The Muslim's Creed

Rayvan wrote:

>Such a peaceful (pieceful?) group of people. If "Allah" approves if
>this behavior, I don't want to go to his "heaven."

It's Mohammed's version of heaven.

Mohammed united the nomadic Arab tribes under "Islam" which means "submission
to the will of Allah".

Muslims are people who have submitted. They didn't like being called
Mohammedens, because that implied that they worshipped Mohammed.

When Mohammed was born, about 1400 years ago, the warring nomadic tribes and
city dwellers of Arabia were pagans, practicing various apalling rituals,
like infanticide.

The only places that the tribes got along were at the waterholes where
everybody had to keep the peace or nobody would get any water and in the
towns, where they had to behave peacefully in order to trade.

Mohammed was an epileptic. He would fall down and froth at the mouth and when
he regained conciousness, he would have more religious messages to tell his
followers.

Mohammed's first convert to Islam was a young African boy, who was his slave.
Mohammed adopted him and called him his son.

Mohammed was able to unite the Arabs under the one imaginary god, Allah, by
force, and his followers spread out in all directions and had spread
"submission to the will of Allah" all over Africa, Europe, and Asia by force,
within 200 years.

The armies of Allah would come to a village, tell the villagers that they had
five minutes to decide whether to submit to "the will of Allah", or die by
the sword.

The only exceptions were Christians and Jews. If a villager said that he
prefereed to worship spirits in rocks or rivers or trees, or that he
worshipped fire or snakes, he was a dead man.

The best of the Five Pillars of Islam, with its demands for prayers five
times a day and making a pilgrimage to Mecca, and giving alms and fasting at
Ramadan
is the affirmation of belief.

"I testify that there is none worthy of worship except God and I testify that
Mohammed is the Messenger of God."

Once you have gotten to the point of *monotheism*, you only have to worship
*one less god* and you have the best of all possible religions, i.e.,
no religion at all.

So the problem is, how do you convince a billion Muslims that Allah never
existed at all, that Allah was just a useful tool to get people to behave
themselves long enough to become civilized?

--
Message posted via MotorcycleKB.com
http://www.motorcyclekb.com/Uwe/Foru.../bike/200712/1

On Thu, 06 Dec 2007 21:33:14 GMT, "Albrecht via MotorcycleKB.com"
<u33665@uwe> wrote:

>So the problem is, how do you convince a billion Muslims that Allah never
>existed at all, that Allah was just a useful tool to get people to behave
>themselves long enough to become civilized?

An occasion upon which we still await.


--
Click here every day to feed an animal that needs you today !!!
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com/

Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me
'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints.'
'With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine.'
HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's
Free demo now available online http://pmilligan.net/palm/

..p.jm@see_my_sig_for_address.com wrote:
> On Thu, 06 Dec 2007 21:33:14 GMT, "Albrecht via MotorcycleKB.com"
> <u33665@uwe> wrote:
>
>> So the problem is, how do you convince a billion Muslims that Allah never
>> existed at all, that Allah was just a useful tool to get people to behave
>> themselves long enough to become civilized?
>
> An occasion upon which we still await.
>
>


And you will also be convincing the 80% of Americans who believe in God
that they are wrong as well?.....and that God was just a useful tool to
get people to behave themselves long enough to become civilised?


After your posting the NBP's vs 'civilised' people, you might want to
wait a few more centuries for evolution to catch up.........

On Fri, 07 Dec 2007 10:59:34 +1300, BrianNZ <brian@itnz.co.nz> wrote:

>.p.jm@see_my_sig_for_address.com wrote:
>> On Thu, 06 Dec 2007 21:33:14 GMT, "Albrecht via MotorcycleKB.com"
>> <u33665@uwe> wrote:
>>
>>> So the problem is, how do you convince a billion Muslims that Allah never
>>> existed at all, that Allah was just a useful tool to get people to behave
>>> themselves long enough to become civilized?
>>
>> An occasion upon which we still await.
>>
>>
>
>
>And you will also be convincing the 80% of Americans who believe in God
>that they are wrong as well?.....and that God was just a useful tool to
>get people to behave themselves long enough to become civilised?
>
>
>After your posting the NBP's vs 'civilised' people, you might want to
>wait a few more centuries for evolution to catch up.........

Nice bait, but I'm not hungry right now.


