Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Eternal Wars Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: the West Vs. Islam
Muslim    8/25/2002 11:40:30 AM
A topic came up in the Israel board that I thought was more suited to be on this board, so I'm moving the discussion about over here. To Homplate Umpire: There is something about Islam that you should probably know, even in it's most perfect form, Islam CANNOT coexist in a western based world; meaning, Islam and the West do not and cannot mix, they can exist seperately, but one can't properly exist within the other. The reson for this is because Islam is a comprehensive idealogy, it is a complete way of life, it has answer for every question, from God to politics, from the privacy of one's home to public laws and regulations. What America wants is for muslims to forget about the political portion, to forget about the public laws, and to forget that Islam is a muslim's way of life. When America wants muslims to "moderate" Islam, it means that america want muslims to "loosen up" and forget some rules and aspects of Islam. Now as much Islam treats everyone equally (which it does), it does not leave any room for any alternatives in the political, economic, or any other field of life, a muslim must lead his life according to Islam and only Islam. I agree that many muslims in the world today aren't providing a good image of Islam, and all muslim leaders are providing an even worse image. I don't agree that America doesn't want to eradicate Islam and Muslims, the only problem is that it can't. The west sees Islam as a threat to their way of life, and they try to portray Islam as this barbaric, backwards, heartless, and Nazi-like religion, but none of that is true. Islam is a threat to the west, but not because of those reasons, Islam is a threat to the west because if the western population say a real sincere and accurate implimentaion of Islam, people will flock to it. This has been seen clearly in history of Islam, for 13 years in Mecca, the prophet only managed to gather around 100 muslims, after only ten years in medinah, the prophet - with his Islamic state - managed to gather an army (not counting the muslims who weren't in that army) of 10,000 muslims. The difference between the first 13 years and the last 10 was that in the last ten years, Islam was being fully implemented, it was no longer just a bunch of words, it was now a reality. And today is no exception, if a true and accurate implementaion of Islam was to exist today, I gurantee you will see the same results, people flocking in masses to either live under the authority of Islam, or become muslims. That is the real reason Islam is a threat to the west, it will take away their power, their glory. Islam was made to be a more than just a religion one practices on Fridays, or one month a year in Ramadan, Islam was made to be a way of life, in essence, Islam is the perfect design to how a civiliation should be, and the best part of it, anyone can join. It is this aspect of Islam that makes the west attack it and not other religions such as christianity, judaism, buddism, or any other religion. I am not asking you to become sypathetic, I am asking you to uderstand the nature of Islam, that it isn't as bad the west and the muslims make it seem. Islam is a blessing to mankind. Islam also has a rock solid foundation, one that is not built on any can of faith, it is built on Iman (best translation: Conclusive acknowledgement). I want it to be clear that I'm not talking about something great that you have to just believe in, I'm talking about something great that can be proven to be great and true. That is why the west (political not social) will always be at war with Islam, the west fears Islam, they know what it can become and will do anything in their power to stop it from happening. I can prove this to you, but I will need some time, until then I leave you all to think about all this and leave this topic open for discussions.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12   NEXT
Ben    Buildings and Universes   9/5/2002 2:44:43 PM
The difference is: we have seen many buildings, and so we can say how they are made. we have seen only one universe, and thus far, scientiests have pretty good plan for everything but the very moment of its beginning. Since that is only a one time event, with no comparison, it is not proper to compare it to something routine like a building. the universe may well be, like your concept of God, a rule-breaker, a thing that does not follow other rules of existence. Or, the rules may be unknown to us. Once, no one could understand how people could walk uspide down on the other side of the earth. Then we learned. Again, though, you say I must prove something. I do not. I merely have to show that other possibilities, which are unproven but nonetheless impossible, exist. Nothing is proven until all alternatives are moved from the "set aside" pile to the "tested and disproved" pile. The ancient Earth on a turtle on elephants theory has been disproved. Cyclic time has not. Spontaneous creation has not. In fact, it is observed in laboratories and is a part of physics. "virtual" particles pop in all the time, and pop out again. But, Muslim, I see you do admit, finally, that even though all the evidence points towards your belief, you accept that other possibilites, which are not proved, exist. That is a step toward enlightenment!
 
Quote    Reply

Muslim to ben    RE:Buildings and Universes   9/5/2002 8:16:42 PM
I understand what you are saying about the universe and buildings. But it still doesn't show how the universe isn't created, or how we can't just look at the universe and come to the conlusion that it is created. "But, Muslim, I see you do admit, finally, that even though all the evidence points towards your belief, you accept that other possibilites, which are not proved, exist. That is a step toward enlightenment!" I do not say that there is a possibility for another any other reason why the universe is created. All I said is that in the case of this discussion, I will no longer attempt attempt to prove the existence of God throught the discussion of time because I don't know much about time. I still stick to my conviction that God DID CREATE this universe. I hope you can understand that.
 
