Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Active ]
[ Login ]
Log-in to remove these advertisements.

Religious Dialogue

POST REPLY
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 14444
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Sep 2006, 22:05
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 28 Jan 2012, 00:57
Okay so there have been a bunch of threads disrupted by various religious side-topics. So I figured I'd start a catch-all thread where we can address these issues. I figure it's also a good place for general religious discussion or for questions to particular members.

I'll start off: Shig you said my views on religion were rooted in circular logic. What'd you mean?
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3711
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Jul 2006, 04:49
Ideology: Juche
Old Bolshevik
Post 28 Jan 2012, 09:30
I have a question: If consciousness is not rooted in the brain, then why is it that the trauma to the brain can drastically affect one's mind?
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 14444
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Sep 2006, 22:05
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 28 Jan 2012, 10:06
Because grevious bodily damage hurts the soul.


Seriously though the dichotomy between flesh and soul is a misconception. We develop how we will and we choose from the options available, this is life, the soul is just an old word for being alive.
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2820
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Feb 2005, 02:51
Party Bureaucrat
Post 28 Jan 2012, 10:15
More precisely, soul is when some caveman get slashed open by a bear on a winter's day, water vapour rises from his open wounds, and his friends thought that what ever that is causing him to be alive is escaping him from the wounds.
Image
Soviet cogitations: 10005
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Jul 2008, 20:01
Ideology: Trotskyism
Philosophized
Post 28 Jan 2012, 17:57
That's pretty good.

Dagoth, why do you think we were intended to be created? Intentions are only possible when you're subject to time, which Infinity (or Allah) is not.
"Don't know why i'm still surprised with this shit anyway." - Loz
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 14444
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Sep 2006, 22:05
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 28 Jan 2012, 21:45
James Kennedy wrote:
More precisely, soul is when some caveman get slashed open by a bear on a winter's day, water vapour rises from his open wounds, and his friends thought that what ever that is causing him to be alive is escaping him from the wounds.

I can agree with this. I've noticed the language of religion is what causes the most confusion (on both sides).

@mabool: this is why I hate to use our words to describe Allah because they consistently fail to be appropriate. It's hard for me to even describe my view of Godly intent. It is a force of nature designed to complete its task even if that is as simple as perpetuation. I'll say now though that I reject a "conscious" God as that being far too small a connection to existence to achieve even the most basic facets of Godhood.
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4465
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Mar 2010, 01:20
Ideology: None
Forum Commissar
Post 29 Jan 2012, 02:55
Here it is.

Dagoth Ur wrote:
I'll start off: Shig you said my views on religion were rooted in circular logic. What'd you mean?

I'll find some quotes for you...


Dagoth Ur wrote:
I'm sure there are a lot of things in this universe that humans would call God. However if God is infinite, then everything is a part of him.

... actually you said lots of things like this: I hope you get the idea.

Much of the problem (imo) lies in your use of the word "Infinity". It's such a problematic word (and concept too). This is not to suggest that it doesn't have meaning, but when you start making statements like "god/allah is infinity" and "infinity is god/allah" you're not really making statements that are meaningful in any practical way. Traditional religious definitions have the merit that they don't rely quite as much on such circular logic - certainly that makes them easier to tear down, but that's what happens when you apply logic to these sorts of topics.
Using circular logic might spare you from that fate, but it dooms you to making statements that don't really make any sort of sense. I get the impression that you might be trying to convey a kind of spirituality which "transcends" the rational side of existence. There's nothing wrong with any of this, but it just makes it very difficult to debate with.
I'm not sure whether you've done any reading on Logical Positivism, but the essence of the objection to these kind of statements is that they are so abstract and non-verifiable that they are meaningless (for practical purposes). Logical Positivism takes a very common-sense approach to philosophical thought which is worth at least acknowledging.

I was hoping you would have answered this question actually (before the thread got locked, but you skipped over it):
Das_ALoveStory wrote:
Let me ask you, is Alah's word sacred and unchangeable? Yet you don't believe that the magic things that happened in the Koran happened? Congrats, you definitely aren't a Muslim.

I don't understand your attachment to terms like "Islam" and "Allah". Clearly you don't have a conventional interpretation of these words and at the same time you have a healthy disdain for religious institutions - I don't understand why you seem ready to accept the jargon of an organization you seem to be opposed to.
(The cynical side of me suspects that you like these terms because of the reactions that they generate in middle America.)


