CreateDebate


Mumin's Waterfall RSS

This personal waterfall shows you all of Mumin's arguments, looking across every debate.
1 point

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/ 1401#arg10419

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.

4 points

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.

- http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A2875395

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.

5 points

I guess water isn't wet to itself. But it can make anything else with so much as a wink.

1 point

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/ 1015#arg6757

1 point

..and a lot less.

-2 points
-2 points
2 points

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.

4 points

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.

3 points

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.

1 point

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.

0 points

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.

1 point

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?".

1 point

Hmm, I guess then all the surviving really are terrorists now. I think Osama's become a little too much of a bogeyman these days. They'd like to, but that's a tall order really.

1 point

Well, since these are really Arabic words I guess you can spell them as you like as long as its phonetically correct. But since Barack is how Obama spells his name, I guess we shouldn't be using more than one r, hehe.

1 point

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?

2 points

Still, a reason to be optimistic

1 point

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?

Supporting Evidence: Link to Debate (www.createdebate.com)
3 points

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.

Supporting Evidence: NY Times Cover Debate (www.createdebate.com)
2 points

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].

2 points

'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.

2 points

‘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.

2 points

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.

1 point

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.

0 points

This generation is so full of itself. I think a paradigm shift is long overdue. While people are no more intelligent than before (if not less - so much for human evolution), robots are the only ones getting smarter. Can you prove it otherwise?

2 points

You know, I haven't yet caught up with any MMOs, and neither have I ever really taken up a serious RTS (unless 'Worms' qualifies)!

But titles I do find myself purchasing more often and enjoying on a regular basis are action-adventure exploration games that are usually third person shooters or beat 'em ups as well, requiring stealth and weaponry/ combat skills and a creative, immersive story line.

0 points

Cool. Got any links?

0 points

Hey can you like list some of the best joy-pads around and why they're so cool?

0 points

Cool! I haven't ever played it yet, so I don't have a clue what you mean. Which console are you playing it on?

1 point

I guess you've proved that keyboarding with mice is definitely for pro-gamers that need high-performance hardware.

But what you and Bradford are leaving out is that "Game controls maketh the gaming experience, and you gotta admit, sticking keys in to the enemy is pretty dull when compared to vibrating organ-like hand-held devices in which you only spend half as much time looking for which button to press.

To me, there's keyboards at one end of the spectrum that's so last generation that you're almost programming in your moves. On the other end is stuff like the Wiimote which is a truly virtual gadget, and therefore much more immersive and new gen.

1 point

Hmm, mice are nice, though keying in stuff is boring. Maybe gaming mice would be better! I wonder if there are any with a bunch of keys on 'em.

0 points

Hey man that Wiimote rocks! Can't wait till there's a suit that can do sth like that in RPG type games.

-1 points

:P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P

-2 points
1 point

Throwing kicks and punches or battling it out in a graphical world just doesn't flow on the keyboard. Eventually I'm hoping they'll have controls you can wear like a glove. Closest thing that comes to that right now is a gamepad.

1 point

Hey you and geoff need to get this straightened out in my other debate: http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/ That_game_controls_maketh_the_gaming_ experience

2 points

Hey you and bradford need to get this straightened out in my other debate: http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/ That_game_controls_maketh_the_gaming_experience

1 point

I never got around to make my keyboard/ mouse cockpit for serious gaming, but as long as its an optical mouse and the keys don't stick, it's great for tactical games and shooters like CS!

0 points

Dual shock is wonderful, and I hope it'll get better.

-1 points

Keyboards and mice you say? Please vote here and favor/ oppose me your views and games

1 point

"There is no better way to control yourself in a game than with a mouse and keyboard."

I dunno, I kinda like game controllers, especially since they vibrates and seem much more 'natural' or intuitive, increasing the immersiveness of the game.

I can't imagine playing Tekken on a keyboard for example, that would be awful.

3 points

I think a gaming console that sets the standard like PS2 did has yet to come out this generation

2 points

I guess the PC could qualify as a gaming console, especially if you're a hardcore gamer. Might as well pit it against the rest.