Quote    Reply

Muslim to AK    RE:the West Vs. Islam - AK's sun and moon (corrected)   9/6/2002 7:51:10 AM
I just noticed that you haven't been on in some time, and a lot of threads have been made since then, so I decided to make it easier for you to find this one, read my last post with this same title.
 
Quote    Reply

AK to Muslim    RE:timeless and spaceless words???????   9/6/2002 4:23:33 PM
>>But if you don't mind, I would like to switch this part of the discussion to language, and prove God from the angle. Like I said before, there are many ways to prove God exists, if one doesn't work, then others will.<< I'm afraid you're going to run into the same troubles you did with your arguments from science. Why? The precision of terms. It's all fine and dandy to find a watch in the sand and deduce a watchmaker put it together, it's quite another to look at the watch, admire its craftsmanship, and deduce that those who don't believe the watchmaker was a morally perfect, loving father and those who don't believe this should be killed where they are found or will die and go to a place of torment. But if you want to argue from language, that's my area of specialization. Before finding a bar with a cheaper cover charge, I was an English major in college.
 
Quote    Reply

AK to Muslim    Existence of Allah debate   9/6/2002 8:25:47 PM
1)"Not without outside influence. So I agree, with the caveat that you understand the First Law of Thermodynamics deals strictly with the conservation of energy in a closed system. (Which, BTW, negates unidentified outside energy sources, such as "God.")" >>Your first law of thermodynamics doesn not account for anything outside the universe, it only applies to everything within the universe, and I agree that applies to everything within the universe, but using it to prove that God does not exist is a fallacy, because the simple attributes of a creator include that he is not limited by the limitations placed on his creations. So I agree it applies to the universe, but it does not negate God in any way. Instead, it serves more to prove that he exists, it shows that this universe was *designed* to be the way it is, it was *designed* so that everything is accouted for, except for the designer, he is not limited by his design. I addressed your first caveat, Now, can you argue with that?<< Yes, I can. There is no "outside" the universe. Things either EXIST (are in the universe) or they do not exist. You're going to be hard-pressed to find an actual border to the universe that you can cross to find elves, unicorns, 4-sided triangles, and God. As far as the 1st Law of Thermodynamics, nothing is created or destroyed, merely changed. It accounts for where all the energy is that makes the universe what it is. To say "God designed the universe" you're going to have to show that there is an "outside" to the universe (impossible), then that outside the universe is a room of some sort where both God and the universe are, and if you do that, you're going to have to explain how this big room is not "greater" than God by virtue of the fact that it contains and seperates both God and universe. Then you're going to have to show where that room came from, and so on. The Law of Thermodynamics describes a closed system. To move the bar or border of the closed system to include the workings of God, you're going to have to show what God *changed* (or if you prefer, *designed*) within that closed system to bring about the universe. Please include scientific measurements of God's power. 2)"Agreed, with the caveat that undiscovered causes do no imply the existence of God" >>God is more than just an undiscovered cause, he is the only cause. Again, if everything in the universe is either cause or effect, then what is the universe? it can't be both cause and effect otherwise, by it being the cause, it would mean that it is not limited by the limitations it placed on it's effects (same as the designer argument). The limitations that apply to the universe and everything in it includes a definite border, which we all know also applies to the universe itself. By that same argument, the universe can't be a cause either. The only thing left, is it being an effect. Which makes perfect sense because it holds all the attributes an effect usually has, which is basically that the effect is limited by the limitations the cause has placed on it, and it cannot trancend those limitations without another cause effecting it, or the same cause effecting it. That applies to the universe, everything is constant, nothing new is ever introduced, and so on.... Once you agree that the universe is an effect, then we can move on to why God must be the cause. There goes number 2.<< I don't agree the universe is a finalized effect in a chain of causalities. I believe the universe is the result of an ongoing effect OF the chain of causes. Cause and effect are relative concepts, applicable only to that which they are describing. To demonstrate, answer the question "What caused God?" Why is it you can believe a God is self-caused, but not the universe? 3)"I agree, tentatively, with #3, as long as there is no definition shift from the scientific definition of the term "law" in to a legal or civil definition. Careful with your teleology here." >>I am not apply any civil definition to law, and just to prove it, I will site a scientific source to my definition " a statement of an order or relation of phenomena that so far as is known is invariable under the given conditions b : a general relation proved or assumed to hold between mathematical or logical expressions" source: "Merriam-Webster online" Before anything, do you agree that this definition is the same as the scientific definition?<< You got it. 2 + 2 = 4, because it does, not because "God said so." 4)"I agree with #4 as long as "beginning and ending" refer to gross changes in properties, not existence (a tree may cease to be a tree once its cut down and made into a table, but it is still wood)." >>Then what did the universe change from?<< That's my question to you. What did "God" change to make the universe? >>We all know that changes in the universe are constant, but was that always the case? Did that big ball of gas always rotate at high speeds resulting in the big ban
 
