Right-wing Dutch lawmaker Geert Wilders launched his film Fitna today in which he accuses the Koran of inciting violence. Not quite sure where he got that idea ;)
Anyways, take a peek for yourself. It’s a mere 15 minutes so you won’t waste too much of your time :)
Get the Flash Player to see this player.
Related posts:
Did you enjoy this post? Why not leave a comment below and continue the conversation, or subscribe to my feed and get articles like this delivered automatically each day to your feed reader. If you don't have a feed reader, you can always have these articles delivered to your email inbox every day. Click here to sign up.
March 28th, 2008 at 7:14 am
Ahh, was wondering when this would turn up here. The Netherlands have been anxious about this film for months now and public outrage is, as expected, coming from all sides now that it’s released.
The saddest thing about it that Geert Wilders is actually in the Tweede Kamer (dutch House of Representatives) and people have actually voted for the guy…
sigh.
March 28th, 2008 at 7:29 am
Wow!
Very unsettling!
All religions are poison but it has to be said that Islam is the worst.
The problem I have is that of “cause and effectâ€
Is religion what makes people bad? Or is it because people (some people) are bad that they create religion?
It’s probably a bit of both.
I watched a documentary one time about Skinheads and they were talking about the coming “RAHOWAâ€
RA-HO-WA apparently stands for Racial Holy War. At the time of course I thought it was all nonsense but now it looks as though they were right. That seems to be the direction the world is heading.
This creates quite a dilemma for people like me. An atheist.
Maybe we can be the umpires.
March 28th, 2008 at 7:54 am
I have to say that I find radical Islamists very deserving of crticism, and they must be stopped. However, there are a great deal of moderate muslims who are not interested in killing people and subverting democracy. I think we should be careful not to lump all muslims into one big pot; we then make enemeies that could be allies. This is why places like Egypt and Turkey should be nurtured and protected by the west; they have the ideals of secular government in their political constructions (regardless of whatever failures someone might dig up to demonstrate where they have stumbled).
I can’t speak for the Netherlands, though. My nation isn’t experiencing what Europe is going through right now. Let’s see . . . Corso is Danish, as I recall. That’s just a short jump across the North Sea, and he’s spoken before on the islamization of his own land. What say you, Corso? Is this film more help than harm, or vice versa?
March 28th, 2008 at 8:47 am
“In the name of allah, the all-merciful, the compasionate
i begin this in his glorious name,
who through his infinate mercy and his infinate power has created mankind, and has deemed mankind worthy of existence, and has provided mankind witht he freedom and the potential to become a good person or a bad person according to how we as human beings choose to use our freewill in which he has blesed us with….
the verse translated in the clip is unaccurate and is insuffixcient on its own,
we must analyse the verses before it in order to understand the verse effectively…
Suray 8
verse 56
“Those with whom you make an agreement, and then they break theirt agreement every time and they do not gaurd (against punishment)
57-
therefore, if you overtake them in fighting, then scatter by (making an example of) them those who are in the rear, that they may be mindful.
-58
and if you fear treachery on the part of the people, then throw back to them on terms of equality; surely Allah does not love the treacherous.
-59
And let not those who disbelieve think that they shall come in first; surely they will not escape.
Surah 8, verse 60- the verse incorrectly translated in the clip
And PREPARE against them what force you can horses tied at the frontier, to frighten theerby the enemy of Allah and your enemy and others beside them , whom you do not know (but) Allah knows them; and whatever things you will spend in Allah’s way, it will be paid back to you fully and you shall not be dealt with injustly.
the intention is not to encourage terrorism but rather how to act in a war.
ok lets make this clear.
i am a muslim, i am against terrorism and i respect people of different fauiths (including athiests) and value them as individuals.
the holy prophet (Saww) has said:
“if someone is not your brother in religion, then surely he is your equal in humanity”
may allah’s cursings be upon those who use islam as an excuse to terrorise and kill inncoent people. who behead and capture innocent people under the banner of their religion. those clips that are shown are nothing to be proud of muslims. there you have people using your religion as an excuse to ’slit the throats’ and behead. what would our beloved prophet say if he were here today? to witness how our religion, not at how our religion is being abused by the non-muslims but rather at how we react and the physical damage terrorists cause.
the quaran does not encourage terrorism nor does it encourage us to be ruthless or merciless.
those who accuse islam of being spread by the sword are wrong. not to create any tension between the two religions, and with all due respect, but the word saif( meaning sword) has not been mentioned nor how to use it once in the wholy quran. but as for the holy bible, many times has it been mentioned.
as muslims living in the qwest it is our duty and it is obligitory upon us to reflect the beauty of islam through our personality and our actions. it is also wajib (compuslory) upon us to respect and obay the law of the land in which we live in. if the law is unsuitable for us as muslimeen to live in, then if we do not succeed in adapting effectively without leaving our religion (and without using terrorism or violence) then we must go elsewhere.
may allah’s blessings be upon you all, and shame upon the creator of this clip for showing islam negatively and encouraging hatred towards the religion. true islam is indeed ever beautiful.
my Lord is Merciful..
Peace
March 28th, 2008 at 8:58 am
To think that the majority of our european statesmen have distanced themselves from these images. Like I was taught as a kid ‘the truth hurts, buddy, it sure hurts’. It couldn’t be even more valid in this day and age. Who’s next?
March 28th, 2008 at 9:22 am
I was wondering about the translation. Thanks muslim boy. I also appreciate the level of tolerance you express in your comment for faith-free people.
The fact that the Qur’an (and any text, really) is subject to misrepresentation and misinterpretation is reason enough to not live your life according to one source. What I wonder is why you believe that the interpretation of the Qur’an that you learned is the ‘correct’ one? When you witness how easily it can be misinterpreted, how do you know that you have not misinterpreted some of the text as well?
March 28th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
It’s not that these images aren’t true, it’s that they don’t represent the majority. For some reason people will think every single muslim is a murdering terrorist, so politicians have to distance themselves from it.
March 28th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
Alcari,
You say that these images don’t represent the majority. It may be that 99% of muslims think that terrorism and violence are horrible and should never be used to further the goal of islam. But that leaves one percent. One percent of a billion is 10 million. Let that number sink in. 10 million people is alot. A shitload in fact.
Problem is there are actually about 1.1 billion muslims in the world, and some research indicates that as many as 7 percent of them are ok with violence as a means to further islam.
77 million. I honestly don’t give a rat’s ass what the ‘majority’ of them believe as long as so many of them believe that killing me is the best way to achieve their goals.
March 28th, 2008 at 3:29 pm
the moderates give the extremists a base. one thing both ends of the spectrum have in common is the (seemingly) limitless devotion to islam and it’s teachings. what would anyone call muslimboy? a moderate. yet he thinks sharia is just (probably never having experienced such a legal system, or worse been a woman in that situation). muslimboy could not imagine that islam could ever be wrong or that quran got something wrong (despite ample evidence to the contrary). he also can’t imagine that the prophet might have ever done something that wasn’t quite right.
that is not a moderate position. that is a very EXTREME position. it’s a small step from a violence. moderation in islam means something completely different than in the rest of the world.
