Isn't it obvious that Microsoft makes billions upon billions of dollars by getting their OS pre-installed with the cost built in to the price of the computer? Take off your GPL-sunglasses for a bit and see the real world. Nobody would pay an extra $80 or whatever the price is these days on a $200 computer if an identical version could be had for free.
Pirates may hurt Microsoft, but clearly those billions come from somewhere.
After all, "The Slashdot Effect" can't be more than what Slashdot itself feels, and it survives fine. It's even dynamic. Does it? I've noticed several times now that occasionally the site is extremely sluggish, and it clearly seems to be a Slashdot problem.
Why should I care if the body I wake up in is made out of electronics instead of meat, so long as it feels the same way? But what does it mean when two "copies" of you exist at the same time, each having their own experiences? Is that one conscience or two? Which one did you "wake up" to?
Science and religion can coexist because they deal with different aspects of life, and many people, including myself, have no problem with this. They haven't always been separate, and the modern phenomenon is just God of the Gaps in action. In fact, there are people that believe "the scientific method is better than a literal interpretation of a metaphorical creation story written by and for people thousands of years ago" when it comes to philosophical questions, such as ethics.
I don't necessarily mean test-tube science, though some of that is possible by looking at behavior of self-organizing systems. I mean trying to reason about ethics without invoking religious texts as an authority.
I just want you to accept that reason has limitations. That there is Unknown. You are not at the point of choosing what is right in religion. Declined. I have made a choice that I have seen enough. All religions are at the level of Tooth Fairy in my eyes (Advanced Tooth Fairy, to answer your objection), and any appeal to "faith" will be rejected. I leave open the possibility something new will come along, but it will have to be radically different from what I've seen so far for me to take it seriously.
I have tried to explain why, just as you have tried to explain your position, and I'm quite sure that we are at an impasse. Anyways, it was nice talking with you, and I wish you well.
I agree with all that, but all that is for allowing some freedom of speech, not for putting it on top as an unalienable human right. That leap is your belief. It is not my belief. Realistically, we all accept some limitations on freedom of speech. The classical example is that you cannot shout fire in a crowded theater. However, we don't acccept those limitations without good reasons. Practical experience leads me to believe that religion is not a good reason to limit the speech of others.
That is just tautology. You won't accept anything on faith, because you won't accept anything on faith. I tried in my last post to explain why I do not accept faith. What should I believe on faith? The Book of Mormon? The Qur'an? The Old Testament? The New Testament? The Iliad? The Dalai Lama? Hinduism? Oracles? Witchdoctors? Horoscopes? Rain dances? Human sacrafices? The list is endless, and I have no intrinsic belief in any of them, though I have good reason to doubt all of them.
You are asking me to abandon reason and accept on faith that your particular religious story is true. You might as well ask me to believe in the Tooth Fairy.
When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
Not in Islamic Da'wah. I do not remember a single miracle at the time of the Prophet, sal Allahu 'alaihi wa sallam, that was used as an argument to non-believers. Perhaps, I haven't read the Qur'an. And yet in our discussion you already mentioned "the miraculous explosion of its spread in VII centure" as a reason for believing.
Are you asking because you are looking for answers beyond what is scientifically available to humanity now? I was asking to understand on what you base your beliefs, where you say signals for this person is Satan, and signals for you is Allah. You have answered Faith, which is the magic black box that religious people stand on when they don't have a good answer.
You have your own faith that says axiomatically that people have unalienable freedom of speech. Nope, I don't take that as a matter of faith. From practical experience, I see that people like to share their ideas. I also see that there's a lot of benefit from people sharing their ideas, and by allowing criticism and debate of ideas we gain greater insight. A powerful person surrounded by "yes men" will not have his bad ideas challenged. It's true that sometimes people can be misled, but there's no such thing as a perfect system.
that humans are judges of everything. That is your Faith. That is your religion. I would like you to be honest and to admit that. Everybody lives their life based on evidence and internal desires. I eat certain food because I believe it isn't poisonous. I use reason to figure out all kinds of things. I can see how reason has replaced superstitious beliefs and mythology, and reason explains why the superstition and mythology are there in the first place.
