Falafel

Mr Ryan, Very true. BUT... the context of that quote, was showing how tolerant the religion is Islam is towards other ideas besides itself. The context started CF wrongly saying that: To which, after backing it up with evidence, I said: The meaning here, is that Islam is intolerant of the religions which were not Islam, like Christianity, Judaism, what have you. However, it does not say to be intolerant of the people who hold such different religions. It says quite the contrary in fact, as I have already shown. This is the scope of the context, which you have taken it out of. So once again: Islam says kill infidels. Answer: No, under Islam, killing infidels is not justified. That is the context. What do you mean you want me to be "tolerant" of the fringe groups of muslims who view murder as a dictum of their religion? Just what do you want me to tolerate about them? And please show how/where you got that from. I want to see the logical (illogical?) process by which you came up with that. After you define a terrorist apologist, and back it up with your claim as to why I am one, (coz it doesnt exactly seem like a complement), list the claims you wish I would retract, so I can take a look at them, and see your line of irrational *cough* *cough* I mean, rational thought. -Falafel.

Wow. Ive missed alot. Ok, lets see: True, that I said the tale of 72 virgins is related to suicide. But where did I say that they were related to Islam? In fact, I have shown that it is anti-Islamic to be suicidal. So what is your beef? And Geez - temper temper! Sure religion is irratinal. But it can be consistently irrational. For example, christians believe in this irrational notion of "god". God this god that. What if I were to say that god is a pink elephant and Jesus was its daughter. Irrational? Sure. Consistent with Christianity's irrational beliefs? No. So no chrisitian would believe it. So that last point of your is mute. And where are your counter claims, and counter evidence - which is the hallmark of rational conversation? You asked for a rational conversation, and I gave you one hard core. Judging by the fonts you used, I think you have snapped over something silly. Calm down. As for you ending the "rational" conversation, im afraid you cant do that. With your attitude, it never really started. -Falafel

Implying that if those Muslims were to take the religion seriously enough, they would kill themselves to kill others. Right. I contest that. I contest the implied link you assert that "devout muslim = suicidal bomber." I contest it with the following evidence: Statement from a devout Muslim site: 1) http://www.thetruereligion.org/usattack.htm 2) [((Indeed, whoever (intentionally) kills himself, then certainly he will be punished in the Fire of Hell, wherein he shall dwell forever)), [bukhaaree (5778) and Muslim (109 and 110)]]. <-- Condemnation of suicide in general. 3) {And do not kill yourselves. Surely, Allaah is Most Merciful to you}, [soorah an-Nisaa., Aayah 29]. Verse 29: "And verily, your soul is not your's to take - for only Allah hath given it to you, and only He may take it back." 4) "For he who shall commit suicide, shall never learn of the sweet smell of paradise, but bear witness to the ethereal fires of eternity burning at his flesh." Quote: Prophet Mohammed, 600-700 AD. Please show counter-evidence to the former statements, showing how suicide is compatible with Islam. I will take a lack of a response as a retraction of your earlier statement. --------------------------- Please show where in the Qur'an, along with specific verses and chapters, of the call to kill infidels, in the context of killing infidels by virtue of them simply being infidels. While you are doing that, bear the following facts: 1) "The Messenger of Allah (saas) said, "One who kills a non-Muslim person under protection (Arabic: dhimmi) will not even smell the fragrance of Paradise." Quote: Prophet Mohammed. 2) "Whoever hurts a non-Muslim person under protection, I am his adversary, and I shall be an adversary to him on the Day of Resurrection" Al-Khateb, Verse 19. In short, Islam is intolerant of false ideas, however it is tolerant of the people who hold to those ideas. 3) Emperical evidence: Historically, during the Imperial Arab raids and the spread of Islam, after the dust had settled, the communities of non-Muslim people continued to survive, and exist to this day. Jews, Christians, Druze, Zorasterians, Circassians and Armenians continue to live in the predominant Muslim middle east. Please show counter-evidence to the former statements, thereby supporting your original assertion, that the Qur'an supports killing infidels for the sake of solely being infidels. I will take a lack of a response as a retraction of your earlier statement. ----------------------------- I am an infidel, I punch you, you declare jihad on me, and punch me back...then perhaps I punch you back still - what is your point? Of course it is to be expected that the enemy fights back. Clarify, or drop. Ahh, but by your original statement of , why would your average family of the suicide bomber think it a "good" thing of their son getting killed. Your prior own statement has nulled your latest one. Ahh, but again: 1) The Israeli government performs actions again and again that are consistentlt injust by demolitions and killings, the people of Israel sanction this action by not doing anything about it, (by paying their taxes), they are therefore part of the problem, and are not innocent. 2) Couple 1 with the fact that ALL Israelis (men and women) MUST serve in the Israeli army for 2 years after graduation from high school by law of the draft, and thus aiding and abetting whatever greivances the Israeli government might perform on Ahmed's family. Again, they are far from innocent. 3) Not all the terrorists are suicidal. Frequently, snipers are blamed for taking out entire checkpoints and soldiers - those are not suicidal. The creed of people who decide to pick up a dynamite belt versus a sniper rifle are the ones who have lost all hope of life, and are paralysed by the death-rife situation, and have nothing left to live for, much like a person paralysed from the neck down might choose to kill themselves. In this case, they are going to take whoever paralysed them down with them. Morale of the story: Loss of all hope = I have nothing to lose. If im going down, you're going down with me. Your entire deduction of Islam, has come forth from the actions of the perpetrators of terrorism. You are deducing the ideology of a fringe group (as we agreed they are from your first statement), and applying it to the whole group. In short, you are saying the properties of a set B, apply to its mother set A, when set B is but a subset of A. This is wrong mathematically, and intellectually. You have yet to show your proof. No new info has been provided. Thus, I re-itterate the original question: "Now I ask you, what evidence do you have as to your assertion that "Islamic culture, especially the teachings on submission and on jihad rewarded by virgins, being the true root cause of terrorism"?"