You have such unconventional definitions, why not just make your own words ... or find some that suit more closely.
(Is that what your sharmat(?) references were about?)
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2377
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 02 Apr 2009, 23:59
Ideology: Other Leftist
Party Bureaucrat
Post 29 Jan 2012, 06:39
Seven years of homeschooling after several years of religious private schooling have left me about as scientifically literate as a newborn baby. Bearing that fact in mind, if anyone who is learned in the sciences should notice anything breathtakingly ignorant in the following post, I would ask that they not pulverize me too hard.

Ok, here goes. Suppose multiverse theory is true. Also suppose that the number of these universes are infinite. Then suppose (big guess) that some universes are capable of facilitating life capable of penetrating their universes' barriers and traveling to other universes. Since (I am of the impression that) it's impossible to fracture infinity, that would mean that there are an infinite number of universes producing intelligent beings capable of traveling to other universes and terraforming the cosmos.

Why didn't I just prove polytheism?
Image


btw Mabool, this is a badly bastardized version of the outcome of that conversation you were interested in. This is the most outlandish stuff that came of it. The better stuff I'm still figuring out before I see it as anywhere near fit to share on a public forum.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 14444
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Sep 2006, 22:05
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 29 Jan 2012, 07:36
Shigalyov wrote:
... actually you said lots of things like this: I hope you get the idea.

Let me explain this point. I'd been thinking, at that time, that there was a number that related to every possible existent thing (ie you, me, that rock over there, a star across the universe, etc). At that point I realized there would have to be a number representing God and instantly realized that a single number could never represent anything similar to God. Then infinity popped into my head. God isn't a number he's all numbers but all numbers are not infinite and thus not God. This is a very basic example and I've refined my thinking somewhat since then.

Shigalyov wrote:
Much of the problem (imo) lies in your use of the word "Infinity". It's such a problematic word (and concept too).

Infinity is one of the few words as meaningless as God. It's appropriate that our nearest concept for unfathomable depth/shallowness would be applied to God.

Shigalyov wrote:
This is not to suggest that it doesn't have meaning, but when you start making statements like "god/allah is infinity" and "infinity is god/allah" you're not really making statements that are meaningful in any practical way.

What is the practicality of the existence of God? Whether he exists or not is irrelevant to our day to day lives. I don't see the problem in that because living a good life, a righteous life, does not require faith (this is an Islamic belief despite the claims of fundamentalism).

Shigalyov wrote:
Traditional religious definitions have the merit that they don't rely quite as much on such circular logic - certainly that makes them easier to tear down, but that's what happens when you apply logic to these sorts of topics.

I still don't see how my arguments are circular other than my personal proof of God. Then again maybe infinity is a circle.

Shigalyov wrote:
I get the impression that you might be trying to convey a kind of spirituality which "transcends" the rational side of existence. There's nothing wrong with any of this, but it just makes it very difficult to debate with.

I don't believe we require transcendence from our material situation but that our faith requires a transcendence of old power structures and outmoded philosophy.

Shigalyov wrote:
I'm not sure whether you've done any reading on Logical Positivism, but the essence of the objection to these kind of statements is that they are so abstract and non-verifiable that they are meaningless (for practical purposes). Logical Positivism takes a very common-sense approach to philosophical thought which is worth at least acknowledging.

I don't really like positivism. There is value in ideas that are purely ideas. This value is often only expressed in real world results, I'll agree, but to take that to the extreme of only that with immediate relevance is meaningful.

Shigalyov wrote:
I was hoping you would have answered this question actually (before the thread got locked, but you skipped over it):

One of the many times attempting brevity bit me in the ass.

Shigalyov wrote:
I don't understand your attachment to terms like "Islam" and "Allah". Clearly you don't have a conventional interpretation of these words and at the same time you have a healthy disdain for religious institutions - I don't understand why you seem ready to accept the jargon of an organization you seem to be opposed to.

Well actually I'm not all that unconventional as far as the basis of my views on Islam are concerned. My views on what God is (an infinite expression of everything and the totality of all) are directly from the Quran. I'll admit that my application of these ideas to our material world is unorthodox but I don't view our understanding of Islam is the end-all-be-all meaning. My own Diamat meaning with be hopelessly reactionary after just a century or two. Also I view organization (ie dogma) as a cancer on religion that keeps it from performing its function of spiritual evolution.

Shigalyov wrote:
(The cynical side of me suspects that you like these terms because of the reactions that they generate in middle America.)

