Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How much do you know about Islam?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Arvind: *
Alas, guppuguppy, I have given up any hope of any meaningful comments from you.
[/QUOTE]
How rude...
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Sher: *
The beauty of religious mania is that it has the power to explain everything. Once God (or Satan) is accepted as the first cause of everything which happens in the mortal world, nothing is left to chance...logic can be happily tossed out the window."
[/QUOTE]
You should atleast have the courtesy to tell us where you picked this quote from. Or maybe you think that it is ok to write something without quoting the original source. But I think its important to quote the original source. Hmm.. lets see we have a dilemma here. According to your set of rules/common sense it might be ok to copy and paste without the source. For me its not. Then who gets to decide what's right or wrong, when apparently we have differing definitions. Or may be then we should have a different set of rules for everybody according to their own "common sense"?
BTW: this one's from Stephen King
Well-spotted, procrastinator. :k: I’ve also previously shown that Sher is nothing more than a copy-and-paste charlatan with little or no ability for creative and original thinking.
Re: Re: Female Prophets in Islam?
Again my friend you are mistaken here. If you want to clear up your confusions I recommend you contact a scholar and I am sure he will be able to hold a good meaningful discussion with you, which Insha 'Allah(swt) might help you.
To your answer to the question about beating your wife, you can find valuable information here:
http://www.sunnipath.com/resources/Questions/qa00003376.aspx
and this is a detailed explanation of this misconception that you have by Sh. Hajj Gibril Haddad
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How much do you know about Islam?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by gupguppy: *
How rude...
[/QUOTE]
but true!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How much do you know about Islam?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Arvind: *
but true!
[/QUOTE]
How rude that you misspelt my name... dipstick.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by procrastinator: *
You should atleast have the courtesy to tell us where you picked this quote from. Or maybe you think that it is ok to write something without quoting the original source. But I think its important to quote the original source. Hmm.. lets see we have a dilemma here. According to your set of rules/common sense it might be ok to copy and paste without the source. For me its not. Then who gets to decide what's right or wrong, when apparently we have differing definitions. Or may be then we should have a different set of rules for everybody according to their own "common sense"?
BTW: this one's from Stephen King
[/QUOTE]
I have said this same thing in the other post and am saying it again here.
Mate, Point is not where the question originaly come from, the point is that they are valid questions. I am interested in knowing the answers to these questions. these questions are not new, they are not asked first time by the person you found on that site, in fact the questions were there 100s of years ago and still looking for answers and that confirms the validity of these questions even more. It seems that you are more interested in finding out where the questions originally came from instead of answering them well mate, then you are wasting time. you are talking about authenticity of religion and God and there are people who doubt even in the existance of God let alone religion. I mean, if you continue here, I can show you the veses in Quran which are contradictory. And I can get you some Hadiths which contradict Quran and common sense. so the point is, it doesn't matter who originally put out these questions instead try and answer it.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Sher: *
Point is not where the question originaly come from, the point is that they are valid questions.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, but unless you understand the question you are hardly going to appreciate any answers... no matter how simply they are put... oh, and it should be "originally"…
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by gupguppy: *
Yes, but unless you understand the question you are hardly going to appreciate any answers... no matter how simply they are put... oh, and it should be "originally"…
[/QUOTE]
I leave the spell checking to Pakis
Dear Sher
Now that I have some time on my hand, let my summarize our discussion and see the point on which we may agree.
Religion is not exclusively responsible for immorality, in term of killing, torturing fellow beings human beings. Both Good and bad traits are built-in features of human nature.
Man can go to both extremes. He can build beautiful city and civilizations and can destroy the same.
Being Atheist, can not be, and has never been, an assurance that man will not show his darker side. History is evident that people with no religion had the same barbaric tendencies as their counterparts in any other religion.
Surely the bad qualities of human nature can be Suppressed or controlled to some extent, by some effective rules of morality and use of common sense.
It is my understanding that you and me agree on the above mentioned points. I may be wrong.
So please take a deeper look into the points and tell me if you agree with them or not. If not, then we shall discuss the point(s) again until we reach some common grounds.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Sher: *
Code_red, of course there is need to have a LAW, which is based on coomon sense. That law has to be formed and agreed upon by people of unbiased and unprejudiced attitude and has to be reveiwed when need arises. regarding having different parameters of morality, for example homosexuality, do you think common sense allows us to kill homosexuals? do you think bribing someone to get your needs met is moral? and of course common sense says that it is up to individuals to decide if they want to send their parents to HOMEs or keep them with them.
