Islam

[spywareonya 37,961]

28 minutes ago, owlman76 said:

I think the problem we have at the moment is that there are a group of hardened Muslims who are hell-bent on taking over parts of the world, hells teeth, a few years back they even showed a map indicating the area's they want to take over! As if this isn't bad enough, we then have the other idiots who wish to appease them lest we are accused of being racist!

As I said in an earlier post, if rules dictate that I must remove my motorcycle helmet, before entering my local bank, to enable the staff to see my face, then why should a Muslim woman be allowed to enter wearing a full face covering? Recently there was a case where a judge asked the accused in the dock, a Muslim woman, to remove her veil to enable her to be properly identified, she objected stating the judge was being a racist, he wasn't. Why oh why, do these people think they can go and live in non-Muslim parts of the world and not only not follow local customs, but insist on their own customs and traditions being observed, it's hardly making a good attempt to integrate is it!

Thoroughly agree

[WantonLee 861]

1 hour ago, spywareonya said:

I wanted to quote this message line per line but it was too much of a Whole to be fragmented.

Dogma is a complicated thing. You see, the problem is that when you believe something too strong you can become tactless to those around you. But a man couldn't either believe in nothing to be spared this fate.

But I think we should judge people according to their behaviour rather than according to their beliefs

Ok, let me rephrase this one sentence:

"So for me it's irrelevant if you believe in a god or an(y other) idea - if you are dogmatic AND have (enough) power, everyone else potentially has a problem: you."

I agree that we should judge people for what they do (which can include what they say in certain cases) rather then for what they believe or say.

But I still believe that being dogmatic is not the wisest... thing to be. I am not dogmatic, but... no, wait.. let me rephrase this as well: I consider myself to be open minded and I try to not be dogmatic, yet I still have my believes. I just consider them to be believes and once confronted with enough convincing arguments* I will most likely change my believes.

* I said "convincing arguments" rather then "proof", as many informations we are given today are basically unprovable to us, unless we have the same education as well as technical instruments to get to the same conclusions as the persons who created those theories. For instance I have no way to prove that matter is made up of atoms, it is what I have been taught. I found the arguments convincing and still do, and so I believe it. But I can not actually prove it... UNLESS I get my hands on the necessary instruments... and suddenly become really excellent at math and physics. 😛

I just choose to believe it as the entire theory makes sense to me and I haven't heard anything more convincing.

To paraphrase something I read once: someone holding a speech in front of politicians said: "I don't think scientists make good politicians - every time you confront them with new facts, they change their mind." (Or was it "theories"?, Can't remember. In any case, this is of cause exactly the right thing to do, not only for scientists.).      Unfortunately, no one got that joke... .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh, and before I forget it: I had religion classes in my school as well, and it was there where I first learned about Islam, and little bits like how a good Muslim has to pray, and what Mekka was all about I first learned there. And I don't mind, I actually try to broaden my horizon, so this was a welcome lesson. And before anyone asks, we were taught a lot about Christianity as well... it was the religion-class, after all. One thing we where never taught, though: to be religious.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                
 

[2prnot2p 1,066]

10 hours ago, owlman76 said:

I think the problem over here is that recently we have been overrun by a certain group of people who are far too tolerant! Recently I watched a programme about Paedophiles in America, after serving their sentence, they still face a lot of restrictions, where they can live, who they can associate with etc, and in certain states, they even put up signs saying that a paedophile lives on a certain street, and that is the way it should be!

Sadly over here there are people who disagree with that, "they've done their time, paid their penalty, give them a chance", Sadly a great number of them go on to re-offend, causing more distress to innocent children! However, people seem more interested in protecting them, rather than victims or potential victims, and it is the same with the Muslim extremists.

I don't know how familiar you are with my country, but in London, we have a city park called Hyde Park, in this park we have a place called Speakers corner, anyone is allowed to stand up and make speeches about anything, and people do stop to listen, however, it is a flawed system. let's say a white Englishman stands up and starts to speak about the evil Muslims who are inhabiting our country, those who wish to cause harm to others, lets say he speaks out saying they should be removed back to their country of origin, or locked up, he will quickly feel the full might of the English law. On the other hand, we had a radical Muslim Cleric, he was allowed to spout his evil rhetoric for a number of years before action was taken against him, and he was actively calling for Muslims to rise up and attack the white "non believers"!