That would mean I enjoy being marginalized and insulted by people I considered family. I did travel to Islam in rebellion against our society but then I ended up actually becoming a Muslim.

Shigalyov wrote:
You have such unconventional definitions, why not just make your own words ... or find some that suit more closely.

Because Islam is awesome? Also most of my ideas on religion come directly from the Quran so why should I call myself anything else? I believe Muhammad was either channeled or tapped or something and that the Quran was sent through him and I believe there is one indivisible God of infinite features and dimensions. The most unorthodox of my beliefs are in prayer, zakat (charity), and the organization of Islam itself but even those are tweaked versions. I still believe prayer is necessary if you're inactive in the cause of man, charity through taxation or labor makes more sense than writing a check anyways, and the organization of Islam has allowed the idolization of Muhammad (the Shia are the worst in this regard). Which of my views do you consider especially unorthodox?

Shigalyov wrote:
(Is that what your sharmat(?) references were about?)

lol no if we're taking in-elder-scrolls religion I'm a fan of Azura (arch-enemy of the Sharmat and all god-pretenders). The tribunal and dagoth Ur led to the direct degeneration of the ancient Chimer.

@: red_son: the infinite God contains all "multiverse" type scenarios. I'm of the opinion that the universe is infinite in space, time, and dimension. Pretty badass, the implications of that.
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4465
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Mar 2010, 01:20
Ideology: None
Forum Commissar
Post 29 Jan 2012, 10:25
Dagoth Ur wrote:
Let me explain this point. I'd been thinking, at that time, that there was a number that related to every possible existent thing (ie you, me, that rock over there, a star across the universe, etc). At that point I realized there would have to be a number representing God and instantly realized that a single number could never represent anything similar to God. Then infinity popped into my head. God isn't a number he's all numbers but all numbers are not infinite and thus not God. This is a very basic example and I've refined my thinking somewhat since then.

Just a quick question.... WTF? lol

Seriously though, numbers don't materially "exist" unless you live in some world of Platonic Forms. The other thing is: what is the significance of assigning a numerical value to god? I would have thought that would be something that theists wouldn't be seeking to do. Numbers are a construct for understanding the world - like language. By turning your divine being into a numerical property (even if it is an infinite one) aren't you reducing god/allah to a mere construct?

Edit: I've found the true number for god and it's a divide by zero error.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 14444
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Sep 2006, 22:05
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 29 Jan 2012, 11:35
Any statement about Allah reduces Him. The greatest isn't great enough if you get my drift.

Also I wasn't saying numbers are existent but that you could represent every single thing that exists with a number. That just led to asking what the numbers would be for certain things like people or atoms or God.
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3828
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 12 Jun 2006, 02:14
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Politburo
Post 29 Jan 2012, 23:14
This is a serious discussion, so it's been moved to the propper forum.


"Where Argentina goes, Latin America will go".
Leonid Brezhnev

Forum Rules
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4465
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Mar 2010, 01:20
Ideology: None
Forum Commissar
Post 30 Jan 2012, 02:16
Che Burashka wrote:
This is a serious discussion, so it's been moved to the propper forum.
Ohh. I was thinking about trying a Socratic dialogue, but I might have to shelf that idea (one liners and so on).

Dagoth Ur wrote:
The greatest isn't great enough if you get my drift.
This reminds me of a slightly off tangent question... does the phrase "god is great" sound as redundant in Arabic as it does in English - like saying "the giant is big" or "the ball is spherical"?
Assuming you accept the existence of god, "greatness" would seem to be understatement if anything.

Dagoth Ur wrote:
What is the practicality of the existence of God? Whether he exists or not is irrelevant to our day to day lives.
If you take your scriptures literally it might matter quite a bit. Then which particular scripture you adhere to is pretty important - as they might be advocating completely contradictory things: for some believers the greatest thing you can do is blow up a bus of Jewish children, while for another the greatest virtue lies in creating more Jewish children.

Dagoth Ur wrote:
I don't see the problem in that because living a good life, a righteous life, does not require faith (this is an Islamic belief despite the claims of fundamentalism).
Of course plenty of atheists claim that they are at odds much of the time.

So is obedience to scripture important or not? The act of prayer seems like a peculiar business. Why are you needing to reassure some ultimate being of his "ultimateness"? If god is all that then he/she should hardly need reassurance. Insecurity it such a mortal weakness.
If prayer is more of an act of personal meditation, then it doesn't really need all those strict rules which seem to pertain to it.

