Click the image for a larger version. Inspired by another infamous viral image…
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
This entry was posted
on Thursday, November 15th, 2007 at 1:52 am and is filed under Humor, Philosophy.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
November 23rd, 2007 at 4:47 am
it perfectly makes sense. May be not for you. But they know who is who. What is the purpose of taking pictures anyway? it is not to recognise your face. Many people takes pictures to remember where tey were and wit who. That picture is meaningful for them. Do not judge people with your own understanding try to understand theirs.
November 23rd, 2007 at 3:23 pm
Ihsan,
If those were men standing there, having their picture taken in full-body burqas, you would agree with me that the picture is non-sensical. But because they are women, you wish to defend that barbaric practice.
I’m sorry, you’ve come to the wrong place if you’re looking for someone to respect Sharia. I simply don’t, for the same reason I don’t respect other radical religions: they not only make no sense, but they repress human rights and promulgate themselves by virulent means.
What happens when Sharia is supreme is clearly revealed in the documentary Beneath the Veil: [Part1] [Part2] [Part3] [Part4] [Part5]
While I have breath, I will do what is necessary to prevent this virulence from spreading. If you think you have rational arguments for your religion, I will argue with you and show your foolishness to the world. If you engage in or defend barbarous practices, I will laugh at you or cry to the world as appropriate. And if necessary, I will fight.
You may claim that Islam is a religion of peace, but that is not what the evidence reveals. Islam remains a religion of war as long as it declares that I live in dar al-Harb: the House of War.
November 24th, 2007 at 12:28 am
Yes, If there were men in burqas (or naked) taking pictures I would think that there must be a reasonable meaning of that.
I’m not here to defend any religion or ideology. I just wanted to say there is not one color in the sun there are many. there is no one simple truth, there are millions. every understanding has a part of truth in it. How can you say that 2 billion foolish people are following christianity, 1.5 billion Islam some hundreds of million atheism. I’m not going to be defending Islam that you learned from Fox tv.
By the way: Dar al-harb is not house of war, it means the state of anarchy, don’t you think that you are living in a country (or world) that in the state of anarchy.
Be open to others, be open minded, think there can be other truths around, think others may be right too. I can say tens of truth in your understanding, try to find truth in others. (you can start from thinking that there might be different explanations in what you can see literally-example dar-el-harb)
November 24th, 2007 at 12:42 am
Ihsan,
I don’t watch Faux TV.
You can say that all stories are “true” in a metaphorical way, but that does not mean that all stories are factual. The stories of Islam, Christianity, and Judaism cannot all be factual— they are in irreconcilable conflict. On my personal journey, I have yet to see evidence that any of their metaphysical assertions are factual.
State of anarchy? You mean “anarchy” in the sense of “without ruler?” Sure, I can see that interpretation of dar al-Harb. Because the “ruler” that dar al-Harb countries are without is… Islam. Am I right? If that is the case, then by your definition, the U.S.A. is in a state of “anarchy.” For all our faults, we are still a democracy. Muslim apologists are fast becoming well known for this sort of disingenuous word play.
You don’t need to tell me to be open-minded: I was raised Christian and now I am an atheist. To make that shift I had to be open-minded. I would become a believer again should some religion actually make unique metaphysical claims backed up with evidence. But so far they have not— they blather about reason and tolerance while promulgating the exact opposite.
November 24th, 2007 at 1:41 am
“anarchy” is not the state (not country - I meant situation or fact) of “without ruler”. It is the state of without PEACE. I’m not going to argue about rulers and democracy in Islamic countries or USA (democracy in USA is also a lie, you must know that it might be better -in some cases- than others but still not a democracy). When you look at the world today do you see peace? (atomic bombs, wars, religious conflicts, global warming, powerty, wild capitalism, exploitation of the third world, so on..) I do not.
I’m not saying all stories are “true”, I’m saying all stories may have truth in them. For example, Marx was right about his observations on bourgeoisie and working class. But his solutions were wrong. and did not work out. So can I say that Marx was totally wrong NO. he was right in some parts of his thoughts.
Moving from one extreme to another does not make one open minded. Yes arguments of religions do not make “sense” for some people. Could you tell me are the all arguments of atheism “make sense” for you. you can say that atheism makes more sense from your perspective, but it is hard to say it fully makes sense. To see full picture one should be in the middle or above all understanding. It would have been more understandable if you would have said that you are “agnostic”, not defending any extreme point of view. Now you are like the ones that you are blaming.
