Jump to content
In the Name of God بسم الله

iDevonian

Unregistered
  • Posts

    1,306
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by iDevonian

  1. The US had to abolish slavery before even being able to manage itself, let alone become a world power. All im saying is...slavery, the way it was practiced in the US, failed...inevitably, because of its immorality. Slavery was in the US, a destabilizing practice from the start due to its immorality. People figured this out, and they ultimately got rid of it. Slavery wasnt abolished simply because of economic reasons. It was abolished for reasons relating to...morality. Even economics have close ties to innate morality. It wasnt merely for economic reasons that hitler failed, nor was it merely about wealth. In africa, people are commiting immoral acts, and in many places its a catastrophy. This is clear in their own destruction. In Palestine, or rather Israel may be the better topic...Israel in harming people, is creating enemies, that...inevitably, will hit Israel back. Israel cannot indefinitely exist if it is immorally harming those around it. Israel is, currently, and this goes for many countries in the region, they are unstable, or are being destabilized by immoral activity. You mentioned somehting like....the media is related inside germany, well...media in the US is inside the US. Media in Israel is media inside Israel. Media is specific to its people in all cases. Regardless though, it doesnt define morality of people. This is obvious. Go to germany to this day, and ask what germans actually think that the massacre of jews was good. Its pointless. Its obvious that, morality transcends random media outlets. I dont even know what the argument is anymore really ok reading back. People seem to believe that the media drives decisions on morality, rather than people driving decisions on morality and the media just mimicking that. And that something like gay marriage, is only now acceptable because some random jews said something on the news about it or something. Ill let the conversation go. I mean, the politicians or news outlets dont just make stuff up for no reason, and people dont just support it for no reason either, aside from the fact that someone said it on tv. Which can easily be seen to not be true because people often dont follow the media. The media actually follows people. The only reason fox news exists, is because people support it. The media relies on the people, not the other way around for claims. The only reason Obama provides Obamacare is because people called for it, not that he called for it. Gay marriage doesnt exist because some politician called for it, it exists because the people called for it because people dont want to oppress gays. Could anyone even fathom the idea of slavery existing in todays world? This is too complex of an issue, i throw in the white towel.
  2. Saying that I should just go do some reading, isnt really a refutation to my claim. The holocaust failed, because it...by its nature was destined to. Hitler failed, because...his wrong acts, were destined to. Right, the world, isnt going to sit back and just let some guy run around taking stuff over and mass murdering people. It doesnt matter if he has the media on his side. People, over time, come to determine, in a vague sense, what is morally right and wrong, and clearly, everyone recognized that what he was doing was wrong. Whether it was the murdering of Jews, or if it was the expansion into france, or the battles against the soviets. Regardless, you have so many opponents, that recognize his actions as immoral...because they were. It doesnt matter if the media said other wise, he failed because, mankind has the ability, and certainly does...have internal moral development, that is greater than anything any media outlet can create. I just think its silly that people think the media can define morals, when guys like hitler with mass media support ultimately got destroyed.
  3. Nations from around the world, joined together to take Hitler down, and you think that is some kind of fluke that was his fault?
  4. There was nothing stable about slavery in the US. Nothing stable about slaves trying to kill their masters hahaha. Contrary to the benefits that it may have appeared to have brought, there was nothing stabilizing about it. Ok good, and why did worldwide powers intervene? See that, it crossed international laws, built by other means that likely werent media related. The key point here is that...his movement failed. It didnt fail because Americas media was better than germanys. It failed because...the development of intellectual advances in morality had taken place, and the world joined together to go beat him up.
  5. Lets keep it simple, and we can examine Hitlers movement, which had lots of propaganda, and lots of media support. Why did he fail, if the media should have transformed people to support him?