My refutation: If the above were true, then given the vast amount of Muslims (95%) in the middle east, alot more of them would be lured into "getting 72 virgins", and starting to blow up "infidels" for this goal. Is this true? No, instead, we see terrorists come from a fringe group of people. They come from the other end of the Bell curve. Another point, terrorists will not go into a mall, blow themselves up, and leave a will saying "Sorry dudes - I was just trying to get to my harems on 7th heaven - no hard feelings". If what you say was the true motivation for killing, we would see those "sorry" terrorists. Is this the case? No. Instead, we see a group of people who are very politically inclined - who have a real political case, and who do their suicidal deeds for political goals. In fact, the tale of getting 72 virgins and rivers of flowing milk and honey is told to provide insurance about your suicide being in vain. The actual reason why Ahmed decides to blow up a bus is because of some prior unrelated grievance, related to the West's actions. (Or Israel's). (As evidenced in many pre-bomb wills of bombers who talk about how a family member is killed by say, an Israeli, and now they are enacting revenge.) ------------------- Now I ask you, what evidence do you have as to your assertion that "Islamic culture, especially the teachings on submission and on jihad rewarded by virgins, being the true root cause of terrorism"? ------------------- Apologies for the "obsenity". Now I know where the line is. -Falafel

It is unfortunate that you would not look into the analysis that so convolutes you, as to the causes of certain political effects in today's world. I also find it funny you would attribute today's political turmoil on how often Arab teens dont get laid. I understand, maybe somewhere, sometime, some Arab teen really wanted an out-of-this world blowjob, but couldnt jerk himself off in the first place because both his hands were blown off by an Israeli mine. Then he decides to blow up a cafe. On this point, I can agree with you. However, linking everything negative under the sun to Islam gets quite simplistic, and well, lets just say "rash". You see, I am trying to convince you that this is not caused sqaurely on Islam, without resorting to using my trump card of saying "Ive lived there all my life, so I know what its like". Sure, the animal Arab leaders are to blame for alot of stuff. But I would also blame the animals who put them there too. (The British). What, (who?) is an "Ivory tower"? ehh?

Welcome. Do you like Falafel?

Ok, it is the definitions we are then disagreeing with. I agree with the dictionary's definition ... ... I am thinking about your definition "causually unrelated". A list of numbers of the day-to-day temperature would be random to you, since those numbers are not causually related to your wishes. (Agree/Disagree?) What then of a list of numbers {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14... etc}. ? They are listed here, and are not causually related to your wishes. You are calling those random numbers, since they are not causally related to your wishes? -Falafel.