November 24th, 2007 at 2:27 am
Anarchy actually has many definitions. The more charitable ones are “without ruler,” or “self rule”, the less charitable ones include “societal chaos,” or as you put it “without peace.”
The world is complex. There is peace in some places and not in others. I doubt I will see world peace in my life time, but I do have hope for it eventually. I do not think that Islam (or Christianity, or name-your-religion-here) has the solution for world peace.
While I cannot say that any particular religion has no “truth” (i.e., wisdom) in its stories, the issue again is which one has the metaphysical facts on its side. So far I have found none that do.
Atheism is not an extreme— it is the natural outcome of weak theological evidence and arguments. I do not call myself an agnostic for the same reason that most people do not think of themselves as agnostic towards the proposition that unicorns exist. I simply don’t believe in unicorns because of the lack of evidence for them. Similarly I am not waiting for evidence that a “square circle” exists. It is silly to take an agnostic position on such a thing. Similarly, the description of God (Allah, whatever) given by most religions is either insubstantial to prove, or so contradictory that it cannot exist. Surely an actual all-powerful deity could leave less ambiguity about its existence?
In any case, by being open to new evidence, I do consider myself to be in the middle. I have beliefs (for instance, I am currently an atheist), but my beliefs are provisional— open to changing upon new evidence. I wonder if that is the case with you, however? Ask yourself, “What evidence could possibly come to light that would convince me that my current religion is probably false?” Note that I am not asking for you to consider an absolute disproof of your religion, just something that would throw extreme doubt upon it. I can certainly think of things that would shake my atheism. But if you can think of nothing that would shake your faith, then I propose it is you who are at the extreme.
November 24th, 2007 at 4:58 am
So we are agree that -at least some places- there is “societal chaos” or “dar al-harb”
I have experienced doubts about my religion for many years. At the and I came to point that “if he is exist” in this point I had in my mind %50 chance. so if there is still chance let me explore more. this time was my 30s now I’m 38 years old. There are some issues I have not solved yet. But I have enough evidence to believe. (it’ll take long time to explain here- may be we can share this later). I say what a scholar says, “without doubt there will not be certainity” (certainity is “eeman” in arabic, often being translated as “faith”, which is not true)
I have doubts, this is not my (or yours) superiority. İt is already there. What we do is supress or ignore them. It is there (in my understanding: given) I did not do anything to develope my doubts, I just found this mechanism there like I found other mechanisms inside us. Such as world peace, we hope to see world peace, whomever we ask they say same thing (even girls in beauty contests) means we did not do anything to develope this sense, they are there (given-or whatever you name that), sense of love, hate, beauty, ugliness so on.. these are not intellectual gainings these are for everyone.
There are different ways to get information. Reasoning processes these information and comes to conclucion. Science is one of them (not only one) our senses second, (Aristotle also talks about senses), there are also some other sources to know.
You can not establish knowledge on “lack of evidence” or “not knowing about something” if you are establishing a statement on negative statement simply you can not find positive answer. “I do not know E=M.C2 is true so that it is wrong.” is a false statement. In order to say; “I have evidence that there is no god, no purpose of life”. you have to prove it.
For the Atheism: to say, “I do not see strong evidence for God.” is different than, “I see strong evidence that there is no god”. First, as you mentioned, is natural outcome of lack of strong evidence. Second is another belief or statements. That is why I think atheism is extreme (or similar to the other belief systems).
I have some questions in my mind for you to ask your senses; Are you happy that this world is the only world and there will not be another place to go. (it is like baby in mother’s whomb thinking that there is no other place to go. This dark place is the only place in jelly water. I will live and die after 9 months) do you think that (I just read that you have had second baby) you will die and will not see your babies any more. does this thinking hurt your feelings? why? did you ask yourself you came to this world for no purpose and will go after you 80-90 (who knows may be tomorrow) after this much experience and wisdom, and knowledge. does this sound fair to you? Why?
When you search evidences outside of your own world it is very easy to not see them, but what about your inside? did you find any evidence that this way of understanding sounds fair and makes you feel good?
I’m honestly asking these questions, I’m not trying to explain to you something. These my questions I have to deal with. (even a Muslim can be doubtfull:),
(please do not judge me the information you get wherever you get them. (I believe it is not FOX), and do not judge me with your Christian or other religious backgrouns.)