  6. Sorry, maybe I have misunderstood your questions. I have no doubts in my beliefs. I just am clear when I say, they are my beliefs. That is what they are, beliefs. I am indeed certain of my faith and beliefs, and I am sure you are too. However, faith, and belief, it isnt the same as...knowledge. People are limited in what we know though. We have reasons to believe in things, and often, these are rational and good reasons. But what we see in the world, is that...its very easy to see. We have, a world that believes in different things. Many for example, many people, are christians, and they will say...well...I am certain of X. But then, you ask for proof and it doesnt exist. We turn to Sunnis, its the same story, we turn to shia, its the same story. Thats not to say any particular group is wrong. What it shows us though, is that, these groups are of believers, not of knowers (unless we are all knowers and nobody is truly wrong). A sunni, in our eyes, is not a knower, he is not certain of the truth of his belief, even if he or she claims they are certain of Sunni Islam. They couldnt be, because it isnt true...right? So, we have to recognize, what it is we have certainty of. When a christian says they are certain of Jesus as God.... well, what are they certain of? Are they certain of belief, or knowledge? They couldnt truly know that Jesus were God, unless it were true, so they must be, believers, not knowers. There is nothing wrong with believing in something, and what you or I believe in, may indeed be true. But I dont think I want to be the kind of Shia who says...yes, I am certain of absolute knowledge and truth in Shia Islam. Because if I did that, I would be just like the Sunni or the Christian who says...yes I am certain of yadda yadda. Rather, I choose to say, yes I am a believer, and I am certain of my belief and faith. It seems to be a more humble route, rather than simply saying that we know for a fact, that everyone is wrong and we are right :P. It has nothing to do with doubt. Alright, ill let it go, I agree that everyone is entitled to their opinions. Thats fine.
  7. No such publication, in regards to the shape of water spoken of in this topic...exists (not in any legitimate scientific journal at least). There is no publication of any study with respect to this discussion.
  8. The media influences, but ultimately, it is up to the development and evolution in people, to determine if the influence is accurate or not. Which is why guys like Hitler got their butts kicked, even though they had all the media propaganda in the world behind them. And some may say, well morals are not relative, they dont evolve. They are absolute and from Allah. Well, people still need to evolve and develop an understanding of how Allah has implemented morals. Wahabis believe that morals are absolute too, but clearly people still need to learn what that absolute is. Allah has created us in a way, in which we trive for truth, in our hearts, regardless of what some random jewish person says on tv. Nobody should ever believe that some random person in the media, is more influencial than what Allah has granted us, ourselves.
  9. People should take notice of how young mankind truly is. I mean, I could ask this question about slavery. Why were people ok with it before? But in only a matter of a couple hundred years...which equates to just a few generations, it has been abolished? Its because people, and societies as they exist today...are still young. We have much to learn about our morals, even now. Slavery was abolished due to the advance of intelligence? Intelligence and knowledge of moral decisions go hand in hand. I am confident in Mutah Kings position on this one. It is true that social media can influence change, however, moral decisions as we view them, are dependent upon beneficial changes. So the two really go hand in hand. The media cannot...for example, video games and movies in the US, for example, grand theft auto is a very popular game here in the US. But realistically, it doesnt drive people to want to go hijack a car and shoot people. Arnold swarzanegger in the terminator is one of the most popular movies around, but whens the last time a terminator fan has tried to mimic the movie? People notice media ideas, and may decide to try those ideas...however, whether or not the ideas prosper or fail, depends upon the development of the morals of the people. Which as Pure ethics mentioned, may hold relation to economics, or intelligence. All of these things are closely related. Prosporous ideas = good. Whether economically, or intellectually beneficial. One may say, well Hitler wanted to destroy all the jews, and people supported him for economic reasons, does that make it good? Well, hitler failed, so that question cant be posed. Well, The US dropping bombs in Iraq, potentially for oil related reasons may benefit the US, does that make it good? Well now we see the reprecusions, and the alterations in how government and people act. So again, the question cant be posed. However, if we look at slavery, people supported slavery for economic reasons, and it led to more hardship than good, economically, and it failed and still is gone to this day. As it will likely continue to be, for as long as we are here. Because it is a morally good and prosperous idea. In regards to gay marriage, so far, it has prospered because...well, whether or not a gay person gets married, isnt going to hurt anyone, and actually it could be argued that, by oppressing gays, the detriments could be greater than just letting them marry. Which is what this is coming down to. It has nothing to do with jewish media, its about reality. And you know...I dont understand why anyone believes that it is morally good to stop gays from being married to begin with. I mean, its easy to figure out. Just walk up to a gay person and say...no, you cant be married. Immediately you will see that it is morally wrong when you see their response. Also, and i dont know if Mutah is making this point, but the politicians...often act on behalf of the people. The reason democrats cheer for free health care, is because everyone asks them to. So the media and politicians are often following society, not necesserily the other way around. Why was gay marriage accepted in certain states? Because people who wanted to get married but couldnt, said hey...I want to get married, allow me to get married and I will vote for you. Its not that...the politician just came up with the idea out of nowhere to allow gays to be married. ill quit blabbing though lol.