2 points

Vote here for Xbox 360

1 point

Vote here for PlayStation 3

1 point

Vote here for Nintendo Wii

1 point

You know what I mean :p

For me there's a big difference in my gaming experience between playing a vampire and playing a cop.

The former is pure fantasy and the latter is more contemporary, or 'characteristic of the present'. Same with Grand Theft. Unless you have a better word for me.

However, if you're talking about a game involving mythology or with highly fictionalized main characters that may have super-human abilities, then I guess that could be categorized as fantasy.

Anyway, I'm not too concerned about hard-coded definitions, so you can place your coolest games in whichever column you feel is more appropriate.

Just make sure you list 'em all, in separate arguments if you like for tag ratings.

1 point

Legacy of Kain: Blood Omen II

1 point

Drakan: the ancient gates

2 points

CS/ Call of Duty!

0 points

Resident Evil 4 isn't out-class or anything but its good fun in a contemporary setting.

1 point

I'm still soaking up on God of War 2. Greek mythology has never been as entertaining!

1 point

Yes, I quite agree with your controversial stance. Raising your kids to know the difference between right wrong is better than protecting them indefinitely. But since I’d rather ignore obnoxious people who are selfish enough to do what they please without respecting the common space between people, I’d appreciate it if they kept it private. For example, if you’re one of those people who likes to get obscene in front of kids, I’d rather someone puts you away than having to go out of my way to avoid you.

1 point

What do you mean by censorship? If you’re talking about taking provocative art out of the public arena and making sure that nobody that can be negatively affected, such as children, is the audience, then yes, art should be censored. If you mean censoring art in a selective forum that has a mature audience only, or an audience that is fully aware of the subject matter and will not be offended, then no, that would be awful. For example, I damn well appreciate it when a sleazy scene in a movie is left out of family entertainment on television. People who want to see it in full can rent the DVD or subscribe to an adult channel and view it in private.

1 point

Being an ordinary person, putting your faith in prayer is different from pressing a button.

That way I see it, God is all-knowing, wise and ‘listens to all your prayers’ - how and when He chooses to answer them is His decision. Like your prayer, your patience will be rewarded. The same way as a good child would respect his/ her parent’s wish to, I don’t know, not eat too much ice cream and grow up not obese.

At the same time, if you pray with true conviction, would you not agree that the effect your love for the patient and for God would have is a medicine for the soul (which in fact, I consider the true self)?

To me, it’s not wasted time at all, unless you were too busy praying to attend to the physical needs of the patient, which would just be shirking.

2 points

I suppose my minimalist statement didn’t come across as clearly as I thought it did. The atheists can whine all they want about how there’s no God and throw tantrums to say that God is a foolish, silly concept but in the end it doesn’t make the slightest difference – the atheists will continue arguing, and believers will continue to hold on to their beliefs.

However, and the reason I’m on this side along with others who say that god is fake, is that God is too easily attributed to anything and everything. I mean, you have sensible people who worship everything from idols to animals as well as people who call a human (who was no doubt a manifestation of God), God Himself, so I guess pasta can have its merits too.

Anyway, I’d just like to add that God is above petty spaghetti, invisible pink unicorns and the like. Anyone who’d like to fool around with noodly appendages is free to do so on his/ her own time, but all that silliness doesn’t get more than a smirk.

-2 points
1 point

Sounds interestin' man, gime a screen shoot or a nice link?

1 point

Aliens kill bison

1 point

Thanks for the pic to boot.

1 point

I find your argument spot on, but it does not provide a solution.

Your concept of human understanding of truth as a Boolean that goes through algorithmic processes effectively turns humans into robots. However, I believe that there is a path to understanding the truth for humans.

Rather than a simply a human process, finding this path is more likely a spiritual process – to bring us face to face with the final, pure, absolute truth that transgresses the limits of our mental cognition – that can be nothing that we would have ever known before, or anything that needs further elaboration.

This enlightenment has been referred to in many religions – as nirvana, or in the case of monotheistic religions, as heaven – though your argument still holds true as by then we would be likely far from human (condition).

