oh ok. it was also liked by a 3rd person - i dont know him much but name sounds muslim, does this make him a hindu atheist blahblah too? please provide your awesomely meaningless analysis, o diwana. could it be that not everyone likes an arrogant theist telling others they are going to hell?
It does not matter that a third person liked your post.
What matters is that these two members came to defend Hinduism and one has clearly said he is a Hindu.
Then why the support of atheism?
That is just to show criticism towards those who support Islam.
Show me where the third person has shown ANY support of ANY religion, then even the third person will be wrong.
This one slipped me by in all the posts that are being directed at me on a personal level … It seems to me that you think you know a lot about me … So let us ask those questions … Which ones would you have me ask myself?
But I have a question for you … Philosophically is it possible or not possible for those predetermined answers given by my religion to be true? Or rather can you show why a predetermined answer from a religion should be false and cannot possibly be true?
Here is an argument (philosophically valid)
Muslims believe that our religion is true
We believe that our Lord has given us guidance
We believe that He Knows all things
It follows from these premises that if we are told in our guidance that such and such a question should be avoided then we take it on faith.
Although people have ventured into these questions already.
Let’s read your premise backward. I have accepted my mullah’s interpretation of religion as true based on my faith.. for which I have zero evidence.
As I believe my mullah’s interpretation is absolutely true therefore everything it says (predetermined answers) is also true. Thus I proved my self as a valid philosopher. Everyone else is fool.. na nana boo boo…
LOL…
Your interpretation of the guidance system (probably your mullah’s anyway).. says to avoid such-certain questions.
“I don’t think it is necessary to believe that the same God who gave us our senses, reason, and intelligence wished us to abandon their use..”
-Galileo Galilei
P.S. I think all the time about you.. probably I don’t have anything else to do.. LOL..
My friend psyah caught between mullahism and philosophy..
Let's read your premise backward. I have accepted my mullah's interpretation of religion as true based on my faith.. for which I have zero evidence.
As I believe my mullah's interpretation is absolutely true therefore everything it says (predetermined answers) is also true. Thus I proved my self as a valid philosopher. Everyone else is fool.. na nana boo boo...
LOL...
Your interpretation of the guidance system (probably your mullah's anyway).. says to avoid such-certain questions.
"I don't think it is necessary to believe that the same God who gave us our senses, reason, and intelligence wished us to abandon their use.."
-Galileo Galilei
P.S. I think all the time about you.. probably I don't have anything else to do.. LOL..
My friend psyah caught between mullahism and philosophy..
Peace yazdi
I asked you a question and you didn't answer it ... Instead you turned my argument around ... Presenting my premises as the conclusion and my conclusion as the premises ... This is deception on your part ...
In actual fact scholars in Islam are capable of the type of discourse that philosophy demands ... This edict of accepting on faith is based on the idea that we are not "required" by faith to reason out or logically deduce our faith to be believers who are given paradise.. The scholars cannot say that salvation is only for those people who can reason through their faith. That would be adding into the faith that what is not there and it would disadvantage those who are incapable of thinking to the degree necessary for that approach.
The Qur'an requires us to accept on faith many issues ... The Word itself is preserved, the meaning of those have also been preserved ... To divorce understandings from the ulema and the religion without evidence is tantamount to lie. I would rather trust an 'alim who has devoted his life to this effort than anyone who claims that such and such an 'alim has cheated us. Rather I accept the consensus of the ulema on the issues that concern most people.
Anyway ... Let us question what you think I cannot question ... I was merely saying earlier that even if we accept your notion that we should not question such and such ... But accept it on faith and as above you have put forth the popular Muslim circular argument which many Muslims do I admit resort to ... A circular argument is not invalid ... It just does not add anything to a meaningful conversation ... So we should remember that too. So ask away the questions you think that I have not asked or pondered over. And I will give a response that is to my satisfaction, it may not be to yours, but I can do nothing about that.
yazdi raises a valid point - there is no sense in calling it a discussion or debate when you place random axioms on your questionable logic, mr. peace psyah.
@psyah
I am just questioning your logical system.. While you started defending your faith system.. What you call questioning is merely an attempt to find justification of pre determined answers.. For me it's no questioning at all..
Any way I'll reply to you in detail..
@psyah
I am just questioning your logical system.. While you started defending your faith system.. What you call questioning is merely an attempt to find justification of pre determined answers.. For me it's no questioning at all..
Any way I'll reply to you in detail..