March 28th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
Hmmmm. Kasem, my local authority on Islam, is what I would call a “moderate” muslim. He disdains sharia, treats his daughters and wife as equals, celebrates the Fourth of July (as he is a proud citizen) with the rest of the neighborhood, is compassionate and reasonable, and hates terrorists. He freely admits the violence inherent in the Quoran, but points to passages in the Old Testament that are not practiced by Jew or Christian either. Like most truly moderate religious folk, he picks and chooses which passages he follows. Hypocritical? Eh, who cares? He isn’t blowing up himself or his neighbors. Plus, his wife makes some kick-arse baklavah.
March 28th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
Gotta love that islam.
March 28th, 2008 at 4:43 pm
in the name of allah, the all-merciful, the compasionate
well said kurt…
@boris
i am in no position to challange my lord. if i truely believ the quarn is the word of god and that muhammed is his finbal messenger and that he is the almighty, then i have to accept everything he commands is for mankind’s benefit and everything he forbids is in one way or another not beneficial for us. if i believe he is the all knowing then i cannot question what he knows.
we have to face reality…
it is a bad thing theer are terrorsist in this world, but there have always been bad people from the begining of history til this present day. lets face it, logically there is nothing we can do to wipe out terrorist or bad people completly. that does not mean we should stop trying, but rather we must tolerate this hardship and strive to prevent it from taking place (thus saving lives).
this life is finate. we live for a certain amount of years and then die. it is logical that a hereafter is required so that justice can be served and those who were’ good’ will be rewarded and those who were ‘bad’ will be punished.
sharia law is strict, but it is fair. but sharia law differs according to different countries and different individuals. for example, there are muslims who think the sharia makes it compulsory upon their women to wear the veil. now being a muslim myself, i personally believe this is ridiculous and that it should be optional.
other muslims eat any meat as long as the meat its self is a halal type ‘ie lamb, chicken etc’, but others believ the sharia makes it compulsory for the animal to be slaughtered in the correct manner (i.e according to the sharia).
the fundemental aspects of islam do not change, it is the way in which they are practiced which differ.
and btw just thought id mention that baqlava is amazing!
kurt, out of interest is this guy kasem from iraq??
safe
(i’m probably gonna stop postin on this website for a while, i really need to get some revision done for my exams)
March 28th, 2008 at 5:30 pm
@muslimboy
“i am in no position to challange my lord. if i truely believ the quarn is the word of god and that muhammed is his finbal messenger and that he is the almighty, then i have to accept everything he commands is for mankind’s benefit and everything he forbids is in one way or another not beneficial for us”.
that is a dangerous mindset. its a root cause for islamic violence and terrorism. the bible is a violent and primitive text, much like quran. the old testament being much worse than the new. through the process of reformation, people started selective following of the bible. this happened both in the jewish and in the xtian mainstream. without this development, our scientific level would still be like it was 500 years ago.
blind following of islam isn’t doing your people any favors.
March 28th, 2008 at 6:05 pm
Kasem is formerly Egyptian, actually. He does miss the pyramids.
March 29th, 2008 at 4:55 am
@Muslimboy:
The question has been asked before, yet I repeat it here as I too am eager to hear your answer:
How can you be certain that your interpretation of the verses above are correct and not the ones in the movie, or the ones the terrorists/jihadists use?
Please take your time to check your answer for circular logic.
March 29th, 2008 at 6:29 am
I am an Atheist living in a Muslim country (Jordan).
I don’t believe there are moderate and extremist muslims. In my opinion there are only practicing and non-practicing muslims. Bin Laden and the terrorists know the koran better than most muslims and cant control all their followers if what they were saying was not in the koran.
It is really sad to love your country but at the same time live hoping that your people/country doesnt become a super power because of what would happen to the world.
Here is a documentary critical of islam that was uploaded on google after the release of Fitna. Get it before its gone. It focuses on one side only. However, everything in it is accurate. Watch it before you call it propaganda.
Islam: What the West Needs To Know
March 29th, 2008 at 9:50 pm
I cleaned up (adaptive noise filters etc.) and converted the original liveleak FLV if you want a slightly larger version
http://rapidshare.com/files/102906159/Fitna-EnglishDivx.avi
March 30th, 2008 at 1:12 pm
The problem with translations between languages such as Arabic and English is that mistranslations are unfortunately extremely easy to make. This is the same case with Latin and English, and is very likely the cause of many idiotic interpretations of a so-called “Holy Book”. Both the Bible and the Koran are chock full of hate, murder, torture, and general unpleasantness on behalf of the ‘holy’. By their very nature, these books will always engender such in their true followers. It was said earlier that the ‘moderately religious’ do not exist, and I honestly doubt the truth to that. I have the good fortune to not no too many truly religious people, just a plethora of fools who pray and go to a bible study or two, and don’t listen when you want to criticize their beliefs.
What most people call ‘extremists’ are the true believers. The holy texts tell us to murder and at the very least disenfranchise non-believers, so those who do so are not truly extremists, but true believers. The so-called moderately religious want the supposed benefits of religion, but turn a blind eye to the icky bits. They’ll attend church/mosque/temple, celebrate holidays, and expect to find an afterlife, but won’t be found preaching on a corner or introducing bullets to unbelieving faces at high velocity. The third party of course is that of the atheists, and that’s simple a group of people who have nothing in common (by definition, but not necessarily reality) but that they do not believe in any religion. In practice, atheists are as mixed a bag as any group.
The difference between the groups in any category is rather simple.
How often does one hear of a Jew murdering someone because this person disobeyed god’s will? I am not up on all the news, but as far as I know this is not very often.
Christians are known to have a colorful history of doing this and some still do, but thankfully the numbers are relatively low, significant though they be.
Islam though is in a class of its own. One can hardly turn on a news station without hearing of another slew of muslim suicide killings. Of course, the media tends to focus on such things, but the fact that such incidents have become so common that a suicide bombing in Iraq is no longer a headline story and often relegated to a line on news channel ‘Tickers’ is telling.
I’ve only known two people in my life who I know for a fact to ascribe to Islam, and they have been relatively decent people, but obviously fell into the category of religious moderate. The problem with the moderates is that they defend the base beliefs of the extremists, if not their actions. They prevent widespread discussion of religion in any critical and public sense. Even FOX news refuses to outright criticize Islam, deserving of such though it certainly is.
Ask yourself this though.
When was the last time you heard of an Atheist who killed innocents in the name of Atheism?
March 30th, 2008 at 1:34 pm
Blasphemaster –
Hmmmm. Maybe Mao-Tse Tung’s cultural revolution, or Stalin’s regime?
March 30th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
Nope, I clearly remember that we killed innocents in the name of the party, communism, for being religious, (rich/ religious was a bonus for the state coffers) and other such excuses but did not get to killing people in the name of atheism.
Shame really, no one would object for such a worthy and pure goal, eh?
March 30th, 2008 at 11:57 pm
the movie is truly 15 minutes of pure “fitna”!!
Fitna is caused by doing or saying things that spread hatred. When there is “fitna†there is schism, upheaval and sometimes anarchy. if we act with violence we are just proving the guy right.
the messenger Muhammad advised a Muslim who asked him… he told him “don’t get angry” he said that three times. he also said that getting angry is from Satan who is made from fire, to turn the fire off we need to wash up (wodoo). or at least if someone is angry and he is standing up he should sit down, if he is sitting down he should lie down. anything to keep you from acting upon your anger.
MY OPINION
freedom of speech now has a new meaning…
freedom of speech = defamation through lies. which is a crime in all civilized countries.
my REFUTE of the verses that were used by the guy.