--
Click here every day to feed an animal that needs you today !!!
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com/

Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me
'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints.'
'With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine.'
HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's
Free demo now available online http://pmilligan.net/palm/

..p.jm@see_my_sig_for_address.com wrote:
> On Fri, 07 Dec 2007 10:59:34 +1300, BrianNZ <brian@itnz.co.nz> wrote:
>
>> .p.jm@see_my_sig_for_address.com wrote:
>>> On Thu, 06 Dec 2007 21:33:14 GMT, "Albrecht via MotorcycleKB.com"
>>> <u33665@uwe> wrote:
>>>
>>>> So the problem is, how do you convince a billion Muslims that Allah never
>>>> existed at all, that Allah was just a useful tool to get people to behave
>>>> themselves long enough to become civilized?
>>> An occasion upon which we still await.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> And you will also be convincing the 80% of Americans who believe in God
>> that they are wrong as well?.....and that God was just a useful tool to
>> get people to behave themselves long enough to become civilised?
>>
>>
>> After your posting the NBP's vs 'civilised' people, you might want to
>> wait a few more centuries for evolution to catch up.........
>
> Nice bait, but I'm not hungry right now.
>
>



Yeah, right.......No comeback for the truth, yet again........

..p.jm@see_my_sig_for_address.com wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 11:28:52 -0800 (PST), "Road Glidin' Don"
> <d.langkd@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> That's maybe the central error of our times, in regards to
>> religion,
>> Rayvan - viewing God as if he is just another (albeit very
>> powerful)
>> human, when there's really no basis for assuming it should be so
>> and
>
> Your religion tells you we are 'made in his image'. Look
> through that telescope from the other end, and what do you get ?
>
>> then dismissing any other possibility. Reality may not be shaped
>> to
>> our liking. Atheists appear quite able to consider that
>> possibility.
>> Perhaps more people of faith should as well.
>
> Atheists are also able to answer questions with 'I don't know'
> ( why are we here ? What happens after death ? etc etc ) and to
> simply admit their own lack of knowledge and signifigance, rather
> than
> claim some kind of supernatural validation of their existence, and
> assurance of some form of immortality.
>
>> Put another way, just because it's wrong for you and me to be self-
>> centered, it does not automatically follow that it's wrong for God
>> to
>> be that way.
>
> Your religion teaches that he is not.
>
>> If he is the creator of the universe (which is what's
>> being talked about, right?) he is in a completely different
>> category
>> and owes nobody anything. His creatures, on the other hand, owe
>> him
>> everything. Quite different situations.
>
> We didn't ask to be created. That was His call, for His
> reasons ( if you assume the existence of Him, that is ), done at His
> pleasure ( can God feel pleasure ? This would imply that he can
> feel
> pain. This would imply that He is not powerful enough to stop his
> own
> pain. ). We are not indebted for it.
>
>>
>> The problem arises because we have a personal stake in what the
>> answer to this question is. So, of course, we prefer one answer
>> over another (e.g. that God has to live by our rules). But, looked
>> at objectively, maybe we should admit our personal preferences and
>> goals likely place no constraints at all on a such a being. Let
>> God
>> be God, in other words.
>
> Or, admit that He is a fanatsy, of human derivation, to give
> our weak little psyches the illusion of having control and knowledge
> that in fact we do not have. Quite similar to a nightlight that
> keeps
> the monsters from crawling out from under the bed at night.
>
> The very essence of all religions is a God-figure, whom we can
> communicate with, for instance through 'worship', and, implicitly,
> prayer. Which directly implies A ) a 'protection from above', B ) a
> power above all other powers that can be appealed to, and influenced
> by such appeal.
>
> Take for example someone on their death-bed. Religion would
> have us believe that there is some kind of supernatural Guardian
> watching from above, stopwatch and clipboard in hand, thinking 'OK,
> Sally is scheduled to die at 11:37 tonight. That is part of my
> Eternal Plan for the Universe, a Plan I devised before time began (
> before I invented Time, that is to say ). Howsomeever - if enough
> people say enough nice things about me to each other or themselves,
> and ask me to re-schedule, I might think about it.
>
> Later that night, Sally either dies or lives. The people
> around her then either say 'It was God's plan' ( implying that God
> ignored their requests, of course, while still maintaining the
> illusion that the requests were listened to From Above at all ), or
> 'God saved her', implying that it wasn't His decision for her to die
> in the first place ( what did He save her FROM, other than His Own
> Plan ??? ), or that they changed His mind and His Vast Eternal Plan,
> which apparently wasn't Perfect in the first place.
>
> All things considered, it's quite amazing that these people
> don't still put out cookies and milk for Santy Klaus even as adults.
>
> YHBT.

