- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
I’m glad to have piqued your interest. You have made a strong point as well.
All religions, including Islam, have been ravaged over time.
Few followers have been able to maintain a strong adherence to the faith, so all religions are mainly distortions. Here's some further discussion regarding this point: http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/
For most people, access to any original evidence is near impossible in the case of the old religions (predating Islam), including the original, unadulterated religious scriptures. Islam is the last of the Abrahamic religions of God to have been revealed to humanity, and claims to be the final and complete guide for all generations to come.
However, an integral part of the Islamic religion is that an authority will always be present on the face of the Earth as a living testament to the word of God, declared categorically to its followers by the prevailing authority.
In the case of Islam, the blood lineage of the messenger Muhammad and his rightful successor, Maulana Ali, established a succession that would carry forward the religion of God for all time to come, ensuring its relevance through the ages.
Mainstream Islam of today opposes this view, denying divine succession of a central authority by appointment.
So once you get the popcorn out of the microwave, you might want to consider changing the channel, since most of what you’ll hear is just drivel.
Perhaps the best way to figure it out for yourself is to be honest in your judgments, have good, benevolent intentions, and pray that God will guide you to the light.
There are a few religions that have ever gained widespread acceptance, especially among the intellectuals of its age and passed down to the present day.
Islam doesn't say that other religions are wrong.
Muslims believe that there have been 124,000 prophets and messengers sent down to mankind throughout the ages. All these prophets preached the oneness of God.
A messenger is someone chosen by God to call people to the worship of one God and was given a new book or source of revelation, ie, Moses was given the Torah [Jesus was given the Bible] and Muhammad was given the Qur'an.
However, the only scripture widely available to this generation in its original, unaltered form is the Koran.
Even the Koran has been taken apart by various forces since history, but it is the miracle that the original word still exists. The scripture was expressed by Muhammad through divine inspiration (enlightenment) and this was composed in everything from its narrative and poetry to its script and sounds. However, its meanings are beyond the understanding of ordinary people and very few have responsible, delegated authority to pass on this information - that is designed to guide humans towards this state of enlightenment, or heaven.
I believe a path to enlightenment does exist, and it is the only way to understand anything beyond our human cognition.
Look, phuqster, I understand your reservations. I shared a similar mindset to yours in the past. But before I indulge in any argumentation with you, let me brief you on some areas that many people, like you, are lacking:
1. Being a religious follower is not simply a have-blind-faith-you-silly-billy-or-you-roast-in-hell-muahahaha. It’s about finding goodness – which is a whole lot of things over and above worldly issues. But yes, like in most situations, most people abuse religious doctrine to become power-wielders who can push people around. Unfortunately, very few people will ever know religion for what it really is, since history has always had its wicked culprits.
A great deal of understanding religion takes place at various levels, much the same way as a formal educational system. How much you get out of it is up to you, no matter how bad your teachers are at their job and in some cases even then the whole damn institution’s just beginning to rot and the teachers don’t even know the most basic concepts for themselves.
Sometimes you figure it out for yourself or if you’re really lucky, you get into the right school or have a wonderful teacher and develop into a rational human being who can make the right choice based on a highly-ingrained ability to do so.
2. Scientific dictates are the modern religion. Every generation holds on desperately to its ‘proven’ scientific beliefs till a paradigm shift sets things straight. There are always volumes of ‘evidence’ for any claim. And for most claims, droves of people are ready to verify or vilify any claim based on their personal judgment or lack of. Even if science is so god damned sophisticated, it is not infallible. Please answer me this question: http://tinyurl.com/6e26fb
3. The word of God is and has to be infallible (He’s talking about His own creation, for God’s sake). Humans have a limited capacity to learn, and humans are prone to error. Ordinary humans may have one or a few meanings or contexts to any written lines. But if a guy like Shakespeare, (or Matt Gorening for that matter), can have so much depth to their message, we’re talking about God Himself here. And if people can dedicate their whole professional lives studying the works of Shakespeare, you can bet you can probably spend more than a few lifetimes trying to comprehend a single word of God in its entirety. To understand the word of God is a highly involved and dedicated process – in which your questions bring you closer to the answers, not away from them.