8:39. And fight them on until there is no more PERSECUTION, and religion becomes Allah’s in its entirety; but if they cease, verily Allah doth see all that they do.
the WHOLE surah (chapter) is about a story that happened in the past . It’s THE WAR OF BADR. It was between the Muslims and their “non-believer†enemies “Kuraishâ€. That’s why the verses were talking about the “non-believers†it’s an adjective … referring to those specific non-believers. It’s not a law for all Muslims. Just a story that is over…. You will find that to be true when you check earlier verses including:
8:33. But Allah was not going to send them a chastisement whilst thou wast amongst them; nor was He going to send it whilst they could ask for pardon.
“whilst thou wast amongst them†= Muhammad. He only lived in the 7th century!!
God was not going to punish the non-believers (Kuraish) while Muhammad was there.
THE REASON of that war wasn’t that they are “non-believers†it was because Kuraish tortured weaker Muslims, drove many Muslims out of their houses, confiscated their properties and conspired to kill Muhammad forcing him out of the city when he was only trying to follow Abraham and Ishmael -who are his blood ancestors- by praying to God in the holy place in Mecca. It’s his right to live in the city he was born in, grew up in and it’s his right to follow his own beliefs without being persecuted. He just wanted to return to his own city.
By the way the war was fought OUTSIDE THE CITY. The two armies met outside the city and fought.
_____________________
the verse (8:60) the guy just removed everything before and after it:
[8.56] Those with whom you make an agreement, then they BREAK THEIR AGREEMENT EVERY TIME and they do not guard (against punishment).
[8.57] Therefore if you overtake them in fighting, then scatter by (making an example of) them those who are in their rear, that they may be mindful.
[8.58] And if you fear treachery on the part of a people, then throw back to them on terms of equality; surely Allah does not love the treacherous.
And then come the verses Sura 8 verse 60
[8.61] But IF the ENEMY incline towards PEACE, do you (also) Incline Towards PEACE, and trust in Allah: for He is the One that hears and knows (all things).
the verse says to prepare for war in a way that terrifies the enemies.
but the movie separated the words “to strike terror” in a separate line to get your attention away from the fact that is terrifying through preparation not terrorizing the peaceful.
It’s to fight those who break peace agreements. But if they return to peace then Muslims HAVE to return to peace. If someone attacks you wouldn’t you prepare everything in your power to defend yourself?
He mentioned 60 and didn’t say it’s for agreement breakers and didn’t mention 61 which is all about peace.
_____________________
4:56
If you believe in God’s signs you don’t need to be scared of God’s punishment. This has nothing to do with Muslims attacking people! If you are a believer there’s nothing to worry about and if you are a non-believer then don’t be upset about something that you don’t believe in which is “hell†in the afterlife.
Believer does not equal Muslim. A Muslim can be a believer or not. A non-muslim can be a believer or not.
It’s God who decides.
_____________________
(4:89) again, out of context.
Hypocrites in Islam are those who pretend to be the Muslims allies when they are the allies of the Muslims’ enemies.
4:88. Why should ye be divided into two parties about the HYPOCRITES? Allah hath cost them of their (evil) deeds. Would ye guide those whom Allah hath thrown out of the Way? For those whom Allah hath thrown out of the Way, never shalt thou find the Way.
4:89. They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): So take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (from what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks;-
4:90. Except those who join a group between whom and you there is a treaty (of peace), or those who approach you with hearts restraining them from fighting you or fighting their own people. If Allah had pleased, He could have given them power over you, and they would have fought you: Therefore IF THEY WITHDRAW FROM YOU BUT FIGHT YOU NOT, AND (INSTEAD) SEND YOU (GUARANTEES OF) PEACE, THEN ALLAH HATH OPENED NO WAY FOR YOU (TO WAR AGAINST THEM).
Again Muslims are allowed defend themselves against those who fight them. it’s defense. If the attacker wants peace then there’s no need to defend ourselves.
There was nothing such as “NEUTRALâ€. People were divided into ALLIES, ENEMIES, people with whom they had AGREEMENTS. That’s the way it was.
_____________________
47:4. Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks; at length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind (the captives) firmly: thereafter (is the time for) either generosity or ransom: until the war lays down its burdens. Thus (are ye commanded): but if it had been Allah’s Will, He could certainly have exacted retribution from them (Himself); but (He lets you fight) in order to test you, some with others. But those who are slain in the Way of Allah,- He will never let their deeds be lost.
again he mixes peace times and war times. And again “the unbelievers†is an adjective referring to “those peopleâ€. The whole purpose of the war is that the believers will be left alone to live and worship in peace. It’s not to convert the non-believers.
There are 2 verses in another surah or “chapter†that sets the peaceful people from the other people in treatment:
60:8. Allah forbids you not, with regard to those who FIGHT YOU NOT for (your) Faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing KINDLY and justly with them: for Allah loveth those who are just.
60:9. Allah only FORBIDS YOU, with regard to those who FIGHT YOU for (your) Faith, and DRIVE YOU OUT OF YOUR HOMES, and support (others) in driving you out, FROM TURNING TO THEM (for friendship and protection). It is such as turn to them (in these circumstances), that do wrong.
I guess this is fair enough, kind with peaceful but not friends with attackers.
The word used in verse 60 for the peaceful people instead of “dealing kindly†is the same used for being kind to parents “tabarroohomâ€.
_____________________
I guess the guy who made the movie should be paid by terrorists. He’s their new “brainwasher†of people. (whoever wants to be brainwashed, that is)
please people, judge Islam by its content not its sinful followers. the good and the bad exist in every religion.
if the majority of Muslims were like that it would be WW3. it’s difficult to control an army of over a billion, you know?
the misunderstandings are because of ignorance or it’s a cultural or political thing not religious. (ex: girls in Saudi Arabia don’t get circumcised)
people …don’t let the movie cause a fitna between Muslims and non-Muslims because of the terrorists and racists.
it would have been ok if he focused on terrorists instead of dragging all of the Muslims into this by taking Kur’an verses out of context.
March 31st, 2008 at 6:47 am
“in the name of allah, the all-merciful, the compasionate”
heidi, that was very well said. may allah bless you.
March 31st, 2008 at 8:43 am
So god is infinetly merciful but at the same time runs his own concentration camp called HELL where you are tormented forever even past the time the stars burn out!A celestial Auschwitz if you please where no one is ever released and death is no escape and the crime..not believing he exists.It seems a little harsh This schizophrenic nonsense passes as thinking. justoneangel.blogspot.com july 2005
March 31st, 2008 at 9:33 am
Amen, Sawaz. Hell is morally unjustifiable, worthy of defense only by despots and tyrants.
March 31st, 2008 at 12:19 pm
Kurt Says:
Blasphemaster –
Hmmmm. Maybe Mao-Tse Tung’s cultural revolution, or Stalin’s regime?
20jagannath Says:
Nope, I clearly remember that we killed innocents in the name of the party, communism, for being religious, (rich/ religious was a bonus for the state coffers) and other such excuses but did not get to killing people in the name of atheism.
Indeed. They were killed BY atheists, but NOT in the name of atheism. Also, atheism isn’t really an ideological construct in the way the religion is. Religions have a set of beliefs that their followers take to heart, whatever those beliefs may be. Atheism is a simple absence of religion. What Mao and Stalin engaged in was militant ANTI-theism, I.E. actively engaging in activities to root out and destroy the religious. While I for one consider myself an anti-theist in that I would dearly love to see the destruction of religion, I would prefer that such could be accomplished without any bloodshed if possible.