I just figured out why your posts are so fascinating. I would never
have thought that anyone could pontificate with such certainty on such
a wide variety of topics without ever once actually demonstrating more
than a supeficial knowledge of the subject.


--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 17:37:02 -0500, "J. Clarke"
<jclarke.usenet@cox.net> wrote:

>.p.jm@see_my_sig_for_address.com wrote:
>> On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 11:28:52 -0800 (PST), "Road Glidin' Don"
>> <d.langkd@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> That's maybe the central error of our times, in regards to
>>> religion,
>>> Rayvan - viewing God as if he is just another (albeit very
>>> powerful)
>>> human, when there's really no basis for assuming it should be so
>>> and
>>
>> Your religion tells you we are 'made in his image'. Look
>> through that telescope from the other end, and what do you get ?
>>
>>> then dismissing any other possibility. Reality may not be shaped
>>> to
>>> our liking. Atheists appear quite able to consider that
>>> possibility.
>>> Perhaps more people of faith should as well.
>>
>> Atheists are also able to answer questions with 'I don't know'
>> ( why are we here ? What happens after death ? etc etc ) and to
>> simply admit their own lack of knowledge and signifigance, rather
>> than
>> claim some kind of supernatural validation of their existence, and
>> assurance of some form of immortality.
>>
>>> Put another way, just because it's wrong for you and me to be self-
>>> centered, it does not automatically follow that it's wrong for God
>>> to
>>> be that way.
>>
>> Your religion teaches that he is not.
>>
>>> If he is the creator of the universe (which is what's
>>> being talked about, right?) he is in a completely different
>>> category
>>> and owes nobody anything. His creatures, on the other hand, owe
>>> him
>>> everything. Quite different situations.
>>
>> We didn't ask to be created. That was His call, for His
>> reasons ( if you assume the existence of Him, that is ), done at His
>> pleasure ( can God feel pleasure ? This would imply that he can
>> feel
>> pain. This would imply that He is not powerful enough to stop his
>> own
>> pain. ). We are not indebted for it.
>>
>>>
>>> The problem arises because we have a personal stake in what the
>>> answer to this question is. So, of course, we prefer one answer
>>> over another (e.g. that God has to live by our rules). But, looked
>>> at objectively, maybe we should admit our personal preferences and
>>> goals likely place no constraints at all on a such a being. Let
>>> God
>>> be God, in other words.
>>
>> Or, admit that He is a fanatsy, of human derivation, to give
>> our weak little psyches the illusion of having control and knowledge
>> that in fact we do not have. Quite similar to a nightlight that
>> keeps
>> the monsters from crawling out from under the bed at night.
>>
>> The very essence of all religions is a God-figure, whom we can
>> communicate with, for instance through 'worship', and, implicitly,
>> prayer. Which directly implies A ) a 'protection from above', B ) a
>> power above all other powers that can be appealed to, and influenced
>> by such appeal.
>>
>> Take for example someone on their death-bed. Religion would
>> have us believe that there is some kind of supernatural Guardian
>> watching from above, stopwatch and clipboard in hand, thinking 'OK,
>> Sally is scheduled to die at 11:37 tonight. That is part of my
>> Eternal Plan for the Universe, a Plan I devised before time began (
>> before I invented Time, that is to say ). Howsomeever - if enough
>> people say enough nice things about me to each other or themselves,
>> and ask me to re-schedule, I might think about it.
>>
>> Later that night, Sally either dies or lives. The people
>> around her then either say 'It was God's plan' ( implying that God
>> ignored their requests, of course, while still maintaining the
>> illusion that the requests were listened to From Above at all ), or
>> 'God saved her', implying that it wasn't His decision for her to die
>> in the first place ( what did He save her FROM, other than His Own
>> Plan ??? ), or that they changed His mind and His Vast Eternal Plan,
>> which apparently wasn't Perfect in the first place.
>>
>> All things considered, it's quite amazing that these people
>> don't still put out cookies and milk for Santy Klaus even as adults.
>>
>> YHBT.
>
>I just figured out why your posts are so fascinating. I would never
>have thought that anyone could pontificate with such certainty on such
>a wide variety of topics without ever once actually demonstrating more
>than a supeficial knowledge of the subject.
>

Allow me to pontificate for you on something called 'a kill
file'. It's a feature of many modern news-reader programs that allwos
you to not even ever see posts from people you don't want to see posts
from.