Sadly we have become a country where  the rights of any individual, no matter how evil they are, are protected regardless of cost to the majority, plus we now have a situation where people are frightened of speaking out against these individuals lest they be labelled as racist!

Not far from where I live, we have issues with young Black males who carry guns and shoot each other, I have a friend and her daughter is a police officer, she was tasked to deal with this so called 'black on black' gun crime, naturally this meant stopping young black males and searching them in an attempt to locate any weapons. The next thing she is accused of being a racist, because she is doing the very thing she has been told to do, stop and search young black males!

For gods sake, we are dealing with young black males who go around carrying illegal firearms and shooting each other! What would be the point if she was to go around stop searching, for example, young Chinese females? But this is the society that we are living in at the moment over here, the criminal has more rights than the victim. I understand that in your country you are allowed to protect yourself if someone should break into your home, not so over here, a man woke up to find 2 men with knives had broken into his home, a fight broke out and one of the burglars was stabbed with his own knife, he died of his injuries. The victim, then found himself in court on a murder charge! Now I'm very sorry, but if you break into my home, carrying weapons, and are obviously intent on doing me harm, then as far as I'm concerned, if you get killed then so what, if you hadn't broken in, it wouldn't have happened!

The United States does have its problems, and at times it does get criticised on the world stage for some of its actions, however, you do have it right on a lot of important issues, ironically although we coined the phrase, 'an Englishman's home is his castle' it would seem that the Americans are more keen on allowing a person to defend their 'castle', than we are over in  the United Kingdom.

God bless America.

Owlman76, I truly feel bad for your situation there.  I'm half English.  My grandpa was a cockney, grandma was from Warrington.  I know of Hyde Park.  Isn't that where the term "soap box" comes from?  People bring a box to stand on while they address the crowd.  My mom told me about that.

It seems that your criminal justice system has their priorities a bit out of whack.  Where I live, the muslims interact just fine with us "infidels."  Many of the women wear the hijab (pronounced HAY-job) while others don't.  They have their mosques and I see dozens of them walk by my apartment building to the mosque at the end of my street during Ramadan every night.  But, seriously, they're all very polite to me and everyone.  They never try to impose their religion on us or anything.

And, on a lighter note, their food is incredible!   It's my favorite.  Delicious!

I don't have a solution for the trouble in England.  I wish I did.  Maybe the fact that they began moving to my town shortly after WWII has something to do with it.  At any rate, the UK must use a different approach or things will get much worse.  Sad, but true.

As for the intruder scenario you describe, yes...one has the right to shoot to kill an intruder in any state here.  It happens fairly often.  A few years ago, a cop in Detroit heard someone trying to get in his window during the day, on his day off.  He literally waited until the intruder got in and...he shot him dead.  No charges were filed.  He was within his rights.

We still have far too much gun violence here.  But, that's another topic I'll save for another time.  It would be like opening a can of worms.  Let's just say that our gun problem is far worse than yours in the UK.  I'm sure all are aware of that.

[spywareonya 37,961]

@WantonLee

Now is much better said. I agree 

[2prnot2p 1,066]

13 hours ago, spywareonya said:

But we should also avoid demonize religion. From your words, it exudes some kind of grudge against religion, like it was a wrong thing to be kept away from the public and indulged privately as every other wrong thing stupid people have the right to do to/with themselves like taking drugs or self-mutilation.

Beware, I'm not accusing you, I deeply understand your reasons, but antipathy fogs vision and make us harsh to people belonging to the group we adverse. I amNOT saying you were rude to Scot, it's subtler: I am saying you shunned his concern, because in your unconscious his love for religion is a bit excessive to your taste.

As you can see, being ethical requires constant analisys and the guts to avoid feeling offended when fellow humans notify you some headlongness you did not noticed in your own unconscious

Even though I'm an atheist, I respect the rights of people to worship as they please.  I respect all religions.  However, I am strongly opposed to religious education in schools, unless it's a private school, e.g., a catholic school.  And, I believe I'm right on this issue.  It doesn't belong in public schools.