———–
Sawaz Says:
So god is infinetly merciful but at the same time runs his own concentration camp called HELL where you are tormented forever even past the time the stars burn out! A celestial Auschwitz if you please where no one is ever released and death is no escape and the crime..not believing he exists.It seems a little harsh This schizophrenic nonsense passes as thinking. justoneangel.blogspot.com july 2005
24sidfaiwu Says:
Amen, Sawaz. Hell is morally unjustifiable, worthy of defense only by despots and tyrants.
Agreed on both fronts. I find it utterly hilarious that I, an atheist, routinely find myself to be more moral and ethical than most of the religious people I know, for the simple fact that I do not glorify a mass sadist.
March 31st, 2008 at 7:11 pm
Blasphemaster —
I’m do recall Lenin having said something along the lines of “thanks to atheism, we no longer have to tolerate the churches keeping the people’s money,” and then confiscating all their wealth, but your point is well-taken. One example I always like to point to is that the Crusades weren’t really about religion (on any side) but about control of trade routes. Religion made a convenient combination scapegoat and rallying cry . . . even though people have done it, virtually no one knowingly volunteers to go to war for a standard of living.
March 31st, 2008 at 7:16 pm
Oh! And is anyone aware of the Zororasteran version of Hell (which came first and was copied-then-modified by the other hell-having religions)? According to what I have read, it was designed to “burn the impurities” from souls, so that they could then ascend to Zororasteran Heaven . . . and that even the “Great Evil One” would be “burned pure” within 10,000 years. Not exactly “forever,” huh? I always thought that was a much more interesting concept . . .
Or did that book steer me wrong? Any Zororasterans out there? I know there are a few hundred thousand left at least . . .
April 1st, 2008 at 7:18 am
I assume you meant the Zoroastrian hell, sorry if I am mistaken.
Off-hand without my books, It really depends of intepration and which texts you follow.
In earlier texts souls were subject to everlasting punishment in hell.
Later texts said in my recollection that in the Frashegird (apocalypse/final judgement) the wicked are destroyed in the molten metal/fire of the apocalypse.
But there were even more recent beliefs which stated that the molten metal purified everything and thus all were allowed into the heaven.
It was very unclear, at least to me, what might happen to the wicked at the end of time. There was no clear and concise explanation in the books I read. I do remember that the wicked were in the hell until the final resurrection at the end of time. So it is not actually eternal punishment but good enough as it lasts until the end of time, when ever that might come.
I do find the threefold path of Zoroastrianism to be quite nice
April 2nd, 2008 at 12:34 am
Jagganath –
Yes, you are correct. I have been caught in an instance of misspelling (sorry about that; perfection is a road and not a destination, unfortunately). I guess it was an instance of me making sure no one misinterpreted it as a reference to some Zorro-astrian worshipping cult . . . which was the interpretation a young lady in a bar made one night (”Why would anyone worship Zorro?” she slurred). Anyway, glad you remembered those distinctions; and thanks for helping out. The “burned pure” hell seems a lot more “compassionate” to me, on both a moral and intellectual level. More fair to unbelievers and the unknowing, anyway; and much more like rehabilitation than retribution.
Their threefold path always appealed to me as well; if thoughts, words, and actions are in harmony, one avoids hypocrisy. Very wise, very insightful.
April 2nd, 2008 at 12:34 pm
kurt, how do u know all this?
i would love to have a wide range of knowledge regarding culture, history and religion ofcorse.
hope God guides you to the correct path.
still looking for any debaters regarding the rightful calipha, because as they say ‘the truth will out’.
April 2nd, 2008 at 1:21 pm
@muslimboy
“still looking for any debaters regarding the rightful calipha, because as they say ‘the truth will out’”
this might not be the best place for such a debate. it’s an issue that only matters to other muslims.
April 2nd, 2008 at 7:25 pm
Muslim boy —
Well, I come from a family which values and treasures knowledge and learning. I was a fairly precocious child, and started reading at a younger age than is common. I studied hard in high school, and when I got to college I supplimented my own classes (sometimes a bit *too* much) with books borrowed from friends in other majors . . . including a friend who studied philosophy and comparative religion. Since graduating with my base degree, I acquired a couple others, and have continued to develop what is known as a “liberal” education (not the political philosophy, but broad-based). For example, I am currently reading John Lott’s “More Guns, Less Crime” and have “Freakanomics” in the pipeline. After that, probably more on economic theory (I acquired some textbooks by chance). But, more than anything else, it’s probably the Science Fiction genre that has clued me into a great many things . . . because to be a true Science Fiction author, you have to be well-grounded in a whole range of fields. Doing fact checking on stuff by Heinlein, for example, was how I learned basic ballistics and astronomy in High School.
I plan to stop learning roughly two minutes before I die.
April 2nd, 2008 at 8:46 pm
Muslim boy and Kurt how are you at meta-mathematics ie: Godel’s theorem and it’s consequences and there are consequences and big ones.If you don’t understand it and I am not saying you won’t ask a mathematician. justoneangel.blogspot.com June 2005
April 3rd, 2008 at 9:02 am
Hello Sawaz,
I am a mathematician. What significance, exactly, do you see in Godel’s theorem. And which theorem do you mean? His two best well known ones are his Incompleteness Theorem and his Consistency Theorem.
April 3rd, 2008 at 6:17 pm
Sawaz –
Yeah, I am fairly familiar with the Incompleteness Theorem. It only applies to formal systems (not religious ones). As far as the Liar’s Paradox, I lend great credence to Aristotle’s solution (lateral thinking; Alexander couldn’t have solved the Gordian Knot problem without it!), even though I know it has mathematical limitations. I am less acquainted with Godel’s Consistency Theorem. Or is there another one you refer to? I have formal training in Algebra, Geometry, Calculus, Finite, and Statistics. Beyond that, I am a self-educated layman. I really dig Chaos Theory and the various String Theories, and have done a great deal of astronomical calculations. As I like to say, I can understand Hawking, but I sure couldn’t come up with his stuff on my own . . .
April 3rd, 2008 at 6:18 pm
Oh! And I just picked up Fuller’s non-euclidian geometry book . . . should get to it sometime this year.
April 3rd, 2008 at 6:37 pm
Hello Sidfaiwu, I am talking about the incompleteness theorem and by the sounds of it I don’t need to explain it to you.The significance of it is that if God by definition is infinite in qualities he must be at least as complex as number theory and we know now thanks to Godel that the number of true statements about the natural numbers is infinite and more importantly they can never all be known.So the number of true statements about God must be infinite as well.Capturing the essence of God in a finite set of statements is as impossible as stating all the true mathematical statements.Therefore there can no more be a final prophet than a final mathematician.The article I refered to seems to explain it fairly well.Godel’s theorems are some of the landmark ideas of all time.You just have to know their impact has to be enormous not just in math but theology as well.
April 3rd, 2008 at 6:38 pm
Hello Kurt,
The cliff-notes version of Gordel’s Consistency Theorem is this: Given a sufficiently complex axiomatic system, it is impossible to prove that there exists two contradictory theorems that can both be legitimately proved.
In other words, mathematics could derive two equally true, contradictory statements. It may never happen, but it is impossible to use math to eliminate the possibility.