I have an internal desire for knowing "the meaning of life", but I won't accept one story over another based on "faith" when I can rationally describe both stories as mythology. You call that Faith. I call it not fooling myself to satisfy my desire for an answer. If I should come across a reason to believe in a higher power then I will, though based on my current experiences I don't expect to.
except that I can counter it with my Faith and its self-consistency That's a tautological self-consistency. You have accepted an ancient book as absolute truth, though this book isn't any more remarkable than other religious texts. You fit everything into that viewpoint, no matter how contorted. Your current belief says that if you stray from that belief, you should be killed and punished in Hell. You have fallen into a black hole.
For a believer, exceptions to the laws are possible, because all the laws are superficial, like Matrix laws. My point is that testimony to miracles is offered as evidence to would-be believers.
"Mormon would stand a better chance of being believed." We are talking not about chances but about a choice. Chances are unknown. The choice is there. Let's do a thought experiment. Let's say 100 kids are raised to believe the Book of Mormon, and 100 to believe the Qur'an. Then when those kids become of adult age give them the opposite teachings. If it consistently turns out that 80% (made up) keep their original belief, did all the people who chose "right" do so on their own? Or did some of them just get lucky based on their upbringing?
That's just a simplified experiment, but you can see the same idea all over the world.
"By the way, what led you to Islam?" The guidance from Allah. Superficially there were many signs, including rational rejection of a messy state of the modern collective conscience. So there was a void in your life, and you picked a religion based on the choices made available to you. Sounds logical, except how do you know those signs weren't from Satan, like you claim they were for my friend that chose Christianity?
Unfortunately, history is full of examples, when even very pious people moved away from religion. Satan is tricking us every day. There, you're doing it again! You've locked in to a belief system that says that anything that leads you away must be Satan playing tricks. I must be a tool of Satan for trying to persuade you of this. Boo!
For me failing is ending up in Hell. For you failing is keeping all you know logical. Isn't that right? What Hell? I don't know anything about it, except what different people say about it. It sounds like mythology to me. Now when you say "keeping all you know logical", do you think I'm actually denying "God" that I know in my heart to be true but not logical? For me to believe something that appears false would be failing, in the same way you wouldn't want to be tricked by "Satan". So the answer to your question is yes, but if I did believe in a hell I surely wouldn't want to be in it.
Persuasion of others in your religious way is not part of the freedom of religion in Islamic sense. Then for me your religion is corrupt at its core. It also seems that the Sunnis and Shias have no choice but to fight each other to the death.
There is no known way to deliver a message without keeping unseen what is supposed to be unseen. Delivering a message in a short period of time to everybody would be a miracle of such magnitude that will uncover the Unseen. And yet miracles are often offered as proof of the message. How can I discern which is true, the Qur'an or the Book of Mormon? If I was raised a Mormon I would likely believe that over the Qur'an. If a Mormon missionary got hold of somebody before a Islamic missionary, the Mormon would stand a better chance of being believed.
Some people base their beliefs after receiving personal "messages" from God. For example, someone told me that prayed on different religious choices and got a "signal" from God on the Christian one. Not surprisingly, he grew up in a Christian country.
Some do not receive such signals, and "intrinsically" believe. For them it's a matter of faith and if you reject your faith you "fail the test". By the way, what led you to Islam?
Some think this all sounds like people making up stuff, either through delusion or outright trickery, and demand stronger evidence to believe any particular person's beliefs.
It's in the Qur'an. I know you do not believe in it, so there is no point really of discussing existence of thousands of prophets. As for few prophets, 'alaihumussalaam, known to you from major religious texts, the existence of some of them is also confirmed historically. Yes, there's evidence of a few prophets that branched off from Judaism. There's also evidence of many, many religions that do not have anything like the monotheistic teachings of Judaism.
Remember when you said "There is nothing in life, behaviour, teachings of the Prophet Mohammad, sal Allahu 'alaihi wa sallam, that even remotely ticks of falsehood." Well if you ignore all contrarian evidence and then point to the Qur'an as proof of positive evidence, then you will never have cause to disbelieve. You'll make up increasingly complicated and implausible arguments to justify your beliefs. For you that's passing the test. For me that's failing.
Proper Da'wat _is_ perfect propaganda in this sense. That's just assuming what is under debate is true. That's what debate is for.
What is the point of knowing that alpha=1/137 if the whole world is going to end? Indeed, and this boils down to "What's the meaning of life?" What's the purpose of anything if life will end? Different religions have come to different answers. In your religion, you think belief in your religion is the meaning of life. That's rather circular. Different religions do not have this pass/fail test.
