lol i am Muslim by the way 
..... somewhat of a muslim and a agnostic.
..... somewhat of a muslim and a agnostic.
Vincenzo Iaquinta is in deep doo-doo.
Buy on AliExpress.com
This is for Bes and Greg because he feels left out :P (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Zé Tahir
- Start date
I figured Apple patented everything that began with the letter "i".
Vincenzo Iaquinta is in deep doo-doo.
Vincenzo Iaquinta is in deep doo-doo.
Buy on AliExpress.com
Meh, I have my doubts. What he's accusing the press off, pouring fuel on the fire, sounds like the classic political propaganda tbh. "We are always treated unfairly, you always see the worst in us." I wouldn't know, but frankly I'm skeptical as to this specific motive in the British press. Where exactly would this motive come from?
Anyway. I've read one or two of Rushdie's books, not the Satanical Verses. I know he's received awards but I didn't find anything particularly interesting in his writing. I think he's mediocre. I've heard him talk about this incident saying that the part that people came after him for was a small part of the book and in no way central to the story. Be that as it may.
But here's what does disturb me about what this guy said. We had that poll about mocking religion, which plays nicely into this. He said that if a member of Parliament stood up and called Thatcher a whore the others would demand he apologized and kick him out if he didn't. This scenario he's equating to writing insulting things in a literary work. I mean come on, there is no comparison between the two. It's one thing to insult a public person in a public place. It's something radically different to insult the same person in a literary work of fiction. Noone would lash out at an author who did that. They could say his book was trash, but they wouldn't have a public process to shame him into an apology.
Art is art, man. It's supposed to be free. You can use it to troll people, but that's what expression is about. If it offends you noone is forcing you to read it, are they? It's your own personal choice.
Anyway. I've read one or two of Rushdie's books, not the Satanical Verses. I know he's received awards but I didn't find anything particularly interesting in his writing. I think he's mediocre. I've heard him talk about this incident saying that the part that people came after him for was a small part of the book and in no way central to the story. Be that as it may.
But here's what does disturb me about what this guy said. We had that poll about mocking religion, which plays nicely into this. He said that if a member of Parliament stood up and called Thatcher a whore the others would demand he apologized and kick him out if he didn't. This scenario he's equating to writing insulting things in a literary work. I mean come on, there is no comparison between the two. It's one thing to insult a public person in a public place. It's something radically different to insult the same person in a literary work of fiction. Noone would lash out at an author who did that. They could say his book was trash, but they wouldn't have a public process to shame him into an apology.
Art is art, man. It's supposed to be free. You can use it to troll people, but that's what expression is about. If it offends you noone is forcing you to read it, are they? It's your own personal choice.
Everything in our natural world has to have a cause, a start if you will, for it to obey physics laws, right? So a flood cant start without some cause, rivers cant turn red without a cause and etc. According to you, miracles arent supernatural, so it means that they arent caused by god. Because if god decided to cause a flood just out of the blue he would need to change physics laws, because nothing starts randomly it needs someone to push, and if it is god who is pushing the we cant call it natural and we have to call it supernatural then.
So where does this leave us? That all of the miracles are natural and have no input from god whatsoever.
So where does this leave us? That all of the miracles are natural and have no input from god whatsoever.
Yes i wanted to add this too.
I would like to as this question - If a women gives birth to a perfectly healthy baby, while all the odds were against here, lets for the sake of argument say that doctors and avyrbody said that its like one in a trillion that a baby will live.
So after the baby is born, to whom we give credit? To god, that with these odds he lives, and he is healthy? or to chance, that he was extremely lucky?
If mom was a religious person, i can guarantee you that she would say it is a miracle, while i think, the boy is extremely lucky.
I would like to as this question - If a women gives birth to a perfectly healthy baby, while all the odds were against here, lets for the sake of argument say that doctors and avyrbody said that its like one in a trillion that a baby will live.
So after the baby is born, to whom we give credit? To god, that with these odds he lives, and he is healthy? or to chance, that he was extremely lucky?
If mom was a religious person, i can guarantee you that she would say it is a miracle, while i think, the boy is extremely lucky.
There is a deeper issue here. Does luck even exist? Think about it, if you believe that god's will prevails and that everything happens for a reason, that means there is no luck. There is no uncertainty. Everything happened because it had no other choice but to happen.
It also undermines what we like to call probability. Probability is the observation that something tends to happen in a certain ratio of all possible cases (coin flips). But if the will of god happens then the probability is always 100-0, we just don't know what it is.
It also undermines what we like to call probability. Probability is the observation that something tends to happen in a certain ratio of all possible cases (coin flips). But if the will of god happens then the probability is always 100-0, we just don't know what it is.
To tell you the truth I dont believe in luck, i think its just probability. Of course you can call winning a lottery which is 1000000-1 chance luck. Even if you win it at your first try its still not luck, just chance, because if you do statistical research and you will see that when you repeat the experiment your luck tends not to repeat, while chance does, you will probably win in your second million try.
So what im trying to say, that if you isolate only one event where you have been lucky and retake it a lot of times you will see that your win will average the probability of the event.
Well if there is god, and everything is already witten in his book, than yeah, there is no luck, no chance no anything, just a puppet master playing with his puppets.
So what im trying to say, that if you isolate only one event where you have been lucky and retake it a lot of times you will see that your win will average the probability of the event.
Well if there is god, and everything is already witten in his book, than yeah, there is no luck, no chance no anything, just a puppet master playing with his puppets.