As for those who would rather limit themselves to being robots, the ‘truth’ is lost to them as they are unable to grasp anything beyond their immediate, inadequate perceptions.

I believe that divine revelation regarding this path to enlightenment for mankind has been conveyed through prophets as a guide for those who seek it in earnest.

These enlightened messengers of God with divine inspiration in their understanding of the truth were able to achieve a level of perfection that is not commonly known to humans – an essential quality to lead the way to enlightenment.

If humanity would be put on a scale ranging from barbaric animalism to saintly virtue, these messengers of God were considered the highest on the scale, so much so that many humans went as far as to deify them.

Through this ‘agency’ of God (that has prevailed in all adversity) I believe there is way out of the finite, limited possibilities that humans can ever know, to the infinite boundless universe beyond – and a final, complete, perfect understanding of the truth.

2 points

That’s another reasons that its impossible to discuss religion with a bunch of new age self-enlightened individuals who are suckers for consensus with the scientific community and think that they can, or have, defined everything in the universe and completely ruled out that there is a God - the creator of the universe in which they are no more than tiny pip-squeaks: they’re so goddam inebriated most of the time that you can’t even make out if they’re rational enough to realize the truth if it was spilling over them like hot coffee. It’s rather difficult to find out what God is and what the truth is (which I believe is the highest form of knowledge that humans can ever know) if you’re not even letting yourself use half the mind that God gave you in the first place.

1 point

I didn't really get the discussion I was looking for in my last debate about fav role-playing games. What I really meant was action-adventure. Or what-ever. So this debate's less restricted by semantics: Your bestest video game please, and why.

3 points

Hey, not that I'm Christian, but just bein' the Devil's - er, God's, - er, Jesus' - er, Bible writer's advocate here for a cotton pickin' minute: It don't say you go to hell, just says that its dirty, y'now. You should know, you water fowl you.

1 point

Okay, I confess. While always having been a big fan of story telling games, I never really got around to the sophisticated industry-standards - homebrew was always good enough. When I was making this debate, I was really thinking about the wonderful third person action adventure / shooter games I’ve played on my PC and on various consoles.

While this includes the more RPG-oriented Vampire: the masquerade type games, I wouldn’t mind it one bit if the lot of you tell me all the juicy details about why you love GTA. I dunno, 3, or RE4 for example, or in my case how I just can’t get enough of action-packed GOW2. Tell you what: Blood Omen 2 is still one of my favs, though playing it several years later and sober just wasn’t the same, though the camera angles that you can maneuver for the perfect perspective of some very romantic vampyric imagery is still hard to compare.

1 point

For me, my favorite author is the queen of narrative and lore – Anne Rice and all her various pen names. I lived in her world for a long time, which I must say satisfied a ‘thirst’ in me (pun intended) that had me wanting so much more.

1 point

Reminiscing about all the wonderful RPGs that I’ve lived in is quite a trip down memory lane, even if I never got around to some of the most popular titles.

One of my all time favs is years old now, but still deserves one of the highest ratings for an overall gaming experience: excellent gameplay, an unlimited universe to explore, a fantastic, immersive story line with intriguing characters, themes and plots and breathtaking challenges. But maybe one of the best things about it was the soundtrack, as I remember the thrill of flying low over the parched desert sands on my dragon as the beats to some strange outlandish music colored the drama that eventually unfolded.

Drakan: the ancient gates takes my top spot.

Supporting Evidence: Information on Wikipedia (en.wikipedia.org)
2 points

That you know is true

|

That the truth is a lie

Cannot be true

Then it’d be

A ruse

But then, of course

Yet again

Rest assured

The truth does lie

Within me within you

|

Till next time, how true you do?

2 points

The truth is the answer

To everything that you ever want to know

|

The truth is the silent master

To all that you can ever know

|

The truth is the reason

That you even want to know

|

But the truth

Is the only thing

|

That you know is true

1 point

ya, sure, sounds like a pretty effective forum for CD feedback. Since its all beta, what ya gotta lose?