Also, I sensed a feeling that christian values are good and, therefore, should be allowed anywhere.  I'll always believe that is dead wrong.  There's good and bad in everything, even in all religions.  That's what was at the core of my comments, plain and simple.  Maybe I didn't clarify myself well.  My mistake.

[2prnot2p 1,066]

I want to repeat one thing that may have been glossed over in this thread.

No American citizen should ever be imprisoned in a concentration camp for years due to his/her heritage or religious beliefs.  The USA did this to Japanese Americans during WWII and IT WAS WRONG!!!

Many of those families had sons that were fighting Hitler in Europe. 

"So, your son is good enough to give his life for our nation, but the rest of you...are going to prison for the remainder of the war." -U.S. Government 

That was horrific!  It was paranoia at its worst.  Never again!

 

Edited October 24, 2018 by 2prnot2p

[2prnot2p 1,066]

1 hour ago, owlman76 said:

Well, what a small world it is! So your Grandma was from Warrington, wow, that's literally about 5 minutes down the road from me, we had a big USAF base over there at Burtonwood until a few years back, I used to live not far from it.I live in a small town called Newton le Willows, in between Warrington and St Helens, it used to be known for it's train production many years ago.

An online pal of mine told me that Warrington is about 40 miles from Liverpool.  Is that correct?  I've never been to the UK and it does look close on my map. 

[spywareonya 37,961]

6 hours ago, 2prnot2p said:

Even though I'm an atheist, I respect the rights of people to worship as they please.  I respect all religions.  However, I am strongly opposed to religious education in schools, unless it's a private school, e.g., a catholic school.  And, I believe I'm right on this issue.  It doesn't belong in public schools.

Also, I sensed a feeling that christian values are good and, therefore, should be allowed anywhere.  I'll always believe that is dead wrong.  There's good and bad in everything, even in all religions.  That's what was at the core of my comments, plain and simple.  Maybe I didn't clarify myself well.  My mistake.

 

Have you ever seen "Contact"?

Is a marvellous movie that uses the plot-excusation of a transmission received from aliens to shape e 3-hours story about the emotions of people that are dragged to that situation

 

In the end, a scientist must be chosen to be sent to meet them and the female protagonist is shunned because she is an atheist. She protests, and the co-protagonist (who's also in love with her) makes a life-changeing explaination that really modified forever my opinion on religion

The Whole script is too long and too touching, I will simply shrink it here in a few lines (by no means as poetic) that sum it up:

"Somebody meeting a race which knows nothing of us should represent everything we are, good or bad that it may be, elsewhere he would be just an individual, not a real ambassador. 96% of human beings believe in the existence of a god, and this, correct or not, is an anthropological trademark of humans, and our ambassador must be chosen accordingly"

 

Though religion had Always persecuted us Witches and people labels us as Satanist (which we could also say we are -though we are not by the way- as Satan is a pagan word which also denotes the name of our main god), I came to understand religion in an anthropological way, as a middle-step toward enlightment, a cousin of atheism, as both fails to realize the scientifical existence of quantum living beings, and which chose different facets of the ONE TRUTH, atheism chose self-responsibility and refusal of moral handcuffing (that's why usually atheists are held in higher consideration by Witches), while believers chose to manifest their longing for a divine world, a different plane of existence, which DO exist (95% of scientifical knowledge is obtained by scientists paid by Governments and Armies and is kept hidden, believe me on that, first hand infos) but which is very different than they imagine.

An atheist is a useful servant of the Gods much more than a mislead believer.

BUT religion is a humanity-trademark and we should thus shape our tolerance and our moral-reproaches accordingly

[2prnot2p 1,066]

6 hours ago, spywareonya said:

 

Have you ever seen "Contact"?

