Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله


Advanced Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Jubei

  • Rank
    Permanently banned
  • Birthday 02/28/2004

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Location

Previous Fields

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

1,072 profile views

    how r u?




    HAPPY B'DAY 2 U...



  2. Firstly, what? Or rather what?. By definition a cause must occur before or at the same time as the effect. If time itself does not exist, then "cause" is undefined and so the concept does not exist, is probably what the guy was getting at. Not the fact that me eating chicken a 4pm is not as valid as me eating chicken at 5pm. Not sure why you were led to believe that. Tricks like quantum fluctuations I presume?
  3. Because nothing that humans do is ever absolute. Morality, or the reasoning behind it is not a science. It is an art and so absolute morality can not exist. Exactly. Feelings are not absolute, and the lack of absolute feelings is not evidence of lack of intrinsic feelings (our feelings are not drummed in to us, entirely by society). If the descriptive term is vague, then so is the description. That is what I meant. It is the usage of the noun in an absolute way clouds the lack of understanding we have on the topic. Morality is too complex a system to be labelled such. But pluto is not a vague human notion that can not be pinned with scientific accuracy. It exists only in the description of it, and the description is the justification. If we go by the definition that morality is the difference between what is right and what is wrong, then the difference is a descriptive term, which is a justification.Morality does not exist on its own. It is like appreciating a painting, it requires justification to have a meaning. Unfortunately the term drift has been taken and given a meaning I didn't want it to have. It is more like a drifting car on ice. It is naive to think it is not directed, but also to think that it is controlled. The largest controlling factor is simply human group behaviour. Homosexuality makes a lot of noise, it becomes morally acceptable. It then drifts out of favour as people get more conservative, then becomes morally unacceptable. It then makes more noise and group polarity makes it morally acceptable again. It reminds me of something that is drifting, hence the use of the word drift. No, it is intrinsic because we have an ability to make morals. In the same way emotions are considered intrinsic because we have them from birth. They are still highly impressionable, but their capacity exists, and so is intrinsic. Language is the same, and morality falls under the same category. When I say morality, don't forget I am not talking absolute morality. But it is also silly to learn nothing from a repeated event in history. Rigid morality has been imposed in the same way many times over and I would dispute that fundamentalism of this kind has ever worked. In fact I would dispute this strongly. The argument that we wouldn't be here today if we believe that things that haven't worked won't work is a moot point. People just try a different approach. Rigid moral imposition is a singular approach. I don't understand. Something given by God is intrinsic. Again I don't understand. Animals have morals, we just don't call it that because we fail to understand what morals are, and hence label the whole emotional concept as morality and forget to label an animal term at all. And improvement does not exist. It is preferred existence. Monkeys are not an improvement over velociraptors. Morality in the same way changes, but does not improve (unless you believe in a messiah, in which case, improvement can not be measured until the messiah comes and we have a yard stick to measure it against). Who should I know? There is nothing to measure it against. I can not go back in time and look at the morality of prophets, nor go forward in time to look at the morality of messiahs to tell if we are close. It is futile to put markings on a mercury thermometer if you don't know any absolute temperatures to relate to.
  4. Not wanting to butt in, this post should stand independent of whatever argument is going on at the moment, but I have quoted the below because it is convenient as a starting point. Morality isn't as simple as you are making it out to be. The history of human morals is not absolute, but it is not evidence for a lack of intrinsic morality. The problem is the overarching definition of the word morality. It implies absolutism by the mere fact that it has been given a noun. This is a direct religious definition of a vague concept, which has snuck in to secular language and regardless of how careful you are in your use, it still carries absolute connotations. This is exemplified in the quote: .......there are enough examples where liars and theives do think they are doing something morall by their actions that it really doesn't matter how many times they know they aren't. Justification is a smokescreen..... The justification is the moral. Or rather the result of the thought that went in to the action, which if viewed favourably by the perpetrator is morally positive. "Lying is wrong" can never been morally wrong by itself because lying does not describe the situation and the event (but you already know this). The creation of morality and the labelling of it such was due to a poor understanding of what it actually is and promoted by hardcore moral absolutists. But it would also be wrong to consider this in itself as morality, as there are other variables that effect it. Societal morality must also