1 point

Yeah me too. 'Cept I gotta drive around the city with some revs under me or I'm gonna get left behind. Suprisingly, a 125cc cruiser motorcycle, that really just looks like a macho Shadow, is more than enough vroom to get me there, in style, in league with the big boys, and at a fraction of the consumption and cost you get on twice the wheelage. I don't even need to bother too much about traffic! (Just wear as much armour as you can and drive carefully).

I also remember my days back in the woody subs, with my fixed up Trek 700 trail bike (reclaimed from a dumpster) that got me off- and on- the road as I rode the wind.

1 point

you robot martian you

2 points

I like companies that say no evil, do no evil (do we hear no evil?). And jack up the internet till you wish you could install 'em in yer brain.

Anyway, I also think that Microsoft is so last decade, even though you gotta hand it to them, they made computer geeks out of a bunch of nobodies.

So I'd pick GOOG. How about you?

0 points

What? He didn't convert or any such nonsense...

He came in this world as a prophet of Allah to begin with (whether you'd like to believe it or not).

P. S. Hilarious article, though, yep, really pathetic

2 points

A wonderful story. Only with humility and respect for others can this be learned.

1 point

I agree with Nikobelia completely.

I have two arguments to prefer 'politically correctness' over and above our god-given right to free speech.

The first is an observation that human interaction is only fruitful through mutual respect. Thus the situation, the audience and other factors influence the appropriateness of the spoken word. For example, between friends who have an established relationship and mutual understanding, strong or colloquial language may be mutually permissible but may not be so with the general population that includes strangers or people likely to be offended. A person who is not conscious of political correctness in his/ her interaction with other people therefore risks being obnoxious or abhorrent. The interaction is no more productive for either party (unless the purpose is to be offensive) and only serves to create barriers.

Secondly, the purpose of many discussions is, in fact, to attack other peoples’ opinions, ideals or beliefs simply because it does not appeal to the speaker. This is an abuse of the right to free speech, and is anti-social in nature. Such bigots should find an appropriate forum that is not aimed at attacking others who are the subject of their intolerance and ensure that people who are likely to be offended are excluded, rather justifying it as ‘free speech’. It is natural to have conflicting beliefs but it is the hallmark of a civilized nation to be able to co-exist in harmony.

0 points

Though I voted you up, I think the time is not entirely wasted. It's our moment to share.

-1 points

A wonderful debate! While ‘Sure. Absolutely’ may not sound exactly what I mean, I would like to propose two views that conclude that you really can know.

The first is that if knowledge is a result of your beliefs and perceptions, then you ‘know’ what you know, therefore you know, and have no reason to believe otherwise.

The second one, that is my personal belief, is that the human soul is in pursuit of knowledge that it senses somehow, but knows is out of its reach due to its human constraints. The personal search for knowledge thus transcends worldly limits and seeks communion with divinity in a state of being next to Godliness, though the “I”, or “you”, ceases to exist.

This is of course the spiritual path that one cannot ‘know’ without the knowledge that they know nothing, and take their first steps towards enlightenment.

So if this makes any sense, I guess that you can know without knowing anything, or you can know that you know nothing. In either case, you know and you don’t know at the same time.

3 points

Thanks for your wonderful contribution. It's a releif that someone can come up with arguments that aren't confined to downright absolutes and can dare to think outside the box.

2 points

I'd offer my seat to anyone who'd like to sit down on it. Especially the handicapped or elderly and women who appreciate it. I can stand it, thank God for that.