[/QUOTE]
I will be looking forward to your respose. So that we can further discuss this topic :)
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Sher: *
I leave the spell checking to Pakis
[/QUOTE]
You stick to copy-and-pasting... regurgitating questions that have already been answered... unfortunately, you understand neither the question nor the answer...
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Code_Red: *
**Dear Sher*
Now that I have some time on my hand, let my summarize our discussion and see the point on which we may agree.
Religion is not exclusively responsible for immorality, in term of killing, torturing fellow beings human beings. Both Good and bad traits are built-in features of human nature.
Man can go to both extremes. He can build beautiful city and civilizations and can destroy the same.
Being Atheist, can not be, and has never been, an assurance that man will not show his darker side. History is evident that people with no religion had the same barbaric tendencies as their counterparts in any other religion.
Surely the bad qualities of human nature can be Suppressed or controlled to some extent, by some effective rules of morality and use of common sense.
It is my understanding that you and me agree on the above mentioned points. I may be wrong.
So please take a deeper look into the points and tell me if you agree with them or not. If not, then we shall discuss the point(s) again until we reach some common grounds.
I will be looking forward to your respose. So that we can further discuss this topic :)
[/QUOTE]
Well, for number 1, you are right that good and bad traits are built-in features of Human beings. BUT religion has almost always been the best justification for relgionists to do their evil deeds.
number 2, Yes, man was born free and can act either way, good or bad. But then again, if reason is applied, a man can tame his destructive side AND it is actualy possible.
Number 3, Atheisim is fairly new, when people got fed up with all the bloodshed in the name God and got fed up with religious tyrany they started using reason and started paying attention to common sense and finally and rightly given up their religious beliefs. Which seems quite right to me.
Number 4,,,,, yes I agree on this one
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Sher: *
Number 3, Atheisim is fairly new...
[/QUOTE]
So belief in a God/gods was the original state of affairs according to your thinking... thank-you for speaking out in favour of the Divine...
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How much do you know about Islam?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by gupguppy: *
How rude that you misspelt my name... dipstick.
[/QUOTE]
Shame on you GG. No defense against Sher's comments so start attacking spellings! GS kya spelling bee thodihi hain?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Arvind: *
Shame on you GG. No defense against Sher's comments so start attacking spellings! GS kya spelling bee thodihi hain?
[/QUOTE]
Why is it that whenever Sher breaks wind you seem to be always standing there ready to inhale? ... When Sher moves on from mindless copy-and-pasting of questions that have already been answered perhaps then he might deserve a reply (see my above post)...
^^
Oj GG your are now onto obscenities. Which does not make your non-arguments any more believable. Chod do yaar, yeh bahas tumhare wakoof ke baahar hain.
^^
Flatulence will get you nowhere… nowhere…
Dear Sher !
I am glad that we agree on 2/4 points. That is good development. :)
Now as you said
[QUOTE]
religion has almost always been the best justification for relgionists to do their evil deeds.
[/QUOTE]
^^ statement is quite correct, as in the case of crusades or muslim invasion of other countries. But at the same time more destruction is caused by people who came to conquer and rule, not becuase of religion but for self satisfaction or for Lust of Land and resources. For example. Alexander, Ghengis khan, Romans,Nepoleon, Hitler, Great Britain, Mossoline, Saddam Hussain and many more. So they out number religionists by a large number.
Religion has definately played a part in all those destructions and killing of human being. But In comparison with other motives, this is quite small. What do you say ?
Now Point number 3 as you stated..
[QUOTE]
** Atheisim is fairly new, when people got fed up with all the bloodshed in the name God and got fed up with religious tyrany they started using reason and started paying attention to common sense and finally and rightly given up their religious beliefs. Which seems quite right to me**.
[/QUOTE]
Now i have limited knowledge and i assumed that people with no religion are atheist. i.e they dont believe in any God(s) and any other religion for the matter of fact.
But I searched the net and now i am confused after seeing this
[thumb=H]religions17058_6676986.JPG[/thumb]
Courtesy Encarta encyclopedia.
Can you explain the difference
Note to Gupgupy and Arvind !
Please bring something constructive and positve, so that we may learn something new. Thanks
Okay… “positve” is spelt “positive”… 