Dagoth Ur wrote:
Which of my views do you consider especially unorthodox?
There are lots of things... how many people combine their Islam with Dialectical Materialism?
Just combining a materialist philosophy with an idealist one seems pretty unusual - religion and science are on opposing sides of a world-view. The best they can usually hope to do is agree to disagree and reserve their dominions to separate areas. Without getting into a whole religion versus atheism debate, it seems like an unconventional claim to make that they can be fully reconciled.

Dagoth Ur wrote:
Because Islam is awesome? Also most of my ideas on religion come directly from the Quran so why should I call myself anything else?
Without having studied all religions extensively is it possible to say whether those ideas are unique to Islam?
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 71
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 01 Oct 2010, 00:20
Ideology: Other
Pioneer
Post 30 Jan 2012, 02:52
Dagoth Ur wrote:
I can agree with this. I've noticed the language of religion is what causes the most confusion (on both sides).[...]

There is no confusion (at least not to me). A creator god CAN NOT exist because the concept poses inumerable inconsistencies, contradictions and is in general an insult to ratio. Neither matter nor energy can be created, nor can they be destroyed (please read about the laws of thermodynamics) , matter can turn into energy and vice versa. The connection is known as General Theory of Relativity. So, 'god' could not do a damn thing about the universe - he/she couldn't even create a single nuclear particle without contradicting and thus negating the basic laws that govern the universe.
There are many more arguments of course - but this is the basic one IMO.
On a sidenote: IMHO Religion (and especially the judeo-christian-islamic version) POISONS EVERYTHING, it is the biggest Delusion PLUS the greatest Scam of all times.
One peculiar thing about 'god' is: He/she somehow cannot handle money - he/she always needs more - and the 'believers' are only to glad to hand it over to the always greedy, always needy 'relgious' organization of their choice...
HOLY SHIT!


Dagoth Ur wrote:
God isn't a number he's all numbers but all numbers are not infinite and thus not God. This is a very basic example and I've refined my thinking somewhat since then.
Now that is brilliant. Would you be so kind as to inform me what numbers you are talking about? Natural Numbers, Integers, Rational Numbers, Real Numbers, Irrational Numbers? They all are ordered in sets and those sets have different qualities - so it's quite important. Confused? Read Cantor, Dedekind, Frege and Gödel.

Dagoth Ur wrote:
[...]he's all numbers but all numbers are not infinite.

'Infinite' isn't a number at all. There is a symbol for infinite in mathematics - but it isn't a symbol for a number.

Dagoth Ur wrote:
[...]Infinity is one of the few words as meaningless as God. It's appropriate that our nearest concept for unfathomable depth/shallowness would be applied to God.[...]

Infinity isn't meaningless in the mathematical sense. Ever since Georg Cantor came up with set theory and proved that certain numbers are 'more' infinite than other (infinite) numbers and finally after the Zermelo–Fraenkel axiom which solidified Cantors work - there is no mathematical uncertainty about the concept anymore.


Shigalyov wrote:
I'm not sure whether you've done any reading on Logical Positivism, but the essence of the objection to these kind of statements is that they are so abstract and non-verifiable that they are meaningless (for practical purposes). Logical Positivism takes a very common-sense approach to philosophical thought which is worth at least acknowledging.[...]

Yepp - finally one who speaks up! Logical Positivism is a formidable weapon when it comes to philosophical belief systems (like Religion or Dialectics(!) for example
)
Verifyability and more importantly Falsifyability are crucial when it comes to judging whether a hypothesis is (at least) scientifically sound and valid. (Yes, yes - I read Popper - and I know that everyone here hates him because he didn't like the Bolsheviks - but his contribution to the Logic of scientific discovery was groundbreaking).

So: Another argument against the God-hypothesis: The existence of god is neither verifyable nor falsifyable and therefore it is not a valid scientific hypothesis.


Shigalyov wrote:
[...]Numbers are a construct for understanding the world[...]

Not quite and not only. For the old egyptians: Yes. But ever since Pythagoras, Euclid etc. it becomes painfully obvious that many theorems aren't proposed and proved in order to 'understand' the world. As to the nature of numbers (and formal systems) I'd recommend (once more): Cantor, Frege, Dedekind to start with.

Shigalyov wrote:
Edit: I've found the true number for god and it's a divide by zero error.

