Rising above dogma, thinking for yourself and learning provable science? How do you feel about Global Warming?

I think the proper term is "climate change".

Do I sense an amount of disbelief in climate change from you?

The climate on the planet has always been changing.

"Climate Change" is just the phrase they used to replace "Global Warming" so they could bunch up any crazy weather under the same umbrella to scam the world.

Rising above dogma, thinking for yourself and learning provable science? How do you feel about Global Warming?

I think the proper term is "climate change".

Do I sense an amount of disbelief in climate change from you?

The climate on the planet has always been changing.

"Climate Change" is just the phrase they used to replace "Global Warming" so they could bunch up any crazy weather under the same umbrella to scam the world.

It is a good transitional heading before shifting to "Global Cooling".

I'm not so sure that we atheists blindly follow our belief., that is why we are atheists: our belief is based on what we know, not on faith.

There is no evidence whatsoever that god does not exist. There is no evidence either way,

There's plenty of evidence that the bible, koran etc is full of <deleted> but that suggests nothing about an actual god. Nothing at all. This is why it is the same side of the same coin as believing, both sides believe in something for which there is absolutely no supporting evidence. Nada. Zilch.

Even great minds like Einstein wonder about the possibility of a maker because much of the probabilities and philosophy involved are simply mind boggling. For example, for there to be a big bang which is when all things started into existence there must also have been a before the big bang. This means that there must have been no time before time started, yet surely 'before' time suggest that 'before' was a time.

I know that the big bang has it's own counter theories, yet they all have similar issues.

To say that agnostics are sitting on the fence just isn't true. It's a case of us needing to be given compelling evidence before making a decision either way. I don't think that's "sitting on the fence", I think it's just reason and logic.

You also say that agnostics 'sit on the fence' just incase there is a god so they still get to go to heaven? Is it not true that any person just has to ask for forgiveness to be allowed into heaven, even if they are atheist? That kind of blows that argument out of the water. Besides, that's all just nonsense that was written in the bible or whatever. That's all just nonsense so the priests and politicians at the time held power over the population. What about members of tribes deep in the amazon that have never came into contact with civilization, those tribes who worship the sun god and snake god and whatever god? Would they be sent to hell even though they have never even been shown a bible before? What a load of <deleted>.

I do not believe in any organised reigion. In fact I believe that the bible/koran/(insert scritpure here) is made up nonsense, partly because of the overwhelming evidence against them and no supporting evidence for them.

As for whether there is a god, I cannot possibly know. And neither can you.

Many theists don't believe that God "exists" in the normal sense of the word either. The thread is Islam-related, so let's quote from a 13th century Sufi teacher, Ruzbihan Baqli:

He exists eternally without beginning or end. He is existent not like the existence of things that depend upon something else; his existence depends on itself, without body, substance or accident .... he transcends any relation with temporality, for he is one in every respect".

Kibani,M.H. Classical Islam and the Naqshbandi Sufi Tradition, p.566

http://books.google....66&lpg=PA566

To me, a self-generated existence that has no substance, form ('body') or features ('accidents'), has no relationship with time ('temporality') and does not stand in any relationship to anything other ('one in every respect') is a whole lot of nothing.

The Sufis were and are mystics who believe they have direct insight into God's being and experience of his presence. It may just be they are plumbing their own psyches; however, if the individual psyche is a manifestation of the universal psyche, as in the relationship between Atman and Brahman, maybe they're onto something.

I'm not so sure that we atheists blindly follow our belief., that is why we are atheists: our belief is based on what we know, not on faith.

There is no evidence whatsoever that god does not exist. There is no evidence either way,

There's plenty of evidence that the bible, koran etc is full of <deleted> but that suggests nothing about an actual god. Nothing at all. This is why it is the same side of the same coin as believing, both sides believe in something for which there is absolutely no supporting evidence. Nada. Zilch.

Even great minds like Einstein wonder about the possibility of a maker because much of the probabilities and philosophy involved are simply mind boggling. For example, for there to be a big bang which is when all things started into existence there must also have been a before the big bang. This means that there must have been no time before time started, yet surely 'before' time suggest that 'before' was a time.

I know that the big bang has it's own counter theories, yet they all have similar issues.

To say that agnostics are sitting on the fence just isn't true. It's a case of us needing to be given compelling evidence before making a decision either way. I don't think that's "sitting on the fence", I think it's just reason and logic.

