Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Eternal Wars Discussion Board
Sign In   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

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest

Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Night Stalker    RE:Existence of Allah debate To AK   9/7/2002 9:53:24 AM
>AK: If "God" is providing energy for the universe to function, it would show up in the equation. Maybe a divine being IS that energy. Is the problem or difficulty extended from how is a divine being defined? And why would or should, a divine being, show up as you would expect it to? Or as this or that kind of energy. >If something is demonstratable 100 out of 100 times it is ?true.? It ?exists.? It is ?fact.? It is scientific.<< >AK Exactly. But again, and experiment (whatever it is) maybe repeated and there may still be no explanation for why or even how it works. R Feyman toyed with something simple as spaghetti and saw that a piece would break in a certain way (into three equal pieces) but he never learned why it broke that way?BUT the experiment was still performed scientifically, and still nothing was learned. >AK: 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?" True, a divine being is not an answer to a scientific question, but science isn?t looking for a divine being either nor does a divine being need to know where the universe comes from either. >Ak 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. But you presume to measure a divine being using the Laws of Thermodynamics >>Now, science has yet to cure the common cold, a most real illness, so does that failure bode ill for science?<< >AK Only if science begins searching for an invisible demon that makes one sneeze after identifying the virus that is actually causing the illness. I was not being flippant . . . why are you? >>Should everyone stop taking his or her vitamin C? I say, ?No.?<< >AK Me too. But a bit of peppermint stick powdered up in some Jack Daniels doesn't hurt ;-) See the above . . . >>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? >AK 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. Reduce to nothing by who? Einstein would disagree. You really haven?t given much of a point of view. Since you don't seem to focued--lets call it a day.
 
Quote    Reply

Muslim to AK    RE:Existence of Allah debate   9/7/2002 9:58:32 AM
">>Do you agree that the universe is expanding?<< AK: "Yes." Well then that means the universe has a border, how else could it expand if there was no border to expand? Which also means that you must agree this universe is contained. It's like a hole, can you have a hole with borders if there was no matter to dig the hole into? In this universe, any container that contains must also be contained. Agree? "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." Two comments, first, regarding the Tol (I've been looking for a way to abreviate that, thanks for the idea), you didn't address my point. If God is not of this universe, He doesn't have to be a part of the equation. AGAIN, for the millionth time, what wrote the equation doesn't have to be a variable or a factor in the equation in order for the equation to be true, or for it to exist. THAT IS A FACT, not my opinion. So the lack of the "God factor" in the ToL doesn't mean that God doesn't exist, it just means that if He does, it is obvious that He is not limited by this universe's rules. "Some day, the universe will return to it's pre-Big Bang state, and do it all over again." Your prediction is backed by a theory, an uncertainty, we don't know if the universe will exist to see the next big bang, and even if that does happen, we have no way of knowing if it will come out, our life span is just not long enough. "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." You forgot to discuss one issue, the limitation of the universe. I don't know if you simply didn't read that part, or just decided to ignore it, but here is the encore, [edited portion]: "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, [and a limited amount of energy, ToL] 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 [and have an ending]. The universe is limited by rules as well, it is limited by matter [law and energy], 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. [This is just a response to your question as to why I can say God is cause-less, and the universe can't be, it is not proof that God exists]" Well there it is, nothing was deleted, just a few comments and additions. As for proving that God exists, we first agree that the universe is limited in every aspect, icluding time.
 
Quote    Reply

Muslim    Abbreviations   9/7/2002 10:02:01 AM
I just realised that I accidently typed Tol instead of LoT, switch them while reading.
 
Quote    Reply

Muslim to Ak    RE:Existence of Allah debate To AK   9/7/2002 10:07:57 AM
"AK: If "God" is providing energy for the universe to function, it would show up in the equation. Maybe a divine being IS that energy. Is the problem or difficulty extended from how is a divine being defined? And why would or should, a divine being, show up as you would expect it to? Or as this or that kind of energy." Actually, I countered that statement a hundred times, and so far he hasn't commented on my argument in that regards. Here is the refutal once again. That law is like an equation, both sides are always equal, and you can't just add a variable into the equation, or a number. Now, Ak's claim is that If God exists, then how come he is not in the equation? The refutal: God wrote that equation, and just like when we write mathematical equations, we don't have to be variables in the equation for us or the equation to exist, God doesn't have to be a part of the law for Him or the law to exist. I know this doesn't prove God exists, but it proves that Ak's claim that God doesn't exist is supported by twisted manipulation of logical and scientific statements, once they are untwisted, his whole argument falls apart. Bring a new Argument AK, this one is dead.
 
