|
Obama's speech to the Muslim world (pg. 7)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| jerZ07002 |
talking to you is pointless because you aren't open to any opposing point of view. consequently, i'll respond mainly to one thing and say "Au revoir"
| quote: | Originally posted by cronodevir
US/Europe are about 90% the same. The only difference is people in europe are very arrogant and like to claim otherwise. But that is a different dicussion all together.
The muslim empire was already there, and it oppressed europe for more than a thousand years. And in modern [last 150 - 200 years] times, europe finally had power [because of ameirca] to put an almost permanate thron in the middle east, that helped bring it to what it is today. And the people who took over the various regions were give that power by the west, no election took place, nobody bought anything, the west simply said "these guys are in charge, anyone who disagrees will be at war with us" So no one said anything and the people jsut lived with an oppressive government placed by the western world. Take lebenon for instance, you HAVE to be a christian, by law, to be president. That was put in place by europeans. |
blah blah blah - not responding.
| quote: | Originally posted by cronodevir
"the further away the event, the less reliable the information" <--that's bull. Because by that standard, no one knows a single thing about acient greece. By that standard, I can claim acient egypt never existed. Which would clearly be wrong, but hey "it happened long ago, so there is no verifiable information"...yeah, what to go sherlock. |
you just made a ridiculous logical leap. i didn't say that the further away from an event the less is known. I said, the further away from an event the less reliable the information. If you just think about that for a second you should be able to see the logic. If something happened a year ago, there would be many first hand witnesses, and the data would be readily available. If that same event occurred 50 years ago, many of those witnesses would be dead, and some of the data would be misplaced. If that same event occurred 150 years ago, no first hand witnesses would still be living (but some people who heard the story from someone witnessing it firsthand would exist), and some of the data would be lost or misplaced. If that event occurred 1500 years ago, no first hand witnesses would still be living, no reliable secondary witnesses would be living, and much of that data would be lost. Tell me, how is a situation in which no first hand witnesses exist and most of the data is lost comparable to a situation in which almost all of the witnesses are living and the data is readily available?
| quote: | Originally posted by cronodevir
So, hundreds of thousands of scholars over the last 1400 years who happen to be muslims are wrong about Muhammads death, the hudnreds of thousands of people who were alive at the time and gave testemony are all wrong, but 5 jews or christians in some universitity in the past 50 years are right according to you. Why are we still arguing? |
because you haven't provided a citation to a reliable source.
| quote: | Originally posted by cronodevir
The Jews did win in ww2. The jews are also the primary contributor to WW2 information. Which pretty much makes most mainstream information about ww2 suspect. Personally, I don't even think ww2 was about race, hitler wanted to get rid of this banking system infesting his land at the time, and it was 100% owned and ran by jews, he used the general german racism as a key to motivate the germans into doing just that. Most places were trying to escape the banking system, and hundreds of eyars before that was a primary reason for the establishment of ameirca. To escape the banking system and interest. Back then it was called usury.... but hey, I guess saying it was about race makes hitler seem more "evil". |
you're hopeless. |
|
|
| cronodevir |
When your view is wrong, why do I need an open mind to say "it might be true"? I know its wrong, only a fool would accept something known to be wrong as truth.
The muslims have a scientific method for preserving information Its based on chains of narration, who told who told who told who, and what is the indepth biagraphy of each individual in that chain? How many chains are there? How many people have chains? How many chains do they have? Are all questions that must be answered before a judgement is made on a peice of information.
What do you have? Someone wrote it in a book, and that book goes through several hundred revisions over the years. There isn't even a method in the west for preserving information, percausions are not even made. The information is written down and thrown into a file somewhere and forgotten. And not only that, the only palces you CAN get information is from one or two shifty sources. Whom you don't even know. Look at an encyclopedia...do you know who wrote it? Where did they get their information? What are the biographies of those who transmitted that information? Did the information get translated from one language to another? Did many scholars go over that translation and confirm that its meaning is intact? ...no, you have none of that. You have wikipedia. And a bunch of papers written by people who went to "school" for it therefor you blindly accept their broad statements as utterly true.
You cannot even name one person bewteen now and Plato who transmitted the information he said. You know that plato existed at a certain time because some book, written by someone you don't know, said so. IF you even learned it from a book, and not some random website wirtten by anon.
Reliable source? Meaning any source that has your point of view, no doubt. |
|
|
| jerZ07002 |
i know i said i was finished, but your last post was too stupid not to respond.
| quote: | Originally posted by cronodevir
When your view is wrong, why do I need an open mind to say "it might be true"? I know its wrong, only a fool would accept something known to be wrong as truth. |
only a fool doesn't consider everything to come to a conclusion.
| quote: | Originally posted by cronodevir
The muslims have a scientific method for preserving information Its based on chains of narration, who told who told who told who, and what is the indepth biagraphy of each individual in that chain? How many chains are there? How many people have chains? How many chains do they have? Are all questions that must be answered before a judgement is made on a peice of information. |
how is that scientific? that is probably the least sceintific you could probably get! you don't think the story changes from one person to another and from generation to generation? you're even less intelligent than first thought if you really believe that method is a solid way to preserve history.
| quote: | Originally posted by cronodevir
What do you have? Someone wrote it in a book, and that book goes through several hundred revisions over the years. There isn't even a method in the west for preserving information, percausions are not even made. The information is written down and thrown into a file somewhere and forgotten. And not only that, the only palces you CAN get information is from one or two shifty sources. Whom you don't even know. Look at an encyclopedia...do you know who wrote it? Where did they get their information? What are the biographies of those who transmitted that information? Did the information get translated from one language to another? Did many scholars go over that translation and confirm that its meaning is intact? ...no, you have none of that. You have wikipedia. And a bunch of papers written by people who went to "school" for it therefor you blindly accept their broad statements as utterly true. |
and recounting the story through the memory of 200 people through various generations is much more accurate....please! just because you know the person doesn't mean the information is more reliable. Most intelligent people rely on research conducted by experts, who spend their lives researching these issues and who normally need their information verified in order to have it published. Other experts would call them out if the information is incorrect. certainly it doesn't always work to preserve the information, but it is better than relying on, "salam said that abdul said that mohammad said that Masud said that ahkbar said that samir said that yousaf said that hashim said that ismael said that aziz said that XXXXX happened." More likely than not, salam would say something different than that which abdul said, abdul would say something different than that which mohammad said, mohammad would say something different than that which Masud said, and so forth, until finally that which salam said is vastly different than that which aziz said to ismael.
| quote: | Originally posted by cronodevir
Reliable source? Meaning any source that has your point of view, no doubt. |
not at all. unlike you i'm very open to different points of view. however, i am not persuaded by anonymous, uneducated people on the internet. A reliable source is any recognized expert or respectable (respected by peers) person in the particular field of study. Consequently, a respected historian of any faith (although i prefer people who aren't religious) from a major univerisity, museum, or other institution would be just fine. I'm open to a historian from egypt, jordan, australia, england, or the US, as long as the historian is respected by his or her peers. |
|
|
| DJ Damerchi |
| Lost in Schemantics |
|
|
| cronodevir |
The story wouldn't change from person to person, that is what verification is for. If a thousand people witness something, and those thousand each told 20 people, then those twenty [which is now 20 thousand people] told twenty [which would now be 400,000 people]. You cannot claim that they will ALL lie about what they saw. Now you have this multiplication system going on untill now. Its impossiable that incorrect information could have entered the story, when the people had thousands of other chains of narration to compare it to. When the biographies are known about each person in that chain.[was the person truthful? Where were they from? Were they known to do certain habits that would make their word suspecious?] You know how strong or weak that chain is. If there is 100 people between now and Muhammad, and the peice of information is a quote from him, and lets say 4-5 people from that chain have suspicious backgrounds, or no background at all, then that peice of information is considered weak.
How do you know if the biography of a guy 500 years ago is legit? You would find many people in that same era account for this person. So so so transmitted the saying to his students. And 50 scholars of that era all spoke highly of this person, and this persons backgrounds and level of knowledge is known. Then that person would be considered very trustworthy in his transmission of that statement.
As it happens, when people DID come along and try to inject incorrect statements or views, that were not from Muhammad, the people of that time all refuted and warned people about so and so. You couldn't have someone come along, who wanted to polute the transmission of information by injecting wrong information. Because the people would compare it to other chains of narration, and if it turns out that his chain of narration is the only one, then chances are, his statement wouldn't be taken. The more chains or streams of transmission you have, the more likely the statement is correct.
But in a society like the west, where most people lie and cheat, yes I could see how that wouldn't work. In the west, science is nothing but a bunch of loons trying to make a name for themselves by finding something that others will consider a discovery. Most of them disagree with eachother, on everything. Some have their own methods for doing things, some just follow, some outright lie. And you don't have anyone else to compare them too.
Take darwin for example, the only one in his era to say what he said, and everyone in his time disagreed with him, most people disagree with him now, and when it comes to evolutionary biology, everyone has thier own view on what it is and what it isn't. Its basicly a big mess. Full of people who have their own views and nothing to compare it to. And the only thing that seems to make a person more "right" as they have it, is by how long he has been in that field of study.
Then again, you don't know who transmitted the history you know. You "hope" it was experts. That is all, you cannot give any names, any methods or anything, "experts said it, so it must be true"...very scientific! You don't even have proof 9/11 happened, you have hearsay and video that could have been doctored. All you can say factually is that there were towers, then sometime in 2001 there wasn't. And really, according to what you have told me, you are obligated to believe the world trade center is still there, unless you have seen for yourself that it is gone. And that is bacsue, as I said, you only have hearsay and video. Both can be lied right? |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by cronodevir
The story wouldn't change from person to person, that is what verification is for. If a thousand people witness something, and those thousand each told 20 people, then those twenty [which is now 20 thousand people] told twenty [which would now be 400,000 people]. You cannot claim that they will ALL lie about what they saw. Now you have this multiplication system going on untill now. Its impossiable that incorrect information could have entered the story, when the people had thousands of other chains of narration to compare it to. When the biographies are known about each person in that chain.[was the person truthful? Where were they from? Were they known to do certain habits that would make their word suspecious?] You know how strong or weak that chain is. If there is 100 people between now and Muhammad, and the peice of information is a quote from him, and lets say 4-5 people from that chain have suspicious backgrounds, or no background at all, then that peice of information is considered weak.
How do you know if the biography of a guy 500 years ago is legit? You would find many people in that same era account for this person. So so so transmitted the saying to his students. And 50 scholars of that era all spoke highly of this person, and this persons backgrounds and level of knowledge is known. Then that person would be considered very trustworthy in his transmission of that statement.
As it happens, when people DID come along and try to inject incorrect statements or views, that were not from Muhammad, the people of that time all refuted and warned people about so and so. You couldn't have someone come along, who wanted to polute the transmission of information by injecting wrong information. Because the people would compare it to other chains of narration, and if it turns out that his chain of narration is the only one, then chances are, his statement wouldn't be taken. The more chains or streams of transmission you have, the more likely the statement is correct.
But in a society like the west, where most people lie and cheat, yes I could see how that wouldn't work. In the west, science is nothing but a bunch of loons trying to make a name for themselves by finding something that others will consider a discovery. Most of them disagree with eachother, on everything. Some have their own methods for doing things, some just follow, some outright lie. And you don't have anyone else to compare them too.
Take darwin for example, the only one in his era to say what he said, and everyone in his time disagreed with him, most people disagree with him now, and when it comes to evolutionary biology, everyone has thier own view on what it is and what it isn't. Its basicly a big mess. Full of people who have their own views and nothing to compare it to. And the only thing that seems to make a person more "right" as they have it, is by how long he has been in that field of study.
Then again, you don't know who transmitted the history you know. You "hope" it was experts. That is all, you cannot give any names, any methods or anything, "experts said it, so it must be true"...very scientific! You don't even have proof 9/11 happened, you have hearsay and video that could have been doctored. All you can say factually is that there were towers, then sometime in 2001 there wasn't. And really, according to what you have told me, you are obligated to believe the world trade center is still there, unless you have seen for yourself that it is gone. And that is bacsue, as I said, you only have hearsay and video. Both can be lied right? |
LMFAO :stongue:
 |
|
|
| DJ Damerchi |
| make like your moral ruler and go kiddyfiddle at the playground:tongue3 |
|
|
| DJ Damerchi |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
Exactly. ;) |
I forgot to bring this point up, but the Lebanese system of allocating seats to different sects is the real reason for the lack of change in numbers. There is widespread speculation that Hezbollah increased in the popular vote(some say higher than any other party, even Hariri's..despite the edge the latter has in parliament). The shia arabs have a higher growth rate than the maronites/eorthodox, and tend to stick around versus migrating elsewhere.
Lebanon is actually paranoid of conducting a national census and reforming the system of constituencies, It would likely shift the power in favor of the faster growing shia muslim population. When the french colonial rule set the rules in place, there was a slight majority of christians, and they didn't take birth and migration rates into account-they thought that equilibrium would be sustained. |
|
|
| jerZ07002 |
| quote: | Originally posted by cronodevir
The story wouldn't change from person to person, that is what verification is for. If a thousand people witness something, and those thousand each told 20 people, then those twenty [which is now 20 thousand people] told twenty [which would now be 400,000 people]. You cannot claim that they will ALL lie about what they saw. Now you have this multiplication system going on untill now. Its impossiable that incorrect information could have entered the story, when the people had thousands of other chains of narration to compare it to. When the biographies are known about each person in that chain.[was the person truthful? Where were they from? Were they known to do certain habits that would make their word suspecious?] You know how strong or weak that chain is. If there is 100 people between now and Muhammad, and the peice of information is a quote from him, and lets say 4-5 people from that chain have suspicious backgrounds, or no background at all, then that peice of information is considered weak.
How do you know if the biography of a guy 500 years ago is legit? You would find many people in that same era account for this person. So so so transmitted the saying to his students. And 50 scholars of that era all spoke highly of this person, and this persons backgrounds and level of knowledge is known. Then that person would be considered very trustworthy in his transmission of that statement.
As it happens, when people DID come along and try to inject incorrect statements or views, that were not from Muhammad, the people of that time all refuted and warned people about so and so. You couldn't have someone come along, who wanted to polute the transmission of information by injecting wrong information. Because the people would compare it to other chains of narration, and if it turns out that his chain of narration is the only one, then chances are, his statement wouldn't be taken. The more chains or streams of transmission you have, the more likely the statement is correct.
But in a society like the west, where most people lie and cheat, yes I could see how that wouldn't work. In the west, science is nothing but a bunch of loons trying to make a name for themselves by finding something that others will consider a discovery. Most of them disagree with eachother, on everything. Some have their own methods for doing things, some just follow, some outright lie. And you don't have anyone else to compare them too.
Take darwin for example, the only one in his era to say what he said, and everyone in his time disagreed with him, most people disagree with him now, and when it comes to evolutionary biology, everyone has thier own view on what it is and what it isn't. Its basicly a big mess. Full of people who have their own views and nothing to compare it to. And the only thing that seems to make a person more "right" as they have it, is by how long he has been in that field of study.
Then again, you don't know who transmitted the history you know. You "hope" it was experts. That is all, you cannot give any names, any methods or anything, "experts said it, so it must be true"...very scientific! You don't even have proof 9/11 happened, you have hearsay and video that could have been doctored. All you can say factually is that there were towers, then sometime in 2001 there wasn't. And really, according to what you have told me, you are obligated to believe the world trade center is still there, unless you have seen for yourself that it is gone. And that is bacsue, as I said, you only have hearsay and video. Both can be lied right? |
i don't normally do this, but you're a ing moron! i know tons of first hand witnesses to 9/11, but you don't know any first hand witnesses to mohammads death. you're a complete tool. it's no wonder the muslim world is in dispair. |
|
|
| cronodevir |
| So basiclly you admit I destroyed you. EOF. |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by jerZ07002
how are any of those invasions by the US? |
Did I say they were invasions? I said, "Oh forgot about the CIA-backed coups". How you like it if China supported a coup in Washington DC?
| quote: | | ummmm....the US did not invade egypt; that was israel, france, and britian. you're almost as bad as cronodevir. |
I never said the US invaded Egypt. But an invasion by the West, nonetheless. It's just that America has taken the lead in interference that the Europeans once held.
And cronodevir, is far far off the deep. Don't even compare me to a 9/11 truther...
| quote: | | that was a general statement. |
Perhaps too general... |
|
|
| cronodevir |
What the is a 9/11 truther?
Oh right, someone who doesn't think "dem dirty arabs are out to eat our children"....
Jez thinks arabs want to eat our children. |
|
|
|
|