THIS IS MY CONCLUSION: I have certainity (not just belief, developed in long time) that, This three dimensional world is not the only world. As I was in my mother’s womb, observed a development in my physical body. my hands, my feet, even my mouth which was useless in that time (I could not speak, I could not eat from my mouth) I was preparing to live in this life, now I’m in a limited world for my senses, (their desires are bigger than my world-like my mouth, my feet) are preparing fr another dimension. This journey has nothing to do with God, creator, absolute power, (or simply nature you name it). this journey is for myself, my perfection, my happines. Why considering GOD, because he knows me better than me, to learn about your car, you go to owner’s manual, which is written by the maker. it is not praising or accepting the Toyota Company’s power. It is simply understand what is going on in your car.
This is my personal conclusion, and makes me understand the world and makes me happy. What is the purpose of life anyway, isn’t it to be happy?
you may be thinking this is foolishnes, what about your story? does it make you happy? or will you be happy when you come to 80s. I saw many atheists started to believe after 70s. what about you.
I would like to hear your side of the story.
November 24th, 2007 at 3:16 pm
Ihsan,
I agree that in some places there is societal chaos. But “societal chaos” is not the commonly accepted definition of dal al-Harb. In fact, dal al-Harb is defined in various ways at different times by different scholars. Let’s look at some of those interpretations (including yours, though you have not claimed to be a scholar) and whether or not I concur that the United States is dar al-Harb by them:
Many Muslims (including you) would disagree with at least some of my assessments above and answer YES where I have answered NO. So while the situation is complex, as long as you personally uphold he idea that I am living in dar al-Harb by some definition, you give aid and comfort to the more radical elements of your religion who uphold definitions of dal al-Harb with which you may disagree.
You claim to have “evidence [enough] to believe.” If this is so, then bring it forth, that we who do not believe may also believe on the strength of your evidence. If your “evidence” is weak, or purely of personal, non-transferrable experience, then do not speak of it as “evidence,” for those who understand the methods of science consider such talk foolish.
I agree that science is not the only path to knowledge: but it is the only path to universal knowledge. For instance, I know I like chocolate. For me, chocolate is a good thing, a pleasure (in moderation.) But does this mean that I know that chocolate is a good thing for everyone else? Does it even matter that many people agree with me that chocolate is a pleasure? No. That I like chocolate is “non-rational preference,” i.e., faith. However, this “faith” is not transferrable to others. Based on my “faith” in chocolate, I cannot tell people they too should also like chocolate, or condemn people who do not like chocolate. Religious faith is like that too, even though most religious believers do not recognize it: their faith is a comfort to them, but it is not universal nor can it be. On the other hand, the knowledge revealed to us through science is universal: it is true for all people at all times and places, and is transferrable in that anyone can (in principle) repeat the experiments, derive the data, and apply the same scientific understandings that anyone else can.
You say that you cannot establish anything on lack of evidence. Yet why do you not believe in unicorns? Fairies? Leprechauns? Dragons? The answer is simple: lack of evidence. This is the essence of skepticism: it is upon the believer to prove the truth of their beliefs, not upon the unbeliever to disprove them. Yet, if you are a Muslim, you are told that Muhammad flew to heaven on a winged horse. This is a fairy tale with just as little evidence, yet you believe it. In fact, you are entitled to believe it: it is like chocolate for you. It is your “faith.” But do not expect it to be universal, because it was not derived in a universal, transferrable way.
People define “God” in many ways. For some of those definitions, the evidence is very weak. In those cases, I am entitled to call myself a non-believer (atheist) in those concepts of God for lack of evidence. In other definitions of God, the definition is self-contradictory— paradoxical. In those cases, I am entitled to call myself a non-believer (atheist) due to the impossibility of that kind of God existing. Either way, it is not extreme to insist on a God that is both logically possible and supported by evidence.
You ask, “Are you happy that this world is the only world and there will not be another place to go?” I see this question as irrelevant. My happiness does not determine the truth. My feelings are not hurt by the truth. Rather, the truth gives me the basis upon which I can proceed to understand my life in context and live it to the full. Nor do I see evidence that the universe is “fair” or “unfair.” These are human concepts, not universal ones. It is important to me that people treat each other fairly, but the question of whether it is “fair” or “unfair” that there is life after death is non-sensical to me.
I find peace and happiness in knowing my place in the universe that science reveals to me. I work to make my life and the lives of others better now, rather than giving them false hope that this life is some sort of trial in qualification for another life ahead.