Oh, and Chaos Theory is a hell of a lot less sexy than it appears on the surface. Many a mathematician’s career was ruined by the hype of Chaos theory. What you’d find is that all it consists of is dynamic systems of differential equations that are highly sensitive to initial conditions.
If you want to prep yourself for some really cool mathematics, study linear algebra, especially the theory side. It is the first significant level of abstraction in math after introducing variables for numbers.
April 3rd, 2008 at 9:14 pm
Sid–
Thanks for the tip on linear algebra. Your “cliff notes” description rang the bell of memory. And as far as other Godel theorems, I did see a few others, but can’t really recall them offhand.
When I said “really dig” about Chaos Theory, I was referring to the fractals, which demonstrate infinite regression nicely (and the butterfly effect, which explains the problems in weather prediction nicely). I didn’t really see it as anything beyond what you describe; sorry if I was too brief there. And, well, Lamark ruined his career with his Evolutionary Theory . . . someone has to go down the dead ends for others to find the right path. String Theory might be just another dead end, Cern will tell.
Sawaz –
The problem with your statement is that it makes an initial supposition about which we have no facts: “God by definition is infinite in qualities.” Whose definition? There are many “definitions” of “god,” such as “Yahweh the Child-Killer,” “Shiva the Boogie Dancer,” “The Universe Itself, Taken In Totality,” “Imaginary Nothingness,” and more than I care to waste my time listing. As I noted, Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem only applies to formal systems, not religious ones (religious systems are not formal, as I believe I have demonstrated by my point about “definitions of god.” Would I like to see a development of a formal system of religion? Yeah! Real cool. Care to try?).
I wish I could be more clear here (my mother is the mathematics instructor, and I won’t be seeing her until dinner on Saturday), but here goes: Mathematics is a language. Like all languages (even this “universal” one we call Mathematics; which is presumably where any “god” worth being would speak, but that’s another treatise), there is a problem in translation from one to another (and even between one base to another, if one is not careful). I’ll give a non-esoteric example: if I say “Du bist die Wurst,” I am literally saying (in English) “You are the Sausage.” In English, this means nonsense. In German, it is the (American) English equivalent of “You are da man!” Context is everything. Without agreement of definition and (bein’ snarky here; 2nd beer) observation of initial conditions, we cannot have a true discourse using any theorem.
April 3rd, 2008 at 9:29 pm
And I damn well wish I knew how we got this far away from discussing Geert’s little film . . . such is stream-of-consciousness posting . . .
April 3rd, 2008 at 9:58 pm
Hey Kurt,
No problem. Linear algebra may not look all that cool on the surface, but it truly is the key to the good stuff: Fourier series, wavelets, tensors, and function spaces, not to mention systems of differential equations.
When I mentioned that Chaos Theory hype killed some mathematicians’ careers, it was not because it was wrong, or a dead end, but because the field was flooded with researchers and it wasn’t nearly as ground-breaking as it was pumped up to be. The main issue was that knowing that some systems are sensitive to initial conditions and using that knowledge are two different things. Still, the fractals are beautiful and justifiably inspire awe. Also, the fact that fractal patters appear everywhere in nature suggests that the field has some strong modeling potential.
Sawaz,
I must have missed your comment earlier. I’m sorry about that. Kurt is right, Gordel’s Incompleteness Theorem doesn’t apply to theological propositions and for the reasons that Kurt pointed out. God is simply not part of any formal system (an non-contradictory, axiomatic system of sufficient complexity) and likely could not be.
April 3rd, 2008 at 11:12 pm
from Koran-bashing to an algebra battle. fun times.
April 3rd, 2008 at 11:50 pm
Sid –
Wow. I’ve played with harmonics (which I recall being discovered by Fourier, is that right?), differentials (damn, but Fourier rings a bell there too, but it’s escaping me right now), tensors (vector fields and topology, and somehow I recall “function spaces” fit in there, right?), but have only known them as “algebra”. That’s called linear algebra? These wavelet things too? You learn something new every day. Ah, the troubles of a piecemeal self-education . . . and not keeping in practice with all the math I’ve known . . .
And my Chaos Theory knowledge was all taken from Gleick’s book. Sorry if I took your statement too far; I do occaisionally read too much into things. I see fractals in trees, clouds, etc. Can’t stop seeing them once you’ve started, you know . . .
And, I’ve just learned that Wilder’s main argument for making this film is apparently that a Morrocan immigrant who is seated in the legislature is keeping his dual citizenship, which his party opposes vehemently.
April 4th, 2008 at 3:10 am
You can’t attack ISLAM
April 4th, 2008 at 8:16 am
Kurt/Sidfwaiu, All religions believe God is infinite in power with an infinite number of qualities and infinite in time and space and knowledge.A finite god inspires no awe and is just a big bully.The fact that god exists is a supposition but not the fact that he has some hazily defined qualities which is believed by many.You said religion is not a formal system well it is with it’s own axioms and propositions.The axioms were laid down thousands of years ago and so called scholars have been interpreting them ever since.If religion whichever one you chose is an axiomatic system and it must be otherwise one cannot draw conclusions from first premises then it can be mapped onto logic and if powerful enough Godel’s incompleteness theorem holds true.I am making the suppostion that the axioms needed to describe God are at least as powerful as those in Peano arithmetic which seems reasonable to me.Hence saying someone is a final prophet is equivalent to saying someone is a final mathematician.
April 4th, 2008 at 10:21 am
Hello sawaz,
Not all religions have considered their gods to have infinite qualities. Consider all of the polytheistic religions.
I’ve never even heard of any set of religious axioms as part of a formal system. I’d like to see such a system that meets the definition of a formal system. The axioms must be expressed as a formal language in order to qualify; plain language is NOT a formal language. There also must be well defined rules of inference; ways to combine the axioms to form new statements, which can further be combined with other axioms and/or statements to for yet new statements.
Note, also, that Gordel required the axioms to be consistent and we know that contradictions are the norm between religions. Furthermore, the power of the axioms (typically measured by their ability to explain) is different from their complexity or, a better word would be sophistication. For Gordel’s theorem to apply, the formal system must be sophisticated enough to formulate it’s own consistency. For instance, arithmetic is a powerful formal system (it completely describes the manipulation of all real (and complex) numbers. Yet Gordel’s Incompleteness Theorem doesn’t apply because arithmetic is not sophisticated enough to formulate it’s own consistency.
Personally, I doubt there’s such a thing as a first prophet, let alone a final one, so your conclusion is sound. Your method of arriving at the conclusion just isn’t valid.
April 4th, 2008 at 4:38 pm
Sawaz –
“All religions believe God is infinite in power with an infinite number of qualities and infinite in time and space and knowledge.” I find that to be hard to swallow. For one thing, infinite in power would remove the concept of free will, which is inherent in most religions (including polytheistic ones). “Infinite in time and space” is also problematic, as space is *not* infinite, it is bounded and finite (although arbitrarily large, of course); in addition, time is probably not infinite. Whether our Universe will experience the “Big Rip,” where expansion literally shreds spacetime, or whether “dark energy” (if it even exists, which is not proven yet . . . it could be something else we have not postulated yet) reverses it’s sign and draws spacetime back together in the “Big Crunch,” time ceases. Only in the “Big Chill,” argurably, could time continue to occur.