be considered, which is effected by "Moral drift". "Moral drift" is self explanatory and self evident and the cause of the schism between early Islamic morality and current ones. (And the cause of this thread) When considering the evolution of morality, it largely drifts until it reaches something which is completely different (say a "prophet"), in which case the possibility of a paradigm shift exists, eg. Arabia pre and post Islam. It is not an absolute shift either as it is assaulted immediately by local culture and drifts back in to an equilibrium, albeit shifted towards the side of the initial change. Consider the evolution of Arabian morality to the hight of the Arabian empire, which you will agree is more than a little soaked in pre Islamic Arabian culture (due to the fact that Islam never managed to eliminate it along with the cultural absorption that the empire participated in). The direction of the drift is easily manipulated and it would be wrong to say that it's equilibrium is "roughly intrinsic morality". Group polarity over many years tends to make this the reason why and is probably responsible for moral low notes that people use to argue against intrinsic morality. Intrinsic human morality is evident simply by the capacity for morality at whatever stage it may be. Outside factors, such as religious morality attempt to confine societal morality, but are simply based on pre-existing human tendencies (which morality can naturally drift to on occasion). This is clear from the easy but gradual adoption of conflicting morality from different religious sources and the impressionability of the human sense of justice. (stoning people for adultery can be seen as both intrinsically morally correct and not correct and labelling one as a corruption of thought is a popular way of eliminating the paradox, but regardless, the capacity for corruption proves my point). In order to eliminate complete polarity which leads to rapid decline of societal structure (and could be called a moral low point), it makes sense to create something along the lines of a human rights charter. The charter must obviously be able to withstand cultural bombardment as well as moral drift and hence must be basic to the point that it is unobtrusive. Something that the 10 commandments fail at incidentally. This would ensure that drift could occur and that the variations in human personal and cultural morality can be incorporated, without forcing a shift (which invariably leads to war). ------------- If you accept the view of moral absolutism, then religious moral laws are a cage and morality is directly a result of the whims of God (I think I took this stance on a previous post in this thread). This is fundamentalism and ignores the natural tendency for moral drift. Because of this and its lack of cultural compatibility, it is an inherently weak view, which is why it is always difficult to adopt and subject to change (leads to the notion that God changes his mind). It has never in the history of humanity worked, but this is what people think of when they hear the word "moral" and the reason why I think using the word can be misleading. Religious moral relativism (I hope you understand why this is not a contradiction) would effectively create a skeleton and so takes in to account cultural morality and moral drift. A change in morality is not viewed as God changing his mind, rather God accepting that humans have been given the capacity for independent moral thought, but providing rigid guidance, around which humans can naturally flex. Humans have been given an intrinsic morality, which has given the ability to evolve and improve independently of God. I consider this strong as evident by its ease of adoption and does not beg the question of God's abandonment of the human race (among other things). Humans have been given the capacity to reach perfection. I can see how some Muslims do not like the idea of polygamy.
  5. Please post here instead. It is an active thread so no need to necro!
  6. You are responsible for your actions, not your dispositions. The state has no right to interfere unless your actions breach the rights of others to a level that is generally held to be wrong. Now that I think about it, religion has a much greater tendency to ban things (or promote things) that it believes may cause people to do wrong (right). Music, alcohol, veils, all to do with trying to prevent sin that is deemed "likely" to occur. No definitives seen here. (Just an observation)
  7. I get the feeling he is slightly more than disliked by some. I gather from the above, for political reasons? Some people seem to hate his religious stance (hate is a good word). Where does that put him in your eyes on the Muslim scale. I am guessing you would consider him a muslim. You would consider him shia. You would consider him highly educated in Islam? You would consider that his views, while different, are accepted by mainstream clerics? You follow said clerics? Obviously people disagree with one of those, unless what abdullah said is perfectly correct. I want the opinion of more people.