Ihsan, I am not judging you personally. I have friends who are Christian, and friends who are Muslim. Nonetheless, I do judge peoples’ behavior. I am not equally tolerant of all behaviors: I am not tolerant of what the Christians did to the Muslims, nor am I tolerant of what the Nazis did to the Jews, nor am I tolerant of what the Jews are doing to the Palestinians. I am not tolerant of what the Bush administration is doing in Iraq. I am not tolerant of the President of Iran’s position on the U.S. or Israel. I am not tolerant of the Taliban or other factions like them. I am not tolerant of doctrines that give people fewer choices about how to live their lives. All these things and more I will condemn, ridicule, and fight.
You seem to like the “as in my mother’s womb” analogy. But it is possible to stretch analogies too far. I can see using such an analogy for a person going to college— a sort of academic womb in which they are being formed and prepared for a future life after they graduate. But from the evidence I see, it is too far a stretch to propose that simply because we go though several phases of life that our life continues beyond death. An egg is a sort of womb containing a future life… from it hatches a caterpillar that eventually spins a cocoon, another sort of womb in which it transforms into a butterfly… the butterfly lives and does the things that butterflies do. Then what? It dies. Is there an afterlife for butterflies? Is the life of a butterfly some kind of womb in which it awaits a new existence? We have no evidence of such. As far as we can tell, the meaning of a butterfly’s life is to be a butterfly.
Humans have more flexibility to define the meaning and purpose of our own lives. This does not change the fact that belief in afterlife is not based on evidence, otherwise that evidence could be scientifically tested. It is based on nothing but faith. The ability to define my own meaning and purpose in life is a great source of happiness for me. The fact that I do not live my life in vain hope for another is also a source of happiness. Nonetheless, as far as we can tell, the meaning of a human’s life is to be human.
It is a mistake to think that I am only an atheist. If you read what I have written here in my blog, then you will understand that atheism is only a response to theism: it is not a path to happiness. I suggest you read this posting to understand better what truly makes me happy.
I am not afraid of death, nor do I think it is likely I will become a believer in old age, unless someone finally manages to bring forth incontrovertible evidence for the truth of their religion. But attempting to console yourself with the idea that “some atheists” become believers in old age is rather silly, because it can easily be turned around: might you not in old age realize that your life as one of the faithful has been a waste, stultified and restricted for no reason, you lived your life as a defender of barbarism, praying to an ever-hidden God who gives no firm evidence of an afterlife, only a dogmatic “faith text”, interpreted a thousand different ways by a thousand imams? Will you lie on your death bed struggling with doubts of whether you are really going to exist after you die? Of whether God was ever real, or just a fairy tale you were told as a child and never grew out of? We can all change our minds. I try to change my mind based on sufficient evidence. If it turns out that I die and then discover I am still alive, I think that will be sufficient.
January 2nd, 2008 at 11:31 am
Ihsan and Ironwolf - sense? you make none. “When arguing with an idiot, make sure the other person isn’t doing the same thing”. I loved the photo, by the way.
January 2nd, 2008 at 3:24 pm
Ernie,
Wow! Such a deep, incisive snark! And funny! You know, if they gave out prizes for snarkiness…
No… you’d be a loser there too.
November 1st, 2008 at 5:36 pm
I’d probably call myself an agnostic christian, I had a doubt attack recently, the doctors say I’ll be fine though and I’ll recover eventually, but anyway, Ironwolf, I agree with most of what you’re saying but why are you so determined to, “condemn, ridicule, and fight.” these religions, it won’t help the people who believe in them or you, it won’t help anyone, not even in the long run, you don’t even know that they’re wrong, and also, you keep saying science when you mean atheism, I haven’t met a single person of any religion who disagrees with science and actually a lot of scientists do turn to religion because the deeper you get the more questions you uncover, here’s a coincidence my old maths teacher pointed out, the surface area of a sphere is 4x the area of a circle of the same radius, explain why, I’m not saying that that proves got exists but it’s an example of how an answer can only bring more questions and proof that scientists, the priests of atheism, have more questions than you do and only one person can answer those.
I should talk to my faith doctor, I’m feeling better already. XP
November 2nd, 2008 at 3:20 am
Foolery,
The condemnation and ridicule of others towards religion has helped many people, including myself, shake off the brainwashing and intellectual compartmentalization that growing up in a religious society entails.
Show me where.
You don’t get out much, do you?
Yes, you are. It is this sort of vacuous excuse for an “argument” that suffices for you, but not for me. See also here.
Atheism has priests in the same way that shopping malls have interdimensional portals.
Oh? Then go ahead and have her call me.