For further pontification on the topic, I refer you to your
Help pages. RTFM.

Barring that, I will assume that you continue to read my posts
avidly, so as to increase both your education and your understanding
of things that are currently beyond you.



--
Click here every day to feed an animal that needs you today !!!
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com/

Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me
'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints.'
'With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine.'
HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's
Free demo now available online http://pmilligan.net/palm/

On Thu, 06 Dec 2007 23:12:01 GMT, "Albrecht via MotorcycleKB.com"
<u33665@uwe> wrote:

>BrianNZ wrote:
>
>>And you will also be convincing the 80% of Americans who believe in God
>>that they are wrong as well?.....
>
>John Lennon figured it out, after he talked to the Maharishi...
>
>No hell below us, above is only sky...
>
>>and that God was just a useful tool to
>>get people to behave themselves long enough to become civilised?
>
>It worked for Moses. He needed something to keep the Israelites together when
>it looked like they were all going to intermarry with other nomadic tribes.

I heard he took a couple of magic tablets for that ... Kind of
like a Holy Tylenol or something.

>That would definitely fuck up all the traditional bloodlines and inheritances,
>so he couldn't allow intermarriage with the other tribes.
>
>So he went up on the mountain and came back down with the Law of Moses, which
>most Christians know as the Ten Commandments.
>
>The Israelites stayed together for 1500 years after that.
>
>Pretty good scam Moses played on them, saying that he got the laws from the
>invisible guy in the sky who had once talked to Abraham...
>
>It worked for Moses, it worked for Mohammed, it worked for Joseph Smith.

And Al Gore.
>
>Nowadays moonbat types need to hear that the message came from space aliens...

You do realize that Dennis Kucinich is in Congress, right ?


--
Click here every day to feed an animal that needs you today !!!
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com/

Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me
'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints.'
'With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine.'
HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's
Free demo now available online http://pmilligan.net/palm/

