Bend over for Islam

[divisortheory]

Yes but the word "God" and the word "Allah" mean the same thing both in concept and in name is my point. You cannot assume Allah = muslim because it isn't just as much as you can't assume God = jewish.

Point too I don't believe the Bishop is right in doing what he's doing because 1. it's making a bigger deal out of nothing. 2. He's just feeding into the idea to the ignorant that if someone uses the word Allah they must be muslim which just isn't true.

My name is not "Human". If you walked up and called me a human you would be correct, but if you walked up and said "Hey, Human come here for a second" it would not be correct. Like I said, the issue with 'god' and 'allah' is that they are both the 'human' and the 'frank' (my name isn't really frank, btw). Syntactically, when you say in english "I worship Allah" it parses as "I worship the thing whose name is the sequence of 5 letters a-l-l-a-h". It does not parse as "I worship the thing that is the Allah". The second would be acceptable, albeit slightly awkward. The first is not acceptable, because Christians worship the thing whose name is the sequence of 3 letters g-o-d.

[Sasarai]

Let people call God what they want. Forcing world faiths to recognise the monotheistic deity as "Allah" is border line stupid and ignorant of that Bishop though. Especially when you consider Jews call him HaShem (the name) as opposed to God in the first place.

[Neosutra]

The most embarrassing part of being atheist, is when another atheist preaches atheism just like the people who believe in something.

For me, atheism is good because I don't have to believe in anything, and I can just ignore everything else and all the made up stories everyone else believes. But when there's "atheist extremists" waddling around calling anyone who has a religion stupid, it makes me look just as bad as them.

Im not calling anyone that beleives in religion stupid. I dont care what people beleive or do with their life. The problem I have is when people use their religion to justify killing/bigotry and denial of basic scientific facts. I have many friends(most) that are religious and its never and will never be a problem. When i was deployed with my army unit, I think I was the only atheist in about 120 soldiers. Did I think even one of them was stupid or ignorant? Hell no. I stood right beside them and respected their opinions.

What I am speaking out about, and looking down upon, is people that kill in the name of peaceful religions, and actively attempt to squal scienctific education. I dont think any of the founders of any world religion intended for them to be as they are now.

But I would have to agree with you, extreme atheists can be just as bad as extreme religious people. When your extreme anything your views arent very open minded.

[Izzy]

The most embarrassing part of being atheist, is when another atheist preaches atheism just like the people who believe in something.

For me, atheism is good because I don't have to believe in anything, and I can just ignore everything else and all the made up stories everyone else believes. But when there's "atheist extremists" waddling around calling anyone who has a religion stupid, it makes me look just as bad as them.

Im not calling anyone that beleives in religion stupid. I dont care what people beleive or do with their life. The problem I have is when people use their religion to justify killing/bigotry and denial of basic scientific facts. I have many friends(most) that are religious and its never and will never be a problem. When i was deployed with my army unit, I think I was the only atheist in about 120 soldiers. Did I think even one of them was stupid or ignorant? Hell no. I stood right beside them and respected their opinions.

What I am speaking out about, and looking down upon, is people that kill in the name of peaceful religions, and actively attempt to squal scienctific education. I dont think any of the founders of any world religion intended for them to be as they are now.

But I would have to agree with you, extreme atheists can be just as bad as extreme religious people. When your extreme anything your views arent very open minded.

So we agree, any extremist, is a bad extremist hahaha.

[MF Perm]

The most embarrassing part of being atheist, is when another atheist preaches atheism just like the people who believe in something.

For me, atheism is good because I don't have to believe in anything, and I can just ignore everything else and all the made up stories everyone else believes. But when there's "atheist extremists" waddling around calling anyone who has a religion stupid, it makes me look just as bad as them.

Im not calling anyone that beleives in religion stupid. I dont care what people beleive or do with their life. The problem I have is when people use their religion to justify killing/bigotry and denial of basic scientific facts. I have many friends(most) that are religious and its never and will never be a problem. When i was deployed with my army unit, I think I was the only atheist in about 120 soldiers. Did I think even one of them was stupid or ignorant? Hell no. I stood right beside them and respected their opinions.

What I am speaking out about, and looking down upon, is people that kill in the name of peaceful religions, and actively attempt to squal scienctific education. I dont think any of the founders of any world religion intended for them to be as they are now.

But I would have to agree with you, extreme atheists can be just as bad as extreme religious people. When your extreme anything your views arent very open minded.

So we agree, any extremist, is a bad extremist hahaha.

The most difficult part of any belief system is being able to be objective enough to understand that every human being has a basic right to believe what they want regardless of your opinion on the matter. The social complexities and tensions just happen to be derived from the actions people decide to take based on their belief, where your basic rights come into conflict with anothers basic rights in practice.

That's the big riddle everyone faces, how do you get so many different beliefs that think they're "right" and their followers who for the most part ( ego aside but that's a whole other issue ) genuinely feel that anyone outside of their belief system is damned in one way or another; to acknowledge that they themselves could possibly be wrong, and strive to understand without an ultimate stance.

The problem with atheists is that they are the exact opposite of theists. They choose not to believe because the words and edicts of what man has created as higher being do not prove to be true through logic and reason. It's the exact opposite and the exact same line of thought all at once. An ultimate stance on an issue than cannot be proven either way, based solely on the fallacy and ego of man.

I guess the best way everyone could put it is to say "I don't know." I know I've made anti-religion arguments on here, and really my only beef with religion is the assigning of human traits to something that supposedly created everything, which in my opinion is absolutely ludicrous. But I also think completely ruling out the idea of any sort of sentient creative force outside of our understanding is ludicrous as well. But of course that could just be my ego not accepting that at some point I will just cease to exist any longer. QUITE THE CONUNDRUM EH?

[Ksandra]

Yes but the word "God" and the word "Allah" mean the same thing both in concept and in name is my point. You cannot assume Allah = muslim because it isn't just as much as you can't assume God = jewish.

Point too I don't believe the Bishop is right in doing what he's doing because 1. it's making a bigger deal out of nothing. 2. He's just feeding into the idea to the ignorant that if someone uses the word Allah they must be muslim which just isn't true.

My name is not "Human". If you walked up and called me a human you would be correct, but if you walked up and said "Hey, Human come here for a second" it would not be correct. Like I said, the issue with 'god' and 'allah' is that they are both the 'human' and the 'frank' (my name isn't really frank, btw). Syntactically, when you say in english "I worship Allah" it parses as "I worship the thing whose name is the sequence of 5 letters a-l-l-a-h". It does not parse as "I worship the thing that is the Allah". The second would be acceptable, albeit slightly awkward. The first is not acceptable, because Christians worship the thing whose name is the sequence of 3 letters g-o-d.

No you are still incorrect. I don't know how else to explain it. So I'll try one last thing and then I give up if you won't get it you won't get it.

english word for a feline = cat

Spanish word for a feline = gato

Even though english call it cat and Spanish call it gato they are the same.

Allah is the Arabic word for God just as much as gato is the Spanish word for cat. That's all I'm trying to say lol I can't understand how it's that hard for you to grasp.

When Spanish people speak spanglish (as annoying as it can be sometimes) if they say "si, I would like a burger" they are saying "yes" just in a different language. It's the same if I were to say "I pray to Allah" = "I pray to God" 'cause those sentences are interchangable just switching an Arabic word and an English word.

On a side note :

but if you walked up and said "Hey, Human come here for a second" it would not be correct.

That sentence, while not used often, is infact a correct statement you can make to a person because a human is what they are. Any English teach can tell you that. So that's a bad example. It would be the same as someone shouting "hey blondie what's going on?"

[Charla]

On the other hand, if the same word exists in both languages, it can still mean different things. The easiest example I can think of right now is the word otaku. I know what you mean, but it's really just a semantic issue at that point. And either way, it doesn't change the basic issues involved, largely because people wouldn't normally take the time to think about it in those terms.

[Ksandra]

On the other hand, if the same word exists in both languages, it can still mean different things. The easiest example I can think of right now is the word otaku. I know what you mean, but it's really just a semantic issue at that point. And either way, it doesn't change the basic issues involved, largely because people wouldn't normally take the time to think about it in those terms.

This is very true, only reason why I brought it up is because of, again, ignorance. Most Americans when they hear the word "Allah" assume Muslim and I just wanted to correct that way of thinking because that's simply not true. Then it got all confused. XD

[Jimmayus]

Regardless of whether or not Allah means God in Arabic or not, you're still looking at a population who associate the word with Islam, and of course they are not wrong for believing as such (since, surprise, a great majority of Muslims use Allah in whatever language they happen to be speaking). However, that means that they will be averse to associating the Christian iteration with the Muslim iteration, even though there is technically no problem with using the words interchangeably.

If Allah is just Arabic for God, what is the point in making it official? Why not just use whatever 'God' happens to be in the language you are speaking in.

[divisortheory]

No you are still incorrect. I don't know how else to explain it. So I'll try one last thing and then I give up if you won't get it you won't get it.

english word for a feline = cat

Spanish word for a feline = gato

Even though english call it cat and Spanish call it gato they are the same.

Allah is the Arabic word for God just as much as gato is the Spanish word for cat. That's all I'm trying to say lol I can't understand how it's that hard for you to grasp.

I'm not incorrect and I do get it, as I mentioned previously. I understand that allah means god in English. I get it. I understand that god means allah in Arabic. I get it.

What you seem to be blind to is that you call people and/or entities by their names. Why do you think it's capitalized? It's a proper noun. Allah is not the name of the christian god, and God is not the name of the Muslim god, no matter what the words mean.

What you're saying is that if two words mean the same thing in two different languages, you can call a person named that word either one, which is idiotic. If my name is "Bill", and I find out the Japanese word for Bill is "daikin", I wouldn't expect Japanese people to start calling me Daikin. That's fucking retarded, my name is B I L L

[Ksandra]

No you are still incorrect. I don't know how else to explain it. So I'll try one last thing and then I give up if you won't get it you won't get it.

english word for a feline = cat

Spanish word for a feline = gato

Even though english call it cat and Spanish call it gato they are the same.

Allah is the Arabic word for God just as much as gato is the Spanish word for cat. That's all I'm trying to say lol I can't understand how it's that hard for you to grasp.

I'm not incorrect and I do get it, as I mentioned previously. I understand that allah means god in English. I get it. I understand that god means allah in Arabic. I get it.

What you seem to be blind to is that you call people and/or entities by their names. Why do you think it's capitalized? It's a proper noun. Allah is not the name of the christian god, and God is not the name of the Muslim god, no matter what the words mean.

What you're saying is that if two words mean the same thing in two different languages, you can call a person named that word either one, which is idiotic. If my name is "Bill", and I find out the Japanese word for Bill is "daikin", I wouldn't expect Japanese people to start calling me Daikin. That's fucking retarded, my name is B I L L

Except Allah is a name for the Christian God which was my point. ;_;

Again though I don't think it shoul dhave to change or anything but still again Allah =/= muslim onry. As long as some people learn this then I'm happy. XD

[quannum]

the problem is that the muslim allah and the xtian god are not ontologically equivalent. jesus is just a prophet in one, he's 100% god, 100% human in the other. xtian god holds you responsible for adam/eve's original sin, muslim allah doesn't.

and what's this dumb shit about atheist extremists? calling a christian a retard doesn't make you an extremist. guess what? logic, rationality and the scientific method works. prayer doesn't. if 50% of the world thought the world was flat and 50% thought it was more or less spherical ... guess what? there is a correct answer.

[Blarg]

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think i read/heard the muslim god and the christian god really are the same god, but muslims believe that the first 2 books, being old testament and new testament, were corrupted and changed by man and aren't the true wishes and feelings of god. The Koran is the inerrant book that details the exact will and thoughts of god that was not changed by man. So same God, but the views and ideas of that god are different because man changed the first 2 books for selfish reasons.

[Jimmayus]

Therefore, they are different gods because Christians and Jews would verily be worshiping a perversion of a 'correct' ideal.

In response to above

[Blarg]

Therefore, they are different gods because Christians and Jews would verily be worshiping a perversion of a 'correct' ideal.

In response to above

It's kinda like half of their God is the same person/being and the other half is completely different. Depending on your viewpoint that may make them different Gods with similarities, or the same god with some differences.

[Zetanio]

the problem is that the muslim allah and the xtian god are not ontologically equivalent. jesus is just a prophet in one, he's 100% god, 100% human in the other. xtian god holds you responsible for adam/eve's original sin, muslim allah doesn't.

and what's this dumb shit about atheist extremists? calling a christian a retard doesn't make you an extremist. guess what? logic, rationality and the scientific method works. prayer doesn't. if 50% of the world thought the world was flat and 50% thought it was more or less spherical ... guess what? there is a correct answer.

Downplaying people's beliefs to satisfy your own crude analogy makes everything better right? Basic beliefs of most religions are in the same ballpark. Don't kill, don't steal, don't try to pork your neighbor's wife and all that jazz. Most modern religions are amalgamation of earlier beliefs and values. I mean the basic one is that Jesus was born in March/April. Why the hell do we celebrate his birth in December??? What else happens at the end of December? The Winter Solstice, a large pagan holiday dating back wayyy before christianity. I'm a lapsed Catholic and a firm believer in Sciences but why in Yin's name would you really care so much what other people think? It is absolutely none of your business to judge people based on their beliefs because they were brought up differently then you and probably don't share your "values." Being athiest is fine, agnostic is fine, Jewish/Christian/Muslim/Buddhist and everything else is fine until you start imposing your views on others. Then you become a self-righteous asshole.

/rant

[Neosutra]

the problem is that the muslim allah and the xtian god are not ontologically equivalent. jesus is just a prophet in one, he's 100% god, 100% human in the other. xtian god holds you responsible for adam/eve's original sin, muslim allah doesn't.

and what's this dumb shit about atheist extremists? calling a christian a retard doesn't make you an extremist. guess what? logic, rationality and the scientific method works. prayer doesn't. if 50% of the world thought the world was flat and 50% thought it was more or less spherical ... guess what? there is a correct answer.

Well apparently we arent allowed to say there is a scientifically correct answer that is based on evidence and reason, because that is thus saying that all religions are wrong. And if we say that all religions are wrong, then obviously we are saying that religious people cannot grasp basic scientific concepts, or are so eveloped into their religious teachings, that all other answers for the world are out of reach. Thus even though reason, logic, science, history, and all evidence is on the side of the athiest, we cannot actually say "we are right", else be doomed to offend the rest of the planet.

Its the paradox.

Contrary to what people like to think, there is a correct answer to the age old argument. There is also mountains of evidence. The problem with the discussion is that any religion can simply choose to "not beleive" scientifically founded, peer reviewed, reproducable experiments, regardless of how "right" it is.

I would also disagree with calling any atheist whom expresses thoughts on religions (albeit bad thoughts) to be an extremist, when those thoughts are expressed IN a religious discussion on a public forum. There is a big difference between discussing something on a forum, and going out on the street and killing people for their religion or treating them badly.

But apparently:
Atheist extremist: Says religion is wrong, and there is no god, in a religious debate on the internet.
Religious extremist: Kills everyone that doesnt beleive.

Somehow atheists extremist are "just as bad."

The internet is apparently serious business.

[Izzy]

But apparently:
Atheist extremist: Says religion is wrong, and there is no god, in a religious debate on the internet.
Religious extremist: Kills everyone that doesnt beleive.

Somehow atheists extremist are "just as bad."

The internet is apparently serious business.

hahaahha

Totally agree.

[MF Perm]

the problem is that the muslim allah and the xtian god are not ontologically equivalent. jesus is just a prophet in one, he's 100% god, 100% human in the other. xtian god holds you responsible for adam/eve's original sin, muslim allah doesn't.

and what's this dumb shit about atheist extremists? calling a christian a retard doesn't make you an extremist. guess what? logic, rationality and the scientific method works. prayer doesn't. if 50% of the world thought the world was flat and 50% thought it was more or less spherical ... guess what? there is a correct answer.