There is a difference between believing in wrong and spreading wrong to society. Do you think I should be killed for having this conversation with you? Locked up? Censored?
Could you please rephrase the question: "That what they say is beyond reproach?" For some reason I have trouble understanding what you mean by that. Certainly. What I mean is can what they say be criticized and debated? If I believe Joe Blow is a false prophet, can I say so to the believers of Joe Blow? If I decide that Joe Blow is a true prophet, but then later decide he is false prophet, can I announce my beliefs and try to persuade others?
That is external worshipping. But how you were raised has a profound effect on what you are likely to believe. Somebody raised in polytheism is more likely to believe in polytheism than somebody raised in monotheism. There are also other "theisms" that don't fit neatly into a 1 vs many category.
"Then apparently this particular message wasn't so important." That is non sequitur. Is my reasoning so hard to follow that you dismiss it so abruptly? Is the Qur'an a sacred text that contains detailed rules that Allah wants everybody to obey? Where's the evidence that this particular message was delivered to everybody around the world at all times? I see lots of evidence that it was not.
You are talking about inefficient propaganda. You can fight anything inefficient by exposing inefficiency. Is there such a thing as perfectly efficient propaganda? If it were perfectly efficient, it wouldn't be propaganda, it would be an obvious truth and there would be no need for discussion. Even ideas like the number zero or a round earth were at one time debated until they became accepted.
There is no ultimate justice in this world. I didn't ask you if there was. I asked you: Does it seem just to you that people would kill you because you don't believe what they say about religion? That what they say is beyond reproach?
The problem for you is that if you answer that you think it is not just, it conflicts with your religious beliefs, to the point you are risking your immortal soul. Is this why won't answer the question directly?
All I wanted to say that Greeks were developed enough to have a notion of a God that is above everything else and it was their choice to worship him alone or to worship their whole Olympus. It's not really much of a choice when you are raised to believe you should worship in a certain way, or be persecuted for blasphemy and risk punishment in the afterlife.
Now. Of course, there are people who might have never heard of this last message. Then apparently this particular message wasn't so important.
But they _will_ be judged on the matters of monotheism and polytheism, since the notion of a single God is universal intrinsic human nature. There's plenty of evidence against that, and you've reached the point of denying that evidence where you will dismiss people who don't display that view as non-human. It's amazing the stuff people will come up with to cling to an established belief.
Technologically, propaganda is straight or acting on subconscious level repetition of axiomatic statements, which you cannot fight using logic, you can only use your own convictions, your own system or, of course, the system that you made your own. I disagree. There are all kinds of propaganda, and it can be logically argued against. There's propaganda where people lie for their cause, and you can expose the lie. There's propaganda that doesn't make sense, and you can argue rationally against it. Certainly your own convictions and value system come into play, and that's where it's nice to have freedom of choice, and not be forced at gunpoint to agree.
Atheist or agnostic cannot predict which ideology will win, but a Muslim also does not have to, because we believe in the outcome of this competition in favor of Islam. Yeah yeah, and Christians believe their way, and so and so believes their way will "win". You never did answer my question. Does it seem just to you that people would kill you because you don't believe what they say about religion? That what they say is beyond reproach?
No, they are not compatible and I did not say that. Did they pass or fail the test then?
Prophet Mohammad, sal Allahu 'alaihi wa sallam was sent to the whole humanity. Was he sent to the ancient Greeks? How many people had access to his message even 100 years after his death? If the rules you believe in are so important, why wasn't he sent to all people at all times?
That is what I have been told for the first 30 years of my life by all the means of Soviet propaganda. How can you fight propaganda if you cannot question it? Does it seem just to you that people would kill you because you don't believe what they say about religion? That what they say is beyond reproach?
And Zeus killed his own father, and even during the time of Zeus, other Gods were worshipped. Do you really believe Muslim beliefs of today are compatible with ancient Greek mythology? Did all the people that believed in that mythology "fail the test"?
Are your beliefs important, down to how you cut your beard? And if they are, why didn't Allah give everybody the same rules? And why does Allah want us to worship him? For a being of such magnitude you'd think he wouldn't care, or have any desire to "test" us in such bizarre and inconsistent ways.