You also say that agnostics 'sit on the fence' just incase there is a god so they still get to go to heaven? Is it not true that any person just has to ask for forgiveness to be allowed into heaven, even if they are atheist? That kind of blows that argument out of the water. Besides, that's all just nonsense that was written in the bible or whatever. That's all just nonsense so the priests and politicians at the time held power over the population. What about members of tribes deep in the amazon that have never came into contact with civilization, those tribes who worship the sun god and snake god and whatever god? Would they be sent to hell even though they have never even been shown a bible before? What a load of <deleted>.

I do not believe in any organised reigion. In fact I believe that the bible/koran/(insert scritpure here) is made up nonsense, partly because of the overwhelming evidence against them and no supporting evidence for them.

As for whether there is a god, I cannot possibly know. And neither can you.

Fair enough....I agree with your arguments, or at least I can see where you're coming from.

My belief is based on the pile of evidence that the Bible et al are nonsense. My belief is based on the pile of evidence that gods, as described by the various religions, can not exist.

To say that I can not possibly know is true......if one wants to get precious about it, you could also say that I do not know for certain that unicorns, elves, goblins, martians, or the tooth fairy exist or not.

Do you also reserve judgement on the existance/non-existance of those creatures?

I'm not so sure that we atheists blindly follow our belief., that is why we are atheists: our belief is based on what we know, not on faith.

There is no evidence whatsoever that god does not exist. There is no evidence either way,

There's plenty of evidence that the bible, koran etc is full of <deleted> but that suggests nothing about an actual god. Nothing at all. This is why it is the same side of the same coin as believing, both sides believe in something for which there is absolutely no supporting evidence. Nada. Zilch.

Even great minds like Einstein wonder about the possibility of a maker because much of the probabilities and philosophy involved are simply mind boggling. For example, for there to be a big bang which is when all things started into existence there must also have been a before the big bang. This means that there must have been no time before time started, yet surely 'before' time suggest that 'before' was a time.

I know that the big bang has it's own counter theories, yet they all have similar issues.

To say that agnostics are sitting on the fence just isn't true. It's a case of us needing to be given compelling evidence before making a decision either way. I don't think that's "sitting on the fence", I think it's just reason and logic.

You also say that agnostics 'sit on the fence' just incase there is a god so they still get to go to heaven? Is it not true that any person just has to ask for forgiveness to be allowed into heaven, even if they are atheist? That kind of blows that argument out of the water. Besides, that's all just nonsense that was written in the bible or whatever. That's all just nonsense so the priests and politicians at the time held power over the population. What about members of tribes deep in the amazon that have never came into contact with civilization, those tribes who worship the sun god and snake god and whatever god? Would they be sent to hell even though they have never even been shown a bible before? What a load of <deleted>.

I do not believe in any organised reigion. In fact I believe that the bible/koran/(insert scritpure here) is made up nonsense, partly because of the overwhelming evidence against them and no supporting evidence for them.

As for whether there is a god, I cannot possibly know. And neither can you.

Fair enough....I agree with your arguments, or at least I can see where you're coming from.

My belief is based on the pile of evidence that the Bible et al are nonsense. My belief is based on the pile of evidence that gods, as described by the various religions, can not exist.

To say that I can not possibly know is true......if one wants to get precious about it, you could also say that I do not know for certain that unicorns, elves, goblins, martians, or the tooth fairy exist or not.

Do you also reserve judgement on the existance/non-existance of those creatures?

Personally, I separate religious scriptures from the possibility of their being a god. Otherwise, I would be an atheist. I don't even consider the bible etc when thinking of a higher power. They, to me, are irrelevant bullshit.

We know goblins and elves and stuff to be made up , nobody has tried to claim otherwise. It doesn't mean they don't exist though

Martians do not belong on that list. Alien life is a probability.

Fatwa, shatwa. It all translates to nonsense to me.

I am as proudly and devoutly atheist as you, probably, however the fact remains that a major part of the world population is sucked in by the mumbo-jumbo of religion, and this has an impact on the rest of us.

How the gullible go about their various faiths will affect you and me.

please explain what achievement makes you "proud" being a "devout" atheist

The achievment of rising above the dogma instilled into me as a child, thinking for myself, observing life, and learning provable science.

does that mean that i can be proud because i don't believe in the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus anymore?