Well apparently we arent allowed to say there is a scientifically correct answer that is based on evidence and reason, because that is thus saying that all religions are wrong. And if we say that all religions are wrong, then obviously we are saying that religious people cannot grasp basic scientific concepts, or are so eveloped into their religious teachings, that all other answers for the world are out of reach. Thus even though reason, logic, science, history, and all evidence is on the side of the athiest, we cannot actually say "we are right", else be doomed to offend the rest of the planet.

Its the paradox.

Contrary to what people like to think, there is a correct answer to the age old argument. There is also mountains of evidence. The problem with the discussion is that any religion can simply choose to "not beleive" scientifically founded, peer reviewed, reproducable experiments, regardless of how "right" it is.

I would also disagree with calling any atheist whom expresses thoughts on religions (albeit bad thoughts) to be an extremist, when those thoughts are expressed IN a religious discussion on a public forum. There is a big difference between discussing something on a forum, and going out on the street and killing people for their religion or treating them badly.

But apparently:
Atheist extremist: Says religion is wrong, and there is no god, in a religious debate on the internet.
Religious extremist: Kills everyone that doesnt beleive.

Somehow atheists extremist are "just as bad."

The internet is apparently serious business.

I hate to shit on this parade, but it was you and Izzy that brought up and elaborated on the meaning of / phrase "atheist extremist." Are you disagreeing with yourselves in the same thread? lol


Joking aside, maybe instead of extremist you should have used the word "evangelist" to describe atheists that constantly try to recruit others to the cause. But again, the problem is everyone thinks they're right and just wants to "help." The only difference between that fight of religion and atheism is that ( organized ) religion profits monetarily from having more members, and society profits in reason and logic when there are more atheists / agnostics. But both sides have people that use either / or to brace their ego as condition to give them the "upper hand" against some imagined idealogical nemesis.

[Izzy]

the problem is that the muslim allah and the xtian god are not ontologically equivalent. jesus is just a prophet in one, he's 100% god, 100% human in the other. xtian god holds you responsible for adam/eve's original sin, muslim allah doesn't.

and what's this dumb shit about atheist extremists? calling a christian a retard doesn't make you an extremist. guess what? logic, rationality and the scientific method works. prayer doesn't. if 50% of the world thought the world was flat and 50% thought it was more or less spherical ... guess what? there is a correct answer.

Well apparently we arent allowed to say there is a scientifically correct answer that is based on evidence and reason, because that is thus saying that all religions are wrong. And if we say that all religions are wrong, then obviously we are saying that religious people cannot grasp basic scientific concepts, or are so eveloped into their religious teachings, that all other answers for the world are out of reach. Thus even though reason, logic, science, history, and all evidence is on the side of the athiest, we cannot actually say "we are right", else be doomed to offend the rest of the planet.

Its the paradox.

Contrary to what people like to think, there is a correct answer to the age old argument. There is also mountains of evidence. The problem with the discussion is that any religion can simply choose to "not beleive" scientifically founded, peer reviewed, reproducable experiments, regardless of how "right" it is.

I would also disagree with calling any atheist whom expresses thoughts on religions (albeit bad thoughts) to be an extremist, when those thoughts are expressed IN a religious discussion on a public forum. There is a big difference between discussing something on a forum, and going out on the street and killing people for their religion or treating them badly.

But apparently:
Atheist extremist: Says religion is wrong, and there is no god, in a religious debate on the internet.
Religious extremist: Kills everyone that doesnt beleive.

Somehow atheists extremist are "just as bad."

The internet is apparently serious business.

I hate to shit on this parade, but it was you and Izzy that brought up and elaborated on the meaning of / phrase "atheist extremist." Are you disagreeing with yourselves in the same thread? lol


Joking aside, maybe instead of extremist you should have used the word "evangelist" to describe atheists that constantly try to recruit others to the cause. But again, the problem is everyone thinks they're right and just wants to "help." The only difference between that fight of religion and atheism is that ( organized ) religion profits monetarily from having more members, and society profits in reason and logic when there are more atheists / agnostics. But both sides have people that use either / or to brace their ego as condition to give them the "upper hand" against some imagined idealogical nemesis.

Your statement confuses me? I've posted like 2 times with lol or haha or agreed.