Quote    Reply

Night Stalker    RE:Existence of Allah debate To AK   9/7/2002 7:41:55 AM
(I am not being argumentative, and I?m trying to get up to speed. I?m just looking for lively discussion.) I do not believe in an existential universe, but I do appreciate the scientific method. Now, you don?t have to use the Law of Thermodynamics to show there is no God. Newton?s Laws can be use for that. But, again, I don?t believe either set of laws were studied, advanced and written to prove or disprove the existence of a divine entity. That wasn?t their purpose. Science is used to define the explicable; presently the INexplicable exist, yes? If something is demonstratable 100 out of 100 times it is ?true.? It ?exists.? It is ?fact.? It is scientific. Emotions--love, hate, and so on--are not scientific they are recognized as being real, though the Laws of Thermodynamics can show they do not exist. Now, scientific study has noted that chemical changes are notable in the brain when one loves and hates, but so what? These chemical changes occur, but that doesn?t make it a ?fact? that human beings are just hyperactive electrochemical batteries either. Now, science has yet to cure the common cold, a most real illness, so does that failure bode ill for science? Should everyone stop taking his or her vitamin C? I say, ?No.? It has been said, that in every myth, wife?s tale and native-cure (chant or herb) that is a element of truth?no matter how small (and science would agree), but why is a divine being excluded?
 
Quote    Reply

Muslim to AK    RE:Existence of Allah debate   9/7/2002 7:59:04 AM
1)"You're going to be hard-pressed to find an actual border to the universe that you can cross to find elves, unicorns, 4-sided triangles, and God" Do you agree that the universe is expanding? "then that outside the universe is a room of some sort where both God and the universe are, and if you do that, you're going to have to explain how this big room is not "greater" than God by virtue of the fact that it contains and seperates both God and universe." The problem here is that you are giving the mind way too much power. First of all, whehter or not the universe is contained is besides the point, second, nobody said God exists outside the universe (we'll get to that later. My point was to show you that God is a part of the equation. I agree with the first law of thermodynamics, but I don't see why does God have to be a part of it if He is the one that created it in the first place. I want to make sure you understand my point, you don't seem to have understood it. You cannot use the first law of thermodynamics to prove that there is no God simply becaue he doesn't fit into the equation, because the law itself is restricted to what is in the universe, that was my point. 2)"I don't agree the universe is a finalized effect in a chain of causalities. I believe the universe is the result of an ongoing effect OF the chain of causes. Cause and effect are relative concepts, applicable only to that which they are describing." All this goes to back to the argument whether everything has a beginning and an end. once that is done, then we can come back to cause and effect. "To demonstrate, answer the question "What caused God?" Why is it you can believe a God is self-caused, but not the universe? " Wrong question. Because we haven't even started talking about God, all this is still related to the universe, and why it cannot exist without a creator. But if you want to know why the universe can't be cause-less, well there are many reasons, most important of all, it is limited. The universe has a certain border, cretain laws, contains a limited amount of matter, all these show that the universe is limited. Nothing can be limited in one aspect, and unlimited in another, that is what you are arguing; can you write a never ending equation, or the number infinity? equally, can we have a cause-less universe? A number is a limitation, therefore it cannot describe infinity, and an equation is limited by rules, numbers, start and finish, therefore every equation must follow those rules. The universe is limited by rules as well, it is limited by matter, now, how can you say that it is limited by both of these and claim it is unlimited in time? it is a pradox that can't exist. On the other hand, if you want to believe in God, then you must believe He is unlimted in every aspect, including time and place, therefore He could exist without a cause because it goes hand-in-hand with everything else. No contradictions. 3)Now once again, I see that we will have to delay this discussion until we agree why the universe must have a beginning and an end. Because the argument of both matter/law, and cause /effect are both based on that one concept, that the universe is limited by time. 4)"That's my question to you. What did "God" change to make the universe?" My question is different than yours. I'm asking you what did the universe change from? if you believe in the big bang, what did that ball of gas change from? As for your question, simple answer, God didn't change the universe from anything, He created it from nothing. Can the universe do that? ">>We all know that changes in the universe are constant, but was that always the case? Did that big ball of gas always rotate at high speeds resulting in the big bang, constantly expanding, contracting, expanding, contracting? Is so, can it be proven?<< There are several far more scientifically demonstrable models that don't amount to "God did it." You didn't answer the questions. "Ugh. Cartesian doubt turns skeptics into idiots. You're the one claiming the universe didn't exist in any form at some point in time. That's your burden to prove. I don't have to reject my position because I'm not making the argument, YOU ARE. Now, if I claimed that the universe didn't exist until a giant, invisible go-go dancer with a pimple shaped like Elvis on her butt excreted it out of her seventh rectum, you (presumably) could demonstrate that it wasn't her, but rather Allah that did it. That's your argument, stick to it." Just as much as I have to prove my argument to you, you must try to prove yours to me, that's how debates usually work, unless they *changed*.
 
