Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Sep 24, 2018 5:34 am
Age wrote: ↑Sun Sep 23, 2018 1:22 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Sep 21, 2018 5:31 amShow what I have presented above is distorted and is different from what is in the Quran, i.e. which the words direct from God.
Once again you say "i.e. which the words direct from God", yet, you also believe that there is no possibility of a God. How can there be words from a thing that you, yourself say, does not even exist? Either God exists, and says words, or God does NOT exist, which one is it going to be, from your perception? You can not keep saying both, as they both are right, without looking very stupid.
You are conflating here.
So what if i am?
Conflating is not necessary a negative nor evil thing in and of itself. Or do you believe it is?
If there is some thing false, wrong, incorrect, inaccurate, unsound, or invalid in what I have said, then just point that out. To accuse some one of "conflating" does not really say much at all.
Also, if to you there is some thing with conflating, then just point that out also, and show where and why it is wrong with what I have said.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Sep 24, 2018 5:34 amYes, I claim God is an impossibility.
But theists claim God exists and is real.
Obviously AND so what? Who cares what either of you claim. The truth is only what is important here.
Did you actually believe that you needed to point out that "theists claim God exists and is real" to others, especially in a philosophy forum? What do you think others think the word 'theists' entails?
You may be right in pointing out your claims once more because not all others know what you claim, but to point out what theists claim is taking up a lot of reading time.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Sep 24, 2018 5:34 amWhen I stated "i.e. which the words direct from God" I am referring to what the theists are claiming.
This is so basic.
I am surprised you could be confused with the above.
I NEVER was confused about with the above. Your interpretation lead you to believe that it was I that was confused.
After all this, so what what theists claim? You do NOT believe for one second what theists claim about God anyway, so why write what theists claim as though it could be somehow correct?
What was your point of doing that?
You, wholeheartedly, believe that God is an impossibility, so, to you, there NEVER could be any words from an impossible thing. Full stop.
What is of the upmost importance are your words, as they are what is absolutely true, right, and correct, to you, right? What other people claim is of absolutely no importance here. Your claim that the ideology of islam is inherently evil is the only thing that is important in this thread.
From your perspective, no matter what is said and written anywhere in this world those word could only have possibly come from human beings only. End of story okay?
Once we have gotten to that truth, and get past that, then we can look further and deeper into whether the words in the quran were written with evil intent or not.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Sep 24, 2018 5:34 amWhat is distorted are your countless beliefs and views. But what is distorted in what you presented above is;
1. The word 'islam' does not have an actually meaning. Like all words in existence the meaning behind then comes from a personal interpretation.
In the case of the word 'Islam' the meaning is within the context of the Quran, i.e. the words directly delivered by God [as claimed by Muslims not me].
Do you believe all the words of muslims?
If not, then seriously you will have to stop quoting what muslims say, as though what muslims say is THE truth.
If you want to look at what is written in the quran with me, then stop saying that what is written in the quran are the words directly delivered by God. You do not believe that is any way possible, so stop saying it.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Sep 24, 2018 5:34 amIn this case, the meaning of 'Islam' should and must be based on the intention of Allah from Allah's own words in the Quran and not from the personal interpretation of Muslims.
How in hell can any person look for the meaning based on the intention of Allah, especially if to you there is no possibility of an Allah?
Are you aware that the meaning behind absolutely any thing is relative to the one doing the observing? In other words the meaning based on the intention of any word is only ever really known by the one writing or saying it. Therefore, unless you are Allah or the actual person who wrote the original quran, then absolutely any thing else is just an INTERPRETATION. What you, or any muslim, says about what the actual original meaning and intention was behind any word in the quran is just a PERSONAL INTERPRETATION.
To reiterate, YOU DO NOT KNOW.
AND, just because YOU have an INTERPRETATION that in of itself does NOT make THAT interpretation correct.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Sep 24, 2018 5:34 am2. That the ideology of islam IS inherently evil. You actually believe that if any other human being does not agree with your interpretation of 'islam', then those people are ignorant or are intending to deceive.
What I am claiming is based on the message in the 6236 verses of the Quran.
Again, and I do not know how many more times I will have to say this to you, what you are claiming is NOT based on the message in the 6236 verses of the quran. THE truth IS what you are claiming is based on YOUR INTERPRETATION on the message in the 6236 verses of the quran.
Can you SPOT the difference NOW?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Sep 24, 2018 5:34 amI have already given some examples but there are hundreds and thousands of evil laden verses of various degrees in the Quran.