  10. I dont know if Ugly Jinn is saying that X certainly did not happen, I think he is just asking for evidence that X did happen. One sec, ill take a look at what youre asking. I dont think I said anything should be discreditted. I dont know enough about the topic to even judge that. What I will say though, is that if there is a lack of evidence for something that I believe in, I wouldnt say that it were absolutely true. Because of course, without evidence, there would be no way of knowing that it certainly was true. This is something we consistently find here on SC. People speak as if they do know, but in the end, we are all, pretty much on the same boat. In this particular case, sunnis and shia.
  11. Lets look at the definition of discredit. " 1 : to refuse to accept as true or accurate : disbelieve <discredit a rumor> 2 : to cause disbelief in the accuracy or authority of <a discredited theory> 3 : to deprive of good repute : disgrace <personal attacks meant to discredit his opponent> " If something lacks evidence, then its lack of evidence could certainly be used to discredit it. If something lacks evidence, it wouldnt be a bizaar idea if someone didnt accept it, or decided not to accept it because it was not evidencially true.. Whether or not you as a person decide to discredit the idea, is up to you, but I certainly wouldnt say it is irrational to deny belief in something that you are uncertain of.
  12. hm. May I see it? Maybe it was already posted in the discussion.
  13. I think the hadith Ugly was referring to, were particular ones about Imam Ali proclaiming Imamate. Thats fine.
  14. one sec while i look over what they have said. There are a couple things I dont agree with here. , ill quote Hassans first statement first here. The problem with this approach to understanding historical events is that just because people refused to accept a particular doctrine or truth does not necessarily entail it being false. But it doesnt necessarily entail it being true either. It sounded as if, Hassan was saying...it is ok to believe that Imam Ali did proclaim Imamate (X), even if there are no hadith for it(Y), because no sunni would write such a hadith anyway (Z). Which is like a double negative. It is ok to believe in evolution of the giraffe based on the fossil succession, even though there are not many preserved vertebrate fossils, because fossils wouldnt be preserved due to bacterial decay anyway. All the person is doing is saying why evidence doesnt exist, rather than providing evidence. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  15. Some adversaries may have narrated a hadith in favor of him, because if it were true, they may simply be stating what is real. Stating what is real, is common. Though 3rd party sources could be other groups that arent adversaries as well. Groups that are not enemies nor are necesserily shia. Also, whether or not something was narrated, doesnt equate to whether or not the narrators view the material the same way. If two people see one thing, they wont necesserily have the same opinion. Well, i think people are viewing the situation...um, incorrectly. This is what someone else just said, and my response was basically...its not about disproving anything. Its about a lack of proof of something. Its that analogy I made with the pyramid. If someone puts a block down and stands on it. One person says, well, its not stable, and the other person says, well yes it is stable. The point isnt whether or not the person who said it wasnt stable, can prove that it isnt stable. Because that person isnt the one risking their safety standing on it. The point is, the person standing on the block, should know that the block is safe before standing on it. So hypothetically, if no hadith existed or we can take it to an extreme, if no evidence existed for a certain sect, then...lets look at what you said... "Non-existence = proof" Its not that non existence of evidence = proof of wrong in the topic. Non existence of evidence = no proof of the topic.
  16. Im not saying everyone is wrong. What im saying is, people have a tendency to assume they are right. As a matter of fact, the majority of people in this world do just that. So, we should be more aware of our own ideas before we assume theyre true. As for the actual analogy though, its certainly true that, many people do not really look into what they believe, critically. Also, for the response i made to that other person was actually, i think some good advice. You cant build an argument off of subjective material. Ugly Jinn was saying...well X doesnt make sense because of Y. The other guy was saying, well, Y doesnt make sense because of Z (Z being a subjective response), then the person says, because Z potentially disproves Y, I therefore have justification to believe in X. It just doesnt make sense.
  17. It depends. Believe me, If I could find a way to settle the dispute, i would. Im just a new guy though. I have much to learn before I could ever judge literature like this with full knowledge. I just know how things work, elsewhere.