I will indeed await the question in detail. But I hasten to add if the question has been asked before and an answer has been given before then it follows I use that same answer ... It would be unfair to force me to employ a different answer to a question that has already been posed at the time of the various prophets (AS) throughout history. The manner in which we would reason out certain unknowns without religion might be very difficult and many of my answers would be "I don't know" ... But they would often follow with the things I can and do know about I question those things to help me develop "trust" in the matters that I cannot possibly workout for myself, I then analyse those against criteria looking "only for consistency" ... Any how, I will try to make use of all forms of argumentation. For me a consistent pattern is a sign for truth.
yazdi raises a valid point - there is no sense in calling it a discussion or debate when you place random axioms on your questionable logic, mr. peace psyah.
Random? No, they are based on scripture - random would imply that I fabricate where needed.
Questionable logic? Well ... Saying that doesn't make any of my arguments unsound or even invalid until you demonstrate that, perhaps citing an example to counter.
Also here you have presented an argument of your very own:
If random axioms are employed on questionable logic ... then it is not a "real" discussion or debate ...
To analyse this we should look at the definition of discussion or debate:
From Google uncle: Discussion
[TABLE="class: vk_txt ts"]
The action or process of talking about something, typically in order to reach a decision or to exchange ideas.
A conversation or debate about a certain topic.
This definition neither requires us believe that a discussion has to have non-random axioms nor perfect logic.
From Google uncle: Debate
[TABLE="class: vk_txt ts"]
A formal discussion on a particular topic in a public meeting or legislative assembly, in which opposing arguments are put forward.
Neither does this ...
However, I do sympathise with the atheistic approach that they choose not to place trust in anything until they have proven it to themselves ... (well the more truthful ones will do this).
To the atheist it seems like this:
Muslims: "We believe that the Qur'an is the Word of God"
Atheist: "Prove it"
Muslims: "Look here s says so in the Qur'an"
BUT ... this is not the way it is really done ... The above is flimsy it is not invalid as far as pure inductive reasoning goes but it is indeed circular and adds nothing.
My approach together with others who have studied these rules goes like this:
Muslims: "We believe that the Qur'an is the Word of God"
Atheist: "Prove it"
Muslims: "I can't prove that God "has" written it, but I can try to show that it could not have been written by man"
Muslims: "I can't necessarily show in each place of the Qur'an how it is true, but in the areas that I can access in the ways of my senses, analytical techniques (various sciences) I can indeed show in all those areas it is true and fair. I am then obliged to "trust" those places where I have no access.
Philosophy = the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing such problems by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational argument.
This requires you to have a critical approach with rational argument.** Rationality prohibits you any presupposition of a given thesis**.. All you did was you made a circular argument (considered non rational) which I tried to point out to you by presenting it backwards which comes again to point zero. Rationality requires you apply logic instead of emotions. Now you have some predetermined answers (due to your emotional attachment with a certain interpretation of a particular faith system) which you are not ready to analyze critically and rationally.. okay, it's your choice.. but labeling it philosophical and logical is making a fool out of some gullible readers who are not capable of identifying your dishonest use of words logic and philosophy.
There is a difference.. you have chosen to believe truly and blindly a certain interpretation of a faith system in totality and you should be honest enough to admit that this decision is without any evidence, critical analysis or logical deduction... but rather based on your emotional orientation. You have certain clergymen whom you call ulema (big insult of literal meaning of ilm).. who tell you what is true.. and you accept this perceived truth in totality. In other words you have decided to follow these clergymen merely on the qualification that they have spent a lifetime in pursuit of truth without critically analyzing each an every argument they put forth. You have tried to bring scriptures to defend your argument.. totally forgetting the fact that there are several interpretations of the same scriptures and you do believe all other interpretations are false except the one given to you by your favorite clergymen..
Your post is a total negation and an insult to the words logic and philosophy.. according to you
Ultimate truth = words of someone who has spent a lifetime in pursuit of truth.
Read again the bold part from your post. Read again the evidence of circular argument I pointed to you from your earlier post. As far as I can see.. I see a highly confused gentleman who has his emotions, perceived truths, beliefs, logic all mixed up. I don't see any critical-rational approach to the way of thinking. I have no problem with an emotional way of thinking (as long as it is not promoting violence against others).. but I can not accept this approach as logical and philosophical.. and total dishonesty associated with it to impress others with the wrong use of these words to promote your predetermined religious agendas..
P.S. I do appreciate your consistency but can not accept consistency guarantees ultimate truth..
yazdi! You are emotionally detached from faith system
dont you believe? Look at your own post where your are talking about ulema and ilm.
Emotional detachment in
the often arises from psychological trauma and is a component in
many anxiety and stress disorders. The person,
while physically present,
moves elsewhere in the
mind, and in a sense is
"not entirely present"
you follow a faith apparently but dont like to find justification why? Why keep questioning your own faith?
I am not affraid of questions about my faith, I would continue finding justification for my faith till my death.
what else the faith is?