That's a good one - and illustrates my point brilliantly. Thanx. I never thought of that.
Last edited by Pink Spider on 30 Jan 2012, 03:16, edited 2 times in total.
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 71
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 01 Oct 2010, 00:20
Ideology: Other
Pioneer
Post 30 Jan 2012, 03:07
OFF TOPIC
------------

Shigalyov wrote:
Just combining a materialist philosophy with an idealist one seems pretty unusual - religion and science are on opposing sides of a world-view.

Correct - but then again...the whole Dialectics stuff is IMHO idealist in its core too.
Hegel -> Marx -> Engels -> Lenin ...and...voilá: You have materialism (aka Positivism) combined with an idealist philosophy which tries to teach us how the world is supposed to work...
Give it half a century and it is utterly dogmatic and is nothing more than just another belief system.


I know what happens next - the usual: 'You are not a lefty', 'You are a Troll', bla, bla, bla -whatever.

P.S.: I am NOT one of Rosa L.'s pupils. I do my own thinking.
Image
Soviet cogitations: 10005
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Jul 2008, 20:01
Ideology: Trotskyism
Philosophized
Post 30 Jan 2012, 16:24
rofl did you just equate materialism and positivism? read a book or two, please.

also, god does not have to create matter to be the creator of everything, he just has to create everything out of (uncreated and eternal) matter. considering the fact that obviously, materially, objectively, a development is taking place from lower to higher orders despite the laws of thermodynamics... oh well. the world is infinitely complex and there is no god, but i like dagoth's theism a lot more than your positivism.

thirdly,

Quote:
Would you be so kind as to inform me what numbers you are talking about? Natural Numbers, Integers, Rational Numbers, Real Numbers, Irrational Numbers? They all are ordered in sets and those sets have different qualities - so it's quite important. Confused? Read Cantor, Dedekind, Frege and Gödel.


I don't think he's talking about set theory here... for his example to work you could just use variables without ever defining what set they belong to (and this fragging pissed me off at school, too, btw). You just think that showing off your mad math skills will help you here.

Quote:
Infinity isn't meaningless in the mathematical sense. Ever since Georg Cantor came up with set theory and proved that certain numbers are 'more' infinite than other (infinite) numbers and finally after the Zermelo–Fraenkel axiom which solidified Cantors work - there is no mathematical uncertainty about the concept anymore.


Nobody ever talked about mathematics until you came along. ;_; Infinity is unfathomable depth, in every realistic usage of the word.

Also, popper is an abject moron who never even got past the induction problem. He categorically denies the possibility of analysis. He's like the biggest anti-Marxist ever.

And finally I started actually reading the Quran yesterday and if any book is worthy of calling itself a divine revelation, it's this. This is the first religious text I've ever read that is actually extremely good.

last but not least i request this be moved back to mir because it is gonna turn into a spamfest.
"Don't know why i'm still surprised with this shit anyway." - Loz
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 71
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 01 Oct 2010, 00:20
Ideology: Other
Pioneer
Post 30 Jan 2012, 18:28
Mabool wrote:
rofl did you just equate materialism and positivism? read a book or two, please.

Yes, I did. Strictly speaking that was a bit sloppy. Still: The both make the same case, just that Positivism has more focus on 'what we can know'.

Mabool wrote:
[...]
also, god does not have to create matter to be the creator of everything,[...]

Direct contradiction.

Mabool wrote:
[...]he just has to create everything out of (uncreated and eternal) matter.[...]

Uncreated matter? WTF is that? Plus: If matter/energy is eternal and was there before god -then god is neither almighty, all knowing or 'eternal' in his/her own right. Why? Well firstly he does not and can not know the initial state of the system which is crucial when we are talking about determinism and pre-knowledge. (see among other 'Laplace's demon'). Secondly: He is a slave of the matter/energy and the laws that govern a certain universe.
Some god, huh?

Mabool wrote:
[...]considering the fact that obviously, materially, objectively, a development is taking place from lower to higher orders despite the laws of thermodynamics...

Second law of thermodynamics. Entropy in a closed system increases or remains the same -never decreases. In the universe as a whole entropy increases. The universe expands, the big rip hasn't occured because of Dark Matter and Dark Energy.

Mabool wrote:
[...]oh well. the world is infinitely complex and there is no god, but i like dagoth's theism a lot more than your positivism.

Weak, very weak! Feelings don't matter in such a discussion, what you like or dislike is irrelevant.