4. There is a difference between religion and pseudo-religion. You are certainly right about the fact that you can’t trust ‘any guy’ who claims to know God. There are in fact very few who have ever achieved that status and still exist in peoples’ hearts and minds by the power of their message. I guess in the end you have to do what you’ve always done – make a judgment on what you believe to be true. Since you are earnestly seeking the truth, hopefully you will find it for yourself. That’ll be your paradise (though your version of paradise is pretty boring with primates and a giant science lab thingy going on). But whether you’ll ever get there is simply the will of God.
5. For the followers of a successful religious belief, scientific theory and religion are perfectly compatible and only pave the way for progress. For example, I love science and all it has to offer. I love science-people, especially when they’re honest and not full of themselves because they’re more knowledgeable: http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/
Being philosophical is an essential human characteristic that brings us closer to God. When philosophy is established, perfected and subscribed to by any other human, it can be said to be a religion. Religious followers who are above monkey-see-monkey-do religious observation are all philosophers in their own right who see meaning in a particular school of thought, practice their philosophy, and make it an integral part of their existence. Considering that religious followers are much more probable to believe in the existence of God and practice the religious philosophy they follow, they are much more likely to be closer to Him than a philosopher who does not put belief into practice.
I think the Big 4 sums it up for everybody in general. Call me egocentric, but I debate mainly to strengthen my personal beliefs by evaluating it against all possible contradictions, and maybe convince somebody else in the process. I also like to see what popular opinions are floating around, and every now and then appreciate a well-composed argument or a new perspective. I hate it when people debate simply to kill time without any other purpose, since time is about the most precious thing in the world and I'd hate to see it wasted.
The underlying motive in a crime is much more relevant in awarding a punishment than the crime itself. That’s why we have a distinction between first degree and accidental killings. Hate crime needs to be recognized as a distinct motive – one that deserves a specific punishment – no more, no less.
Actually, going further, "what I would rather is that you do vote – up or down" AND PREFERABLY post an argument to make a point that proves you've made a reasonable choice, initiating dialogue towards satisfactory closure in case of a down vote, rather than simply saying yah, shaddap. This is especially true of a good debate moderator.
Well, I like to do everything that I can do. As a registered user of CD, I have the power to express my opinion through the down vote, whether or not I counter-argue. Also being an honest individual, I try not to abuse this power. Rather I use it only in situations where I feel it is appropriate. For e.g. in downgrading a rebuttal that doesn’t have me convinced.
As you can see from my efficiency score, my comments are downvoted almost more often than upvoted (if I’m correct), so what comes around goes around. Unless I’m party to house rules in any debate, I will continue to downvote at will and expect the same from anyone else. Hopefully enough people will read it and some may agree enough to upvote.
But what I would rather is that you do vote – up or down. This lets me know how people actually feel about what I’m saying.
Dogs and Cats?! Noooooo!
At least now we're getting some real, intellectually-stimulating, sensible and plausible results. The floor is now wide open for all of your best theories regarding what'll happen when Obama gets elected and it is revealed he is Moslem (in a mojo jojo moment or through super-intelligent sources)!
Though I dunno, maybe its more appropriate now to change the question back to "What's the BEST thing could happen?".
I guess the fascists will always hold their own. However, he may just be able to reach out to others who are still holding sway. Secondly, if I were a straight-thinking loyal-to-the-land Moslem living in America, I think I’d be just a little (or a lot) more comfortable if someone evidently sympathetic to Islam is in office. And if he really was Moslem and could assert the fact and still win America’s votes – wow, that would truly be groundbreaking, and shut up a lot of Osama. But who can say?
For a nation that advocates free speech so vehemently, its surprising that so many people think its in bad taste. I don’t find it offensive to Obama at all - in fact, it may even be supportive to his campaign telling people to lighten up, dammit.