Is a marvellous movie that uses the plot-excusation of a transmission received from aliens to shape e 3-hours story about the emotions of people that are dragged to that situation

 

In the end, a scientist must be chosen to be sent to meet them and the female protagonist is shunned because she is an atheist. She protests, and the co-protagonist (who's also in love with her) makes a life-changeing explaination that really modified forever my opinion on religion

The Whole script is too long and too touching, I will simply shrink it here in a few lines (by no means as poetic) that sum it up:

"Somebody meeting a race which knows nothing of us should represent everything we are, good or bad that it may be, elsewhere he would be just an individual, not a real ambassador. 96% of human beings believe in the existence of a god, and this, correct or not, is an anthropological trademark of humans, and our ambassador must be chosen accordingly"

 

Though religion had Always persecuted us Witches and people labels us as Satanist (which we could also say we are -though we are not by the way- as Satan is a pagan word which also denotes the name of our main god), I came to understand religion in an anthropological way, as a middle-step toward enlightment, a cousin of atheism, as both fails to realize the scientifical existence of quantum living beings, and which chose different facets of the ONE TRUTH, atheism chose self-responsibility and refusal of moral handcuffing (that's why usually atheists are held in higher consideration by Witches), while believers chose to manifest their longing for a divine world, a different plane of existence, which DO exist (95% of scientifical knowledge is obtained by scientists paid by Governments and Armies and is kept hidden, believe me on that, first hand infos) but which is very different than they imagine.

An atheist is a useful servant of the Gods much more than a mislead believer.

BUT religion is a humanity-trademark and we should thus shape our tolerance and our moral-reproaches accordingly

We should be tolerant of religions and I am.  I suppose we atheists should actually call ourselves agnostic since we do not know for sure and neither do they.  But, I'm of the opinion that dedicating one's self to a belief requires proof, i.e., science-based knowledge.  Perhaps you know of Neil deGrasse Tyson?  He's a scientist who is highly regarded and not paid by the government. (I have no idea where that hypothesis came from.)  He does not believe in a supreme being.  So, I think I'm in pretty good company.  I prefer to err on the side of people like him and Richard Dawkins, to name just two of the many thousands of like-minded individuals.

If I were to join, for lack of a better word, a religion, it would be Buddhism.  However, Buddhism is not a religion as they do not believe in a supreme being.  By definition, a god is central to a religion.  The Buddha did not believe in that concept.  It's a really a philosophy, a code of ethics, even a form of psychology.  I do have a small book of Buddhist proverbs that I read from time to time.  The words can be comforting. 

[2prnot2p 1,066]

6 hours ago, owlman76 said:

It's about 15 miles away from Liverpool, the motorway to Liverpool actually runs straight past liverpool, it's actually junction9 off the M62

Ah, my pal was incorrect.  You'd know since you're so close.  I keep forgetting that even my state, Michigan, is larger than England.  Michigan is 58,000 square miles, while England is 50,000.  So, on the map, Warrington didn't seem that close to Liverpool.  I seem to learn something new every day!  Thanks.

[spywareonya 37,961]

40 minutes ago, 2prnot2p said:

We should be tolerant of religions and I am.  I suppose we atheists should actually call ourselves agnostic since we do not know for sure and neither do they.  But, I'm of the opinion that dedicating one's self to a belief requires proof, i.e., science-based knowledge.  Perhaps you know of Neil deGrasse Tyson?  He's a scientist who is highly regarded and not paid by the government. (I have no idea where that hypothesis came from.)  He does not believe in a supreme being.  So, I think I'm in pretty good company.  I prefer to err on the side of people like him and Richard Dawkins, to name just two of the many thousands of like-minded individuals.

If I were to join, for lack of a better word, a religion, it would be Buddhism.  However, Buddhism is not a religion as they do not believe in a supreme being.  By definition, a god is central to a religion.  The Buddha did not believe in that concept.  It's a really a philosophy, a code of ethics, even a form of psychology.  I do have a small book of Buddhist proverbs that I read from time to time.  The words can be comforting. 