Mabool wrote:
[...]I don't think he's talking about set theory here... for his example to work you could just use variables without ever defining what set they belong to (and this fragging pissed me off at school, too, btw).

Of course he wasn't. I am pleasantly surprised that you at least have heard of set theory, alas - you haven' realized it's importance.

Mabool wrote:
[...]You just think that showing off your mad math skills will help you here.

This is ad hominem ! So I am entitled (I guess) to give you a measured response:
I am not showing off, on the contrary: I have over-simplified things so that it wouldn't disrupt the discussion. Mad math skills?
Well it may look like that to people who can not/or want not cope with mathematics.

Mabool wrote:
Nobody ever talked about mathematics until you came along. ;_;

Well, then I came just in time.

Mabool wrote:
Infinity is unfathomable depth, in every realistic usage of the word.

A very naive point of view. The good old Cantor is rotating in his grave...

Mabool wrote:
Also, popper is an abject moron[...]

Thus speaks the expert...

Mabool wrote:
[...]who never even got past the induction problem.[...]

I know what you mean. He wasn't comfortable with induction applied in sciences.
And IMHO: outside strictly formal system induction can be problematic.

Note that inside formal system (like mathematics) complete induction is still one of the most powerful tools when it comes to proving a hypothesis.

Mabool wrote:
[...]He categorically denies the possibility of analysis.[...]

WTF? What analysis? Mathematical analysis or 'dialectic' 'analysis'?

Mabool wrote:
He's like the biggest anti-Marxist ever.

Whatever...

Mabool wrote:
[...]And finally I started actually reading the Quran yesterday and if any book is worthy of calling itself a divine revelation, it's this. This is the first religious text I've ever read that is actually extremely good.[...]

Congratulations...


Mabool wrote:
[...]last but not least i request this be moved back to mir because it is gonna turn into a spamfest.

That decision is not up to you. You can call anything you don't like 'spam' and try to bully around other people as much as you want. I will not yield.
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 14444
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Sep 2006, 22:05
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 30 Jan 2012, 23:47
Shigalyov wrote:
This reminds me of a slightly off tangent question... does the phrase "god is great" sound as redundant in Arabic as it does in English - like saying "the giant is big" or "the ball is spherical"?
Assuming you accept the existence of god, "greatness" would seem to be understatement if anything.

Things like allahu akbar are said as a phrase. Very little thinking goes into it that is, kinda like when people say God bless you when you sneeze. This unthinking is very characteristic of most theists and in large part is what allows for clerics to seize control and power from their followers.

Shigalyov wrote:
If you take your scriptures literally it might matter quite a bit

Well, duh, interpreting allegory as literal history/law is going to lead to all kinds of shitty ideas.

Shigalyov wrote:
Then which particular scripture you adhere to is pretty important - as they might be advocating completely contradictory things: for some believers the greatest thing you can do is blow up a bus of Jewish children, while for another the greatest virtue lies in creating more Jewish children.

That believers can manipulate their faiths this drastically just goes to show how foolish literalism is. Any Muslim who believes it is his duty to kill Jews lives in total contradiction of the prophet and Islam. They're the equivalent of those Christian identity nutjobs.

Shigalyov wrote:
Of course plenty of atheists claim that they are at odds much of the time.

I'm pretty sure I don't understand your point.

Shigalyov wrote:
So is obedience to scripture important or not?

Define obedience.

Shigalyov wrote:
The act of prayer seems like a peculiar business. Why are you needing to reassure some ultimate being of his "ultimateness"? If god is all that then he/she should hardly need reassurance. Insecurity it such a mortal weakness.

Maybe in the old pagan beliefs prayer was for the self-satisfaction of vain Gods but that is antithetical to the Abrahamic god. This is emphasized in Islam's dedication to submission, yes it is to Allah but not in a vain sense, rather it's submission to the human future and your tiny role in it. Fighting for the mass of humanity is a far better example of submission to Allah than a man who prays ceaselessly.

Shigalyov wrote:
If prayer is more of an act of personal meditation, then it doesn't really need all those strict rules which seem to pertain to it.

Unfortunately Muhammad failed to entirely root out the problem of idolatry and despite his best efforts has been largely deified by Muslims throughout history. The Shia are the worst about but most are just as guilty. The whole five times a day with ritual cleaning and extremely structured form all come directly from Hadith and are upheld not in the name of Allah but Muhammad (although good luck getting many to admit it).