Of course, for people in power, it benefits them to demand such faith and obedience. Muhammad was not the first nor the last to claim divine connections.
The sense of One God, One Deity that is above all is intrinsic to every person. On what evidence do you base this belief? How do you explain the many cultures like ancient Greece where this belief would make you a heretic?
The obvious difference is that religion is not an established fact:) Actually I'm conversing with somebody right now who would affirm that his religion is established fact, and to openly deny the official history is a capital offense (see Satanic Verses). It's the same thinking: "My 'facts' are untouchable". And in Turkey, that a genocide did not happen is the established 'fact', and to question otherwise is a crime.
Saying or writing, "I wonder if 6 million Jews have really died in WW2" is not a crime. I'm pretty certain that if you claim only 500,000 Jews died, even without talking about Jewish conspiracy, that you would be in violation of the law in Germany.
and then go on to back this statement with a number of alleged "facts", all of which turn out to be forgeries and outright lies (and the one writing knows as much). Historians dispute all the time what is fact or forgery. To hold some facts as beyond question is wrong. It's much better to just point to the credible evidence than to lock somebody up.
If everyone gets the message, there will be no test. So, when people prayed to pagan gods, because that is how they were raised and knew nothing else, were they passing or failing the test?
Even in science logic is subservient to experiment (which might have its own logic, but could be also an accidental observation) Science says to use logic to make sense out of experience. Experiments are just a controlled way to gather experience.
I don't see much difference. I actually find the Holocaust denial laws worse, if only because the West should have a better understanding of free speech.
Since we do not want to end up in Hell we want it (that we will do) to be good as defined by the rules He has given us, and not to be bad. So, since he's all powerful, and wants us to obey, and since I think the vast majority of people would obey if they knew God was actually speaking, why did he choose a handful of prophets to speak to? Why doesn't everybody get the same message? And what about other civilizations around the globe and before the prophets? Why don't all people at all times get the the same message also?
Logic is overrated, man. It's all we have to go by. How can you decide whether to listen to this prophet, that prophet, or something else entirely? Do you really think the God preached about, if he exists, wants you to turn off your brain? Haven't you seen enough bullshit from people to make you question any claims of divine knowledge?
You seem like a smart person. Don't stop being smart because you were raised to live in fear of eternal punishment. Don't take people at their word when they claim to know the mind of God. Think for yourself.
All that I mentioned about modern Western society is defying exclusive rights of Allah. If Allah is all powerful, why does he need people who claim to know his mind to act on his behalf?
Slashdot Mirror
Isn't it obvious that Microsoft makes billions upon billions of dollars by getting their OS pre-installed with the cost built in to the price of the computer? Take off your GPL-sunglasses for a bit and see the real world. Nobody would pay an extra $80 or whatever the price is these days on a $200 computer if an identical version could be had for free.
Pirates may hurt Microsoft, but clearly those billions come from somewhere.
I can't figure out what you are trying to say. What do you mean for "the market should be free" vs "people within the market"?
*Mortal Kombat golf clap*
So, if you wanted to get from Los Angeles to New York, would you step into the booth?
I don't necessarily mean test-tube science, though some of that is possible by looking at behavior of self-organizing systems. I mean trying to reason about ethics without invoking religious texts as an authority.
I have tried to explain why, just as you have tried to explain your position, and I'm quite sure that we are at an impasse. Anyways, it was nice talking with you, and I wish you well.
You are asking me to abandon reason and accept on faith that your particular religious story is true. You might as well ask me to believe in the Tooth Fairy.
When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
I have an internal desire for knowing "the meaning of life", but I won't accept one story over another based on "faith" when I can rationally describe both stories as mythology. You call that Faith. I call it not fooling myself to satisfy my desire for an answer. If I should come across a reason to believe in a higher power then I will, though based on my current experiences I don't expect to. except that I can counter it with my Faith and its self-consistency That's a tautological self-consistency. You have accepted an ancient book as absolute truth, though this book isn't any more remarkable than other religious texts. You fit everything into that viewpoint, no matter how contorted. Your current belief says that if you stray from that belief, you should be killed and punished in Hell. You have fallen into a black hole.