..p.jm@see_my_sig_for_address.com wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 17:37:02 -0500, "J. Clarke"
> <jclarke.usenet@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> .p.jm@see_my_sig_for_address.com wrote:
>>> On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 11:28:52 -0800 (PST), "Road Glidin' Don"
>>> <d.langkd@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> That's maybe the central error of our times, in regards to
>>>> religion,
>>>> Rayvan - viewing God as if he is just another (albeit very
>>>> powerful)
>>>> human, when there's really no basis for assuming it should be so
>>>> and
>>>
>>> Your religion tells you we are 'made in his image'. Look
>>> through that telescope from the other end, and what do you get ?
>>>
>>>> then dismissing any other possibility. Reality may not be shaped
>>>> to
>>>> our liking. Atheists appear quite able to consider that
>>>> possibility.
>>>> Perhaps more people of faith should as well.
>>>
>>> Atheists are also able to answer questions with 'I don't know'
>>> ( why are we here ? What happens after death ? etc etc ) and to
>>> simply admit their own lack of knowledge and signifigance, rather
>>> than
>>> claim some kind of supernatural validation of their existence, and
>>> assurance of some form of immortality.
>>>
>>>> Put another way, just because it's wrong for you and me to be
>>>> self-
>>>> centered, it does not automatically follow that it's wrong for
>>>> God
>>>> to
>>>> be that way.
>>>
>>> Your religion teaches that he is not.
>>>
>>>> If he is the creator of the universe (which is what's
>>>> being talked about, right?) he is in a completely different
>>>> category
>>>> and owes nobody anything. His creatures, on the other hand, owe
>>>> him
>>>> everything. Quite different situations.
>>>
>>> We didn't ask to be created. That was His call, for His
>>> reasons ( if you assume the existence of Him, that is ), done at
>>> His
>>> pleasure ( can God feel pleasure ? This would imply that he can
>>> feel
>>> pain. This would imply that He is not powerful enough to stop his
>>> own
>>> pain. ). We are not indebted for it.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> The problem arises because we have a personal stake in what the
>>>> answer to this question is. So, of course, we prefer one answer
>>>> over another (e.g. that God has to live by our rules). But,
>>>> looked
>>>> at objectively, maybe we should admit our personal preferences
>>>> and
>>>> goals likely place no constraints at all on a such a being. Let
>>>> God
>>>> be God, in other words.
>>>
>>> Or, admit that He is a fanatsy, of human derivation, to give
>>> our weak little psyches the illusion of having control and
>>> knowledge
>>> that in fact we do not have. Quite similar to a nightlight that
>>> keeps
>>> the monsters from crawling out from under the bed at night.
>>>
>>> The very essence of all religions is a God-figure, whom we can
>>> communicate with, for instance through 'worship', and, implicitly,
>>> prayer. Which directly implies A ) a 'protection from above', B )
>>> a
>>> power above all other powers that can be appealed to, and
>>> influenced
>>> by such appeal.
>>>
>>> Take for example someone on their death-bed. Religion would
>>> have us believe that there is some kind of supernatural Guardian
>>> watching from above, stopwatch and clipboard in hand, thinking
>>> 'OK,
>>> Sally is scheduled to die at 11:37 tonight. That is part of my
>>> Eternal Plan for the Universe, a Plan I devised before time began
>>> (
>>> before I invented Time, that is to say ). Howsomeever - if enough
>>> people say enough nice things about me to each other or
>>> themselves,
>>> and ask me to re-schedule, I might think about it.
>>>
>>> Later that night, Sally either dies or lives. The people
>>> around her then either say 'It was God's plan' ( implying that God
>>> ignored their requests, of course, while still maintaining the
>>> illusion that the requests were listened to From Above at all ),
>>> or
>>> 'God saved her', implying that it wasn't His decision for her to
>>> die
>>> in the first place ( what did He save her FROM, other than His Own
>>> Plan ??? ), or that they changed His mind and His Vast Eternal
>>> Plan,
>>> which apparently wasn't Perfect in the first place.
>>>
>>> All things considered, it's quite amazing that these people
>>> don't still put out cookies and milk for Santy Klaus even as
>>> adults.
>>>
>>> YHBT.
>>
>> I just figured out why your posts are so fascinating. I would
>> never
>> have thought that anyone could pontificate with such certainty on
>> such a wide variety of topics without ever once actually
>> demonstrating more than a supeficial knowledge of the subject.
>>
>
> Allow me to pontificate for you on something called 'a kill
> file'. It's a feature of many modern news-reader programs that
> allwos
> you to not even ever see posts from people you don't want to see
> posts
> from.
>
> For further pontification on the topic, I refer you to your
> Help pages. RTFM.
>
> Barring that, I will assume that you continue to read my posts
> avidly, so as to increase both your education and your understanding
> of things that are currently beyond you.

I see, so your purpose is to annoy me, but you want me to killfile
you, which would defeat your purpose. So you are either lying about
your purpose, or just plain stupid. I'll leave it to you to decide
which is the case.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

On Dec 6, 2:19 pm, .p.jm@see_my_sig_for_address.com wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 11:28:52 -0800 (PST), "Road Glidin' Don"
>
> <d.lan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >That's maybe the central error of our times, in regards to religion,
> >Rayvan - viewing God as if he is just another (albeit very powerful)
> >human, when there's really no basis for assuming it should be so and
>
> Your religion tells you we are 'made in his image'. Look
> through that telescope from the other end, and what do you get ?

Uh, uh. "Image" means it is not the thing it represents. Rather,
it's something having a similarity. It's not *the* thing.

> >then dismissing any other possibility. Reality may not be shaped to
> >our liking. Atheists appear quite able to consider that possibility.
> >Perhaps more people of faith should as well.
>
> Atheists are also able to answer questions with 'I don't know'
> ( why are we here ? What happens after death ? etc etc ) and to
> simply admit their own lack of knowledge and signifigance, rather than
> claim some kind of supernatural validation of their existence, and
> assurance of some form of immortality.

You've ignored the point about how the two sides are similar. Maybe
think of it this way: I could also charge that you are embracing your
belief because you want reality to be a certain way - a way that
places no restrictions on you and does not involve a final reckoning.

<looking at clock>

Gotta go. My rides waiting for me...