Shigalyov wrote:
There are lots of things... how many people combine their Islam with Dialectical Materialism?

Not many but there are lots of reasons for this. First and foremost is the political ideology of most clerical organizations, which is idealist and bourgeoisie but taught as the One True Understanding. Another huge factor is the intolerance of atheists which either drives people entirely away from Diamat or entirely away from their faith. These two combined with the extreme political disruptions committed against the Muslim world throughout the 20th century led to the decimation of progressive Islam and any chance of a liberation theology of Islam.

Shigalyov wrote:
Just combining a materialist philosophy with an idealist one seems pretty unusual - religion and science are on opposing sides of a world-view. The best they can usually hope to do is agree to disagree and reserve their dominions to separate areas.

The idea that you could apply science to God is nonsensical and a large part of why atheist marxists can be so annoying. Atheism is not a scientific premise. However just because science can't be applied to God doesn't mean we shouldn't use science to navigate reality. We're not God, we can be entirely contained by science, and as material beings it only makes sense to adopt a system of materialism for worldly issues.

Shigalyov wrote:
Without getting into a whole religion versus atheism debate, it seems like an unconventional claim to make that they can be fully reconciled.

Indeed it is unfortunately.

Shigalyov wrote:
Without having studied all religions extensively is it possible to say whether those ideas are unique to Islam?

I've lightly studied every living faith and none but the Abrahamic ones ever totally appealed. Reincarnation for learning doesn't make any sense to me (anymore than heaven being a reward for life does) so that writes off buddhism and hinduism. Also only one infinite God makes even the slightest bit of sense so all the polytheisms are out. Oh and humanity is the greatest (next to God) so I'm sure you see why Islam so appeals. Also I never said that no other faith had good ideas or even had ideas central to Islam before Islam existed. Islam is just the best package with the best book.

Pink Spider wrote:
There is no confusion (at least not to me).

Apparently there is since you mist the gist of my post.

A creator god CAN NOT exist because the concept poses inumerable inconsistencies, contradictions and is in general an insult to ratio.[/quote]
An insult? Very unscientific.

Pink Spider wrote:
Neither matter nor energy can be created, nor can they be destroyed (please read about the laws of thermodynamics) , matter can turn into energy and vice versa.

So? How this disprove an entity outside of time? Infinity begets infinity.

Pink Spider wrote:
The connection is known as General Theory of Relativity. So, 'god' could not do a damn thing about the universe - he/she couldn't even create a single nuclear particle without contradicting and thus negating the basic laws that govern the universe.

And let's guess without these laws everything would go flying off the handle? Perhaps the concept of applying "laws" to an infinite universe influx is the part that's unscientific.

Pink Spider wrote:
One peculiar thing about 'god' is: He/she somehow cannot handle money - he/she always needs more - and the 'believers' are only to glad to hand it over to the always greedy, always needy 'relgious' organization of their choice...
HOLY SHIT!

God is a treasurer to you? You're weird.

Pink Spider wrote:
Now that is brilliant. Would you be so kind as to inform me what numbers you are talking about? Natural Numbers, Integers, Rational Numbers, Real Numbers, Irrational Numbers? They all are ordered in sets and those sets have different qualities - so it's quite important. Confused? Read Cantor, Dedekind, Frege and Gödel.

Actually for this case it's entirely irrelevant as I'm not assigning any things corresponding numbers. The numbers themselves are only meaningful in this sense because they infinitely progress.

Pink Spider wrote:
'Infinite' isn't a number at all. There is a symbol for infinite in mathematics - but it isn't a symbol for a number.

I didn't say infinity was a number. It's all conceivable and inconceivable numbers.

Pink Spider wrote:
Infinity isn't meaningless in the mathematical sense.

The only relevant point is the infinite progression which is most easily explained with numbers. Philosophy, my friend, is not math.

So: Another argument against the God-hypothesis: The existence of god is neither verifyable nor falsifyable and therefore it is not a valid scientific hypothesis.
[/quote]
Falsify atheism.

And lastly:
Mabool wrote:
last but not least i request this be moved back to mir because it is gonna turn into a spamfest.

This. While a somewhat serious topic I created this thread in Mir to allow for one-line questions and off-topic deviations.
Image
Soviet cogitations: 10005
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Jul 2008, 20:01
Ideology: Trotskyism
Philosophized
Post 31 Jan 2012, 08:06
Pink Spider wrote:
Yes, I did. Strictly speaking that was a bit sloppy. Still: The both make the same case, just that Positivism has more focus on 'what we can know'.