  8. I have found out enough to know that Amir is correct in that his relationship with Khomeini was excellent, despite having conflicting views. It seems to me that Khomeini was much more liberal in his interpretation of Islam than Iranian hard-liners today, as in, he acknowledged conflicting views as a legitimate interpretation, which is something that is largely rejected in the current regime. Which leads me to believe that the only reason for his continued political position is due to his obvious ties with Khomeini. If his ideas were viewed as outlandish as they do to the persian shah (and many other people I have spoken too, albeit outside Iran), would he not be removed already for his religious views rather than his political ones? That would allow the regime to get rid of political opposition at the same time. Especially considering his obvious religious disagreements with the supreme leader. They don't, so his Islamic views must either be legitimate or his ties with Khomeini is making up for it. Or maybe it is public pressure keeping him in office? I would very much like the opinion of more people about his Islamic views. He is considered legitimate by Khomeini by proxy considering his political position, so why do people still disagree?
  9. Thanks! Feel free to merge or delete this.
  10. During my research I have stumbled upon the Grand Ayatullah Saanei. Does anyone have any information on this man. Preferably something other than his wikipedia page, which is lacking, and his website, which sucks. Also I do not speak persian very well, so English would be appreciated. On top of that, could anyone answer some of these questions: Where does he stand in the eyes of the more prominent Ayatullah's (Khamenai, Sistani etc.)? What are his political leanings, especially with regards to the current Iranian political climate? What is his general level of respect in the eyes of Shia Muslims (how well known is he, for example)? What is the extent of his English language publications? cheers. (by the way, I tried searching the boards, but the search function does not work)
  11. What if there is a creation machine that god uses to get stuff done. The machine creates stuff and it is run by an operator that is god minus the ability to create. The machine was never made and can never be destroyed and exists outside of time and space. It only takes input from god, but is a separate entity from god. From the outside, god using his creation machine are the regular definition of God, but they are two separate entities, neither of them being God by themselves (the man can't create and the machine has no thought behind it). God is a collection of the two. Now say each attribute of God is another individual machine and the result is put together by a man in a hat. All of the machines combined with the man in the hat is God, but none of the parts themselves can be god because they are not complete in themselves. -------------- Looking at the situation from our point of view, all we (not literally "we" but I mean religious people who claim to see god) see is one God. Whether in actuality there is man with a machine, we can never know, nor will there be any actual difference. One God and a man with a machine are exactly the same thing and are exactly the same as two gods and are exactly the same as a million. -------------- The only leap of faith required is to believe that anything exists outside space and time that is actually meaningful. Whether that is one God or a million, only your religion can tell you, but it makes no difference really.
  12. Really? Then I say the universe doesn't have a cause. Bye bye to your way of thinking. -------------- Islam didn't fight its way through a thousand years of science and research just to get to a time when people give up and blame God.
  13. I think you are misusing the word natural. Maybe you are misunderstanding the way these things work? Just because some is natural, does not mean it is useful in any way. Just because something is detrimental, does not mean it is not natural. Evolution creates some random [Edited Out] sometimes. As long as it does not lead to complete annihilation for the entire species, it is acceptable. Being gay is one of those random bits of [Edited Out] that evolution throws our way. Being gay is perfectly natural and normal. Men have been attracted to men since the dawn of time and women likewise. Maybe society has promoted it a bit over the millennia, but it doesn't negate the fact that intrinsic homosexual attraction exists independent of social order. Islam says jack all about it. What Islam/Christianity does however say, is that bumming another man is forbidden. Why? who knows. Just another one of those things you must take blindly.
  14. According to Islam, every "people" had a prophet starting with Adam. This implies that Islam had representation everywhere and so no one was without a message of the one God (not necessary Islam, but whatever they had at the time). This means that the argument of ignorance does not exist. Therefore in answer to the original question, Atheists are going to hell. All of them. There is no excuse once ignorance has gone. They are not in the unique position of being one of the religion of Abraham or a corruption of one, they are grouped with the polytheists and idol worshippers. Of course that is how it was until recently. Nowadays, I guess there are some people who call themselves Muslim who would vehemently disagree with this, making loopholes and bending rules. Not to say that they might not be correct. I'm just the messenger.
  15. I have not heard that it has been revoked. From what I remember on the topic, as people claim Islam is more than a religion and in the setting up of an Islamic state Islam naturally evolves in to much more, leading to the idea that apostasy is the equivalent to treason, which is punishable by death. There is no religious compulsion for people who are not Muslim, but should you already be Muslim or were born in to a Muslim family, then you're screwed.... (if you happen to live in a muslim country that punishes apostasy by death and you happen to be silly enough to apostasise in public)
  • Create New...