Quote    Reply

AK to Muslim    RE:Existence of Allah debate   9/7/2002 11:59:08 AM
">>Do you agree that the universe is expanding?<< AK: "Yes." Well then that means the universe has a border, how else could it expand if there was no border to expand?<< Space is infinite, and the things in space are getting farther apart from each other. >>Which also means that you must agree this universe is contained.<< Contained *in* what? >>It's like a hole, can you have a hole with borders if there was no matter to dig the hole into?<< I don't think the universe is a hole. >>In this universe, any container that contains must also be contained. Agree?<< Yes. So where's the container in the universe that holds God? "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." >>Two comments, first, regarding the [LoT] (I've been looking for a way to abreviate that, thanks for the idea), you didn't address my point. If God is not of this universe, He doesn't have to be a part of the equation. AGAIN, for the millionth time, what wrote the equation doesn't have to be a variable or a factor in the equation in order for the equation to be true, or for it to exist. THAT IS A FACT, not my opinion. So the lack of the "God factor" in the [LoT] doesn't mean that God doesn't exist, it just means that if He does, it is obvious that He is not limited by this universe's rules.<< Let me demonstrate the fallacy you are committing. If I type "2 + 2 = 4" and you type "2 + 2 = 4" and then we hand the paper to someone else who knows nothing about either of us and ask them to tell us which equation was typed on the paper by an atheist, what do you think they would say? This is the hangup we're having. I could provide the scientists' names that codified the Laws of Thermodynamics, but I doubt you'd attribute godhood to them. But the Laws of Thermodynamics were at work long before men figured them out. That doesn't mean God wrote them, it just means existing things exist independent of explaination by observers. The trouble you're having explaining God is because of this barrier. You haven't shown that God exists. You have shown that we live in a universe that our minds can explore and try to make sense of. "Some day, the universe will return to it's pre-Big Bang state, and do it all over again." >>Your prediction is backed by a theory, an uncertainty, we don't know if the universe will exist to see the next big bang, and even if that does happen, we have no way of knowing if it will come out, our life span is just not long enough.<< We also have no way of knowing if it's happened before or how many times it has happened. But current knowledge points to a self-sustaining universe. That alone does not rule out "God," but it significantly reduces "God's" ability to interact (impart more, "new" energy) with the universe. "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." >>You forgot to discuss one issue, the limitation of the universe. I don't know if you simply didn't read that part, or just decided to ignore it, but here is the encore, [edited portion]: "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.<< Science disagrees. >>The universe has a certain border<< The only "border" to the universe is between real, existing things and imaginary, non-existing things. >>cretain laws, contains a limited amount of matter, [and a limited amount of energy, LoT] all these show that the universe is limited.<< E=MC^2. Matter and energy are the same thing. Let me see if I can find you a link on the 1st LoT. You don't seem to be grasping it. >>Nothing can be limited in one aspect, and unlimited in another, that is what you are arguing<< No, I'm arguing that an effect can't be separate from a cause. If you want to describe the entire universe as an effect, you're going to have to show me the cause. Science has found the universe is self-sustaining, it is a closed system where energy is conserved and changed but never lost or unaccountable. The energy is always somewhere, in some form. Unless you're arguing for pantheism, you're going to have to show how God must be "external" to the universe. >>can you write a never ending equation?, or the number infinity?<< Calculate Pi. Draw a figure-8 on its side. >>equally, can we have a cause
 
Quote    Reply

Muslim to Ak    RE:Existence of Allah debate   9/8/2002 4:19:05 PM
To AK, Please excuse me, I don't have the time to respond to you at this moment, I will be back tonight, and respond to this post. I apologize for this, but I must go on. I'll back later tonight
 