Allow me a little clarification

Buddhism isn't really atheist

In true Buddhism, they perfectly know that when a living being attains buddhahood, he develops psychic powers and the ability to live in the Quantum, like a ghost or a god, and they know entities started this evolutive road thousands of universes ago, and by now they are one million times more powerful than the god imagined by christians

For us, for Science, they are nothing stranger than aliens made of energy, able to influence reality, they only are REALLY BIG

These entities did not created existence but had the time to rise to a level of power such that they can modify and destroy it at will, and mastered all implicit behavioural guidelines inscribed in existence itself, so their "opinions" are the Ultimate Truth and their will is absolutely allmighty

Thus, they are Gods, there and then, believe me true buddhists believe in this, it's just that they don't tell

 

The Gods Witchcraft worships are quantistic living beings created/engineered by some of this hypercosmical races and left on Earth as guides for us humans

Edited October 24, 2018 by spywareonya

[2prnot2p 1,066]

Buddhists do not believe in a god, supreme being, or anything of the sort.  I'm sure on this point.  Also, one can reject the idea of reincarnation and still be a Buddhist.  I won't argue, I'm not like that.  So, let's say that Buddhism is "non-theist."  That's more accurate.  🙂

I just remembered something. I saw the Dalai Lama on TV once and he actually said words to the effect that Buddhism proclaims no divine power, supreme being, or creator.  He is to Buddhism what the Pope is to the Catholic Church.  You can't really get a better expert on Buddhism.

Edited October 24, 2018 by 2prnot2p

[spywareonya 37,961]

2 hours ago, 2prnot2p said:

Buddhists do not believe in a god, supreme being, or anything of the sort.  I'm sure on this point.  Also, one can reject the idea of reincarnation and still be a Buddhist.  I won't argue, I'm not like that.  So, let's say that Buddhism is "non-theist."  That's more accurate.  🙂

What do you think is more accurate?

Books written for non buddhists, or first hand twenty years experience?

What I wrote upthere is the only truth buddhists really believe. Other are just self-(believe-to-be-)taught humans who know nothing

Please, don't be that headlong when talking with people who explored these things from within for decades

 

EDIT

If for non-theist you mean that they consider the Gods only embettered versions of themselves and thus refuse to "adore" them on a metaphysical stance, then in that case you are right. The Gods are just the biggest fish in the lake, not its creator. Or better said, they are (secret knowledge) but they want to be treated in a non-theist way

 

Edited October 24, 2018 by spywareonya

[Riley 13,064]

On 2/10/2016 at 1:12 AM, Daz said:

Islam=Stone Age

Islam was actually created long after the Stone age, like 9000 years after the stone age. In the 7th century C.E. a merchant named muhammad claimed to be God's messenger and tried to spread his religious relifs in a town called Mecca (modern day Saudi Arabia). He very quickly got chased out of town by the ummayads beicause he challenged their right to wealth and their status in society. He then went to Medina (like a day north of Mecca) and spread his teachings to the city gaining 10,000 followers. He then marched back to Mecca and captured the city replacing the Kaaba's artifacts with ones from Islam, his religion, and become very powerful. Within 100 years Islam had spread through north Africa into modern day france and all the way east to India. The Islamic empire was one of the fastest growing and also largest empires ever. 

In modern times Islam is split into too camps, the Shia's and the Sunni's. The Shia's believe that power should go to Muhammad's blood line like a monarchy would. The Sunni's believe that power should go to the wealthy elites like how power had been distributed before muhammad. 

ISIS, Islamic State of Iraq and Siria, or ISIL, Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, are Sunni Muslim's who want to reinstate the power of Islamic countries and some want to regrow the Islamic empire. Also btw ISIL is a huge insult to Muslim people because you are calling their territory the Christian holy lands, Levant, which is why people use it as a passive aggressive term for ISIS

I hope I helped spread some insight into everything!

Edited October 26, 2018 by Riley

[spywareonya 37,961]

@Riley

The equation you quoted was an adfirmation about quality, not epochs

But your post was excellent anyway

[2prnot2p 1,066]

On 10/24/2018 at 3:10 PM, spywareonya said:

What do you think is more accurate?

Books written for non buddhists, or first hand twenty years experience?