The problem is that religions have “beliefs,” which is not the same as an axiom (a self-evident or universally recognized truth). And most such beliefs are crumbling before our (admittedly incomplete) improving understanding of the Universe. And when I say “admittedly incomplete,” that does not mean that we will suddenly discover (for example) that the Earth is flat, resting on the back of a cosmic turtle. Or that the world was created in six days. Those little ideas have gone right out the window. What that means is that we will continue to refine our knowledge base, sometimes exploring ideas which are incorrect or slightly off-base (several examples from biology and physics come to mind, such as Lamarkian Evolution and the Steady-State Universe).
And, finally, a being who is “infinite in qualities” sounds like the worst case of scizophrenia (or possibly multiple personality disorder, depending on how these “qualities” manifest themselves) I’ve ever heard of.
April 4th, 2008 at 5:18 pm
sidwfaiu “For Godel’s theorem to apply the formal system must be sophisticated enough to formulate it’s own consistency” I agree of course and what I am saying is that a formal system which can be used to describe God must of necessity be at least that sophisticated or so it seems to me. Hence Godel’s incompleteness theorem applies to any description Of God.My conclusion rests upon the notion that a description of God must employ methods at least as complex as those used by Godel to prove his theorem.I must admit I can’t prove that but anything lesser does’nt make sense to me.I like your conclusion about no first prophet and I came to same conclusion based on the fact that what God says to these people is generally simple and useless rather than dificult and useful IE: how to cure cancer is difficult and useful which”GOD” never seems to reveal although he supposedly would know how along with all the other diseases and maybe throw in the fine grain constant just for fun or maxwell’s equations just to wow us.Instead he tells us what to wear and eat and throws in some threats if we are not good and promises if we are.Cheers justoneangel.blogspot.com
April 4th, 2008 at 7:02 pm
Kurt “Religions have beliefs which is not the same as an axiom” well not really religions have axioms which in some cases have not evolved.I think you may be confusing science with religion.Religion for the most part is quite dogmatic and unchanging.Some axioms in religion would be the 10 commandments from which many laws have been deduced some literal and others more abstract.You mentioned that you find it hard to believe that people think god is infinite in time that is beyond time and infinite in intelligence and is basically indescribable except for the fact that he is indescribable!I’m just telling it the way I have read it without defending the definition then drawing some conclusions based on the qualities which GOD supposedly has.No wonder many religions forbid any discourse about the nature of god but we must only contemplate his creation.That is a red flag for me and tells me that maybe they are afraid that people will deduce that something is not right so better to stifle any debate before it gets going.In much the same way that if someone is filling out a job application and there is something they don’t want you to investigate that is exactly what you should!That is called worldly wisdom butI’m sure you know that.Religion has a lot of red flags which in itself should raise a a red flag! Anyway it is nice conversing with intelligent people like you and sidfwaiu which would be otherwise impossible without the net and forums like this.Try reading justoneangel.blogspot.com from the beginning back in may 2005.I think you will find we have more in common than different. Cheers
April 4th, 2008 at 11:05 pm
Sawaz –
Yes, there is definately some confusion here. For example, the 10 commandments are *not* axioms; meaning they are not self-evident or universally recognized truths. They are simply rules of conduct produced by Judaists. Some, such as “do not murder” (distinct from killing, which is necessary for living: you must kill to live, even if you are a vegetarian, as plants are indeed life forms and must die so you may eat them), can be considered axiomatic in the sense that they are universal human rules that every society has produced to help individuals get on with an orderly society. Others, such as “keep holy the Sabbath Day,” are variable and do not hold true for every human society.
“You mentioned that you find it hard to believe that people think god is infinite in time that is beyond time and infinite in intelligence and is basically indescribable except for the fact that he is indescribable!” No, what I said is that observable, objective reality demonstrates that time is infinite in only one possible outcome for the Universe. I have no problem with believing that people think any number of things, just that deriving axioms or systems from false data is irrelevant to obective reality. I said nothing about indescribability.
I do agree that any system which calls for blind adherence or “faith” (without reasoning or questioning) is asinine and more often than not dangerous. An example of blind adherence outside of formal religion is the Pythagoreans, who when presented with any idea which contradicted their own assertions (or pointed out that the square root of two is an irrational number) replied with “the Master said it is so” (the “Master” was Pythagoras).
I am agnostic; the primary reason I am is that I am enough of a true scientist that I am one of the few I know who seems to feel that if there is a “god,” we will demonstrate that in the *future*. The reason being that I recognize that we are still savages who don’t know nearly enough about the Universe to make any sort of objective, concrete claim supported by any sort of detailed analysis.
Of course we have more in common than we have differences. We are human. I suspect that we have more in common with any intelligent life form in Universe than we have differences. We even have more in common with the various religious extremists than we have differences with them; even if *they* don’t choose to acknowledge it.
And stick with red flags. Red flags are GOOD.
April 11th, 2008 at 5:17 pm
neitherlands sucks!!
Greet wilders a mofo!!!
April 12th, 2008 at 8:42 pm
the problem is imperialims that turns men into beast since 2000 years ago religion have create a chaos and confusion all over the world first hitler them josef stalin fidel castro china islam chritianity becomes turns of revolution sociaty with bloodshed and violances of confusion the confusion stops when men imperialsm ends and god will end it
April 23rd, 2008 at 6:44 pm
do we really have to look far for the answers concerning the comments mention here?!
you know where i stand, password gang and you know this truth i talk about.
April 29th, 2008 at 11:28 am
Holy Shit! What happened to the site? Gas, you ok?
April 29th, 2008 at 7:32 pm
what is up with the site. I have not even been able to access it till today. Did it get hacked or something?
April 30th, 2008 at 9:17 am
The software that runs the site is two-versions short of the most recent release (the most recent update involved a pretty serious security one), spam is building up, and the administrator is MIA. I hope gasmonso is alright. Many intellectual cowards who can only respond to dissenting views via violence have threatened his life many times.
My bet is that real life just got in his way again.
May 6th, 2008 at 7:04 pm
The koran and the bible are hate literature….plain and simple. They should have been banned long ago.
May 8th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
I think Muslim Extremism has taken their religion and high jacked it, only to have their masses defeated like many many times in history. This will be the last time Muslim will try and concur the world… Millions of innocent people will die because of a few rotten apples that needed pruning did not fall of the tree in time. Now it will come to pass, The final battle is at bay… WW3 has begun and I’m affraid there’s going to be innocent people dieing for the sake of a FAKE GOD !!!
Time to buy more guns…
Come and get some Mother Fu&^ers……….. Try and Convert me, just try !!!
Fu&^ Mohamad… Fuc*& The Koran.. Fu&* Your GOD !!!
May 13th, 2008 at 7:54 am
Okay, this movie had to be edited because they used false images. Lol.
Wilders used a rappers pic who was impersonating the shooter of Van Gogh. Kinda funny. The rapper went bezerk.
The guy is as stupid as fukk. Will somebody put him out of his misery please?
Greetings from Holland,
Petra
May 15th, 2008 at 11:07 am
The Koran does not incite violence, and I will slaughter anyone who thinks otherwise. They need to learn to respect other peoples beliefs.
May 15th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
That’s a Poe right?
June 5th, 2008 at 11:25 am
Ein update?
June 5th, 2008 at 11:44 am
Kein update
June 5th, 2008 at 6:52 pm
*Shakes fist* NEIIIIIIIN!!!!!!!
