
And as I pointed out, you and he and pretty much everyone here is never similarly "nice to the Christian members of the community", so the whole bit about "being nice" is just hypocrisy, which I mean in the sense of a literal understanding of the word - insufficiently self-critical.[/QUOTE]


does not mean i am -nice- as such. the item just caught my eye and i liked it. does not mean i have become a believer now. when i post there is not always a calculated reason behind it. i do it because i like it. and if i should get something nice in my mail about the -Christian- community, i will post it as well. Christmas is coming soon, sooner than we think.

Droidage
19-07-2013, 09:50
And at this time you see thousands of such believers, especially the rich & mighty travelling to london and other non muslim countries so that they are not seen to be not following these traditions and can drink, gamble and carry on, yet be forgiven as they are "travelling" and thus do not have to observe but only make it up at a later date - not.
Seen it. Spent too much time in the middle east.

Benedikt
19-07-2013, 20:16
And at this time you see thousands of such believers, especially the rich & mighty travelling to london and other non muslim countries so that they are not seen to be not following these traditions and can drink, gamble and carry on, yet be forgiven as they are "travelling" and thus do not have to observe but only make it up at a later date - not.
Seen it. Spent too much time in the middle east.


some think they are more equal than others. but in the end they will not be forgiven, if /when the day will come. HE, might his name be Christ, Mohammed, Allah, Moses, Buddha or whoever, they all ahve a long memory and don't forget!

robertmf
08-08-2013, 20:51
And at this time you see thousands of such believers, ...

Were there traffic jams in Moscow today :question:

:cussing:

yakspeare
09-08-2013, 02:08
Why do I have the idea to see how far I could get by running on their backs. And is someone running on your back a valid excuse to stop praying?

btw which ones Pink?
09-08-2013, 03:49
History shows that these people need to be kept in check. Once they become bold enough to do what they are currently doing they take control of the host country like a parasite. In the past people in Europe and Russia were educated and free enough to keep the parasites to a minimum. But today many countries are legislating for their own deaths with the new though police style laws of "hate speech". The West will die - death by parasites!

Jack17
09-08-2013, 07:23
Benedikt, your poem about Ramadan represents the very best in our liberal Roman Catholic tradition. I remember taking a mandatory semester course on Islam at Saint Louis University, a Jesuit school where Chancellor Kurt von Schuschnigg was my history professor before he returned to Austria where he died in 1977. I'm certain you know who he is. It was one of the great experiences of my life to be taught by a head of state who actually negotiated with Adolf Hitler.

yakspeare
09-08-2013, 07:45
History shows that these people need to be kept in check. Once they become bold enough to do what they are currently doing they take control of the host country like a parasite. In the past people in Europe and Russia were educated and free enough to keep the parasites to a minimum. But today many countries are legislating for their own deaths with the new though police style laws of "hate speech". The West will die - death by parasites!

Simple solution is for Rus to stop its visa scheme with central asia and return to its historic borders. Redraw the old border at the Kuban river and the southern turkic republics can go their own way, tatarstan to get independence, all land of the east of the urals to be freed. As a trade off you can have Kiev back.

Have fun in the white slavic russia without the oil or cheap labor.

btw which ones Pink?
09-08-2013, 11:07
I dont see it as a parasite of the the land but a parasite of the mind. I'd keep everything east of Urals. I would just put ideology of Mohamad on the list of writings that are anti-Russian and anti-social.

Idealy I would like to see Kazakstan completely de-moslemized and open it up for the new Russian beef cattle business cunrrently underway in less desireable part of Russia, Bryansk Oblast....a terrible shit hole for a cow. Kazakstan has great country for beef cattle and it is being wasted.

Alan65
09-08-2013, 11:19
I dont see it as a parasite of the the land but a parasite of the mind. I'd keep everything east of Urals. I would just put ideology of Mohamad on the list of writings that are anti-Russian and anti-social.

Idealy I would like to see Kazakstan completely de-moslemized and open it up for the new Russian beef cattle business cunrrently underway in less desireable part of Russia, Bryansk Oblast....a terrible shit hole for a cow. Kazakstan has great country for beef cattle and it is being wasted.