What I could find offensive, without reference to the cartoonist who quite successfully portrayed exaggerated public sentiments, is that just because Obama may have been Moslem it apparently qualifies him as a could-be terrorist.
May I ask: What's the worst thing could happen if Barrack's really moslem?
I think the NY Times has got it covered, literally, as I found out from borme's debate. Personally I think it’s great that he’s so close to realities regarding Moslems – that should give him the much needed leverage in his international relations with the Moslem world if he doesn’t screw up.
Brilliant. Just what I've been thinking, or something close. The human mind, I believe, can in fact be powered [programmed] to fuse with the [Universal AC] through discipline that essentially becomes self-improving in nature to conquer [entropy]. In order for an AI system to become better than the human mind, its rate of self-correction would have to surpass that of human intelligence at its highest level to become a multivac higher than the [Universal AC] that already exists. By the time that it would achieve that level of sophistication, it would merge into the existing [Universal AC] that is perpetually in existence to begin with, along with all human consciousness. AI can thus be nothing more than a dream within a dream, or a primordial specimen insignificant enough to deliberate an answer as yet, but you – or Asimov – have indeed directed attention towards the query. But at this time, it seems, [there is insufficient data for a meaningful answer].
'Smart' cannot simply be information-rich. It necessarily implies a cognitive, mental ability. Technology can be an enabler – provided the subject is in a position to use the tools available. Despite having ‘more information than kings and priests in the past’, I guess a lot of us are just as daft as ever. So logically people in the past had to be smarter - more calculating, innovative, value additive etc. - by getting around with less information (or more effort required for the same richness of information) coupled with cleverness. And the ‘loss of skills’ you mention are probably the cognitive, mental skills that basically make you smart. Thus, this generation – mainstream society of today – is therefore less smart than previous generations due to the pervasiveness of technology and overly simplified binary-logic thinking (ironically, the very thought process I’ve just used in my argument). I guess there really is no difference.
‘Advances in technology such as the hybrid cars and alternative fuels’? Neither of these so-called ‘advancements’ make this generation ‘smarter’. Predecessors invented the automobile in the first place - these are only refinements that may not turn out to be much ‘smarter’ for planet earth going further anyway.
I agree. Our endeavor for technological and cultural progressiveness, in which it may be considered abnormal to dwell on anything for more than a little while, probably leaves too little time to actually appreciate the finer details of everything we have. Perhaps it wasn’t so before, when people were more likely to pause for thought instead of demanding continuous extrinsic stimulation, aware of the impermanence of life and its diversions.
How this relates to how ‘smart’ this generation is to previous generations is that there is not much difference in our cognitive abilities - however much is set aside as latent, which may not have been the case in the golden ages of philosophy, arts and literature in which the prowess of the mind was further explored. Technology may be actually a retardation of our mental abilities as we ‘outsource’ a great deal of our thinking to computer-generated output.
And while communication has contributed ‘collective intelligence’ across the globe with the internet and other media, I would still discount this as a modern variation of an age-old practice, albeit less selective than lecture halls and schools of thought, further limiting due to strong cultural influences from western ideals and an unapologetic ‘bandwagon of uncertainty’.
Not to say that I am not extremely thankful for the information so readily available that, like bingeing on vast quantities of somewhat-nourishing-mostly-junk-food, can even enlarge my rear.
Your argument is full of contradictions. ‘The majority of youths couldn't care less about having knowledge’ but ‘there are more people and most are going to colleges’. ‘Acceptance into colleges has become harder and harder’, yet apparently unqualified individuals are’ taking the spots of those that deserve to be in their [sic]’.
If you say colleges and universities seem to be having too many students while entry requirement are getting tougher, it would be inconsistent to say that ‘the majority of society couldn't care less about knowledge’.
You say that smart people today are much smarter than their predecessors, albeit fewer, but you have not provided any coherent argument or evidence regarding your opinion.