November 2nd, 2008 at 8:47 am
“The condemnation and ridicule of others towards religion has helped many people, including myself, shake off the brainwashing and intellectual compartmentalization that growing up in a religious society entails.”
it depends on the society, I just got taught to be nice, I’d probably be nice anyway, who’s that hurting? and who’s it hurting if you dedicate yourself to hacking apart everything I believe in?
“Show me where.”
ok.
“…those who understand the methods of science consider such talk foolish.”
will that do? If I misunderstood you then sorry.
“You don’t get out much, do you?” [immature comment]
maybe, maybe not, I still go to church every week and my physics class is full of muslims, I get in/have had plenty of religious debates with people of all faiths, however, from what I’ve read though you seem to be American (correct me if I’m wrong) and there are a lot of religious nutters on your side of the pond, especially in the more christian parts, I wouldn’t be suprised if you’d bumped into some people like that. (no offence, just in case you’re sensitive)
“Yes, you are. It is this sort of vacuous excuse for an “argument” that suffices for you, but not for me.”
actually, no, I’m not, such an argument would only suffice for the weak minded, countless miracle healings (and big ones, complete with amazed doctors and everything) still won’t suffice for me, I was just giving you something to think about before you go out ridiculing people.
November 2nd, 2008 at 6:48 pm
Foolery (can I call you “Tom”?),
Tom, you’re welcome to believe in Santa Claus for all I care. But if you start to tell me that Santa is going to send me to hell, or who Santa thinks people should vote for, or what Santa thinks people can and can’t do with their bodies, then I might take some time to question whether this “Santa” person even exists before granting you a shred of credibility. And the more strident you get with your unsupported “Santa-talk,” the more likely I am to ridicule you. And the more “offended” you get at my ridicule the louder the ridicule will get. Do you see a pattern here? Unless you have empirical proof or are willing to keep it in the gentle realm of myths and faery stories, keep it to yourself.
I asked you to show me where I was saying “science” when I meant “atheism.” You gave as an example my saying, “those who understand the methods of science consider such talk foolish.” Now, if I had meant atheism, I would have spoken of “the methods of atheism,” which is nonsensical, for atheism is not a set of methods, but a life stance based on the best evidence available to the person in question. No, I meant “science” and I said “science.” There are numerous believers who are also scientists, and those believer-scientists would also consider the things I mention in the original context “foolish” if paraded about as science.
So I again ask you, “show me where.”
And gleefully so— you earned it.
You seriously want me to think about a basic geometrical equation as support for anyone’s belief in the supernatural? You’re wasting my time here.
And there are plenty of religious nutters on both sides of the pond, and likely there always will be— giving them comeuppance is like playing whack-a-mole, but someone’s got to do it.
November 3rd, 2008 at 3:13 pm
You can call me whatever you like Susan
but I never said god would send you to hell (you’re doomed to heaven anyway. take that.) I didn’t even say god existed, I only said I was a christian, also I’ll just correct you here:
the more we talk about god the more you try to ridicule us
the more we tell you you’re an idiot the more you’ll act like one in an attempt to spite us
the more you try to ridicule people the less people will look at your blog (except to mock you)
the less people look at your blog the lonelier and the angrier you will get and the more you will hate the world, whilst you scream at an empty blog.
and I wasn’t translating it as “those who understand the methods of atheism consider such talk foolish.” more like, “atheists consider such talk foolish”, however, I see that you meant they consider such talk, being passed off as science, as foolish which is quite right.
“And gleefully so— you earned it.”
how so? did I hurt your feelings by questioning you, oh mighty Ironwolf, you’re just a christian who had a twinge of doubt and gave up, then thought that that made you superior to everyone else.
“You seriously want me to think about a basic geometrical equation as support for anyone’s belief in the supernatural? You’re wasting my time here.”
No, how stupid do you think I am Susan? It was an example of how an answer always leads to more questions, I could have said anything. Piss glows in uv, but why? and what colour? how bright?, could some sort of uv alert system be developed by extracting the chemicals? etc. I doubt you’ll be returning to Christianity any time soon, I especially doubt some pathetic bit of geometrical trivia will do the job, I say I’m a Christian and you assume my only goal in life is to convert you.
anyway, that picture doesn’t make too much sense I’ll have to agree, why do they all bother posing? they could just do one and photoshop them across, a friend of mine who’s a satanist tried to post a letter in one of them once, he was a joker.
Anyway, good luck playing whack-a-mole Susan.
November 3rd, 2008 at 8:31 pm
Tom Foolery,
Sense: your comment makes none.
Have a nice life!