That's just a simplified experiment, but you can see the same idea all over the world. "By the way, what led you to Islam?" The guidance from Allah. Superficially there were many signs, including rational rejection of a messy state of the modern collective conscience. So there was a void in your life, and you picked a religion based on the choices made available to you. Sounds logical, except how do you know those signs weren't from Satan, like you claim they were for my friend that chose Christianity? Unfortunately, history is full of examples, when even very pious people moved away from religion. Satan is tricking us every day. There, you're doing it again! You've locked in to a belief system that says that anything that leads you away must be Satan playing tricks. I must be a tool of Satan for trying to persuade you of this. Boo! For me failing is ending up in Hell. For you failing is keeping all you know logical. Isn't that right? What Hell? I don't know anything about it, except what different people say about it. It sounds like mythology to me. Now when you say "keeping all you know logical", do you think I'm actually denying "God" that I know in my heart to be true but not logical? For me to believe something that appears false would be failing, in the same way you wouldn't want to be tricked by "Satan". So the answer to your question is yes, but if I did believe in a hell I surely wouldn't want to be in it. Persuasion of others in your religious way is not part of the freedom of religion in Islamic sense. Then for me your religion is corrupt at its core. It also seems that the Sunnis and Shias have no choice but to fight each other to the death.
Some people base their beliefs after receiving personal "messages" from God. For example, someone told me that prayed on different religious choices and got a "signal" from God on the Christian one. Not surprisingly, he grew up in a Christian country.
Some do not receive such signals, and "intrinsically" believe. For them it's a matter of faith and if you reject your faith you "fail the test". By the way, what led you to Islam?
Some think this all sounds like people making up stuff, either through delusion or outright trickery, and demand stronger evidence to believe any particular person's beliefs. It's in the Qur'an. I know you do not believe in it, so there is no point really of discussing existence of thousands of prophets. As for few prophets, 'alaihumussalaam, known to you from major religious texts, the existence of some of them is also confirmed historically. Yes, there's evidence of a few prophets that branched off from Judaism. There's also evidence of many, many religions that do not have anything like the monotheistic teachings of Judaism.
Remember when you said "There is nothing in life, behaviour, teachings of the Prophet Mohammad, sal Allahu 'alaihi wa sallam, that even remotely ticks of falsehood." Well if you ignore all contrarian evidence and then point to the Qur'an as proof of positive evidence, then you will never have cause to disbelieve. You'll make up increasingly complicated and implausible arguments to justify your beliefs. For you that's passing the test. For me that's failing. Proper Da'wat _is_ perfect propaganda in this sense. That's just assuming what is under debate is true. That's what debate is for. What is the point of knowing that alpha=1/137 if the whole world is going to end? Indeed, and this boils down to "What's the meaning of life?" What's the purpose of anything if life will end? Different religions have come to different answers. In your religion, you think belief in your religion is the meaning of life. That's rather circular. Different religions do not have this pass/fail test. There is a difference between believing in wrong and spreading wrong to society. Do you think I should be killed for having this conversation with you? Locked up? Censored? Could you please rephrase the question: "That what they say is beyond reproach?" For some reason I have trouble understanding what you mean by that. Certainly. What I mean is can what they say be criticized and debated? If I believe Joe Blow is a false prophet, can I say so to the believers of Joe Blow? If I decide that Joe Blow is a true prophet, but then later decide he is false prophet, can I announce my beliefs and try to persuade others?
The problem for you is that if you answer that you think it is not just, it conflicts with your religious beliefs, to the point you are risking your immortal soul. Is this why won't answer the question directly?
And Zeus killed his own father, and even during the time of Zeus, other Gods were worshipped. Do you really believe Muslim beliefs of today are compatible with ancient Greek mythology? Did all the people that believed in that mythology "fail the test"?
Are your beliefs important, down to how you cut your beard? And if they are, why didn't Allah give everybody the same rules? And why does Allah want us to worship him? For a being of such magnitude you'd think he wouldn't care, or have any desire to "test" us in such bizarre and inconsistent ways.
Of course, for people in power, it benefits them to demand such faith and obedience. Muhammad was not the first nor the last to claim divine connections.
And the anti-blashpemy people will claim the same thing. Lies that hurt the religion. Not being able to question history is very disturbing.
I don't see much difference. I actually find the Holocaust denial laws worse, if only because the West should have a better understanding of free speech.
That and he's black.
You seem like a smart person. Don't stop being smart because you were raised to live in fear of eternal punishment. Don't take people at their word when they claim to know the mind of God. Think for yourself.