^ Don't you think a person needs to be emotionally detached to reach a reasonable conclusion? Emotion often clouds your judgement.
Take the "ground zero mosque" (it was a community center a few blocks away) as an example. People who were angry about 9/11 were using that as a justification for not allowing it to be built. According to them it "feels wrong". In reality, the US constitution protects all religions, and the mosque can be built anywhere once the land is legally purchased.
p.s emotional detachment is not the same as being devoid of emotion
This requires you to have a critical approach with rational argument. Rationality prohibits you any presupposition of a given thesis.. All you did was you made a circular argument (considered non rational) which I tried to point out to you by presenting it backwards which comes again to point zero.
Peace yazdi
As I said earlier ... There is nothing logically wrong with a circular argument. Just check it up on Wikipedia. The fact is ... I agree with that it cannot be used for arguing a point and hence I am not using circular logic in MY arguments. This does not seem to compute with you at all. A valid argument means that it is rational ... Using a circular argument as a proof for something is a fallacy ... Because neither the conclusion nor the premise(s) are trusted.
But if you analyse what I said earlier you have to admit it is a sound argument. Let's repeat it here. Then analyse it.
Muslims believe that our religion is true
We believe that our Lord has given us guidance
We believe that He Knows all things
It follows from these premises that if we are told in our guidance that such and such a question should be avoided then we take it on faith.
now the premises are what are written in red and the conclusion is what is in blue ... Just like this argument.
If it can hold an audible conversation with you then it is a human ...
However, you can't suddenly turn my premises into my conclusion and conclusion into my premises ... Of course it would be wrong to infer that "if it is a human then it can hold an audible conversation with you" because not all people can "talk" like young babies and mutes.
In order for an argument to be sound it needs to have a true premises and true conclusion.
I already understand that perhaps you don't personally believe, "our religion is true, The Lord has given us guidance, and He Knows all things", but since Muslims do believe that (at this moment in time I am not arguing for the validity of why we believe in these to be true, merely the fact that we do), it follows that the blue statement would be consistent for a Muslim to do.
However, I also believe that it is possible to entertain hard questions ... And I stated that there are people well versed in mantiq (logic), and many of them are from the ulema ... Probably not the sort of alims you are used to yazdi ...
So I asked for those questions so we can look at them now and here ... We have a process of iterative belief, which others can confuse to be circular ... We can look into this subject ... Of how belief should be formed by Muslims ... It does follow howevwr that if one person does all the hard work and others follow him in his conclusions ... As long as he is right then they will be "in the right" too ... Hence they do not need to undergo the same exercises that the forerunner has had to go through.
I said my primary premises were not random … That is all I said … This term “proof” and “validates itself” is something additional you have brought … Admit it the Muslim axioms are not random … Can you admit it?
To answer your question I have a copy of the Book of Mormon and in it … It clearly describes its axioms to be based on the eye witness reports of people who saw Joseph Smith come out of the cave with golden tablets and then they documented the Book of Mormon, which then becomes their scripture. I don’t think their axioms are random either. Albeit … I do think they are nonetheless in mistaken belief for a number of other reasons.
yazdi! You are emotionally detached from faith system
dont you believe? Look at your own post where your are talking about ulema and ilm.
Emotional detachment in
the often arises from psychological trauma and is a component in
many anxiety and stress disorders. The person,
while physically present,
moves elsewhere in the
mind, and in a sense is
"not entirely present"
you follow a faith apparently but dont like to find justification why? Why keep questioning your own faith?
I am not affraid of questions about my faith, I would continue finding justification for my faith till my death.
what else the faith is?
Faith = something you believe to be true for which you do not have any proof
"I have faith in a Deity who has created everything around us including us and who does not want us to hurt anyone. " This is my faith and it is an emotional decision. I am not dishonest to term this as a philosophical, rational, logical or scientific decision. I have faith in certain non literal interpretation of ancient scripture and this is also an emotional decision. If I try to present my emotional decision as rational, logical, scientific I'll be committing dishonesty. You also have faith in some other interpretation of ancient scriptures which may require you to believe in something else.. but again it is faith. My faith against your faith.. my interpretation against your interpretation.. but both can not be proven. Both are emotional decisions.
I have no problem as long as faith is termed as faith. If you call these clergymen "men of faith", "momin", "aimaan wale"... there is no problem. Their premise is not based on logical, critical, rational or scientific grounds. It's just faith which is based on emotional grounds. Terming them aalim is dishonest.
There is nothing wrong with you having faith.. but if you are honest (which I think your faith requires you to be), you can not equate your emotional decision with rationality, logic, science, or philosophy.
I am only emotionally attached to the faith system, and I am honest to admit it unlike some others who try to equate faith with rationality, ilm, logic, philosophy, or science (Zakir Naik comes to mind)...