Quote    Reply

Muslim to Ak    RE:Existence of Allah debate   9/9/2002 12:29:39 AM
"Space is infinite, and the things in space are getting farther apart from each other. " Then you don't believe the universe is expanding. Either way, we have to do something. : The universe is limited, that is a fact, it can't be denied through logic, science, or even faith. Why do I say it's limited, because it has rules and matter. A limited number of a rules, but most importantly, a limited amount of matter. The farthest point in the universe where matter exists is it's border. Because we can't possibly observe anything past that. This is a very deep discussions, and at some points I confuse myself, but when I get to the point where I'm trying to imagine things I can't see, I realize I have gone too far, so I go back. An unlimited universe is one of those things, it's like having an endless number, we can try to imagine it, but reality shows it can't exist. "Contained *in* what?" It doesn't matter. "Yes. So where's the container in the universe that holds God?" Again, if you write an equation, do you have to be in it? The outside can't be inside, it just doesn't make sense. " If I type "2 + 2 = 4" and you type "2 + 2 = 4" and then we hand the paper to someone else who knows nothing about either of us and ask them to tell us which equation was typed on the paper by an atheist, what do you think they would say? This is the hangup we're having." You made a big mistake in your analogy. If we show both papers to one person without saying a single thing, there is only thing we can be 100% sure of, he would know somebody wrote them, he wouldn't even consider the possibility of no one writing them. That's the problem you are having, you see the equation, you see the design, the building, the farm, you see everything that requires someone to make them, yet you refuse to believe someon made them. You see that there is order in the universe, yet you refuse to believe someone organized it. How could that be? What you are imagining is a light without a light source, heat without a heat source, energy without an energy source. None of these can exist without a source, you know that, so why do you insist that they all exist without a source? "We also have no way of knowing if it's happened before or how many times it has happened. But current knowledge points to a self-sustaining universe. That alone does not rule out "God," but it significantly reduces "God's" ability to interact (impart more, "new" energy) with the universe." A self-sustaining universe means only one thing, the universe can't take anything out or put anything in. Let me ask you a question to calrify, if mars disappears, it does't desolve, expolde, or anything like that, it just disappers ceases to exist in it's most elemental form, does that mean the universe will cease to exist, or fall into chaos? The same goes for the opposite, if a planet just appears out of thin air, would the universe decsend into chaos? I realize you believe that neither can ever happen, but let's say hypotheticly speaking it does, would the order of the universe disappear? ">>equally, can we have a cause-less universe?<< We do." You are using your theory of a cause-less universe to show we have a universe without a cause. Big flaw in your argument. ">>The universe is limited by rules as well, it is limited by matter [law and energy], 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.<< And yet, if I keep working, I can pay my bills every month. Weird, huh? " You didn't answer that question. "We've only got one universe to look at, so we can only discover the rules by which this universe operates. You can say "God" can do anything and break its own rules, and such an interaction of doing anything outside the rules *within* our universe would rightly be called a "miracle" should it ever occur, but right now there's only one "thing" breaking the laws of nature - nothing at all." I agree with all this 100%. But your mistake is that you believe the existence of a God would be "breaking" the laws of nature, without even a logically sound argument. Your argument has so many logical holes, the biggest one is I mentioned a million times (maybe less): You believe that if God exists, there must be some way to account for him in the LoT. True or false? You also believe the universe is a "closed" system, yet it is infinite. true or false? You believe that the universe is self-sustaining, and any addition or subtraction is impossible, yet nothing would happen if any addition or subtraction does occur. True or False? Those three are the biggest flaws I have seen in your argument, clarify for me. Just to be fair, I will state to you my argument, and you show me the holes. I say: The LoT is a sign of order, and for every organized object there must be an organizer who doesn't cannot be a part of the object. The universe is a closed system, THEREFORE it is finite.
 
Quote    Reply

muslim2    Refreshing and productive   10/30/2006 2:46:54 PM
Even though this was discussed and posted in 2002, i just wanted to say that it was wonderful to actually have a constructive discussion without "islam" or "west" bashing. Thank you all. We definetely need more of this !!
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2012StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy