PDA

View Full Version : Neeson claims Aslan - the symbol of Christ - could also be Mohammed



PoliCon
12-05-2010, 10:13 PM
By Tamara Cohen and Simon Caldwell
Last updated at 12:54 AM on 4th December 2010

*

The much-loved children’s stories have an unapologetic Christian message.

C. S. Lewis was clear that the character of Aslan in his Chronicles of Narnia is based on Christ.

But actor Liam Neeson, who voices the lion in the latest Narnia film, has prompted a row after claiming his character is also based on other religious leaders such as Mohammed and Buddha.

Fans of Lewis’s stories are fuming, claiming Neeson is ruining the author’s legacy to be ‘politically correct’.

Aslan features in all seven Narnia books, steering the children away from evil and encouraging them to take the right path.

In the climax of the first book The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, he sacrifices his life to save Narnia from an evil witch before rising triumphantly from the dead.
Controversy: Liam Neeson's view on the role of Aslan has sparked anger

This represents the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and in shattering the power of the White Witch, the resurrection’s conquest of original sin.

Ahead of the release of The Voyage of the Dawn Treader next Thursday, Neeson said: ‘Aslan symbolises a Christ-like figure but he also symbolises for me Mohammed, Buddha and all the great spiritual leaders and prophets over the centuries.

‘That’s who Aslan stands for as well as a mentor figure for kids – that’s what he means for me.’

Neeson, 58, who grew up in Ballymena, Northern Ireland, is a practising Roman Catholic and was named after his parish priest. His actress wife Natasha Richardson died in a skiing accident in March last year.

Two years ago, he teamed up with an order of American Catholic priests to bring out a CD of spiritual meditations for Lent.

Walter Hooper, Lewis’s former secretary and a trustee of his estate, said the author would have been outraged.

‘It is nothing whatever to do with Islam,’ he said.

‘Lewis would have simply denied that. He wrote that the “whole Narnian story is about Christ”. Lewis could not have been clearer.’

He attributed Neeson’s remarks to political correctness and a desire to be ‘very multicultural’, adding: ‘I don’t know Liam Neeson or what he is thinking about… but it was not Lewis’s intention.’

William Oddie, a fomer editor of The Catholic Herald and a lifelong fan of the Chronicles of Narnia, accused Neeson of ‘a betrayal of Lewis’s intention and a shameful distortion’.

He said: ‘Aslan is clearly established from the very beginning of the whole cannon as being a Christ figure. I can’t believe that Liam Neeson is so stupid as not to know.’

The Chronicles of Narnia mainly follow the adventures of four siblings as they discover a magical land, full of talking beasts, unicorns and witches. Clive Staples Lewis, a devoted Christian, wrote the books between 1949 and 1954.

The Voyage of the Dawn Treader is the third book to be made into a film, following The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe in 2005 and Prince Caspian in 2008.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1335586/Liam-Neeson-upsets-Narnia-fans-claiming-Aslan-Mohammed-Christ.html?ITO=1490

NJCardFan
12-06-2010, 12:47 AM
Non story and a bunch of crap. Seriously. Why do you care?

CaughtintheMiddle1990
12-06-2010, 05:24 AM
Yeah it's not that big a deal.
He didn't just say it could be Mohammad, he also said Aslan could be Buddha and every other spiritual figure. It's not like he went on and on praising the glories of Mohammad, he just made a blanket, albeit dumb, multiculturalist statement. Seeing as he's a Catholic, it probably doesn't reflect his own beliefs on theology (That Jesus, Muhammad and Buddha are all equal), but simply his beliefs on the character, and ALSO it's a good sales pitch for your movie in a sense because it opens the movie up to a larger audience by mentioning three of history's biggest religious figures, whom have followers in the billions collectively.

PoliCon
12-06-2010, 01:49 PM
Non story and a bunch of crap. Seriously. Why do you care?

well lets see - It illustrates many things:

That being seen as endorsing Christianity is deemed uncool.

That the people making these movies haven't a clue what the point of the books were - which is why they have done such a SHITTY job with them.

That multiculturalism is so rampant that someone who claims to be an active catholic is willing to compromise on Christ to avoid 'insulting' muslims when he should be pointing out how Aslan personifies the archetype that is Christ.

noonwitch
12-06-2010, 04:00 PM
Yeah it's not that big a deal.
He didn't just say it could be Mohammad, he also said Aslan could be Buddha and every other spiritual figure. It's not like he went on and on praising the glories of Mohammad, he just made a blanket, albeit dumb, multiculturalist statement. Seeing as he's a Catholic, it probably doesn't reflect his own beliefs on theology (That Jesus, Muhammad and Buddha are all equal), but simply his beliefs on the character, and ALSO it's a good sales pitch for your movie in a sense because it opens the movie up to a larger audience by mentioning three of history's biggest religious figures, whom have followers in the billions collectively.


I think Neeson is saying that the Narnia stories are good vs evil stories that kids from any religion could recognize. Which is kind of true-I'm sure that C. S. Lewis did want to write a christian story of good vs evil that any kid could understand.

Muhammed doesn't sacrifice himself for the good of others, though. That's sort of unique to christianity, and that is definitely the point of the most widely read of the Narnia books: The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe.

djones520
12-06-2010, 04:04 PM
I think Neeson is saying that the Narnia stories are good vs evil stories that kids from any religion could recognize. Which is kind of true-I'm sure that C. S. Lewis did want to write a christian story of good vs evil that any kid could understand.

Muhammed doesn't sacrifice himself for the good of others, though. That's sort of unique to christianity, and that is definitely the point of the most widely read of the Narnia books: The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe.

And Jesus didn't lead his followers to kill a bunch of "wicked" children either. Still something Aslan did.

PoliCon
12-06-2010, 04:29 PM
And Jesus didn't lead his followers to kill a bunch of "wicked" children either. Still something Aslan did.

in which book?

djones520
12-06-2010, 04:33 PM
in which book?

Prince Caspian, right after defeating the Telmarines at the river ford.

PoliCon
12-06-2010, 06:37 PM
Prince Caspian, right after defeating the Telmarines at the river ford.

I don't remember the Telmarines being children . . . . :confused:

djones520
12-06-2010, 06:42 PM
I don't remember the Telmarines being children . . . . :confused:

Right after they surrendered at the ford, the Narnians swirled through the Telmarine city like a whirlwind "disposing" of all the "wicked" children who would carry on the Telmarine ways, all why Aslan watched on.

Was really the only part of the series I did not like. Well, the ending of the last book was a little campy for my tastes as well.

PoliCon
12-06-2010, 06:47 PM
Right after they surrendered at the ford, the Narnians swirled through the Telmarine city like a whirlwind "disposing" of all the "wicked" children who would carry on the Telmarine ways, all why Aslan watched on.

Was really the only part of the series I did not like. Well, the ending of the last book was a little campy for my tastes as well.

I don't remember that bit. I'm sure however - assuming that you're right - and I have no reason to believe otherwise - I'd link it to being akin to the cleansing of Jericho. You don't leave enemies behind to breed up and come after you in a generation or two.

djones520
12-06-2010, 06:53 PM
I don't remember that bit. I'm sure however - assuming that you're right - and I have no reason to believe otherwise - I'd link it to being akin to the cleansing of Jericho. You don't leave enemies behind to breed up and come after you in a generation or two.

I don't have the book with me to verify it 100%, but i've read it recently, and it really stuck out to me.

Seems a bit odd to be going Old Testament like that in his works though. *shrugs*

PoliCon
12-06-2010, 07:23 PM
I don't have the book with me to verify it 100%, but i've read it recently, and it really stuck out to me.

Seems a bit odd to be going Old Testament like that in his works though. *shrugs*

Welp given that He is the same God in both the Old and New Testaments - that He is the same God who did those things - who measures out justice even while measuring out mercy - I don't think it's all that odd.

MountainMan
12-07-2010, 12:09 AM
Non story and a bunch of crap. Seriously. Why do you care?


Yeah it's not that big a deal.
He didn't just say it could be Mohammad, he also said Aslan could be Buddha and every other spiritual figure. It's not like he went on and on praising the glories of Mohammad, he just made a blanket, albeit dumb, multiculturalist statement. Seeing as he's a Catholic, it probably doesn't reflect his own beliefs on theology (That Jesus, Muhammad and Buddha are all equal), but simply his beliefs on the character, and ALSO it's a good sales pitch for your movie in a sense because it opens the movie up to a larger audience by mentioning three of history's biggest religious figures, whom have followers in the billions collectively.

Actually, I think it is a big deal when you try to intentionally distort the original meaning of a book series that is considered very important to most Christians.

By comparing him to Mohamed, he is basically saying that Aslan is a schizophrenic pedophile, which Mohamed most certainly was.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
12-07-2010, 03:52 AM
Actually, I think it is a big deal when you try to intentionally distort the original meaning of a book series that is considered very important to most Christians.

By comparing him to Mohamed, he is basically saying that Aslan is a schizophrenic pedophile, which Mohamed most certainly was.

But it's not a sacred text of Christianity.
It's a novel, Christian intentioned or not.

hampshirebrit
12-07-2010, 07:19 AM
I don't remember that bit. I'm sure however - assuming that you're right - and I have no reason to believe otherwise - I'd link it to being akin to the cleansing of Jericho. You don't leave enemies behind to breed up and come after you in a generation or two.

Genocide is ok by you, then? :confused:

FBIGuy
12-07-2010, 09:45 AM
Genocide is ok by you, then? :confused:

Was it right or wrong for the U.S. to drop a nuclear bomb on Hiroshima or Nagasaki?

hampshirebrit
12-07-2010, 09:54 AM
Was it right or wrong for the U.S. to drop a nuclear bomb on Hiroshima or Nagasaki?
Right, of course. The intention was to end the war, not to erradicate the entire population. So no equivalence to my question.

movie buff
12-07-2010, 09:59 AM
Kind of dumb, but not a big issue, as it wasn't that much of a big statement. However, it can be seen as showing Neeson's relative ignorance of the symbolism of the other books in the series, especially 'The Last Battle,' in which the Calormenes are shown to be a clear reference to Muslims, and their evil demonic deity Tash apeears to be a combination of Allah and a Hindu deity.

FBIGuy
12-07-2010, 10:02 AM
Right, of course. The intention was to end the war, not to erradicate the entire population. So no equivalence to my question.

The intention was to control the land that they believed was theirs. Since there were a lot more Caninites than those living in Jericho then I would say no genicide was attempted. Just a major statement being made in order to soften up the enemy and shorten a potential lengthy campaign. Pretty much like the intentions you assign to the U.S. for dropping a big bomb or two on Japan. Shorten the war and save lives in the the long run. I think that the equivalence is evident if you didn't have a unspoken agenda in raising the Jericho issue in the first place.

MountainMan
12-07-2010, 10:03 AM
But it's not a sacred text of Christianity.
It's a novel, Christian intentioned or not.

You are right, it isn't sacred. It is however one of those important cultural literary works that has changed people lives and views about Christianity and for someone who has influence like Neeson to bastardize the meaning of the books is at least insulting.

PoliCon
12-07-2010, 10:09 AM
Genocide is ok by you, then? :confused:

When the choice is between us and them - I will choose us every time.

PoliCon
12-07-2010, 10:11 AM
Shorten the war and save lives in the the long run. EXACTLY.

Gingersnap
12-07-2010, 10:20 AM
Reason number #472 why celebrutards should STFU in public. Lewis wrote about these characters in very explicit ways before his death. They are Christian allegory. That a fictional character may also be seen within a context the author did not intend may be interesting but it's irrelevant to any analysis or critique of the work in question. Imposing an interpretation that the author did not intend and would not have supported is bad scholarship at the least and perhaps a form of intellectual theft.

This actor did not need to create a connection between a Christian author and an Muslim audience. The movies stand on their own as entertainment and can be entertaining for all audiences. Those few who will want to read the books or find out more Lewis' allegorical writings will discover that they are obviously the product of a Christian author. :rolleyes:

hampshirebrit
12-07-2010, 11:59 AM
I think that the equivalence is evident if you didn't have a unspoken agenda in raising the Jericho issue in the first place.

I didn't raise it. Policon raised it.

Seems that he is defending the concept of genocide, at least when he thinks he has a warrant from god for it.

I don't recall meeting any Canaanites (or Hittites, or Girgashites, for that matter) last time I was in Israel or the Middle East. Wonder what happened to them?

djones520
12-07-2010, 12:08 PM
The intention was to control the land that they believed was theirs. Since there were a lot more Caninites than those living in Jericho then I would say no genicide was attempted. Just a major statement being made in order to soften up the enemy and shorten a potential lengthy campaign. Pretty much like the intentions you assign to the U.S. for dropping a big bomb or two on Japan. Shorten the war and save lives in the the long run. I think that the equivalence is evident if you didn't have a unspoken agenda in raising the Jericho issue in the first place.

Except the war was aready over. The agressor leaders were dead, the troops had surrendered, and a new King born to the Telmarines had been selected to lead them along with the Narnians. So what need was there to continue on with what they did?

PoliCon
12-07-2010, 12:10 PM
Except the war was aready over. The agressor leaders were dead, the troops had surrendered, and a new King born to the Telmarines had been selected to lead them along with the Narnians. So what need was there to continue on with what they did?

Because the reality is you can give people a new leader - but that does not change their hearts or the debt of their wickedness.

hampshirebrit
12-07-2010, 12:11 PM
Welp given that He is the same God in both the Old and New Testaments - that He is the same God who did those things - who measures out justice even while measuring out mercy - I don't think it's all that odd.

Sounds a lot like "Bismillah - in the name of Allah, the most beneficent & merciful", to me.

PoliCon
12-07-2010, 12:21 PM
Sounds a lot like "Bismillah - in the name of Allah, the most beneficent & merciful", to me.

Which is why many people mistakenly believe that Islam and Christianity/Judaism worship the same God. Of course - a deeper examination would show that belief to be false.

Molon Labe
12-07-2010, 12:31 PM
I didn't raise it. Policon raised it.

Seems that he is defending the concept of genocide, at least when he thinks he has a warrant from god for it.

I don't recall meeting any Canaanites (or Hittites, or Girgashites, for that matter) last time I was in Israel or the Middle East. Wonder what happened to them?


Please remember Hamps, that not all us Christians think like that. There is nothing in the New Testament that defends genocide. I challenge any Christian to find such.
Better question the Christian who says such things.

hampshirebrit
12-07-2010, 12:40 PM
Which is why many people mistakenly believe that Islam and Christianity/Judaism worship the same God. Of course - a deeper examination would show that belief to be false.

Not sure how deeper examination can show this belief to be false. Only another belief can suggest, at best, that this one is false.

The Muslims certainly do believe that each of the three worship the same god. They bow before the god of Moses, and they believe that the Nazarine was one of its prophets.

hampshirebrit
12-07-2010, 12:44 PM
Please remember Hamps, that not all us Christians think like that. There is nothing in the New Testament that defends genocide. I challenge any Christian to find such.
Better question the Christian who says such things.

I agree entirely. I'd go further, in fact, and say that most Christians I know do not think like that.

Rebel Yell
12-07-2010, 12:55 PM
Except the war was aready over. The agressor leaders were dead, the troops had surrendered, and a new King born to the Telmarines had been selected to lead them along with the Narnians. So what need was there to continue on with what they did?

If "the good guys" still fought wars this way, there'd be alot less Kim Jung Il's and Ahmedenejad's floating around. The "bad guys" are more plentiful when the "good guys" have been castrated.

movie buff
12-07-2010, 02:13 PM
Which is why many people mistakenly believe that Islam and Christianity/Judaism worship the same God. Of course - a deeper examination would show that belief to be false.

Indeed.
Going along with that, and what I wrote earlier, Lewis seemed to slam that kind of belief in 'The Last Battle.' Shift, the evil ape who's one of the main villains in that book, is in one scene trying to convince the Narnians to submit to slavery to the Calormenes. A lamb comes forward and basically asks why followers of a kind, merciful, and loving leader like Aslan should ally themselves with followers of a cruel, demonic god like Tash. Shift mocks the lamb and snarls "Aslan and Tash are just two different names for You- Know- Who. Get that into your heads, you stupid brutes: Tash is Aslan, Aslan is Tash." Of course, this is inevitably revealed to be false, and doesn't end well for Shift and the other villains who deceived the Narnians for personal gain.

PoliCon
12-07-2010, 02:32 PM
Please remember Hamps, that not all us Christians think like that. There is nothing in the New Testament that defends genocide. I challenge any Christian to find such.
Better question the Christian who says such things.

What in the NT contradicts the OT? Reality is the OT is about social order and how societies should operate. The NT is about personal salvation and how the individual should operate in society. But if you really want NT evidence of "genocide" I'll point you to the apocalypse of John.

PoliCon
12-07-2010, 02:34 PM
Not sure how deeper examination can show this belief to be false. Only another belief can suggest, at best, that this one is false.

The Muslims certainly do believe that each of the three worship the same god. They bow before the god of Moses, and they believe that the Nazarine was one of its prophets.
They believe a great many things that are simply not true.

djones520
12-07-2010, 02:35 PM
They believe a great many things that are simply not true.

Everyone says that about all the other religions that they do not adhere to.

PoliCon
12-07-2010, 02:37 PM
Indeed.
Going along with that, and what I wrote earlier, Lewis seemed to slam that kind of belief in 'The Last Battle.' Shift, the evil ape who's one of the main villains in that book, is in one scene trying to convince the Narnians to submit to slavery to the Calormenes. A lamb comes forward and basically asks why followers of a kind, merciful, and loving leader like Aslan should ally themselves with followers of a cruel, demonic god like Tash. Shift mocks the lamb and snarls "Aslan and Tash are just two different names for You- Know- Who. Get that into your heads, you stupid brutes: Tash is Aslan, Aslan is Tash." Of course, this is inevitably revealed to be false, and doesn't end well for Shift and the other villains who deceived the Narnians for personal gain.

And just imagine how much better the world would be if islam had been wiped out in it's entirety - every man woman and child - while still in it's infancy.

Gingersnap
12-07-2010, 02:38 PM
Indeed.
Going along with that, and what I wrote earlier, Lewis seemed to slam that kind of belief in 'The Last Battle.' Shift, the evil ape who's one of the main villains in that book, is in one scene trying to convince the Narnians to submit to slavery to the Calormenes. A lamb comes forward and basically asks why followers of a kind, merciful, and loving leader like Aslan should ally themselves with followers of a cruel, demonic god like Tash. Shift mocks the lamb and snarls "Aslan and Tash are just two different names for You- Know- Who. Get that into your heads, you stupid brutes: Tash is Aslan, Aslan is Tash." Of course, this is inevitably revealed to be false, and doesn't end well for Shift and the other villains who deceived the Narnians for personal gain.

Exactly so. Muslims do believe that Allah=God but that's tough sell to Christians who understand the Trinity and who believe Christ is the son of God sent redeem the sins of the world.

Neither the Trinity nor the Redemption is acceptable in Islamic thought. If you take the Sacrifice at Calvary out of the equation along with dumping the Holy Spirit you just have a Unitarian coffee club religion. The Muslims don't find that acceptable either but they will let the Unitarians pay an unbelievers tax, I guess.

PoliCon
12-07-2010, 02:38 PM
Everyone says that about all the other religions that they do not adhere to.

Difference is, I'm right. :)

djones520
12-07-2010, 02:43 PM
And just imagine how much better the world would be if islam had been wiped out in it's entirety - every man woman and child - while still in it's infancy.

Judaism committed tons of atrocities according to the Old Testament. They wiped out tons of civilizations, wiped out their men, enslaved their women and children. I'm sure all of those victims would be saying the same thing.

Talking like that is dangerous. And sick.

noonwitch
12-07-2010, 02:48 PM
And just imagine how much better the world would be if islam had been wiped out in it's entirety - every man woman and child - while still in it's infancy.



I think a guy in Germany said that once about another religion.

PoliCon
12-07-2010, 02:53 PM
I think a guy in Germany said that once about another religion.

Ok - name positive contributions islam has made to the world. And if you like I'll make a similar list of what Judaism has given the world and lets compare. Interested?

PoliCon
12-07-2010, 02:56 PM
Judaism committed tons of atrocities according to the Old Testament. They wiped out tons of civilizations, wiped out their men, enslaved their women and children. I'm sure all of those victims would be saying the same thing.

Talking like that is dangerous. And sick.

You're way off. Tons of civilizations? They wiped out a few cities - a far cry from your claim. As for slavery in Judaism you should be aware that the Jewish concept of slavery is as far from what is normally associated with slavery as Marxism is from capitalism.

Gingersnap
12-07-2010, 03:04 PM
Judaism committed tons of atrocities according to the Old Testament. They wiped out tons of civilizations, wiped out their men, enslaved their women and children. I'm sure all of those victims would be saying the same thing.

Talking like that is dangerous. And sick.

The Jews wiped out the Amalekites - a tribe, not a "civilization". The Jews had a process to free slaves every 6 years (unlike their slave-taking neighbors), slavery through conquest was not much of a feature of OT Jewish life. In fact, big-time conquest was not much of a feature of OT Jews period. The OT has quite lot information about why the Jews are supposed to settle conflicts in ways that don't involve wiping out entire clans or throwing babies into bonfires.

Rather than arguing about what Jews did 3,000 years ago, it would be more instructive to examine what has resulted from Islamic conflicts with unbelievers over the last......oh, I don't know....maybe the last week.

But we should do it in another thread. :)

hampshirebrit
12-07-2010, 03:09 PM
And just imagine how much better the world would be if islam had been wiped out in it's entirety - every man woman and child - while still in it's infancy.

If you think that, then you also should agree that the same can easily be said for all religions, by practitioners of all religions, or of no religion.

I wouldn't go that far, personally

I'd just prefer that they ALL had been stillborn. There would have been no need for a body-count at all, that way.

We'd have the same, if not greater, and more prosperous a human population. Too much to hope for though. Humans love to pattern-match and find explanations for things. The middle-easterners did as well as any similar population could have been expected to do in the context of earthquakes and eclipses being unexplainable events and when most people died in their mid-twenties of illnesses that a course of amoxycillin and a couple of aspirin would have cured after three days, now, in the 21st century.

We can only hope for the domestication of world religions to accelerate apace in our modern world.

Given that two sects of the upstart version 3.0 of the Messianic middle-eastern religions have, or are about to acquire. possession of apocalyptic weaponry, we're probably shit-out-of-time and luck for that hope to be realised.

djones520
12-07-2010, 03:10 PM
The Jews wiped out the Amalekites - a tribe, not a "civilization". The Jews had a process to free slaves every 6 years (unlike their slave-taking neighbors), slavery through conquest was not much of a feature of OT Jewish life. In fact, big-time conquest was not much of a feature of OT Jews period. The OT has quite lot information about why the Jews are supposed to settle conflicts in ways that don't involve wiping out entire clans or throwing babies into bonfires.

Rather than arguing about what Jews did 3,000 years ago, it would be more instructive to examine what has resulted from Islamic conflicts with unbelievers over the last......oh, I don't know....maybe the last week.

But we should do it in another thread. :)

It was more then just the Amelekites. Shechemites, Gibeonites, Amorites, Anakim, and at least 29 other tribes whose names I haven't dug up yet.

The point is, that they caused plenty of terror in their own day. Where would we be today if everyone had joined up and said "lets kill all their women and children!".

It's a sick thing to say, and it is never justifiable.

hampshirebrit
12-07-2010, 03:26 PM
The Jews wiped out the Amalekites - a tribe, not a "civilization".

I bet the Amalekites thought THEY were a civilization. They may have constituted a mere city-state back then, but scales were vastly different then:


14 Then the Lord said to Moses, “Write this as a memorial in a book and recite it in the ears of Joshua, that I will utterly blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven.” 15 And Moses built an altar and called the name of it, The Lord is my banner, 16 saying, “A hand upon the throne of the Lord! The Lord will have war with Amalek from generation to generation." (Exodus 17)

The Lord will have war with Amalek from generation to generation.

Looks like the Lord is promoting what liberals tend to call "ethnic cleansing", and when we decide to be more blunt and realistic about the issue, genocide.

I have to ask, is anyone seriously into wiping out tribes, rather than civilisations?

What, other than scale, is the difference?

FBIGuy
12-07-2010, 03:27 PM
I didn't raise it. Policon raised it.

Seems that he is defending the concept of genocide, at least when he thinks he has a warrant from god for it.

I don't recall meeting any Canaanites (or Hittites, or Girgashites, for that matter) last time I was in Israel or the Middle East. Wonder what happened to them?

So what we have here is two perspectives in conflict. From a biblical perspective god has every right to pass judgment on a group of people and execute that judgment. From a secular humanist view then it was one group of people destroying another over territory.Isn't history filled with one group of people destroying another group since time out of mind? What does it matter if someone thought their god told them to do it or it was only motivated self interest? I take it that you don't believe in god so to you it is genocide. To a god fearer then it was judgment. Either way the winning side thought they were right. Americans are accused of trying to wipe out the indians and believed it was the best choice. the Brits are blamed for trying to wipe out the aboriginal Austrailians and they have their excuses. Tomorrow the Muslims will try to wipe out the infidals. Why argue about the reasons? History is written by the victors and those in the future will only have the winner's word to go on. History is not science, it is faith the we are getting the straight story from those in the past who wrote it. If there is no god then was does genocide matter. One is simply here because of an accident, they died for some purely arbitrary reason and returned to the nothingness from which he or her came. I kind of like this. It means I don't owe any body anything and likewise no one owe me a thing.

FBIGuy
12-07-2010, 03:33 PM
It was more then just the Amelekites. Shechemites, Gibeonites, Amorites, Anakim, and at least 29 other tribes whose names I haven't dug up yet.

The point is, that they caused plenty of terror in their own day. Where would we be today if everyone had joined up and said "lets kill all their women and children!".

It's a sick thing to say, and it is never justifiable.

I am curious and I am not advocating genocide, but why is it wrong for a stronger group of people to exert there will on another even it means that they will killl all of them?

Molon Labe
12-07-2010, 03:34 PM
And just imagine how much better the world would be if islam had been wiped out in it's entirety - every man woman and child - while still in it's infancy.

wow..and you think gator has a problem..

djones520
12-07-2010, 03:35 PM
I am curious and I am not advocating genocide, but why is it wrong for a stronger group of people to exert there will on another even it means that they will killl all of them?

Is that a serious question?

FBIGuy
12-07-2010, 03:37 PM
Is that a serious question?

Yes it is.

Rebel Yell
12-07-2010, 03:41 PM
Is that a serious question?

Are you an evolutionist? If so, isn't that what it's all about?

djones520
12-07-2010, 03:43 PM
Are you an evolutionist? If so, isn't that what it's all about?

Well hell then! Lets get our guns and head on down to Mexico. These people can't govern themselves properly, so lets just go wipe them the fuck out!

Seriously, what the fuck kind of question is that?

FBIGuy
12-07-2010, 03:45 PM
Well hell then! Lets get our guns and head on down to Mexico. These people can't govern themselves properly, so lets just go wipe them the fuck out!

Seriously, what the fuck kind of question is that?

One that still hasn't been answered.

hampshirebrit
12-07-2010, 03:45 PM
To a god fearer then it was judgment.

So are you of this persuasion? Do you not stop to consider, for a moment at least, how convenient it is that the supposed judgement is always made at the convenience of those claiming to hold the belief? Gott Mit Uns ... on the belt-buckle of every German soldier in the last war.

These acts are murderous; they are no less murderous because they were inflicted upon a 100 BC city state or desert tribe than by five terrorists flying a passenger aircraft into an office building on 9/11.

These acts have total equivalency. Why?

Because they are each utterly immoral, and they each have one constant in common: the people committing them believed that they were acting on divine warrant.

hampshirebrit
12-07-2010, 03:51 PM
Yes it is.

Not a very well informed question, then.

Most of our foes believe in God/god.

Shit, Whatcha gonna do. :rolleyes: How are you going to dig yourself out of THAT hole?

Molon Labe
12-07-2010, 03:55 PM
Well hell then! Lets get our guns and head on down to Mexico. These people can't govern themselves properly, so lets just go wipe them the fuck out!

Seriously, what the fuck kind of question is that?

Right o'. Same attitude that slaughtered the heathen Indians.

I don't profess to completely understand why the God of the old testament waged war on other nations , but he certainly didn't speak to anything of the sort when he presented his new covenant.


Oh...And C.S. Lewis Narnia stories are allegories for spiritual warfare.

FBIGuy
12-07-2010, 03:57 PM
So are you of this persuasion? Do you not stop to consider, for a moment at least, how convenient it is that the supposed judgement is always made at the convenience of those claiming to hold the belief? Gott Mit Uns ... on the belt-buckle of every German soldier in the last war.

These acts are murderous; they are no less murderous because they were inflicted upon a 100 BC city state or dessert tribe than by five terrorists flying a passenger aircraft into an office building on 9/11.

These acts have total equivalency. Why?

Because they are each utterly immoral, and they each have one constant in common. The people committing them believed that they were acting on divine warrant.

I don't think there is a god and if there is I am in deep do-do.

From the best I can tell of history, this was normal for time. It was very common to kill or enslave a defeated society. Roman, Greece, Persia, pick your favorite past civiliation all operated on this premise. Other than our standards changing what make this actions murderous and not just business as usual?

I do find it fascinating to see you call these events immoral? I am not sure you understand what the word moral means. Where does this morality you speak of come from? You sound like a theist now. They say morals come from god but you are calling a situation immoral but I'm not sure where that morality you speak of comes from?

FBIGuy
12-07-2010, 03:58 PM
Not a very well informed question, then.

Most of our foes believe in God/god.

Shit, Whatcha gonna do. :rolleyes: How are you going to dig yourself out of THAT hole?

I am not in a hole. I just asked a question that no one as chosen to answer. That fact is more interesting that the question itself. The boys and I are getting a good chuckle over this.

hampshirebrit
12-07-2010, 04:01 PM
I am not in a hole. I just asked a question that no one as chosen to answer. That fact is more interesting that the question itself. The boys and I are getting a good chuckle over this.

I'm guessing "the boys and you" don't really work for the FBI, then.

Rephrase the question, if you will, and I will answer it.

noonwitch
12-07-2010, 04:52 PM
Ok - name positive contributions islam has made to the world. And if you like I'll make a similar list of what Judaism has given the world and lets compare. Interested?


A lot of the mosques are very pretty buildings. I love the intricate patterns in muslim-influenced art-like the ones on the minarets of many mosques. We had a really cool exhibit at the DIA about 10 years ago that showed some awesome Koran pages, pottery, fabric and other items with patterns that incorporated flowers, geometric designs, and other themes.


I like middle eastern food, which is inspired somewhat by muslim dietery laws. I think that Islam's stand against tobacco and alcohol is admirable, even if it's not practiced.

Radical muslims played a key role in taking out the Soviet Union, by miring them down in Afganistan. Of course, the guys who ended up becoming the Taliban and al Queda were on our side at the time, and we taught them how to take out a superpower in the process.

ACCESS, a social services agency in Dearborn, provides awesome services to the Arab and Chaldean communities in metro Detroit. They help muslim/arab/chaldean women escape from abusive husbands.


There is no way to compare Islam and Judaism in that kind of way. Islam's history is not as old, for one thing, and a good part of it is not included in the history lessons we learn.

The jewish people are a blessing on the world-I don't just feel that way because I'm a christian, but because of what I have observed in my own community. Jewish people are under represented in our prisons and jails, and are over represented in our institutions of higher learning. They give money to charity, and are good to their neighbors. We should have let them all come here from Europe after WWII, not that history can be changed now.

Muslims are people. If we forget that, we are no better than the Nazis, who decided that jews weren't people.

FBIGuy
12-07-2010, 04:59 PM
I'm guessing "the boys and you" don't really work for the FBI, then.

Rephrase the question, if you will, and I will answer it.

You kill me man!

Why is it wrong for a stronger group of people to exert their will on another, weaker group of people to the point of and including killl the members of the weaker group? As I stated early I am not advocating genocide, I'm interested in your reasoning. Based on your previous messages I suspect you are going to appeal to some type of moral conviction that you have yet to explain where it comes from and what gives it power to curtail human behavior.

hampshirebrit
12-07-2010, 05:28 PM
You kill me man!
Well, I certainly hope not. I have no desire to do so.


Why is it wrong for a stronger group of people to exert their will on another, weaker group of people to the point of and including killl the members of the weaker group?
OK, I see where you're coming from. You want me to answer your question.



Based on your previous messages I suspect you are going to appeal to some type of moral conviction that you have yet to explain where it comes from and what gives it power to curtail human behavior.

I appeal to nothing. I know I am right in not doing so. What I will say next, comes from me.

I can explain (and already have, many times on CU) that it is my understanding (I won't use the word belief, for that is to sell it short), my understanding and my morality that genocide, ethnic cleansing, family murder, murder of anyone, these things are WRONG.

I didn't learn this in Methodist Sunday School, despite those ill-spent Sunday mornings giving me many opportunities to learn the exact opposite lesson.

I already knew it, and I knew it from the moment I could put abstract thoughts together. It is inherent in humankind, in all races, not to commit such crimes.

Religion is the prime cause of why we have not yet fully assimilated this.


As I stated early I am not advocating genocide, I'm interested in your reasoning.

OK. I gave you my reasoning. How about yours?

You haven't exactly come out against genocide, so far, have you.

You asked me why is it wrong for a stronger group of people to exert their will on another, weaker group of people to the point of and including murdering the members, including the women and children, of the weaker group?

May I ask, why should anyone even need to ask this question? Why should you need to ask it?

Do you think, perhaps, that there are some circumstances, under your moral code, wherever it is that you think you get it from, that would justify the strong to victimise the weak?

FBIGuy
12-07-2010, 05:55 PM
Well, I certainly hope not. I have no desire to do so.


OK, I see where you're coming from. You want me to answer your question.



I appeal to nothing. I know I am right in not doing so. What I will say next, comes from me.

I can explain (and already have, many times on CU) that it is my understanding (I won't use the word belief, for that is to sell it short), my understanding and my morality that genocide, ethnic cleansing, family murder, murder of anyone, these things are WRONG.

I didn't learn this in Methodist Sunday School, despite those ill-spent Sunday mornings giving me many opportunities to learn the exact opposite lesson.

I already knew it, and I knew it from the moment I could put abstract thoughts together. It is inherent in humankind, in all races, not to commit such crimes.

Religion is the prime cause of why we have not yet fully assimilated this.



OK. I gave you my reasoning. How about yours?

You haven't exactly come out against genocide, so far, have you.

You asked me why is it wrong for a stronger group of people to exert their will on another, weaker group of people to the point of and including murdering the members, including the women and children, of the weaker group?

May I ask, why should anyone even need to ask this question? Why should you need to ask it?

Do you think, perhaps, that there are some circumstances, under your moral code, wherever it is that you think you get it from, that would justify the strong to victimise the weak?

I believe that society dictates the norms and set the moral standards. The Hebrews of the old testament were perfectly within their moral rights to kill everyone in Jericho, but that is because it is what societies did at the time. There is nothing to be outraged about. To use a paraphrase a modern saying, it was what it was. Society now says that genocide is wrong and that is good enough for me.

Its interesting but you never really said where your moral view comes from. You just figured it out on your own but how does that make your understanding better than someone that comes to a different conclusion. Hitler concluded that it was morally ok to kill 6 millions jews, the allies concluded it was not ok to kill 6 milliion jews. They went to war. The allies didn't win on the strength or correctness of their morals, they won on the strength of their army. If Hitler had won you and I, like it or not, would be dancing to a different set of morals. You would have been raised and educated in a world where the removal of jews was a-ok I doubt it would be an issue for you.

To read your post I can conclude that had Hitler won you believe you still would have known it was wrong to kill all the jews and yet you can't tell me where this knowledge comes from. We are born with a blank mind and all we know is what we learn from the world around us as we mature. Are you saying that you are somehow different? Do you think that in a society that advocated and committed an act of genocide on a specific race before you were born and told you from day one that it was the right thing to do you would be able to conclude otherwise? How?

My purpose in asking this question was simple. You state that you have these morals that you almost ascribe universality to but you can't explain where they come from. You state that the murderous acts of the jews were wrong then and they are wrong now but you don't say why they are wrong. You say you deduced your moral views from abstract thinking but what information caused you to draw these conclusions and call them morals?

hampshirebrit
12-07-2010, 06:24 PM
The Hebrews of the old testament were perfectly within their moral rights to kill everyone in Jericho, but that is because it is what societies did at the time.

You're pretty much defeating the theist argument here, or at least the Talmud/Christian view of theism.

You're basically saying that what they did, was because of then prevailing norms of behaviour for that time.

If that's what you are saying, I totally agree with you.

I have to point out, though, that the biblical view has it different from your point of view. If you look carefully at the scripture that I quoted above, the intent is clear, and the ownership of that intent is also clear.

The OT states specifically that this deed was done under divine warrant, and not because the tribe committing it was acting according to societal norm.

Very inconveniently for those that adhere to this belief, it has been declared non-refutable ... by who else than the believers themselves. That's the hole they have dug themselves.

Those that believe in this part of the OT, those that believe that their god would grant mandate for a stronger force to massacre a weaker, those people are no better than any non-believer, and I would put it to any reasonable person, a good deal worse.

Rockntractor
12-07-2010, 06:50 PM
Hamps if you and Jones had been born 3000 years ago with the same ideas you have now, they would have sliced your nuts off and you would both be protecting the queen!:D

djones520
12-07-2010, 06:54 PM
Hamps if you and Jones had been born 3000 years ago with the same ideas you have now, they would have sliced your nuts off and you would both be protecting the queen!:D

Thats fine. The queen would be eating you. :D

Rockntractor
12-07-2010, 06:58 PM
Thats fine. The queen would be eating you. :D

Oh man that's cold, true but cold!:eek:

hampshirebrit
12-07-2010, 07:02 PM
If

My brother CUer and comrade, if you had been born in the wrong place and 15 centuries ago, I dare say you would not be nearly as keen to claim such a fondness for pork (in all its many and marvellous forms) as you are able to do here and now. :D

Rockntractor
12-07-2010, 07:10 PM
My brother CUer and comrade, if you had been born in the wrong place and 15 centuries ago, I dare say you would not be nearly as keen to claim such a fondness for pork (in all its many and marvellous forms) as you are able to do here and now. :D

This all proves a point old wise one, had any of us been born then and been in their circumstance perhaps we all would do differently than now.

hampshirebrit
12-07-2010, 07:15 PM
They believe a great many things that are simply not true.

Possibly (actually, probably) you are right, but you just saying this does not make it right.

You need to justify why these things that they believe in are not true, and you also should be prepared to list each of these beliefs and state why your opinion of them is at variance with theirs.

I'll let you off the task of justifying genocide, and related biblical texts that clearly support it, since it seems that your ethic and the radical Islamist ethic on the subject are in near agreement.

hampshirebrit
12-07-2010, 07:43 PM
This all proves a point old wise one, had any of us been born then and been in their circumstance perhaps we all would do differently than now.

Exactly.

It's "why" we would have done differently "when", not "what" we would have done "then".

Dare I say it ... we are evolving into a superior species? At least we can spin it in non-religious terms.

And at least we're starting to learn, albeit the hard way, that most of the people seriously in need of an offing are turning out to be part of a most unwelcome minority, the one populated by the most ultra-religiously inclined on the planet.

Rockntractor
12-07-2010, 07:50 PM
Exactly.

It's "why" we would have done differently "when", not "what" we would have done "then".

Dare I say it ... we are evolving into a superior species? At least we can spin it in non-religious terms.


How can you explain democrats then?:confused:

hampshirebrit
12-07-2010, 08:00 PM
How can you explain democrats then?:confused:

Liberals, you mean? An aberration, obviously. There are always those that will be behind the edge.
Evolution takes forever (or until the sun explodes, whichever comes sooner).

Rockntractor
12-07-2010, 08:05 PM
Liberals, you mean? An aberration, obviously. There are always those that will be behind the edge.
Evolution takes forever (or until the sun explodes, whichever comes sooner).

The sun did tip over, all the heat from it is upside down now. Ginger posted that.

hampshirebrit
12-07-2010, 08:12 PM
The sun did tip over, all the heat from it is upside down now. Ginger posted that.

My dear piglet, do give the other chaps a word in edgewise. :D

There are serious matters at issue here, and we need the honorable Policon and the honorable FBIguy's responses.

If indeed they have responses.

megimoo
12-07-2010, 08:14 PM
Genocide is ok by you, then? :confused:

How Could God Command Killing the Canaanites?

“Only in the cities of these peoples that the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, you shall not leave alive anything that breathes. But you shall utterly destroy them: the Hittite and the Amorite, the Canaanite and the Perizzite, the Hivite and the Jebusite, as the Lord your God has commanded you, so that they may not teach you to do according to all their detestable things which they have done for their gods, so that you would sin against the Lord your God”(Deuteronomy 20:16–18, NASB).1
.....................

The Amalekites

What about 1 Samuel 15, where God commands Israel to “utterly destroy [haram]” and “not spare” the Amalekites? Who were these people? Israel’s enemies from day one (Exodus 17) and across the generations (e.g., Judges 3:13; 6:3-5, 33; 7:12; 10:12; etc.). For nearly 1,000 years they dogged and threatened Israel! So did Saul really wipe them out (except for Agag, whom the prophet Samuel finished off)? Well, there’s more going on here. Despite all appearances, the Amalekites weren’t obliterated. They show up again in 1 Samuel 27:8 and then 30:1-18. During Persian king Xerxes’ time (486-465 BC), we encounter Haman the Agagite (Esther 3:1). (Remember, Agag had been king of the Amalekites!) Haman mounted a campaign to destroy the Jews as a people (3:13). The Amalekites were intent on destroying Israel, which needed to protect itself. Even so, the hyperbolic “utter destruction” language of 1 Samuel notwithstanding, plenty of Amalekites remained.

“Men, Women, and Children”

Many claim, I Samuel 15:3, indicates Amalekite non-combatants being targeted and obliterated. However, Old Testament scholar Richard Hess argues that we don’t actually have indications that this was so—whether towards the Amalekites or the Canaanites. Now, Joshua 2:34 states that “we captured all his cities at that time and utterly destroyed the men, women and children of every city. We left no survivor.” Again, in the next chapter, we read about Israel’s “utterly destroying the men, women and children of every city” (3:6).
.....................

hampshirebrit
12-07-2010, 08:32 PM
How Could God Command Killing the Canaanites?

“Only in the cities of these peoples that the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, you shall not leave alive anything that breathes. But you shall utterly destroy them: the Hittite and the Amorite, the Canaanite and the Perizzite, the Hivite and the Jebusite, as the Lord your God has commanded you, so that they may not teach you to do according to all their detestable things which they have done for their gods, so that you would sin against the Lord your God”(Deuteronomy 20:16–18, NASB).1
.....................

The Amalekites

What about 1 Samuel 15, where God commands Israel to “utterly destroy [haram]” and “not spare” the Amalekites? Who were these people? Israel’s enemies from day one (Exodus 17) and across the generations (e.g., Judges 3:13; 6:3-5, 33; 7:12; 10:12; etc.). For nearly 1,000 years they dogged and threatened Israel! So did Saul really wipe them out (except for Agag, whom the prophet Samuel finished off)? Well, there’s more going on here. Despite all appearances, the Amalekites weren’t obliterated. They show up again in 1 Samuel 27:8 and then 30:1-18. During Persian king Xerxes’ time (486-465 BC), we encounter Haman the Agagite (Esther 3:1). (Remember, Agag had been king of the Amalekites!) Haman mounted a campaign to destroy the Jews as a people (3:13). The Amalekites were intent on destroying Israel, which needed to protect itself. Even so, the hyperbolic “utter destruction” language of 1 Samuel notwithstanding, plenty of Amalekites remained.

“Men, Women, and Children”

Many claim, I Samuel 15:3, indicates Amalekite non-combatants being targeted and obliterated. However, Old Testament scholar Richard Hess argues that we don’t actually have indications that this was so—whether towards the Amalekites or the Canaanites. Now, Joshua 2:34 states that “we captured all his cities at that time and utterly destroyed the men, women and children of every city. We left no survivor.” Again, in the next chapter, we read about Israel’s “utterly destroying the men, women and children of every city” (3:6).
.....................


So what do you think, Megi? They let a few of them go free for a thousand years, or they did all of them in one day?

PoliCon
12-07-2010, 09:23 PM
If you think that, then you also should agree that the same can easily be said for all religions, by practitioners of all religions, or of no religion. Perhaps - but I can list human advancements made by Christians and Jews while anyone would be hard pressed to list a single human advancement made by islam in the last 1000 years.

Rockntractor
12-07-2010, 09:23 PM
Perhaps - but I can list human advancements made by Christians and Jews while anyone would be hard pressed to list a single human advancement made by islam in the last 1000 years.

Algebra

hampshirebrit
12-07-2010, 09:31 PM
Algebra

Good fuckin' point.

Poli, I take it you don't teach algebra, or any kind of math, or indeed history, am I right?

This will really make you hoot (well, probably not):

The Muslims were the first to discover and put into practical application, the use of alcohol as an antiseptic. They also developed the first practical soaps and toothpastes, seven whole centuries after your lot got going.

PoliCon
12-07-2010, 09:36 PM
Algebra

1. Mohammad ibn-Musa al-Khwarizmi who is given credit for algebra dates from the 9th century.

2. He was A Zoroastrian convert - he did not grow up muslim or in islamic culture. He was Hellenized Persian.

So - I stand by my statement.

PoliCon
12-07-2010, 09:36 PM
Good fuckin' point.

Poli, I take it you don't teach algebra, or any kind of math, or indeed history, am I right?

This will really make you hoot (well, probably not):

The Muslims were the first to discover and put into practical application, the use of alcohol as an antiseptic. They also developed the first practical soaps and toothpastes, seven whole centuries after your lot got going.

see above and try again. :) I'll grant you that in the early years of islam they got lots of great innovations - but always from converts.

Rockntractor
12-07-2010, 09:37 PM
see above and try again. :)

The human bomb?:confused:

djones520
12-07-2010, 09:42 PM
Lets see... a Muslim was the leading architect of the first manned space flight, and first space stations. A mulsim was also instrumental in NASA's work on the first moon landing.

Ibn Khaldun is responsible for most social sciences that we have today. You could probably thank him for your job.

A Pakistani economist created Microcredit.

Muhammad Yunus is a Nobel Prize winner for Microfinance.

Lets see... algebra, algorithims, symbolic algebra, and Fuzzy Mathematics are all attributted to Muslims.

Psychotherapy, Neurosurgery, Parkinsons Disease, and ton of other medical fields have all been pioneered by Muslims. Hell, modern medicine and surgery as a whole was largely pioneered by Muslims.

Abdus Salam is a Nobel Prize winner for works in Phsyics.



All of this is just merely the tip of the iceberg. But you would rather they had all never existed.

Here is a list of hundreds of Muslims who have made important contributions to the world we live in today. Knock yourself out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Muslim_scientists

Molon Labe
12-07-2010, 09:44 PM
The human bomb?:confused:

Interestingly enough. One of the first modern day warfare uses of a human suicide bomb was used by an American Naval officer during the battle of Tripoli. Lt Richard Somers fitted the USS Intrepid with explosives and drove it into a harbor

PoliCon
12-07-2010, 09:44 PM
The human bomb?:confused:

I'll give you that one.

Molon Labe
12-07-2010, 09:48 PM
Here's a whole website dedicated to this little disagreement

http://salems2.tripod.com/muslim_contribution_to_the_world.html

But folks.......Poli's right

A google search for Jewish contributions to the world yielded 3, 430,000 (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&biw=1135&bih=589&rlz=1R2SKPB_enUS333&q=contributions+by+jews&aq=f&aqi=&aql=f&oq=&gs_rfai=)hits..

While one for Muslim contributions only yielded 3,410,000 (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=1149&bih=589&q=contributions+by+muslims&rlz=1R2SKPB_enUS333&aq=0&aqi=g10&aql=f&oq=contributions+by+&gs_rfai=C-hq9eu_-TLzuFp7SyQT7ycCdAwAAAKoEBU_Qga92).




:rolleyes:

PoliCon
12-07-2010, 09:54 PM
Lets see... a Muslim was the leading architect of the first manned space flight, and first space stations. A mulsim was also instrumental in NASA's work on the first moon landing.

Ibn Khaldun is responsible for most social sciences that we have today. You could probably thank him for your job.

A Pakistani economist created Microcredit.

Muhammad Yunus is a Nobel Prize winner for Microfinance.

Lets see... algebra, algorithims, symbolic algebra, and Fuzzy Mathematics are all attributted to Muslims.

Psychotherapy, Neurosurgery, Parkinsons Disease, and ton of other medical fields have all been pioneered by Muslims. Hell, modern medicine and surgery as a whole was largely pioneered by Muslims.

Abdus Salam is a Nobel Prize winner for works in Phsyics.



All of this is just merely the tip of the iceberg. But you would rather they had all never existed.

Here is a list of hundreds of Muslims who have made important contributions to the world we live in today. Knock yourself out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Muslim_scientists Great there are muslim scientists - but did they contribute to human advancement? I could care less who's won Nobel prizes - the whole Nobel system is a bad joke. As for modern medicine - says who? People forget that while Western Europe went through a dark ages Eastern Europe never lost civilization and Islam coopted much of what was essentially greek work and methods.

Either way - it's one thing to work in the footsteps of a pioneer - quiet another thing to actually BE the pioneer. I suggest you get a copy of Human Accomplishment: The Pursuit of Excellence in the Arts and Sciences, 800 B.C. to 1950 - by Charles Murry. a great read and very enlightening. Of course the left HATES it so all the more reason to check it out. :)

PoliCon
12-07-2010, 09:55 PM
Here's a whole website dedicated to this little disagreement

http://salems2.tripod.com/muslim_contribution_to_the_world.html

But folks.......Poli's right

A google search for Jewish contributions to the world yielded 3, 430,000 (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&biw=1135&bih=589&rlz=1R2SKPB_enUS333&q=contributions+by+jews&aq=f&aqi=&aql=f&oq=&gs_rfai=)hits..

While one for Muslim contributions only yielded 3,410,000 (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=1149&bih=589&q=contributions+by+muslims&rlz=1R2SKPB_enUS333&aq=0&aqi=g10&aql=f&oq=contributions+by+&gs_rfai=C-hq9eu_-TLzuFp7SyQT7ycCdAwAAAKoEBU_Qga92).




:rolleyes: Consider that their are only a few million Jews and over a billion muzzies - that's pretty significant all in itself.

Rockntractor
12-07-2010, 09:59 PM
Okay, regardless of what I have posted i mostly agree with Poli here.
Now I will go kill myself!:confused::eek:

CaughtintheMiddle1990
12-07-2010, 09:59 PM
I can't understand how someone could believe in genocide.
That's just..insane to me. Wipe out men, women, children, BABIES who've never done a damn thing to you?

Molon Labe
12-07-2010, 10:00 PM
Consider that their are only a few million Jews and over a billion muzzies - that's pretty significant all in itself.

Ok...that's a good point
there are tons of good Jewish comdeians that have boatloads of talent.

djones520
12-07-2010, 10:01 PM
Moving the goal posts much Poli? What was that challenge you laid down?

I was not hard pressed at all to find what little information I did. It took me a couple minutes to find pioneers of space flight, Nobel Prize winners, modern medicine and mathematics.

And for how ass backwards these Muslims are, it's amazing that this Islamic country I am in has managed to have a female President before we have. But I'm sure you'll find some way to belittle that as well.

Molon Labe
12-07-2010, 10:07 PM
Moving the goal posts much Poli? What was that challenge you laid down?

I was not hard pressed at all to find what little information I did. It took me a couple minutes to find pioneers of space flight, Nobel Prize winners, modern medicine and mathematics.

And for how ass backwards these Muslims are, it's amazing that this Islamic country I am in has managed to have a female President before we have. But I'm sure you'll find some way to belittle that as well.

Take a look at pictures of Afghanistan circa 1950's.....before the encroaching there pissed off the radicals. It looks like any town USA. So what happened?

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/culture-mulcher/files/2010/07/Afghanistan1.jpg

hampshirebrit
12-07-2010, 10:09 PM
Consider that their are only a few million Jews and over a billion muzzies - that's pretty significant all in itself.

That has to be one of the most pathetic excuses for a non-response in debate that I have ever seen, anywhere, at all.

PoliCon
12-07-2010, 10:13 PM
That has to be one of the most pathetic excuses for a non-response in debate that I have ever seen, anywhere, at all.

It was about as cheap an answer as was his assertion that google search results are evidence of actual accomplishment.

hampshirebrit
12-07-2010, 10:16 PM
I can't understand how someone could believe in genocide.
That's just..insane to me. Wipe out men, women, children, BABIES who've never done a damn thing to you?

I know, it is amazing, isn't it.

Apparently Policon (and possibly FBIguy, too) think that genocide is OK, and can be justified, at least when the perpetrators are acting under holy warrant.

Personally, I disagree with them, but what do I know. I'm only an atheist.

PoliCon
12-07-2010, 10:20 PM
Moving the goal posts much Poli? What was that challenge you laid down?

Perhaps - but I can list human advancements made by Christians and Jews while anyone would be hard pressed to list a single human advancement made by islam in the last 1000 years.



I was not hard pressed at all to find what little information I did. It took me a couple minutes to find pioneers of space flight, Nobel Prize winners, modern medicine and mathematics. Pioneers of space flight? One guy working with how many others who were not muslim? Nobel prizes are human advancements now? Modern medicine? If it's happened in the last 50 years it's too soon to count as an advancement anyhow. We don't know for sure what the results of that thing will actually be. Go back a few decades and asbestos would be touted as a human advancement . . . . now we know otherwise.


And for how ass backwards these Muslims are, it's amazing that this Islamic country I am in has managed to have a female President before we have. But I'm sure you'll find some way to belittle that as well. Big fucking deal they have a woman president. Sorry but that does not impress me at all and why should it?

PoliCon
12-07-2010, 10:26 PM
I know, it is amazing, isn't it.

Apparently Policon (and possibly FBIguy, too) think that genocide is OK, and can be justified, at least when the perpetrators are acting under holy warrant.

Personally, I disagree with them, but what do I know. I'm only an atheist.

Sorry but I do not buy the lie that all cultures are equally valid so I do not object to making some cultures extinct.

hampshirebrit
12-07-2010, 10:28 PM
Big fucking deal they have a woman president. Sorry but that does not impress me at all and why should it?

Well it should impress you. It proves that people supposedly "born" into their religion can always rise above it, even the v3.0 types, and actually do something that might end up being useful for humanity.

Christians and Jews can do it, and so can Muslims.

Still, to me, it's a miracle, whenever I see this happen, regardless of the particular version of religious stupidity that the person making it happen originates from.

hampshirebrit
12-07-2010, 10:30 PM
Sorry but I do not buy the lie that all cultures are equally valid so I do not object to making some cultures extinct.

OK, so for the record, is it fair to say that, based on your above quoted text, you do, in fact, endorse genocide?

This is a binary switch. It requires one of two possible answers: yes, or no.

Not "no...but", or "yes...but".

PoliCon
12-07-2010, 10:42 PM
OK, so for the record, is it fair to say that, based on your above quoted text, you do, in fact, endorse genocide?

This is a binary switch. It requires one of two possible answers: yes, or no.

Not "no...but", or "yes...but".

there is no way to answer that question yes/no. There is too much gray.

Rockntractor
12-07-2010, 10:50 PM
there is no way to answer that question yes/no. There is too much gray.

If you me God and there was no doubt to you that he was God and Creator of all the universe, you would do as he asked because it all belongs to him. There is no way you can explain that to an atheist with any hope that he could possibly understand.

PoliCon
12-07-2010, 10:51 PM
If you me God and there was no doubt to you that he was God and Creator of all the universe, you would do as he asked because it all belongs to him. There is no way you can explain that to an atheist with any hope that he could possibly understand.

agreed.

hampshirebrit
12-07-2010, 10:52 PM
there is no way to answer that question yes/no. There is too much gray.

For you, there is too much gray, I'm sure that this is true. This is very unfortunate .... for you.

Only a person with a gray morality would prevaricate on this question.

The only response that a moral person can possibly make to the question "is genocide ever acceptable", is NO.

PoliCon
12-07-2010, 10:57 PM
For you, there is too much gray, I'm sure that this is true. This is very unfortunate .... for you.

Only a person with a gray morality would prevaricate on this question.

The only response that a moral person can possibly make to the question "is genocide ever acceptable", is NO.

You're welcome to believe that if you like. I on the otherhand disagree. Reality for me is - while I would never make it my first choice - it would only ever be my last choice - I can imagine situations were it would be justified.

PoliCon
12-07-2010, 10:59 PM
For you, there is too much gray, I'm sure that this is true. This is very unfortunate .... for you.

Only a person with a gray morality would prevaricate on this question.

The only response that a moral person can possibly make to the question "is genocide ever acceptable", is NO.

so you see no problem with slaying innocents through abortion but you object to wiping out societies that for example practice infant sacrifice and child rape as a regular part of their culture.

Rockntractor
12-07-2010, 11:01 PM
I might add that Jesus was the last time that God has revealed himself in any kind of a physical form and this won't be done again until his second coming. When he comes again he has made it clear that all people on this earth will be aware of his presence and validity.
Since the time of Christ sacrifice no one has been required to kill in the name of God, that was under the early part of the old covenant, so no if God asked me to kill I wouldn't because it would be my own craziness and imagination.

hampshirebrit
12-07-2010, 11:45 PM
so you see no problem with slaying innocents through abortion

On the contrary, I have major problems with abortion. Why do you assume otherwise? Is it because enthusiasm for abortion fits your profile of an atheist? Is abhorrence of abortion reserved only to the religious?



you object to wiping out societies that for example practice infant sacrifice and child rape as a regular part of their culture.


If by wiping out society, you mean wiping out the women and children, then yes, I obviously object to this practice. Duh. :rolleyes:

Don't you? You don't need to answer that. You already told us you don't object. Like I said, favouring or not favouring genocide is a binary switch.

On edit: Does anyone else see how utterly batshit bonkers Poli's position is here?

He's just said that he would justify genocide against an entire society that practiced infant sacrifice and child rape. Genocide is extinction, and extinction is forever, because it means killing the children as well as the adults. That really is visiting the crime of the father on the children.

Molon Labe
12-08-2010, 08:36 AM
For you, there is too much gray, I'm sure that this is true. This is very unfortunate .... for you.

Only a person with a gray morality would prevaricate on this question.

The only response that a moral person can possibly make to the question "is genocide ever acceptable", is NO.

Yeah..it's pretty cut and dry. There isn't alot of gray in the right to life.

movie buff
12-08-2010, 12:03 PM
Exactly so. Muslims do believe that Allah=God but that's tough sell to Christians who understand the Trinity and who believe Christ is the son of God sent redeem the sins of the world.

Neither the Trinity nor the Redemption is acceptable in Islamic thought. If you take the Sacrifice at Calvary out of the equation along with dumping the Holy Spirit you just have a Unitarian coffee club religion. The Muslims don't find that acceptable either but they will let the Unitarians pay an unbelievers tax, I guess.

The tax Muslims put on unbelievers in sharia nations is called the "Jizya," if I remember right.
The Koran's rules for how Muslims should deal with non- Muslims in their land go as follows:
1. Get them to convert to Islam.
2. If they won't convert, make them pay the Jizya and live as second- class citizens.
3. If they won't convert or pay the Jizya, kill them.

NJCardFan
12-08-2010, 12:10 PM
The tax Muslims put on unbelievers in sharia nations is called the "Jizya," if I remember right.
The Koran's rules for how Muslims should deal with non- Muslims in their land go as follows:
1. Get them to convert to Islam.
2. If they won't convert, make them pay the Jizya and live as second- class citizens.
3. If they won't convert or pay the Jizya, kill them.

And not necessarily in that order.

FBIGuy
12-08-2010, 01:58 PM
You're pretty much defeating the theist argument here, or at least the Talmud/Christian view of theism.

You're basically saying that what they did, was because of then prevailing norms of behaviour for that time.

If that's what you are saying, I totally agree with you.

I have to point out, though, that the biblical view has it different from your point of view. If you look carefully at the scripture that I quoted above, the intent is clear, and the ownership of that intent is also clear.

The OT states specifically that this deed was done under divine warrant, and not because the tribe committing it was acting according to societal norm.

Very inconveniently for those that adhere to this belief, it has been declared non-refutable ... by who else than the believers themselves. That's the hole they have dug themselves.

Those that believe in this part of the OT, those that believe that their god would grant mandate for a stronger force to massacre a weaker, those people are no better than any non-believer, and I would put it to any reasonable person, a good deal worse.

I said I wasn't a theist or a deist. At best I'm agnostic.

FBIGuy
12-08-2010, 02:05 PM
Consider that their are only a few million Jews and over a billion muzzies - that's pretty significant all in itself.

But the jews had a 2000 year head start.

FBIGuy
12-08-2010, 02:07 PM
I know, it is amazing, isn't it.

Apparently Policon (and possibly FBIguy, too) think that genocide is OK, and can be justified, at least when the perpetrators are acting under holy warrant.

Personally, I disagree with them, but what do I know. I'm only an atheist.

There are some leaders in the 20th century that did a hell of a lot worse than genocide, but what did they know, they were only atheists. ;)

hampshirebrit
12-08-2010, 02:10 PM
I said I wasn't a theist or a deist. At best I'm agnostic.

Yep, you did say so, and I missed that. My apologies.

Calypso Jones
12-08-2010, 02:11 PM
nobody ever said entertainers are brains. well. they've tried to tell us that but we all know better

PoliCon
12-08-2010, 02:51 PM
On the contrary, I have major problems with abortion. Why do you assume otherwise? Is it because enthusiasm for abortion fits your profile of an atheist? Is abhorrence of abortion reserved only to the religious?Apologies. All you atheists sound the same after a while :p




If by wiping out society, you mean wiping out the women and children, then yes, I obviously object to this practice. Duh. :rolleyes: Interesting. And do you think that women play no part in the perpetuation of such a culture? That children would not remember what mom and dad did and want to recapture it when they were grown? Interesting.


Don't you? You don't need to answer that. You already told us you don't object. Like I said, favouring or not favouring genocide is a binary switch. And I disagree. There are gray areas.


On edit: Does anyone else see how utterly batshit bonkers Poli's position is here? Oh I'll grant you that I'm not taking a popular position or even an easy one - but it's not one I have taken lightly or without a great deal of thought.


He's just said that he would justify genocide against an entire society that practiced infant sacrifice and child rape. Genocide is extinction, and extinction is forever, because it means killing the children as well as the adults. That really is visiting the crime of the father on the children. Sadly sometimes innocent pay a price in the process of eliminating evil. Do honestly think that not a single person killed by the Allies in WWII was innocent?

CaughtintheMiddle1990
12-08-2010, 09:20 PM
Apologies. All you atheists sound the same after a while :p

Interesting. And do you think that women play no part in the perpetuation of such a culture? That children would not remember what mom and dad did and want to recapture it when they were grown? Interesting.
And I disagree. There are gray areas.
Oh I'll grant you that I'm not taking a popular position or even an easy one - but it's not one I have taken lightly or without a great deal of thought.
Sadly sometimes innocent pay a price in the process of eliminating evil. Do honestly think that not a single person killed by the Allies in WWII was innocent?

Yes, there innocent people killed by us in WWII, in the Atomic Bombings and earlier the Fire Bombings. But here's the thing...These were strategic moves; They weren't done out of hatred toward an entire race--they were done simply to end the war faster. They saved a lot of American AND Japanese lives, because an invasion would have killed many more people. Notice FDR and Truman didn't move to totally wipe out the Japanese people, to totally obliterate them.

You may disagree, but I don't believe every Muslim single man, woman and child should be wiped out. I don't believe every Muslim man, woman, child and baby is evil, either. Let's say the fanatics are ten million strong--You'll have wiped out hundreds of millions of good people just to get rid of ten million bad people. The cost doesn't outweigh the benefit. I'm pro-life. I don't believe in abortion. I also don't believe in murdering babies and children just because they adhere to a different religion than me, one that has some radical members, but many of whom live in peace. That's wrong. A grave, grave moral wrong.

PoliCon
12-08-2010, 11:18 PM
Yes, there innocent people killed by us in WWII, in the Atomic Bombings and earlier the Fire Bombings. But here's the thing...These were strategic moves; They weren't done out of hatred toward an entire race--they were done simply to end the war faster. They saved a lot of American AND Japanese lives, because an invasion would have killed many more people. Notice FDR and Truman didn't move to totally wipe out the Japanese people, to totally obliterate them. And do you think that when Jericho was laid waste it was done in hatred?


You may disagree, but I don't believe every Muslim single man, woman and child should be wiped out. I don't believe every Muslim man, woman, child and baby is evil, either. Let's say the fanatics are ten million strong--You'll have wiped out hundreds of millions of good people just to get rid of ten million bad people. The cost doesn't outweigh the benefit. I'm pro-life. I don't believe in abortion. I also don't believe in murdering babies and children just because they adhere to a different religion than me, one that has some radical members, but many of whom live in peace. That's wrong. A grave, grave moral wrong. Today? no. In it's infancy - yes. I did specify that in the beginning - in it's infancy. The number of innocents who would have been killed would have been negligible when weighed against the death and destruction islam has wrought in the world.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
12-08-2010, 11:34 PM
And do you think that when Jericho was laid waste it was done in hatred?
Today? no. In it's infancy - yes. I did specify that in the beginning - in it's infancy. The number of innocents who would have been killed would have been negligible when weighed against the death and destruction islam has wrought in the world.

Not sure what you're talking about as far as Jericho. I don't support genocide in any instance.
And you can say that about plenty of things, really. As it is, Muslims are here, and I believe the great majority of them are good people....

hampshirebrit
12-09-2010, 10:37 AM
Not sure what you're talking about as far as Jericho. I don't support genocide in any instance.

I think he's making a statement that a little genocide is acceptable within his morality, and that he'll check "higher up", so to speak, for any larger-scale efforts in a similar direction.

FBIGuy
12-09-2010, 12:54 PM
I think he's making a statement that a little genocide is acceptable within his morality, and that he'll check "higher up", so to speak, for any larger-scale efforts in a similar direction.

I'm still not sure what genocide you are referring to since the entire caananite race did not live in jericho. It seems to be that the hebrews destroyed a whole city for the same reason the allies destroyed Hiroshima. Both were looking at invading and wanted to speed the process up.

hampshirebrit
12-09-2010, 01:01 PM
I'm still not sure what genocide you are referring to since the entire caananite race did not live in jericho. It seems to be that the hebrews destroyed a whole city for the same reason the allies destroyed Hiroshima. Both were looking at invading and wanted to speed the process up.

The intent of the one (Jericho) was genocidal, as in leave no survivors, no men, women or children. It was further notable by being allegedly god-warranted.

The intent of the other (Hiroshima) was not genocidal ... otherwise US ground forces would have continued the killing once they had arrived in the city. And the bombing of Hiroshima was certainly not ever claimed to be religiously mandated.

FBIGuy
12-09-2010, 01:31 PM
The intent of the one (Jericho) was genocidal, as in leave no survivors, no men, women or children. It was further notable by being allegedly god-warranted.

The intent of the other (Hiroshima) was not genocidal ... otherwise US ground forces would have continued the killing once they had arrived in the city. And the bombing of Hiroshima was certainly not ever claimed to be religiously mandated.

It couldn't have been genocidal at Jericho since, as I have pointed out, not all of the Canaanites lived in Jericho. It was the whole sale destruction of a city for purposes of war just like Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Just because one you approve of one and the other you don't doesn't make one genocide and the other not. Since you don't believe in the bible then why do you put stock in its claims? Maybe the Hebrews just decided (which is more likely) to accredit their actions with their god's mandate. You seem to put as much stock in it as they do.

hampshirebrit
12-09-2010, 02:22 PM
It couldn't have been genocidal at Jericho since, as I have pointed out, not all of the Canaanites lived in Jericho. It was the whole sale destruction of a city for purposes of war just like Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Just because one you approve of one and the other you don't doesn't make one genocide and the other not. Since you don't believe in the bible then why do you put stock in its claims? Maybe the Hebrews just decided (which is more likely) to accredit their actions with their god's mandate. You seem to put as much stock in it as they do.

I suspect that the intent would have been and most likely was, to move on from Jericho to other cities populated by the same enemy group and repeat in full the actions committed after the previous battle.

I have to (again) point out that the intent behind the action in Jericho is not similar in any way to that of Hiroshima.

I'm not sure which part of that you don't understand, but just let me say again that US forces were not operating under rules stating that the defeated city then had to have all of its surviving citizens killed, as clearly was the case (Biblically documented and allegedly under divine order) in Jericho.

The Night Owl
12-09-2010, 05:33 PM
If you think that, then you also should agree that the same can easily be said for all religions, by practitioners of all religions, or of no religion.

I wouldn't go that far, personally

I'd just prefer that they ALL had been stillborn. There would have been no need for a body-count at all, that way.

We'd have the same, if not greater, and more prosperous a human population. Too much to hope for though. Humans love to pattern-match and find explanations for things. The middle-easterners did as well as any similar population could have been expected to do in the context of earthquakes and eclipses being unexplainable events and when most people died in their mid-twenties of illnesses that a course of amoxycillin and a couple of aspirin would have cured after three days, now, in the 21st century.

We can only hope for the domestication of world religions to accelerate apace in our modern world.

Given that two sects of the upstart version 3.0 of the Messianic middle-eastern religions have, or are about to acquire. possession of apocalyptic weaponry, we're probably shit-out-of-time and luck for that hope to be realised.

Imagine how much more advanced science and medicine would be if mankind had not felt satisfied by an explanation for disease that attributes it to evil spirits or divine plans or other such nonsense.

The Night Owl
12-09-2010, 05:41 PM
Lets see... a Muslim was the leading architect of the first manned space flight, and first space stations. A mulsim was also instrumental in NASA's work on the first moon landing.

Ibn Khaldun is responsible for most social sciences that we have today. You could probably thank him for your job.

A Pakistani economist created Microcredit.

Muhammad Yunus is a Nobel Prize winner for Microfinance.