  18. Well, the point isnt to demonstrate that Imam Ali may not have proclaimed his Imamate. The point is, that we dont know if he did. Assuming there are no such writings, and assuming such a thing depended on these writings. You have to...see, this is exactly what im talking about. So someone sits a piece of the pyramid down and one person says, oh its stable and they step up on it. Another person says no its not stable, u shouldnt stand on it. You cant say...oh because there is disagreement, that doesnt mean that the block is unstable...therefore we should stand on it. The point is, there is disagreement, and u shouldnt stand on it until you understand its structural integrity. I hope that makes sense. But if you have a third person who isnt bias, and that person says, oh its stable, or oh its unstable, it could bring clarity to the discussion.
  19. I always picture in my mind a pyramid. Everyone is sitting at the top of the pyramid like...yes, we are secure with our truth. Someone comes along and says, hey, your pyramid is about to fall. The people on top look down and all they see are steps beneath them, so they say...no, the pyramid is not about to fall, haha you fool, look at what you stand on, you stand on the pyramid beneath your own feet. Its so obvious that the pyramid is secure, how could u question it? But some people descend further than others and examine deeper parts of the pyramid, and descend so far that the people from up top can no longer see them, and cant understand why they are wasting their time in what they see as the abyss. But for those on top, we may never know what our pyramid stands on, if we are too...ah whats a good word? If we are too confident in our own space, to examine what is around us, with care. And we can look across the skies, and we can see people sitting on top of their pyramids too. And we can say, haha, look at them, their pyramid is going to fall, i know theirs will because ours is the only strong one. I dont even need to really look at theirs to know that. Its just so obvious. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The point is, there are always deeper darker parts of each pyramid. Third party sources act as those outside examinations that we need to critically examine our own pyramid. Because if we only examined what we stood on, we would never know what the part we stood on...stood on. If that makes sense. The reason Sunnis and Shias seem to think eachother are utter bafoons (generally speaking), is because neither group is looking past what they stand on. Neither group is seeing the true structure of their own pyramids, so they can never know which is more structurally sound. I am not familiar enough with the details of the discussion to judge anything here. oh also, um, this isnt um. How to explain. Macisaac, i see him now and again describing the same thing in his posts. In science, we rip it apart before it builds, but in the world of scripture, it can be a strange journey.
  20. ok, now i really should go lol. How is this possible? It is a sincere question that I do not know the answer to. But until we know the answer, we cant really judge.
  21. What is the Sunni response to this? I mean, if you were to talk to a sunni Sheik, what would they say? \ I think this discussion would benefit others more than me, im just messing around. Some people get a bit grumpy too, and for that, I try not to bother too much. I do think though, that people should be a bit more aware of the...the subjective nature behind scripture. Not to say that the literature is not truth, but the fact that, the human mind can truly bend and manipulate ideas, very easily. Without realizing, just what it is that they have done. Pure Ethics for example, in all respect, youre a nice guy, but in this world, with hundreds of millions of sunnis which include scholars, many very intelligent scholars, and of course just non shia in general... We should recognize that, the answers just arent as clear as some assume. A story may appear clearly defined, but these writings are structured upon themselves. Their strength comes from their own existence. Which is why 3rd party sources are important. Which is also why, I see things like um...ill quote some people. "Sure, a plethora of textual evidence can be found within early Shi`i sources." "but now wants a declaration from the Imam [as] directed towards the masses without it coming from Shi`i sources. I mean, is he serious?" ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- This is just from like...ya know, a couple posts ago. In science, this would be a big red flag. You cannot argue something as truth if only it, itself is its own souce. But ya know, dont get me wrong, I love the wrightings of Imam Ali, and thes history and lessons that can be learned from Imam Alis practices. I am not doubting the value of shia hadith either. I am just saying, logically, you would want to use more if you really want to convince others. And we shouldnt be surprised if people do not agree, if we do not provide more. I wouldnt agree with Ugly Jinn, but i wouldnt call him a fool for disagreeing.
  22. There could have been third party sources. I know whenever people talk about scriptural writings of Jesus, christians often turn to third party sources for credibility. Many would say that the event of Ghadir is not clear enough, be it due to incredibility of the literature, or the interpretation. If it were truly clear, sunnis wouldnt exist. But! ill stay out of this one.
  23. Just out of curiosity, Is there such a text? Im not sure if one was posted or not.
×
×
  • Create New...