June 6th, 2008 at 4:21 pm
Throw rocks at the Vatican in the meantime?
June 9th, 2008 at 11:27 am
Teeeetsuooooo!
June 16th, 2008 at 5:32 pm
After a long hiatus from having time, or enough blood pressure meds, to regularly read this site, I picked a great post to come back on. It takes real guts for people like Geert to stand up to the extremely violent and dangerous Islamic sects. Doing so is similar to taking on a gang like MS 13 in east L.A.. These violent brutes have no evidence for their belief and are ready to die to take down anyone insulting their book.
Please note, for the record, moderate Islam is merely deluded much like moderate theology of any kind. I hold no malice for the average Muslim who does not attempt to encroach their ludicrous beliefs on my world. My rage is for any Muslim fool enough to believe that simply because they believe something I must respect it. I am sick and tired of people believing that simply because they hold something as a matter of faith that it must be respected. We as rational thinkers the world over have to join our voices with those brave souls willing to speak out against religious delusion. There can be only one goal if we are to save humanity and that is to beat religion back into the holes it has crawled out of and make it a shameful thing to proclaim belief in any fool thing you have no evidence for.
For those who remember me, there is a bit of new, sharper edge to my tone now. This has come from being in the trenches of the fight against religious silliness. When I get the chance, I will commit a few stories to writing and get them here to be posted.
June 28th, 2008 at 3:13 pm
Gasmonso? Are you alive? Hope so.
June 30th, 2008 at 6:00 am
Hello Deus,
“We as rational thinkers the world over have to join our voices with those brave souls willing to speak out against religious delusion. There can be only one goal if we are to save humanity and that is to beat religion back into the holes it has crawled out of and make it a shameful thing to proclaim belief in any fool thing you have no evidence for.”
DO you think that if all Atheists and Humanists got together they could “save humanity”? Consider yourself: You are but a speck of accidental protoplasm on the third rock from the sun with no purpose and no destiny and no grounds for dignity. When you hit the dirt, you become dirt–period. Some die sooner, some later, so why get your knickers in a twist when some other electro-chemically fired bits of matter disintegrates ahead of expectations? Eat, drink and be happy because tomorrow, or maybe today even, you will die!
If evolution produced deluded religious fanatics to take over the world, what does it matter? Does it really matter that you are a “rational thinker,” whatever that is, when all that you are is a product of irrational forces? Is not your moral crusade groundless and pointless?
Welcome back Deus!
July 1st, 2008 at 5:34 am
Sawaz said:
“All religions believe God is infinite in power with an infinite number of qualities and infinite in time and space and knowledge.”
Kurt replied: “I find that to be hard to swallow. For one thing, infinite in power would remove the concept of free will, which is inherent in most religions….”
There are problems with both these concepts. Only theistic religions believe something like Sawaz’ statement, except that I have never heard of “an infinite number of qualities.” It is the perfection of qualities that is spoken of. Classical theology understands God as being outside of time and space (transcendent, eternal). Time and space and matter are relative and finite.
Kurt’s comment about infinite power being exclusive of (libertarian)free will, (something the Calvinist Christians would agree with), is debatable. Some see that his attribute of possessing all knowledge and wisdom, including knowledge of all future events, precludes libertarian free will. Others (including myself) think that the Molinist view of “middle knowledge” (foreknowledge of what a free creature will freely choose) adequately answers this objection.
Kurt believes in human free will (of the libertarian type, I take it). Sidfaiwu believes in hard determinism. The latter seems to me to be more consistent with a materialist view of the universe and a physicalist view of humans. Physicalists are most likely to believe in a “bottom up” view of the cause of consciousness rather than a “top down” view of agent causation. The latter is certainly odd in materialist view of the world. Libertarian freedom involves agent first causation and in a world of an endless series of cause and effect (a logically impossible scenario) this is not possible. I understand that B F Skinner’s book “Beyond Freedom and Dignity” saw something like this.
Perhaps what the Calvinists call “compatibilist free will” is what is being asked for. That is what we understand and experience as free will (for instance, what we all have freely thought and written in this forum) is in fact illusory. What has actually happened is that at a deeper level (”bottom up”), the effects of what we have thought and written has causes outside of our own consciousness and will which are not free.
What then becomes of the claims to be rational free thinkers? How can rational thought correspond to or mirror the real world when it is a mere product of it? How can we know that we know any true propositions about a mind-independent world?
July 1st, 2008 at 8:16 pm
Neando –
Actually, that particular point (in my comment to Sawaz) was that most *religions* espouse a doctrine of free will.
As to my own opinion, I treat free will like I treat “consciousness.” As Heinlein pointed out, we *experience* consciousness. We also *experience* choice (this amounts to “free will”). An asteroid cannot change it’s trajectory; I can. This also applies to other living organisms; but my greater intelligence allows me more options than, say, an octopus (which is also a fairly intelligent and manipulative creature).
Now, whether or not there can be demonstrated an objective “free will,” or “consciousness,” for that matter, is still up for grabs. I once heard Skinner speak, and I did indeed go to Indiana University for my Psychology and Sociology degrees, so I am quite familiar with him. But he didn’t get the whole picture (no one truly ever has yet); for example, he maintained that we can never truly know what happens inside the brain. I think MRI’s and Neuropsychology are making some great headway (and, no, he was still alive when those came along, and he maintained his position).
You see, it is the intersection of objectivity and subjectivity which we’re talking about here. Subjectively, I experience things I can call “free will,” and “consciousness” (among others). Objectively, their existence as understood is very debatable, but not proven one way or another. For example, I accessed Heinlein; he has influenced my “thinking.” If I had not known his ideas, my thinking would be different (for the simple fact he had a large impact upon me as a young person . . . and, yes, other things had prepared me to be receptive to him). But on the other hand, a single person and his or her actions *can* and *have* influenced larger events (even precipitated them, in many cases, with creative thought).
Subjectively, we must acknowledge our experiences for them to be of any use . . . even if “thar be hallucinations.” Only by communication, experiment, and observation will we as a species be able to sort it all out. I’m sure the first ant hive was quite a sight, too.
The future will tell.
July 6th, 2008 at 6:22 am
Kurt, thanks for your interesting post.
What is it that experiences consciousness and choice? You used the personal pronouns “I” and “we” as the subjects of experience. Is that the same as saying “this brain is having an experience of choice” etc? Is that choosing an effect of a cause in a causal chain of events? The technology available to examine brain function and the physical effects of brain activity do not appear to be fit for locating and examining the experiences themselves, like choice, self-consciousness or blueness or pain (qualia). Such experiences are real or otherwise a person cannot possess knowledge of a mind-independent world.
If one holds to a materialist view of man, that human consciousness is but the product of complex physical forces, then a person cannot be an agent of cause but only an effect. So when you vote for your government in November (about when I will mine), You will not have the ability to do other than what you have been stimulated to actually do.
“Subjectively, we must acknowledge our experiences for them to be of any use . . . .” We can function by stimulus and response without possessing truth that corresponds to the actual world and thus our experiences can be useful. The sciences, then, serve not to gather truth about the world but only to enable us to survive better.
In order for us to know true propositions about a mind-independent world, our minds will have to function properly such that we form true beliefs about the data they receive: beliefs that mirror the world as it is. But if the mind is merely a product of the objects of its belief, how can there be a proper function? Something can only have a proper function if it has been designed so to do.