Hmm, well this is new. Randomness is relative? The American Heritage dictionary defines random as: "Having no specific pattern, purpose, or objective: random movements." Would I be paraphrasing you correctly if I said: "A coin toss is random with respect to your wishes, but not random with respect to forces imparted onto it." "A pool ball falling into the left pocket is a random event to you if you dont think about how you hit it, but it is not a random event to the physics governning pool balls." "The temperature outside is a random number, relative to you, (since you do not see any pattern to temperature), but it really does have pattern based on the laws of physics". Coming back to tossing coins: "You cannot see a pattern to the results of a coin toss (ie random w.r.t you), but in reality, there is a predictable pattern to the coins results based on the laws of physics." If this is true, it would seem the concept of randomness (if I understand you correctly) amounts to a failure of perception - the failure of seeing a predictable pattern, when in fact there is a pattern that can be predicted, based on laws of science. -Falafel

I dont think so - a people who arent independant (eg, Arabs under Ottoman rule) could/did long for an independance from the Ottomans (as they did). As far as I know, the Arab states did give in to the Empire - and we got Shiehkdoms. A classic case is the British fostered coup in the Trucial states of the gulf, when they removed Shiekh Zayed's brother from power, and put in, wouldnt you know it, Shiekh Zayed himself. (Both are monarchs). This process was repeated throughout the middle east. Well, history will tell us, the relationship between the West and the Arabs has always been Love-Hate. In recent times, the beginning of this sweet and sour chicken relationship started in the beginning of the 20th century. Surely, there is a cause as to why the Arabs didnt like the West's actions. But it has little to do with 72 virgins waiting in paradise. In fact, what about the secular dimension of the Arab disenfrisement with the West? Its sad, but America inherited the mis-trust the British got from the Arabs because of the British not keeping to their promises. For a people coming out of this with the British, America suddenly supporting Israel looked like a conspiracy of the highest ranks between the British and the Americans. This is where the mistrust comes from. Anyway, I dont want to get cluttered up in this - but I do beleive that statement is misinformed at best. Umm I agree with that...but why are you saying it....? And if he robs him when its clear that Joe is guilty of a prior robbery?

Umm.... Of course the result of a coin toss is totally unrelated to your wishes, or to say, what the days' soup special is. However, would you not agree, that weather or not you get heads or tails, depends on something? (Like the initial position of the coin in your hand, the amount of energy you impart to it, and the angle at which you impart the force to it.). Since it depends on those conditions, how can you call it random?

Ok, after a couple seconds of though on this, I can agree with it. But for the time being, let us leave out free-will and conciousness - for now.. we'll come back to it. Just so I understand you correctly, (AshRyan), are you saying that: * There is no such thing as a random event in the universe. * ? -Falafel

I see.

RadCap, No No, I am sure. One specific example I distinctly remember between me and a member of the oist club here was: A man alone on an island possesses no rights whatsoever. The reason given was because there were no other people on the island with him. More realistic examples they gave were say, "Iraqis have no rights." "Why?" "Because they live in a dictatorship." I agree that Saddam had no business in respecting their rights, but their claim is that they do not possess rights to begin with, since their government doesnt respect them. So I got the drift that they are somehow legal positivists, meaning whether or not you have rights depends on the society you live in. I personally have always subscribed to the idea that if you belong to the species of Homo Sapiens, you have rights. As far as the example goes, the context would be modern day America. Not anarchy. -Falafel.

Ilk simply means "group". "People of your ilk" - "people of your group." As far as Britain goes, yes, the British told the Arabs that if they helped them topple the Ottomans, they would give them their independance, so the Arabs did so, but only to have monarchs installed to suit British interests. This was the beginning of the mistrust between the Arabs and the West. Hypocrites, the British truly were. Divide and Conquer was the strategy. As far as what you say Mr Capitalismforever, I do not disagree with you on the 'rights' part - but I can swear to you that is not what other obejctivists I have talked to say. They are contantly trying to home in the point that only people in the Western World have rights, - yes, not just respected - have them. So the rest of the world's peeps are disposable with. (since they dont have (possess) rights). I dont know if you agree with this. ------------------------ As long as Imperialism to which you refer to involves simple non-violent colonization of uninhabited land, hey, who can disagree. But it is when phrases such as "they need re-colonization" come up with what I take issue with, because the implied idea is a re-do of the colonization that the old imperial powers did, with all its disgusting trails of death and destruction that makes me raise a red flag to the use of that term. -Falafel. p.s. Curious - Joe robs Jack, so Joe has forfeighted his rights. Paul (third unrelated party) robs Joe. Is Paul guilty of violating Joe's rights? Joe has already forfeighted his rights by a prior action, how can Paul be guilty of anything?

So its like a group immigration. In my experience with people of your ilk, it has come to my attention that they do not consider for example the ancient indians to possess rights, since they were all savages. Same would go for the rest of the local populaces who were colonised. Right? Then when you say "oh but natural law", they go "intrincist!". So Im confused. Yes, I have read the essays on rights, but to no avail. I thought you guys consider people who live in a free society as having rights, as opposed to say people ina dictatorship. Correct me if Im wrong. Apologies about the colonisation bit. -Falafel

Mr Gabriel, How did you come to the conclusion that free will is in fact "free", and not a result of simply many many many causal variables coming into play in ones mind, that results in one's actions? (determinism). Before you tell me to go and read up on Peikoff's lectures, I have, and Im back, so now I am asking you. Much obliged. -Falafel.