Lets see... algebra, algorithims, symbolic algebra, and Fuzzy Mathematics are all attributted to Muslims.

Psychotherapy, Neurosurgery, Parkinsons Disease, and ton of other medical fields have all been pioneered by Muslims. Hell, modern medicine and surgery as a whole was largely pioneered by Muslims.

Abdus Salam is a Nobel Prize winner for works in Phsyics.



All of this is just merely the tip of the iceberg. But you would rather they had all never existed.

Here is a list of hundreds of Muslims who have made important contributions to the world we live in today. Knock yourself out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Muslim_scientists

The scientific method itself, let alone the many discoveries it made possible, originates with a Muslim man.

PoliCon
12-09-2010, 05:54 PM
The scientific method itself, let alone the many discoveries it made possible, originates with a Muslim man.

who?

hampshirebrit
12-09-2010, 05:59 PM
who?

He's probably referring to Ibn al-Haytham.

"Originates" is a bit of an overstatement, but he was an early adopter.

PoliCon
12-09-2010, 06:04 PM
He's probably referring to Ibn al-Haytham.

"Originates" is a bit of an overstatement, but he was an early adopter.

he also fails to fit the criteria set in that he predates the 1000 year time frame AND he was yet another first generation convert. He did not grow up in islam.

hampshirebrit
12-09-2010, 06:13 PM
he also fails to fit the criteria set in that he predates the 1000 year time frame AND he was yet another first generation convert. He did not grow up in islam.

I didn't realise we were still going with your criteria (the 1000 year rule). Forgive me.

Not sure, also, where you got the idea that he was a convert to Islam. I have not heard this claim made, prior to this evening.

You may be correct, but perhaps you would post the relevant links to back it up.

PoliCon
12-09-2010, 06:30 PM
I didn't realise we were still going with your criteria (the 1000 year rule). Forgive me.

Not sure, also, where you got the idea that he was a convert to Islam. I have not heard this claim made, prior to this evening.

You may be correct, but perhaps you would post the relevant links to back it up.

Given that he is from a city that was previously part of the Zoroastrian Sassanid Persian Empire - which had fallen to Islam roughly 200 years before - and that Islam had not been officially codified until his lifetime - it's a reasonable assumption. How long did it take for Christianity once it was installed as the official religion of Rome to spread through out the empire and finally supplant all other faiths? Even if he were born into a muslim family - his culture would not yet have been islamified - it would still have had strong Zoroastrian and Hellenic influences - which is in fact bore out by his own writings. Most of his strongest influences were greeks.

hampshirebrit
12-09-2010, 06:33 PM
Given that he is from a city that was previously part of the Zoroastrian Sassanid Persian Empire - which had fallen to Islam roughly 200 years before - and that Islam had not been officially codified until his lifetime - it's a reasonable assumption. How long did it take for Christianity once it was installed as the official religion of Rome to spread through out the empire and finally supplant all other faiths? Even if he were born into a muslim family - his culture would not yet have been islamified - it would still have had strong Zoroastrian and Hellenic influences - which is in fact bore out by his own writings. Most of his strongest influences were greeks.

Nice try, but I'd still prefer a verifiable source for your claim, if you have one.

If, as you say, the place he was from had fallen to Islam 200 years before he was a gleam in his father's eye, then he (and his mother and father) were most likely Muslim.

Do you have a link?

PoliCon
12-09-2010, 07:02 PM
Nice try, but I'd still prefer a verifiable source for your claim, if you have one.

If, as you say, the place he was from had fallen to Islam 200 years before he was a gleam in his father's eye, then he (and his mother and father) were most likely Muslim.

not at all. The EMPIRE fell to islam. that does not mean that every man woman and child at that point became a muslim. Zoroastrianism is still practiced in Iran - and that's with some fairly fierce oppression over the centuries. Further - given the weakness of the Buyids (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buyid) - they never really consolidated things - and that he frankly does not exist in records until he becomes a civil servant - it's safe to assume he was not born muslim and that if he were - it would have been an islam with strong Hellenic and indian and Zoroastrian influences. Keep in mind also that the university at which he studied was just newly founded and so it would be populated at that point not with Islamic learning but mostly with greek learning. :)

hampshirebrit
12-09-2010, 07:59 PM
it's safe to assume he was not born muslim

I don't see why you would state so confidently, from everything that you said before, that it is "safe to assume" this, as you put it.

I think it is very UNSAFE to assume anything at all from anything that you said in your post.


and that if he were

OK, this looks very much to me as if, suddenly, you are hedging your bets.

Like I said earlier, a link (this time ideally not from wikipedia.org) would be nice.

djones520
12-09-2010, 09:29 PM
Ibn al-haytham by his own word was not a Muslim, he was without a religion all together. In his youth, he studies the many various religions in Basra, and came to the conclusion that none of them were right.

After studying them, he made the decision to devote himself to mathematics.

That is from his auto-biography.

The important thing about him and his tie to Islam is that he made his many discoveries under the patronage of the Egyptian Caliph Al-Hakim.

Al-Hakim's money and patronage led to many scientific discoveries from many differant people.

hampshirebrit
12-09-2010, 09:32 PM
Ibn al-haytham by his own word was not a Muslim, he was without a religion all together. In his youth, he studies the many various religions in Basra, and came to the conclusion that none of them were right.

After studying them, he made the decision to devote himself to mathematics.

That is from his auto-biography.

Marvellous news though that is to me as an atheist, a link to a verifiable source would be even more wonderful.

I really like some means of independent verification on such weighty issues.

djones520
12-09-2010, 09:34 PM
http://www-history.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/Biographies/Al-Haytham.html

http://harvardmagazine.com/2003/09/ibn-al-haytham.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7810846.stm

This information was easily findable by simply typing his name into google.

hampshirebrit
12-09-2010, 09:48 PM
http://www-history.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/Biographies/Al-Haytham.html

http://harvardmagazine.com/2003/09/ibn-al-haytham.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7810846.stm

This information was easily findable by simply typing his name into google.

Interesting, all three, but there is virtually nothing at all in any of them to support the idea that he was an atheist.

I would love to think that he was one, but none of the links you put forward make any such suggestion.

Only the Harvard Magazine link takes a shot at this, stating that he "criticized contemporary Muslim theological theses"

Sorry, but just criticism is not enough.

djones520
12-09-2010, 10:06 PM
Interesting, all three, but there is virtually nothing at all in any of them to support the idea that he was an atheist.

I would love to think that he was one, but none of the links you put forward make any such suggestion.

Only the Harvard Magazine link takes a shot at this, stating that he "criticized contemporary Muslim theological theses"

Sorry, but just criticism is not enough.

Ummm... you are the only one who said he was an atheist. HE said that none of the religions available at the time struck him as the truth, so he did not follow any of them.

That is in at least two of those links.

hampshirebrit
12-09-2010, 10:53 PM
Ummm... you are the only one who said he was an atheist.


Actually not. I did not make any such claim, rather, you did, when you said:


he was without a religion all together

What else is he then, if not an atheist, if, as, you yourself say, he is "without a religion all together".

You were the one making this claim, not me.

I am contesting it. I already said, he was more likely to be a Muslim.

As you say, none of your links support your view. That's why I am contesting it.

Rockntractor
12-09-2010, 10:56 PM
Actually not. I did not make any such claim, rather, you did, when you said:



What else is he then, if not an atheist, if, as, you yourself say, he is "without a religion all together".

You were the one making this claim, not me.

I am contesting it. I already said, he was more likely to be a Muslim.

As you say, none of your links support your view. That's why I am contesting it.

Religion is an organization of men to worship a god. I believe in God at this point without an organized religion that I subscribe to.

djones520
12-09-2010, 11:02 PM
Actually not. I did not make any such claim, rather, you did, when you said:



What else is he then, if not an atheist, if, as, you yourself say, he is "without a religion all together".

You were the one making this claim, not me.

I am contesting it. I already said, he was more likely to be a Muslim.

As you say, none of your links support your view. That's why I am contesting it.

1. Not agreeing with organized religion does not make you an Atheist. Far from it. You should know as well as any that Atheism is not believing in a higher power. Not believing in the teachings of the religions, is not the same as not believing in a higher power.

2. I did not say that none of the links supported that view, I posted them because they did. But I will bring some qoutes for you just to help you out.


In his autobiography he explains how, as a youth, he thought about the conflicting religious views of the various religious movements and came to the conclusion that none of them represented the truth.
.....
However, ibn al-Haytham became increasingly unhappy with his deep studies of religion and made a decision to devote himself entirely to a study of science which he found most clearly described in the writings of Aristotle. Having made this decision, ibn al-Haytham kept to it for the rest of his life devoting all his energies to mathematics, physics, and other sciences.

http://www-history.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/Biographies/Al-Haytham.html


In a short autobiography, Ibn al-Haytham tells us that in his youth he scrutinized the claims of the many religious sects teeming around him. In the end it was the empirical strain and rational thinking he recognized in Aristotelian natural philosophy, and the rigor of mathematics, that finally won his heart. An early essay of his, now lost, was entitled "All matters secular and religious are the fruits of the philosophical sciences." In his time "philosophy" comprised all of mathematics, the natural sciences, and theology or metaphysics. He wrote on arithmetic, astronomy, music, ethics, politics, and poetry; defended astrology as a science based on mathematical proof; and criticized contemporary Muslim theological theses as well as positions taken by followers of the Christian philosopher-theologian Philoponus who were active in Baghdad.



http://harvardmagazine.com/2003/09/ibn-al-haytham.html

hampshirebrit
12-09-2010, 11:07 PM
Religion is an organization of men to worship a god. I believe in God at this point without an organized religion that I subscribe to.

Then at minimum, you have a religion of one, the Gospel According to Rockntractor, rather than a religion of men, or of many.

I have more respect for those with a religion of one, to be truthful. It shows at least they have done some thinking on the matter, at least, rather than just allow it to be served up to them.

Rockntractor
12-09-2010, 11:08 PM
Then at minimum, you have a religion of one, the Gospel According to Rockntractor, rather than a religion of men, or of many.

I have more respect for those with a religion of one, to be truthful. It shows at least they have done some thinking on the matter, at least, rather than just allow it to be served up to them.

Many would say this is wrong but it makes life less complicated.