July 9th, 2008 at 8:00 am
prove psychic fake…
…
July 14th, 2008 at 7:18 pm
Huh??
July 21st, 2008 at 12:30 pm
Well, that all having been said, do most of the people on this planet need any of these “religons” any more? Freedom
is the only thing really worth fighting and/or dying for.
Rule of law and common sense take care of the rest.
The Bill of rights and the constitution are my holy book.
If you like the way this “prophet” or that “prophet” says
what they all really say anyway, fine. Just leave me be.
July 23rd, 2008 at 1:47 am
Freedom?? Freedom to do what you want? What if other people’s freedoms conflict with your freedoms; will you fight them for yours? Whose laws? Common sense–how common is that? You obviously don’t think religious people can have it. Your Bill of Rights was constructed in a religious milieu. Atheism has no firm basis for human rights, as it has no firm basis for human value. If you study the history of human rights, it is evolving and no tenant is secure.
July 23rd, 2008 at 6:48 am
in the name of Allah, the All-merciful, the comapsionate..
Neeando, that last post was well said..
The holy Quran is an incredible book..
it analyses so many aspects of life and is truely the word of the Almighty…
July 23rd, 2008 at 12:43 pm
Re 76 and 77, religion, based on whatever violent text (quran or bible or other), cannot pretend to be a valid basis for human rights. The golden rule is a vastly better starting point for deriving human rights, and does not carry with it the violence and vengeance that are so common throughout the bible and the quran. Those two venomous books could hardly be less appropriate as a basis for human rights.
Religion is a disease of the mind. Inoculate against it with reason.
July 23rd, 2008 at 6:03 pm
Ah, I see that my absence has been filled with some wonderful posts . . . as to Neando, I think you miss my point. Hmmm. How to state it? Well, there are three things that call into question the slant which you seem to be coming from: self-awareness (including most importantly the knowledge of one’s own mortality, which is definately a higher-order function), self-directed behavior, and biofeedback. All are arguments against a pure behaviorist position.
And science is *the* method by which we can understand the Universe as it really is . . . many of the discoveries of science fly in the face of “common sense” and “obvious truth.”
As for the morality discussion, morality is the means by which group survival is achieved. There is no other definition which makes any logical sense whatsoever. Korgan is correct in his proposition that the Golden Rule is a fine starting point; it leads to the intersection between individual and group rights very nicely . . .
July 24th, 2008 at 1:23 am
Korgan, what are your grounds for saying “The Golden Rule” is good and that “violence and vengeance” are bad? To derive human rights from the Golden Rule (the positive version) is circular. The Golden Rule assumes that humans have rights and dignity.
July 24th, 2008 at 4:28 am
“self-awareness (including most importantly the knowledge of one’s own mortality, which is definitely a higher-order function)â€
Self awareness and the knowledge of one’s own mortality are a given, but what they are is in question. Are they the (epiphenomenal) product of the brain functions in a “bottom up†causal relation? If so, the self is merely an effect; it can cause, of itself, nothing in the world. If the self does have causal power independent of physical causes (“top down†causation), then it can “direct behaviour,†but then what is this “self�
“And science is *the* method by which we can understand the Universe as it really is.â€
What do you understand the scientific method as? Science involves a wide variety of fields of empirical investigation with appropriate methods of investigation into natural phenomena along with certain philosophical presumptions. The statement you have just made is itself philosophical and not subject to scientific investigation.
If the result of scientific investigation, which you say is “understanding the universe as it really is,” is in the end itself the product of complex physical forces, how can it be *known* to be true? How is the rational the product of the non-rational?
July 24th, 2008 at 5:51 am
Neando –
Very simply, the brain is capable of rationality. Of course it can cause nothing of itself, it must be connected to mucscles to acheive anything (speech, motion, etc.). The question “what is self” is still undetermined, but it will not be answered by philosophy. Philosophy has tried for centuries, and is no closer at this point than it was in Aristotle’s time.
Science is a collectivist activity, with fact-checking and replication demonstrable again and again, regardless of the individual observer. Your continual assertion of the “philosophical assumptions” behind science is a null issue, because the of the fact that the laws discovered from these “assumptions” work consistently across time and place.
And you can’t seriously expect a primer on the scientific method. You get that in grade school. It is well-established and, as the saying goes, the proof is in the pudding. It works, primarily because it does *not* rely on semantic games or philosophical doubletalk.
July 24th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
“In the name of Allah, the All-merciful, the compasionate”
yh but kurt, science is sometimes simply theory based..
for example we use models to help illistrate what might not really be happening…
theres a limit as to how much of our science is correct…
for example, back in the days people used to believe that the plague was caused by the bad smell of the rubbish, when in fact it was caused by the rats who were there as a result of the rubbish..
hence by removing the rubbish, the disease was controled, but not because of what they believed but by coincidence something else…
the whole idea of religion is your lord giving you a path which wil help you be successful…
you may not be able to see its instant benefit, but human logic has its limits..
your lord is all-knowing and you canot question..
why does mankind have to be so ignorant as to have to physically see something to belive in its existence..
surely to see the effect of something should be enough…
i probably dont even know what im talking about, but im sure im getting somwhere…
July 24th, 2008 at 6:30 pm
Kurt, You haven’t begun to answer my posts because I don’t think you understand what I am saying. Your reply simply reinforces my impression that you worship science, i.e., scientism. Science is always embedded in philosophy
July 24th, 2008 at 9:04 pm
Neando –
I worship nothing. Science is a tool, one that works better than any other tool we have found or invented. It uses mathematics, the best language we have found.
Embedded in philosophy? Let me put it this way: I once was at a bar, and I saw two professors of philosophy get into a major fight (almost to blows) over epistemology (which, by the way, was Muslim boy’s point, but I’ll get to that in my reply to him). Since then, while I have remained open-minded about a great many things, I have determined that the vast majority of “philosophers” need to get a real job.
I’ll see one’s mysticism and raise him the Germ Theory of Disease, in other words. What works is more important than how one thinks about it. If what you are saying is that science incorporates a world-view; then, yes, we all have world-views, and so you are correct in that point. If, however, you are trying to say all world-views are equal (which is my impression of what you are saying; but others’ impressions are not always the responsibility of the speaker, so I will not try to place words in your mouth), then you are most certainly incorrect.
Muslim boy –
Your point about plague is a faulty argument, I am afraid. The scientific method was not utilized in those peoples’ minds. They were mystical thinkers. Science self-corrects, and fact-checks, which makes it the superior tool in dealing with Universe.
There is a quote, and I can’t remember who coined it (and I am not looking it up tonight, because it’s bedtime for Bonzo), but it applies here: “You may *believe* the Earth is flat. You may *believe* the Earth is round. The Earth is actually an oblate spheroid and doesn’t give a shit *what* you think . . .”
Not to be harsh, but reality intrudes upon even the deepest of “thinkers” (myself included, of course, if I may be so presumptious).
August 25th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
I like the new format! Why no new posts since March? I miss you guys! Come over to the the Christian dominated xanga.com and be a voice of reason and enlightenment!? Please!
December 3rd, 2008 at 12:44 pm
If Islam is so peaceful and non violent, then how come this religion is BARELY capable of rooting out all its evil followers? If it tolerates a few (if not the majority) of its extremists, then it implies that Islam does support terrorism!