Quote    Reply

Muslim    RE:timeless and spaceless words???????   9/7/2002 8:35:55 AM
I started a new thread for this one to organize things a bit. It's titled Language, I'm obviously not as creative in my titles as most people here:-)
 
Quote    Reply

American Kafir to Night Stalker    RE:Existence of Allah debate To AK   9/7/2002 9:00:13 AM
>>I do not believe in an existential universe, but I do appreciate the scientific method. Now, you don?t have to use the Law of Thermodynamics to show there is no God. Newton?s Laws can be use for that. But, again, I don?t believe either set of laws were studied, advanced and written to prove or disprove the existence of a divine entity. That wasn?t their purpose.<< The purpose of the Laws of Thermodynamics is to account for all the energy in a closed system. If "God" is providing energy for the universe to function, it would show up in the equation. Think of the universe as a bunch of cars driving forward in a closed circle, moving and heating up, each car running off the exhaust of the car in front of it, some of it used to keep the car moving, some sent to the next car to do the same, and the rest forming a smog bank in the center that cools, solidifies, and becomes another car in the circle. There's no need for God's gas station. That's the best "worst" analogy I can come up with. Essentially, Muslim can't prove there's a God by underhandedly stating it in his premises, by claiming an "outside" to the universe, or marveling at the nature of the universe discovered by man and claiming they are evidence of design. That's as silly as looking at box scores and noticing that the number of games won plus the number of games lost equals the number of games played and shouting "Eureka! God hates the Detroit Lions!" >>Science is used to define the explicable; presently the INexplicable exist, yes?<< Certainly, there are questions science doesn't have an answer for (yet), but "God" is not an answer to a scientific question such as "Where did the universe come from?" >>If something is demonstratable 100 out of 100 times it is ?true.? It ?exists.? It is ?fact.? It is scientific.<< Exactly. >>Emotions--love, hate, and so on--are not scientific they are recognized as being real, though the Laws of Thermodynamics can show they do not exist. Now, scientific study has noted that chemical changes are notable in the brain when one loves and hates, but so what? These chemical changes occur, but that doesn?t make it a ?fact? that human beings are just hyperactive electrochemical batteries either.<< You wouldn't use the Laws of Thermodynamics to measure emotional states, just as you wouldn't use a coat hanger to play a videotape. >>Now, science has yet to cure the common cold, a most real illness, so does that failure bode ill for science?<< Only if science begins searching for an invisible demon that makes one sneeze after identifying the virus that is actually causing the illness. >>Should everyone stop taking his or her vitamin C? I say, ?No.?<< Me too. But a bit of peppermint stick powdered up in some Jack Daniels doesn't hurt ;-) >>It has been said, that in every myth, wife?s tale and native-cure (chant or herb) that is a element of truth?no matter how small (and science would agree), but why is a divine being excluded?<< To that, I can only say deism (belief in a creator deity that leaves creation alone to run itself) was the most rational assumption pre-quantum theory religionists could come up with. God's role as "prime mover" in the universe has been reduced to nothing, because the universe is now known to be moving itself and if calculations hold, it always has. But the morality element of theism is an entirely different argument.
 
Quote    Reply

American Kafir to Muslim    RE:Existence of Allah debate   9/7/2002 9:22:57 AM
[snipped for brevity] >>Do you agree that the universe is expanding?<< Yes. >>You cannot use the first law of thermodynamics to prove that there is no God simply becaue he doesn't fit into the equation, because the law itself is restricted to what is in the universe, that was my point.<< The 1st LoT shows that the total energy IN THE UNIVERSE has not changed. It is being used for as the universe divides it into work and heat and entropy, but the interchange is constant and perpetual. No "new" energy is required because the conversion into work, heat, and entropy recycles. Some day, the universe will return to it's pre-Big Bang state, and do it all over again. I believe that answers all the points you made. Science demonstrates that the universe is self-sustaining. If you want to argue that God "made" the universe a self-sustaining system, you're going to have to prove God exists first.
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics