Religion and Technology?

[Kalam]

That Robert Spencer is unintelligent and a prejudiced moron, or that the poster is. S'matter, you couldn't read your own sentences?

Why is Robert Spencer a prejudiced moron? His method of criticizing Islam involves taking particularly radical positions and accusing the entire religion of supporting them as if we're some sort of unthinking monolith. He simply strengthens the preconceived notions of his readers by presenting data inaccurately and spewing uninformed opinions - he is not a Muslim and has had no formal instruction in anything related to the Islamic religion. To paraphrase a movie quote, watching Spencer and his groupies here attempt to criticize Islam is like watching a bunch of retards trying to fuck a doorknob.

 

[Cecilie1200]

That Robert Spencer is unintelligent and a prejudiced moron, or that the poster is. S'matter, you couldn't read your own sentences?

Why is Robert Spencer a prejudiced moron? His method of criticizing Islam involves taking particularly radical positions and accusing the entire religion of supporting them as if we're some sort of unthinking monolith. He simply strengthens the preconceived notions of his readers by presenting data inaccurately and spewing uninformed opinions - he is not a Muslim and has had no formal instruction in anything related to the Islamic religion. To paraphrase a movie quote, watching Spencer and his groupies here attempt to criticize Islam is like watching a bunch of retards trying to fuck a doorknob.

I didn't ask you to expound on your opinion. I asked you to demonstrate it. "I think so" is not a demonstration of anything except the fact that you think so. What I'm looking for is a little thing sane people call "evidence". I will expect your next post to contain some, or I will consider it an acknowledgement that you have nothing but bitter personal prejudice to offer.

 

[Kalam]

That Robert Spencer is unintelligent and a prejudiced moron, or that the poster is. S'matter, you couldn't read your own sentences?

Why is Robert Spencer a prejudiced moron? His method of criticizing Islam involves taking particularly radical positions and accusing the entire religion of supporting them as if we're some sort of unthinking monolith. He simply strengthens the preconceived notions of his readers by presenting data inaccurately and spewing uninformed opinions - he is not a Muslim and has had no formal instruction in anything related to the Islamic religion. To paraphrase a movie quote, watching Spencer and his groupies here attempt to criticize Islam is like watching a bunch of retards trying to fuck a doorknob.

I didn't ask you to expound on your opinion. I asked you to demonstrate it. "I think so" is not a demonstration of anything except the fact that you think so. What I'm looking for is a little thing sane people call "evidence". I will expect your next post to contain some, or I will consider it an acknowledgement that you have nothing but bitter personal prejudice to offer.

Would it kill you to be a little less abrasive?

One of Professor Khaleel Mohammed's criticisms of Spencer:
The American Muslim (TAM)

 

[Cecilie1200]

Why is Robert Spencer a prejudiced moron? His method of criticizing Islam involves taking particularly radical positions and accusing the entire religion of supporting them as if we're some sort of unthinking monolith. He simply strengthens the preconceived notions of his readers by presenting data inaccurately and spewing uninformed opinions - he is not a Muslim and has had no formal instruction in anything related to the Islamic religion. To paraphrase a movie quote, watching Spencer and his groupies here attempt to criticize Islam is like watching a bunch of retards trying to fuck a doorknob.

I didn't ask you to expound on your opinion. I asked you to demonstrate it. "I think so" is not a demonstration of anything except the fact that you think so. What I'm looking for is a little thing sane people call "evidence". I will expect your next post to contain some, or I will consider it an acknowledgement that you have nothing but bitter personal prejudice to offer.

Would it kill you to be a little less abrasive?

One of Professor Khaleel Mohammed's criticisms of Spencer:
The American Muslim (TAM)

Kill me? No. Have any purpose that's of interest to me? No.

You want to be treated with respect? Earn it.

Oh, and linking a biased opinion site as "evidence" that your opinion is fact? As far as I'm concerned, you just conceded defeat.

 

[Kalam]

Kill me? No. Have any purpose that's of interest to me? No.

I see. So, who peed in your Cheerios?

You want to be treated with respect? Earn it.

Whether or not you treat me with respect is unimportant. I was simply making a suggestion.

Oh, and linking a biased opinion site as "evidence" that your opinion is fact?

That's oxymoronic. My opinion is an opinion, and I substantiated it using evidence presented in another person's opinion (which I'm sure you didn't read.)

As far as I'm concerned, you just conceded defeat.

That's why I don't place too much stock in the concerns of people like you.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Kill me? No. Have any purpose that's of interest to me? No.

I see. So, who peed in your Cheerios?

You want to be treated with respect? Earn it.

Whether or not you treat me with respect is unimportant. I was simply making a suggestion.[/QUOTE]

A suggestion which was duly noted and the inherent worthlessness of which was then explained to you.

By the way, Hypocrisy Boy, did you really think YOUR posts were the epitome of sweet reason and non-abrasion? Oh, of course they must have been, because they were stating YOUR opinions. Right?

Oh, and linking a biased opinion site as "evidence" that your opinion is fact?

That's oxymoronic. My opinion is an opinion, and I substantiated it using evidence presented in another person's opinion (which I'm sure you didn't read.)

Interesting. Your statement was made as an assertion of fact. The only thing labeling it as your opinion was MY post. But somehow, what YOU say should require no more substantiation than for you to expound with even more assertions, even though you have the cojones to demand that others "demonstrate" THEIR assertions.

Nice double standard. Did I mention the word "hypocrisy" yet?

And no, I didn't read the other person's opinion for the reason I gave you: opinion substantiates nothing except that you think something, and I already knew that, and consider his opinion just as worthless and prejudiced as I do yours.

So like I said, I'm taking this post and the one before it as your surrender and admission that you're full of shit and don't have fact one to support anything you say. Clearly, Mr. Spencer is correct in everything he says, and THAT is why you hate him. If it were otherwise, you would have shown me evidence to that effect instead of wasting two posts trying to convince me that the only "proof" you need is that you think so.

As far as I'm concerned, you just conceded defeat.

That's why I don't place too much stock in the concerns of people like you.

But for some odd reason, you think I'm breathlessly waiting for your advice on how to make my posts more palatable to you so you'll like me. Here's a clue, Mensa Boy, for the next time you feel compelled to ask if someone can be less abrasive: Yes, I can, but I "don't place too much stock in the concerns of people like you", aka bigoted asses.

Thanks for trying. Epic fail.

 

[Avatar4321]

BALONEY

The First Law of Thermodynamics, proven with a repeatable experiment by James Prescott Joule, says essentially that you can't create something from nothing.
Biblical creation says essentially that no thing (God) created everything from nothing.

How is that not a CONFLICT?????????????????????????

It would be if it were accurate.

But Biblical creation does not say that God created everything from nothing. That was actually a late 4th-5th century doctrine developed because the Philososphers of the time thought it would make God more grand to do so. Personally, I think God is great regardless.

What Genesis teaches, when its not corrupted by the English language, is that the gods organized the earth and the heavens. Organized is a much more appropriate word because, like the Hebrew, it carries the connotations of using existing materials to build.

Matter is Eternal. It's always existed in some form or another. This is what the Bible teaches. Unfortunately, its been lost in centuries of misinterpretation and tradition.

 

[Avatar4321]

One is also the product of the ability to seek real answers, while the other is the product of giving up and just making things up.

That, of course, is false. Science can help provide real answers as well as religion.

Ive found real answers through both science and religion. And neither was the product of just giving up. Ive encouraged you to experiment on the Word so that you can learn real answers through revelation as well, but you havent seen it as a viable option yet. I have hope that you will someday though. It will open up a whole new world of understanding to you.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

That Robert Spencer is unintelligent and a prejudiced moron, or that the poster is. S'matter, you couldn't read your own sentences?

Why is Robert Spencer a prejudiced moron? His method of criticizing Islam involves taking particularly radical positions and accusing the entire religion of supporting them as if we're some sort of unthinking monolith..

No, that is a lie.
Please post the proof of your assertion.

 

[edthecynic]

BALONEY

The First Law of Thermodynamics, proven with a repeatable experiment by James Prescott Joule, says essentially that you can't create something from nothing.
Biblical creation says essentially that no thing (God) created everything from nothing.

How is that not a CONFLICT?????????????????????????

It would be if it were accurate.

But Biblical creation does not say that God created everything from nothing. That was actually a late 4th-5th century doctrine developed because the Philososphers of the time thought it would make God more grand to do so. Personally, I think God is great regardless.

What Genesis teaches, when its not corrupted by the English language, is that the gods organized the earth and the heavens. Organized is a much more appropriate word because, like the Hebrew, it carries the connotations of using existing materials to build.

Matter is Eternal. It's always existed in some form or another. This is what the Bible teaches. Unfortunately, its been lost in centuries of misinterpretation and tradition.

Chapter and verse please.

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

 

[Avatar4321]

Chapter and verse please.

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

That's pretty much it. Now what does the Hebrew actually say?

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Why is Robert Spencer a prejudiced moron? His method of criticizing Islam involves taking particularly radical positions and accusing the entire religion of supporting them as if we're some sort of unthinking monolith..

Robert Spencer replied to me after I sent him this post and the thread link.

The four schools of Sunni Islamic jurisprudence are radical and extreme?


On 7/16/09 11:08 PM, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> I have already asked for proof I would like to know if you have
> anything you would like me to say on your behalf.
>
>
>
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/81469-religion-and-t
> e
> chnology-6.html#post1346314
>
>
> Why is Robert Spencer a prejudiced moron? His method of criticizing
> Islam involves taking particularly radical positions and accusing the
> entire religion of supporting them as if we're some sort of unthinking
> monolith..
>
I will try explain his position
Jihadist use the fundamental tenants of Islamic jurisprudence to recruit and justify their acts of terrorism against disbelievers ,That these text exists within Islam it gives there argument intellectual weight and makes them convincing.

For the record these thoughts include:

The consensus on the nature of jihad from all four schools of Sunni Islamic jurisprudence (i.e., Maliki, Hanbali, Hanafi, and Shafi&#8217;i) is clear:

Ibn Abi Zayd al-Qayrawani (d. 996), Maliki jurist 1

Jihad is a precept of Divine institution. Its performance by certain individuals may dispense others from it. We Malikis [one of the four schools of Muslim jurisprudence] maintain that it is preferable not to begin hostilities with the enemy before having invited the latter to embrace the religion of Allah except where the enemy attacks first. They have the alternative of either converting to Islam or paying the poll tax (jizya), short of which war will be declared against them.

Ibn Taymiyya (d. 1328), Hanbali jurist 2

Since lawful warfare is essentially jihad and since its aim is that the religion is God&#8217;s entirely and God&#8217;s word is uppermost, therefore according to all Muslims, those who stand in the way of this aim must be fought. As for those who cannot offer resistance or cannot fight, such as women, children, monks, old people, the blind, handicapped and their likes, they shall not be killed unless they actually fight with words (e.g. by propaganda) and acts (e.g. by spying or otherwise assisting in the warfare).

From (primarily) the Hanafi school (as given in the Hidayah) 3

It is not lawful to make war upon any people who have never before been called to the faith, without previously requiring them to embrace it, because the Prophet so instructed his commanders, directing them to call the infidels to the faith, and also because the people will hence perceive that they are attacked for the sake of religion, and not for the sake of taking their property, or making slaves of their children, and on this consideration it is possible that they may be induced to agree to the call, in order to save themselves from the troubles of war&#8230; If the infidels, upon receiving the call, neither consent to it nor agree to pay capitation tax, it is then incumbent on the Muslims to call upon God for assistance, and to make war upon them, because God is the assistant of those who serve Him, and the destroyer of His enemies, the infidels, and it is necessary to implore His aid upon every occasion; the Prophet, moreover, commands us so to do.

al-Mawardi (d. 1058 ), Shafi&#8217;i jurist 4

The mushrikun [infidels] of Dar al-Harb (the arena of battle) are of two types: First, those whom the call of Islam has reached, but they have refused it and have taken up arms. The amir of the army has the option of fighting them&#8230;in accordance with what he judges to be in the best interest of the Muslims and most harmful to the mushrikun&#8230; Second, those whom the invitation to Islam has not reached, although such persons are few nowadays since Allah has made manifest the call of his Messenger&#8230;t is forbidden to&#8230;begin an attack before explaining the invitation to Islam to them, informing them of the miracles of the Prophet and making plain the proofs so as to encourage acceptance on their part; if they still refuse to accept after this, war is waged against them and they are treated as those whom the call has reached&#8230;.

In Khaldun (d. 1406), jurist (Maliki), renowned philosopher, historian, and sociologist, summarized these consensus opinions from five centuries of prior Muslim jurisprudence with regard to the uniquely Islamic institution of jihad:

In the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the [Muslim] mission and [the obligation to] convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force...The other religious groups did not have a universal mission, and the holy war was not a religious duty for them, save only for purposes of defense...Islam is under obligation to gain power over other nations.

From Jihadwatch Board member Hugh Fitzgerald

No. Islam is not monolithic. But when it comes to the attitudes toward Infidels, and the observable treatment of Infidels by Muslims, it is disturbingly monolithic enough.

Jihad Watch: Fitzgerald: Islam is not monolithic

 

[Diuretic]

Uh-oh, I hope Mr Spencer isn't litigious

 

[editec]

BALONEY

The First Law of Thermodynamics, proven with a repeatable experiment by James Prescott Joule, says essentially that you can't create something from nothing.
Biblical creation says essentially that no thing (God) created everything from nothing.

How is that not a CONFLICT?????????????????????????

It would be if it were accurate.

But Biblical creation does not say that God created everything from nothing. That was actually a late 4th-5th century doctrine developed because the Philososphers of the time thought it would make God more grand to do so. Personally, I think God is great regardless.

What Genesis teaches, when its not corrupted by the English language, is that the gods organized the earth and the heavens. Organized is a much more appropriate word because, like the Hebrew, it carries the connotations of using existing materials to build.

Matter is Eternal. It's always existed in some form or another. This is what the Bible teaches. Unfortunately, its been lost in centuries of misinterpretation and tradition.

That's a fascinating statement, Av. One which I have never heard before.

Of course, it reduces the concept of GOD from the author of existence to a mere lead player in the cosmos.

Naturally if that is true, then that GOD is not a GOD at all, but merely another creature (abiet one with enormous power) of the physical universe.

Its sort of a varient of the Chariot of the Gods theory of human development, isn't it?

I don't entirely discount that theory, BTW.

I don't subscribe to it as a truth, but I can't entirely discount the possibility that some power being or race of advanced beings has been messing with human development for thousands of years, either.

If true, that doesn't in any way address the big question of cosmology, but it certainly might explain some of the myths of mankind.

 

[JBeukema]

Avatar, can you present your evidence that 'organized' is a more accurate translation, and not merely something you wish to use to suit your purposes? Also, can you present any evidence that, prior to the 4th century CE, god was not viewed as a creator but an organizer?

Also, you realize that this makes god a natural, not a supernatural being and pretty much undermines the concept of spirits, sin, and anything related to a 'spiritual' realm, right? Since everything is ultimately made of the same thing, science can examine it all, as it is all natural. Nothing is truly unknowable and science, not any faith, is the way to find the answers.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Why is Robert Spencer a prejudiced moron? His method of criticizing Islam involves taking particularly radical positions and accusing the entire religion of supporting them as if we're some sort of unthinking monolith.

Yeah. he really sounded like moron this morning.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6SQ-LRK4sk]YouTube - Robert spencer :Summit on Radical Islam.Islam forbids the killing of innocent people[/ame]