1 point

LOLS! Told you it would get you squawking mad! Okay here's what you'd really love to hear, before you start writing me another essay. And I'll try not to make any spelling mistakes this time, though I try to focus on the message not the spelling. But yeah, here it is: "YOU WIN". I don't expect you to be able to grasp anything that science can't prove (you might want to try this debate: “Does all the scientific evidence we have today prove (or disprove) every damn thing?” (http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/Does_all_the_scientific_evidence_we_have_today_prove_(or_disprove)_every_damn_thing ). Neither do I expect you to be able to accept there’s a universe out there waiting to be discovered, with tons of stuff you can’t explain with documented proofs on the internet, such as spirituality, religion, metaphysics, philosophy and the likes. Well, it’s nice do go out and do a study when you are bothered enough to do so, but in my case, I take a debate on the internet only so far as I can afford to. Good luck with your skepticism, I guess I am pretty simple compared to your superior intellect and reasoning. But thanks for reading so far. Now will you please go away and get on someone else’s case? (Here, you can try this guy: http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/ 1015#arg6888) )

0 points

The Neumann's were silly to depend solely on prayers to restore their daughter's health. At the very least, I hope the Neumann's really do have enough faith in God to be able to trust his decision to take their daughter from them, in his infinite wisdom.

‘Prayers work’, you can’t always understand how so with your limited understanding of the universe, so it really comes down to a question of belief. It would be unrealistic to try and prove it, the same way as you can’t make a blind man see.

1 point

I punch you hard on the head. You lose your memory, it slips out of yer head, u dont remember a thing. However, in history (001, for kindergarteners), I punched ya.

You haven't seen me (probably). You don't know what I look like, but I exist. When you do see me, your brain will create an image of me in your head through your vision (duh) and a memory will be created. I think I got that even if I can't take out time to read through each of your repetetive lines and the links you send.

"The memory encoded within your brain exists" - you said it, the encoded memory exists in yer brain. The memory itself, or the instance, did not oringinate from yer brain, which is what I'm sayin.

So supposing for a second 'we' did operate within our bodies, like those japenese robots in cartoons. Your brain will create memories that your senses perceive in this world. And when you die, your brain will stop creating any more memories.

But I'D SAY, heck, who needs to create memories when you die? I'm talking about a state of being that obviously doesn't need a body, or a brain to create or process memories.

However, since I haven't taken this site up as an occupation, I don't have the motivation to post detailed discussions that invlove my personal research. There is, however, a wealth of knowledge available, though not nearly on the internet. May be I'll share it sometime, but its futile if you're thick as a walnut. (I'm gonna love it when you start squawking mad now)

1 point

The topic of the debate is whether prayer is nonsense. You're out to prove that God doesn't exist. Not the same, as I argued from a psychological perspective aside from religious views.

However, I do trust in God. My ultimate objective is to do things right, rather than just get what I want. God helps me with that, so my prayers aren't futile in any case. In your case, however, your objectives come before your beleifs, it seems (since you don't have any).

When a child throws a tantrum, a wise parent doesn't always gratify his whims. God is all knowing. You can be sure you'll get exactly what you deserve.

0 points

Spoken like a true robot-martian!

(suppress-human-intelligence-by-refusing-to-accept-imperceptible-truths)

1 point

Maybe that's how it works for you. When I pray, I feel that I am increasing my chances of being successful so I know I can't go wrong. I also feel better in case it doesn't actually work out since I know my intentions are pure (since I could put prayers in to the equation). Either way, makes me feel good about life, so its not nonsense for me. Depends on how you pray, what you pray for and to whom you pray I guess.

Also, I feel a need to pray and remember God, irrelevant of whether I'm begging for something or not.

2 points

So you think a majority view is irrelevant because it may not be the truth. That's what I say too, but you disagree when it comes to arguments that "are widely accepted facts" in other debates.

Fact is Jesus is among the best humans in history to be considered as 'the most respectable person', whether you like to believe in him or not.

I vouch for InvisiaWoman.

5 points

Aside from arguing that 'God answers prayers', I'd just like to say that there's a lot of psychological advantages to believing in prayer. Confidence, committment and the power of vocalizing your ultimate objectives that you want to see through would definitely improve your efforts. Of course, you gotta work it, not just say it, then 'God' may help ya.

1 point

Thanks for being one of the first to bring in a discussion from other belief systems, such as the hindu religion. 2 things I could dispute: 1) the self may infact not lose realization of itself (I think this realization will be amplified) 2) self-realization in the worldly sense may not be the same as in the afterlife. There are many different states of conciousness, the Buddhist concept of 'nirvana' is close to what I believe may be the applicable state of realization you are talking about, provided you have walked the path in search of it, rather than being bound to 'this life'.

