Can Religious Leaders Redeem the Future of the World?

Re: # 89

urstruly,

.... you can blaspheme the US as long as you don't collect welfare, ssi, medicaid, student loans or live in state subsidized housing ... just as i can blaspheme the prophet and his camel (pbu them) because i don't want anything from them ...... if i started praying to them and started asking for 70 virgins and whatnot, then i would be totally out of line ... wouldn't i ?

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

I apologize for blaspheming US and if it has hurt anyone's feeling, but aren't you the two testicles who defend people's right to blaspheme anyone or anything all the time. What gives?

Re: # 85

GT,

.... look there is a fundamental difference between me and urstruly: i am willing to let him bang his head on the floor ten times a day, not drink if he doesn't want to, grow a beard, go to bed with four women and a sheep, return his interest payments to the bank and practice all the silliness of his religion as long as i can have a drink when i want to ......... that's all i want in addition to free markets, democracy and the playboy channel ......... i don't want to kill him or convert him or anything of the sort ........

....... on top of that, i am not willing to die for my cause either - i will move to china and join the communist party if i think that the forces of al-lah are going to overrun the land of the free ........ i am not that brave ..... shit! worse come to worse i will even convert back to islam ... unlike urstruly, i love life .... of course, if other people are willing to die for my cause i will write them a check like i do every april 15th ..........

GT: and to add to #86, I should say cheers, my friend. No personal offense intended or taken, and appreciate your making the effort to make that clear. We dont have to agree on everything, nor will the earth stop spinning or galaxies start colliding as a result. ;-)

GT: Thanks for taking the time to explain (not that you owe me any explanations, of course) your views, since it does clarify what you meant.

On the question of urstruly's honesty, we obviously will have to agree to disagree. He is no doubt honest about "seeking peace at his own terms". But he is not honest when you look at what these terms are (i.e. rejection of the US or western way of life) and contrast them with his actions (i.e. leaving a muslim country not for another supposedly more pious muslim country, but for the green pastures of the US).

Dear tahmed:

I also believe that "hamidm2 etc. can only accept peace on their own terms and they are honest about it (at least as far as chowk is concerned)." The problem is not with the honesty of hamidm2 and Urstruly, actually one should be thankful that both of them are honest. From their interacts we come to know that what is "good" for one is "bad" for the other. The 'problem' is that both of them are ready to "defend" what they think is "good". And oh! ... what is "defence" for one is "offence" for the other.

Dear tahmed,

I had said "Urstruly etc. can only accept peace under their own terms and they are honest about it (at least as far as chowk is concerned)". I really do not understand what is wrong or right about this statement.

You also say "...GT (regardless of intentions) is certainly not doing muslims any favor". Sir, frankly speaking I do not want to do a favor to anyone, especially to those who do not need a favor from me.

If I am being offensive, or if there is a misunderstanding, please do let me know why and I will try to correct or clarify my position if needed.

Warm regards.

GT: I am sorry that you chose to avoid my question. But I hope you will reflect on it before you start applauding those who claim to speak on behalf of "muslims" when in fact they have cost muslims plenty in real terms (one example given in my post #82).

And, btw, I never questioned urstruly's right to say one thing and do another, so your referring to this right was unnecessary. What I questioned was your referring to urstruly as being "honest" (and by implication, hamidm as being dishonest), when in fact simple logic would indicate that the opposite is true (as I tried to explain to you).

hamidm: I dont wish to speculate on anyone's intentions, and certainly Urstruly, GT, Dash_Dot and yourself are all gentlemen in the sense that they dont use the anonymity of the internet to start abusing anyone who questions or disagrees with them. And I wont speculate on GT's intentions for avoiding my simple question, even though I find the respon.

Having said that, it is obvious that this absurd policy of demonizing the US while setting up the worlds 1 billion plus muslims as victims has cost muslims dearly in many ways. While Urstruly may be comfortably making a living and getting the benefits of living in society that respects his rights, millions of muslims who would give anything to be in their place are denied visas in EU and the US. So, by encouraging Urstruly by making the absurd claim that he is "honest", GT (regardless of intentions) is certainly not doing muslims any favor.

good and bad are relative if we have different notions of humanity (as you conceded in an earlier post). When it is relative, it is the degree of over lap you have which results in the starting point of counting the grains of sand to figure out the dune.

If there is no such understanding we will be arguing over what is a grain of sand! Forget the dune - it doesnot exist as a sand dune till we agree on the sand thing.

My earlier post (#76) was against the binary 0/1 logic. This binary logic is more inscribing rather than circumscribing -

got to go and hit the sack - the good old water of life is over and need some more to think what you said through and make myself sound more erudite than I really am!

Dear Dash_Dot,

My post to you (#79) may sound a bit fuzzy. So let me give you a concrete example.

When you see a sand dune, you know it is a sand dune. You can differentiate between what is a sand dune and what is not a sand dune. Now try the following thought experiment. (1) You get a truck-load of sand. (2) pick one grain from the truck and put it on your porch. (3) Keep repeating the process counting the number of grains. (5) What is the number of that grain before which you did not have a dune but after which you have a dune?

Do you see a small proble with binary logic now?

#77 Posted by Dash_Dot:

Sir/Madam,

I shall not single out urstruly sahib or George Bush. It has to do with our intellect. Classical logical systems are binary in nature: "good / bad", "right / wrong" etc. Even Einstein could not accept a different system.

Different systems of logic are being used in natural sciences (I am told with better results), it lies on the frontier of research in economics today, poets and painters perhaps always used it. Such systems of logic will take generations to percolate down to common people like me. And by that time we may all be happily dead :)

Please do not take any of the above seriously.

Re: # 74

tahmed,

you ask GT: " Why have you chosen to encourage Urstruly by referring to his bad mouthing of the US using an anonymous nic as being honest? "

.... it is obvious, isn't it?

#75 humanity - might mean different things to different groups of people. But if there is a "circumscribing" of the definitions there will be an intersection of ideas and views (overlapping) from where progress can be made.
The absolutist positions taken as a result of the a lack overlapping is the issue. ONe group wants the total annihilation of the other group. In such an eventuality no group can afford to let their guard down - that is why you have the current situation. One group let its guard down for too long and got it in the neck - and this group has removed its gloves and gone for the daisy cutter option!

GT you have hit upon the problem (or rather stumbled onto it or rather still stated it) by the use of two words "good" & "bad". In the world of urstruly's everything he holds dear is good and all else is bad. (I respect urstruly a nice person and a remarkably honest as far as his "little world" goes (perhaps dishonest in the sense TAhmed32 states below - but that is not the issue here).

The point about "good" and "bad" is about how closed your mind is to rationale and reason. If "good" and "bad" are closed definitions, and compact (and completely inscribed (note not circumscribed)) within the a fixed framework you end up with the near fascist harangue of the Urstruly kind you have seen below. There is redemption is there is circumscribing (using the geometric analogy - you have room to wriggle).

When you are faced with the new, and want reassurance that the world is still flat you reach for the "inscribing" option. That is from where all their "you kafir" "your murtid" "you munaafiq" and other torrents of bouquets come from.

It is often the case that when people follow an inscribing approach to life they end up in a cul de sac from which there is often no reprieve (by no reprieve i mean - no progress of thought/intellect and development of potential). This is something the ancient greek understood reasonably well, and the modern atheist Christians and jews and hindus and buddhists understand very well (the very same people Urstruly reserves the most vitriol for). That is why they will leave behind the inscribing zealots (of whatever hue).

That is why these guys who wrote that letter are oafs and the people who reply, if at all they do, do so only out of politeness for the effort these guys have gone through in putting this epistle together. For this epistle is meaningless, and in fact does not take forward human thought - there is really no contribution and or anything new in there. It is same old same old.


This is precisely the reason why I asked Gill in #2 whether he thought it was really a clash of civilisations or not? For this is not a clash of civilisations - for this to happen you need two similarly matched sets of human thought to meet. that aint happening here.