Well that's wrong then. Idealism and positivism have been intimately intertwined at least since Kant was around and started bullshitting about Ding-an-sich. Marxist materialism is necessarily anti-positivist. How can you read capital and then still appreciate positivism?

Quote:
Direct contradiction.


"the creator of everything that is created", if you wish, but that's really just stupid nitpicking

Quote:
Uncreated matter? WTF is that?


Eternal matter? Don't act like you're stupider than you are. Matter. It's infinite and eternal. Its dialectical self-development is the source of everything that exists. It is the sole creative force in the universe because it is uncreated.

Quote:
Plus: If matter/energy is eternal and was there before god -then god is neither almighty, all knowing or 'eternal' in his/her own right.


Oh well. Either that or you say that God is All Things.

Quote:
Why? Well firstly he does not and can not know the initial state of the system which is crucial when we are talking about determinism and pre-knowledge. (see among other 'Laplace's demon').


Some demon, huh?

Quote:
Secondly: He is a slave of the matter/energy and the laws that govern a certain universe.
Some god, huh?


Yes, either that, or he is infinite, in which case he is All Things.


Quote:
Second law of thermodynamics. Entropy in a closed system increases or remains the same -never decreases. In the universe as a whole entropy increases. The universe expands, the big rip hasn't occured because of Dark Matter and Dark Energy.


Yes and that's totally besides the point because you are living proof of entropy decreasing severely.

Quote:
Weak, very weak! Feelings don't matter in such a discussion, what you like or dislike is irrelevant.


That's just because you're a positivist. A rational person would have been interested in why I write what I write... or at least in what my opinion is because I really think that's something you should know because you answer. Alas, induction!

Quote:
Of course he wasn't. I am pleasantly surprised that you at least have heard of set theory, alas - you haven' realized it's importance.


No, sorry, I haven't. To be honest I don't give a frag about math, even though I'm planning on reading Principia Mathematica later this year when I've studied formal logic at uni. Maybe then you can enlighten me on why set theory is so important.

Quote:
This is ad hominem ! So I am entitled (I guess) to give you a measured response:
I am not showing off, on the contrary: I have over-simplified things so that it wouldn't disrupt the discussion. Mad math skills?
Well it may look like that to people who can not/or want not cope with mathematics.


Yeah whatever, it's just that you can't start coming up with all sorts of sets when somebody is talking about numbers and then use Gödel to make a point. I've seen Orthodox Christians use Gödel to make points and succeed because their audience don't understand, and you can't expect anybody to know shit about incompleteness theorems. It's not good debating, that's all.

Quote:
Well, then I came just in time.


No.

Quote:
A very naive point of view. The good old Cantor is rotating in his grave...


Too bad that nobody ever asked for Cantor's opinion. I hope he dies choking on all his stupid dust.

Quote:
Thus speaks the expert...


Obviously, since I made you admit that Popper makes induction impossible, and that destroys every possibility of analysis - or increased knowledge.

Quote:
WTF? What analysis? Mathematical analysis or 'dialectic' 'analysis'?


Well obviously I'm not talking about anything to do with f(x).

Quote:
Whatever...


but he is! He stopped being a Marxist as soon as he noticed that political praxis can kill you.

Quote:
Congratulations...


Thanks, maybe you should have a look at it as well.

Quote:
That decision is not up to you. You can call anything you don't like 'spam' and try to bully around other people as much as you want. I will not yield.


Cool story.
"Don't know why i'm still surprised with this shit anyway." - Loz
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 238
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 12 Jun 2011, 15:14
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Pioneer
Post 01 Feb 2012, 07:26
Interestingly enough, as of late, I've been studying up on Islam, eventhough I currently consider myself to be a deist. For one I've read "The Koran for Dummies", which seemed like a good starting point for me.
One of the quotes mentioned in the book is this, "Our inability to perceive Allah is our perception". -Umar ibn Al Khattab. I think that this means that our finite minds can not fully conceive of the infinite nature of the Supreme Being. I'm actually impressed, and inspired, by some of what I've read about Islam, in a way. However, it would still appear to me that the Quran contains some errors too. http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/science/long.html So I was wondering how a well educated person could still accept belief in the Islamic faith, with all due respect.
Last edited by Jason24 on 02 Feb 2012, 07:04, edited 1 time in total.
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.