I do NOT see any evil laden verses nor any inherently evil intent within any thing in the quran. But, again, that is because you and I observe things very differently. In other words you interpret things differently than I do. And let me guess what you are thinking now. Your interpretations are absolutely, true, right, correct while mine are just plain wrong? Am I right?
You say that you can see, and know, what the intent is behind other peoples words and message. And, that what you see and know is absolutely true, correct, and right.
I, however, am different. I just express what I observe.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Sep 24, 2018 5:34 amI have already provided some links [need refinements] to support my point.
What exactly needs refinements? If you do not show what needs refinements, then would you like us to just make assumptions about what it is that you are seeing? And of which I obviously do NOT see.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Sep 24, 2018 5:34 amE.g.
As I had suggested you need to read the Quran to confirm the above claims are true.
What claims?
There is NO claim of anything there. There is, however, an obviously already biased INTERPRETATION being presented.
You are just like every other adult human being, at the moment, which is professing that you KNOW, and are expressing, THE TRUTH. Where in fact the truth is the only thing you and them are showing is your already held beliefs on things, most of which are very distorted and biased. The obviousness of how you are only looking for, seeing, and now trying to express that, what conforms to your already gained beliefs is startling clear. You are only looking for, and seeing, what confirms your already biased views.
Your bias confirmation is here for all to see, and study.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Sep 24, 2018 5:34 am3. I said, "I have heard ..." And you say that that is wrong. How can it be wrong? I only stated what I have heard. I NEVER stated anywhere that it is right (or wrong). Your own beliefs blind you to this very fact, even though I pointed that out to you already. You still are under the spell of your own distorted beliefs and views, which are misguiding you further and further away from truth and reality.
You got confused again.
That you did hear did happen, I am not disputing that.
I stated what you have heard, i.e. 'Islam is a Religion of Peace' and implied as peaceful to non-Muslims is misleading.
But I NEVER said that I have heard that 'islam is a religion of peace'. I said that I have heard that the word 'islam', literally, means
peace. Nothing more and nothing less.
Are you absolutely 100% sure that it is I that is confused?
I actually went on to confess that I 'now' looked up the word 'islam' and that the one of countless definitions for the word 'islam' that I 'now' saw, was that the word 'islam' was related to or came from the word 'salam', which is a word that means
peace. As far as I can gain from your writings you more or less read the same piece and agreed with that also, correct?
As I suggest earlier on a 'religion' of peace is for EVERY one, and not just some. But that would have gone right on passed you. The reason for this is startling clear also. Having distorted beliefs tend to do that to people. But anyway, obviously the followers of peace, or the followers of a "religion" of peace, would NOT do any thing to harm, hurt, injure, offend, nor any other as seen as a negative word, towards a non-follower of peace. The followers of peace, by definition, would and WILL do all they can to help, support, encourage, comfort, and any thing else that is seen as being in the positive side of the spectrum to guide a non-peaceful person to bring them towards being a loving and peaceful person.
The obviousness of this should NOT NEED to be stated. But now it has been. By the way the word 'non-muslim' means a person who is not following/submitting to
peace. In other words a 'non-muslim', by definition, is
an angry, aggressive, and violent person. Just because a person might say they are a muslim and they carry out any non-peaceful behavior, then OBVIOUSLY they are NOT a follower of
peace. Also just because a person might yell out some words, which are written in the quran or any other book, when they are carrying out a violent act then that in no way whatsoever could even imply that they were being peaceful, following, nor submitting to peace.
To 'submit to peace', or submit to a leader of peace God/Allah/Whoever, literally would mean NOT doing any thing other than what is truly peaceful.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Sep 24, 2018 5:34 amThat point is wrong in relation to the inherent pathos of the religions as represented in the holy book[s].
Once again, that "inherent pathos of the religions as represented in the holy book[s]" IS solely depended upon the one who is looking at the book[s], and their INTERPRETATION of what is in the book[s]. If a person has been swayed one way or another BEFORE they look at any thing, then obviously they are going to have a BIASED INTERPRETATION of what they are looking at or into.
When will that sink in?
I will say it again, what is right or wrong in relation to the inherent pathos of ANY religions as "represented" in the holy or any book[s] IS solely dependent upon the one looking or observing.
Your use of the word 'represented' IS confusing the issue for you because you are making the claim that what is being 'represented' is the whole and only truth. When all along it is YOUR INTERPRETATION that is forming and making up what is supposedly and allegedly being REPRESENTED.
If and when the original speaker/writer can be asked for clarification, then that is when the ONLY true representation can be given. Everything is just an interpretation. And, to believe that one has the true and thorough interpretation and representation of another is a very distorted view of what is actually true. Also, the more a book has been interpreted and/or changed, then the further from the intention within the book can and on all accounts does get.