Would that not then be the Kazahkstan cattle business and not a Russian cattle business.

yakspeare
09-08-2013, 12:42
The Soviet Union also thought the Kazakhstan steepe would be great for wheat too, and millions of tons of topsoil blew away and much of the land can't grow a thing now.

FatAndy
09-08-2013, 13:22
Were there traffic jams in Moscow today :question:

:cussing:
No. For Uraza-Bayram prays Moscow city mayor office has dedicated special areas, besides 4 mosques: http://top.rbc.ru/society/08/08/2013/869425.shtml

Alan65
09-08-2013, 13:32
The Soviet Union also thought the Kazakhstan steepe would be great for wheat too, and millions of tons of topsoil blew away and much of the land can't grow a thing now.

and cotton....now they have the Aral puddle and lots of carcinogens in the environment :D

FatAndy
09-08-2013, 13:38
I dont see it as a parasite of the the land but a parasite of the mind. I'd keep everything east of Urals. I would just put ideology of Mohamad on the list of writings that are anti-Russian and anti-social.
Muslims lived in Russian Empire, USSR and RF already for more than 450 years (since Kazan' taken by Ivan Grozny troops in 1552). Such request is anti-constitutional ;)

It doesn't mean that state MUST control religious organisations and isolate bandits acting under banner of religious extremists (sometimes by physical destruction). It occurs already in southern republics (Chechnya, Ingushetia, Dagestan, Kabardino-Balkaria). See http://nac.gov.ru/


I would like to see Kazakstan completely de-moslemized and open it up for the new Russian beef cattle business cunrrently underway in less desireable part of Russia, Bryansk Oblast....a terrible shit hole for a cow. Kazakstan has great country for beef cattle and it is being wasted.
Well, Kazakhstan is self-standing state and I hope they're able to handle with their religious organisations and extremists themselves. If not, we're ready to help ;) inside ODKB http://www.odkb-csto.org/
Regarding cattle you may contact their agricultural ministry http://mgov.kz/kontakty/

btw which ones Pink?
09-08-2013, 13:49
Would that not then be the Kazahkstan cattle business and not a Russian cattle business.

Not if I had my way!

robertmf
09-08-2013, 18:46
History shows that these people need to be kept in check. Once they become bold enough to do what they are currently doing they take control of the host country like a parasite. In the past people in Europe and Russia were educated and free enough to keep the parasites to a minimum. But today many countries are legislating for their own deaths with the new though police style laws of "hate speech". The West will die - death by parasites!

Volunteer Brit teens attacked with acid in Zanzibar (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2387651/Zanzibar-acid-attack-British-teenagers-Kate-Gee-Kirstie-Trup-injured-return-home-today.html)

:evilgrin: Are neutron bombs still stockpiled :question:

yakspeare
10-08-2013, 01:18
and cotton....now they have the Aral puddle and lots of carcinogens in the environment :D

Well yes, but that is Uzbekistan. The kazakhs have restored the north Aral sea.

btw which ones Pink?
10-08-2013, 03:41
and cotton....now they have the Aral puddle and lots of carcinogens in the environment :D

Well I'll tell a little secret that the Linnik brothers of Miratorg Agroholding don't want their competitors or customers becoming aware of.

That they have based their new fledgling beef cattle operation very very close to the fallout area from Chernobyl. They are grazing cattle on grass growing in soil just a few miles away from the evacuated areas. Radiation Ranching !

I'm not sure how safe that is or isn't but if a competitor wanted to mention this in their advertizing campaign it would probably devastate Miratorg. (Unless those allegations that they are connected by marriage to Medvedev are true, then perhaps it wont ever be mentioned)

robertmf
10-08-2013, 04:04
That they have based their new fledgling beef cattle operation very very close to the fallout area from Chernobyl. They are grazing cattle on grass growing in soil just a few miles away from the evacuated areas. Radiation Ranching !

:goblin:

Benedikt
11-08-2013, 07:50
or GMO soy beans. or pigs packed with antibiotics. Or chickens...
It is in the end WE the consumer that decides what we eat.
But we want everything cheaper, better and are not prepared ( or some just don't have the $$$ possibilities) to pay a decent price for a hard days work of a good farmer.
so, the conglomerates are taken over and we get what we asked for. every day a steak on the plate or a chicken in the pot.