What I wrote upthere is the only truth buddhists really believe. Other are just self-(believe-to-be-)taught humans who know nothing

Please, don't be that headlong when talking with people who explored these things from within for decades

 

EDIT

If for non-theist you mean that they consider the Gods only embettered versions of themselves and thus refuse to "adore" them on a metaphysical stance, then in that case you are right. The Gods are just the biggest fish in the lake, not its creator. Or better said, they are (secret knowledge) but they want to be treated in a non-theist way

 

I'll just say this with truly no offense intended at all.  I'll take the words of several Buddhist monks AND the Dalai Lama over yours when it comes to anything that pertains to Buddhism.  Fair enough?  🙂

Edited October 30, 2018 by 2prnot2p

[spywareonya 37,961]

On ‎10‎/‎30‎/‎2018 at 2:36 AM, 2prnot2p said:

I'll just say this with truly no offense intended at all.  I'll take the words of several Buddhist monks AND the Dalai Lama over yours when it comes to anything that pertains to Buddhism.  Fair enough?  🙂

A sincere advice?

Never  believe ANYTHING said publicly, as anybody with a bit of real occult knowledge, craft his own words when speaking publicly, so to have the vast majority understanding only the non-Dangerous portions of what he personally knows

But I am not forcing you on this subject.

 

a kiss...

Edited November 3, 2018 by spywareonya

[paul66 171]

The Islam is a BIG Problem, on the whole world.

Here is a clip for All people dont want to learn about this "Religion" by the hard kind :

The percent number is outdated, there are much more Islamist's now in our European countries.

But the clip is maden from book writen by  a guy, grow up in Scharia relations... from childhood.

 

Here I found the clip with same texting, without music, IN ENGLISH language:

Whatever in the german version the pictures are NOT censored !

 

an example of islam:

One of the terrorists filmed the beheading from one of the girls.

I dont give the link for this clip, because it contains the (big) risk for traumatized, for lifetime..... but when search hard on google you will find it

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/8021866/morocco-backpacker-murder-terrorist-executions-cops-video-jihadi/

Edited December 31, 2018 by paul66

[Peefreak99 3,722]

On 10/24/2018 at 9:10 PM, spywareonya said:

What do you think is more accurate?

Books written for non buddhists, or first hand twenty years experience?

What I wrote upthere is the only truth buddhists really believe. Other are just self-(believe-to-be-)taught humans who know nothing

Please, don't be that headlong when talking with people who explored these things from within for decades

 

EDIT

If for non-theist you mean that they consider the Gods only embettered versions of themselves and thus refuse to "adore" them on a metaphysical stance, then in that case you are right. The Gods are just the biggest fish in the lake, not its creator. Or better said, they are (secret knowledge) but they want to be treated in a non-theist way

 

What does non-theist mean? 

[steve25805 126,015]

18 hours ago, Peefreak99 said:

What does non-theist mean? 

I believe it is someone who does not believe in organised religion and god.

[Kataal 40]

On 5/23/2016 at 6:33 PM, Egwalrus said:

There is no logic in defending members of a cult that condones rape and abuse of women, and has a stated goal of forcing the entire world to follow their rules

First of all, Islam is not a cult religion and I being a Muslim have never committed rape nor am I even married. You are basing this off what some say Holy Prophet Muhammad (SAW) had done (God forbid). If the case be he married a child and forced himself on her, then shouldn't I be doing so? My father never forced himself nor raped my mom. What are you going to say about that? Do not make me out to be a rapist because you watch media that paints a bad picture of Islam because the media you listen only takes the word of terrorists over everyday knowledgeable Muslims who do know the Prophet of Islam (SAW) married without forcing anyone and to adult women who understood what marriage was in Islam (obviously not rape). So you can stop calling us Muslims cultists and rapist, and pedophiles now Thank you!!! And no, I am not and have never been a rapist or pedophile. So you can STOP TELLING LIES about Muslims. Thank you!!!! And if some Muslims do committee rape, they are the most bizarre type of Muslim I have ever met. Oh and I have no issues with ISIS being destroyed for the safety of all humans and the religion of Islam which gets a bad rap thanks to terrorists.

[Kataal 40]

I am sorry you lost loved ones during 9/11, but I and so many Muslims aren't terrorists. And we do condemn them. And to be clear, I am defending the religion and the majority of Muslims who do not condone rape, pedophilia and terrorism. Isis has no support from me.

[oliver2 4,418]

1 hour ago, MasterDarcy said:

Hold on a minute. You're German and you're scaremongering about "a big problem, on the whole world"?

Oh, bugger, ‘e’s mentioned the war