The colonization you are talking off seems more like umm, immigration - a group of people immigrate from one territory to another, to start over, start a new life, what have you. I see nothing wrong with that. However, it is when those immigrants start to impose their new laws on the local populace, or even other 'immigrants' is where it gets murky. As far as the middle east not being colonised....where have you been? Egypt, Palestine, Jordan and Iraq were colonised by the British, with Syria, Lebanon, and Algeria to the French. I do not know too much about colonial history, but I seriously doubt British colonization was really just all that much umm 'nice' as you have put it. My real question rests on the following though: Admittantly, the European powers used Imperialism to 'subjugate and enslave' local populace, this happened all over. But I am suprised as to why you consider this immoral. Afterall, those subjugated peoples - they were all primitives, with no nation of their own - they had no human rights. So why do you consider it be immoral to brutally subjugate them as the European powers did to many parts of Africa, and Middle east?

European Imperialism of the middle east, Africa, Asia, etc. Was it justified? As an officer of some European nation in the past, would you have supported invading and colonising the territories of Africa, Asia, etc? Was it moral? Your thoughts

From my knowledge Matt, the brain is an interconnection of a vast amount of neurons, more or less placed in different parts of the brain for different purposes. The anterior for sight, left lobe for emotion, etc. There is some part of this neural circuirty that is responsible for giving rise to the "free will" phenomenon, and this is what I was asking about. I still do not know why you reject the idea off hand. No matter, this is a biological question, which has no place here, so lets forget about it. I would rather then ask you this: Kindly summarise for me the official objectivist position on free will, VS determinism. I will then take this to the oist club here and talk with them. thanks Falafel.

I need to get this one concept cleared up - it involves randomness. Do you believe in it, or do you see events as purely deterministic, and causal? I am inclined to agree with the latter, and this is why I do not think that our "free will" really is "free" - many many many events come together, and cause us to do stuff, say stuff, etc. The central point though comes to ramdomness - is there such a thing? Or do you see the universe as purely deterministic? -Falafel

Why thank you. Why do you no accept "free-will circuitry"? What is your problem with this concept? I do not know why I like the color blue... Lets do this instead: What is your favourite color?

Although I agree with you my friend, but I simply do not have the time do to that. The paper is due in 2 weeks or so. However, I thought that since most of you already have done just that, or more than I have, you could share your knowledge for this purpose, by answering the questions laid forth above. No need for a lecture, just some statements on what you think the answers are. Much obliged, and appreciated! -Falafel.

Hello?

Hi everyone - I am new here, I have already introduced myself on the 'hello' thread. Anyway, I am currently writing a paper on AI, and I have stumbled upon a myriad of questions, which cut into a whole variety of fields, from philosophy to psychology, to child development. I heard from someone that "objectivists" would be good start to try and answer my questions. So here I go: 1) How are you? Good, so am I. 2) What are the defining qualities of a being that is "self-aware"? 3) What is thought? We think. Do mammals in general think? Do reptiles think? Ants? Fleas? Worms? 4) Depending on the answer to #3, can you have thought without being conscience? 5) How does a human baby "know" that it can move two arms and two legs? ...one I have really been struggling with: 6) What is the source of values? i) How are values formed in the mind? ii) When are they formed? iii) (Why?) iv) Do the particular values that someone develops have some genetic dimension? If so, then how much of values depend on the external world? v) Why is my favourite color blue, not red? (value of color). Oh, some more: 7) Apparently, the free-will circuitry in the brain has 100 billion neurons, with each neuron in contact with 10,000 other neurons. What is the configuration of this circuitry in the anterior neo-cortex part of the brain? Thank you in advance for your feed-back, and anything else you may want to add. Oh! One more important one: 8) Attachment is a mammalian quality - which we humans have the capability of due to our central mammalian part of the brain. Now, if and only if, we crudely define attachment as "Wanting to be in the vicinity of that which we value", then that would seem to imply that cats have values right? Afterall, a mommy cat gets very attached to its babies. Does it not value the babies? Does it not "want" to see them live? Thank you!

Hello, I am 'Falafel', and am new to this board. I come from Palestine, and I am 23 years old. I have come to this board in order to get some feedback on certain issues I need for my work in AI, or rather, AC. Thank you!