0 points

I'm sorry I didn't realize there was a qualification requirement to this debate (I didn't set one). No I'm not a neurobiologist, the same way as you aren't a religious scholar, a philosopher or a sea monkey. I am an ordinary guy, who has had a lot of questions, and satisfied himself to the answers, while retaining a healthy scepticism and logical base.

I'm pretty sure that conciousness and self-awareness are seated in the brain (it's pretty damn obvious). But that just proves that there cannot be any mental activity related to self-awareness and conciousness in the physical realm, since our brain stops functioning when we die.

I'D SAY that yes, we do continue to exist when our bodies die, not only physically speaking because our 'atoms get recycled' like someone else here has said (meaning 'we' is not just what you see in the mirror), but also because I believe that the 'self' is occupying our human form for this instant, and using this organic machinery to operate in the physical realm (which includes the complex processing unit we call the brain). When we die, we discard our shells, like the driver that steps out of her car when the destination has arrived, and get on with the rest of our existence. O and I'm not speaking of science, not just, which by the way is an opinion (or hypothesis) through good observation taken to the next level and considered in detail. You should also check out my other debate: Does all the scientific evidence we have today prove (or disprove) every damn thing?

Supporting Evidence: Link to debate (www.createdebate.com)
0 points

Yes, I guess you're right. The burden of proof does lie with me. At this point we're only debating. And even I don't have a complete understanding of it myself, though I have spent years trying to understand what it really means.

How it works though is: 1) You start believing in what your heart tells you, not your head (allegorically speaking, of course) and 2) You begin a long journey to realization (some may call it nirvana), where you leave the physical boundaries of the universe and seek a path to enlightenment. Hey, if it takes volumes to prove something scientifically, you can't expect an ordinary person like me to prove this just like that do you? I wish I had something zennish I could tell you right now, but maybe later.

Thanks for proving one thing though, that till I show you the platypus, you won't accept it might exist, which says a lot about how open you are to considering anything outside the box, if I'm not mistaken.

-1 points

Well, I don't know about what the pastor told you, but it seems like prayer #1 sure worked for you. Better luck with prayer #2.

0 points

I'm glad to have come across someone with your level of education and the frankness to make such a statement. Your participation is very valuable to CD in general and especially in this debate. THANKS!

1 point

I agree with CD 'cos its more like a real debate to be able to post in a good argument and have people up or down vote it.

-1 points

You're not simply an atheist, you're a hateful wretch.

There, I'm blatantly saying it. You're debate is nothing more than a pathetic attempt at anti-islamization, devoid of common sense (you say a prophet that brought civilization to a land of revelers is amoral?) or concrete facts (you have no real knowledge of the Quran and the hadith or the life of the prophet - you just love to bitch on whatever information you can conveniently mistrue).

Well, you’ and me agree on one thing: that the truth will prevail and all illusions and lies will be shattered.

The prophet is known for the purity and goodness in every aspect of his existence. He lived a simple, exemplary life and no other person can compare to the perfection he attained and passed on to his true successors, paving a straight path to divinity and godliness for all of humanity. His deeds and actions are remembered as the most noble and ideal centuries after his death and will continue to be held in close regard by the righteous till the end of time, for he is the last of the prophets of God to have walked the earth.

And you have the audacity to think that he would have engaged in such a repugnant act? Either you and your interpretations are just plain stupid, or, which is more likely, your cause is to put down the Prophet and all things related to Islam. Why don’t you go ahead and bring your sources to light instead of just making generalized statements so we can all see for our selves?

For all your hate filled lines and petty insults, you are a vile creature that has chosen a cursed path. You can rot in hell, that’s where you belong.

0 points

Which also brings us to the topic of my other debate, that I do hope you'll participate in: "Does all the scientific evidence we have today prove (or disprove) every damn thing?"

Supporting Evidence: Link to the debate (www.createdebate.com)

1 of 2 Pages: Next >>

Results Per Page: [12] [24] [48] [96]