My belief is based on the pile of evidence that gods, as described by the various religions, can not exist.

To say that I can not possibly know is true......if one wants to get precious about it, you could also say that I do not know for certain that unicorns, elves, goblins, martians, or the tooth fairy exist or not.

Do you also reserve judgement on the existance/non-existance of those creatures?

It may well be possible to know if "gods" exist. You may be visited by one! Gods are usually understood as extraordinary beings, but beings nevertheless, with a genealogy, relationships, ambitions, strengths and weaknesses. They are often corporeal, at least to the extent that they can mate with humans. They presented a problem for the pre-Noachic ancestors of the Habiru (Hebrews). See Genesis 6: 1-4:

When men began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. Then the Lord said, "My Spirit will not contend with man forever, for he is mortal; his days will be a hundred and twenty years. The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown. (New International Version)

The Nephilim were the offspring of the sons of God/gods/giants.

In the Pali texts the Buddha had frequent converse with various gods, who inhabited various heavens and had supernormal powers, but were not fully actualised, unlike the Buddha. They were members of a hierarchy, but the hierarchy was derivative and subject to the laws of Dharma.

There are many cases of people claiming to receive visitations from apparently supernormal beings. Some leave evidence (e.g. Lourdes and Fatima) and others appear to be perfectly genuine experiences, whether objective or otherwise, related by people who are not known as liars or to have any intention to profit from their experiences. If even one or two of these manifestation experiences are "real" then the implications for belief in the supernatural are significant, even if you reclassify it as "natural".

One can, however, argue that it is not possible to believe or find evidence of any kind to believe in the God described by Ruzbihan Baqli (in my earlier post): ... his existence depends on itself, without body, substance or accident .... he transcends any relation with temporality, for he is one in every respect". This is a proposed entity whose existence is constituted by his being, unrelated to anything else - as the scholastics would say: God is not only His own essence .... but also His own existence. http://www.newadvent...03.htm#article4

And how does one define "essence"? The Free Dictionary describes it as "The inherent, unchanging nature of a thing or class of things" or "Something that exists, especially a spiritual or incorporeal entity". If we replace "thing" by "being" we would conceive of God as a being whose essence is something that exists and is unchanging. In brief, God's essence is existence and his existence is unchanging.

But how can we say that God exists or has any "being" at all? If we look at other related definitions we see the following:

Being: The state or quality of having existence. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/being

Synonyms: existence, actuality, being

Existence: The fact or state of existing; being. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/existence

Actuality: True existence; reality. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/actuality

Reality: The quality or state of being actual or true. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/reality

True: Consistent with fact or reality. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/true

Fact: Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/fact

It can be seen from all this that (noting the circularity of the definitions) if we propose that God exists, we are in fact saying that "Existence exists; Being has being; there is something to which existence refers - let's call it "It" and we can deduce therefore that "It is"." But effectively, and objectively, we are saying nothing. The subject has no predicate that is not contained in the subject. To say that "God is" or "God is constituted by God's divine and unchanging essence" is like saying "dogs are dogs" or "cats are feline".

One cannot prove or disprove God's existence, therefore, as there's nothing to be proved or disproved. The proposition that "God exists" is a surd, a mere sound. Hence, the value of getting away from terms like agnosticism and atheism, as they tend to imply that what is unknown or dismissed is nevertheless "real". Theological non-cognitivism, on the other hand, takes the view that the basic terms of the discussion are absurd, so it's better not to engage in it at all, except to the extent that one likes word-games and/or finds them useful.

does that mean that i can be proud because i don't believe in the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus anymore?

Yes indeed, if it is the case that many, if not the majority, of your seemingly intelligent peers do believe in the Bunny and Santa.

Is it not a matter of pride to be able to rise above commonly held beliefs with independant thinking?

I'm not so sure that we atheists blindly follow our belief., that is why we are atheists: our belief is based on what we know, not on faith.

There is no evidence whatsoever that god does not exist. There is no evidence either way,

There's plenty of evidence that the bible, koran etc is full of <deleted> but that suggests nothing about an actual god. Nothing at all. This is why it is the same side of the same coin as believing, both sides believe in something for which there is absolutely no supporting evidence. Nada. Zilch.

Even great minds like Einstein wonder about the possibility of a maker because much of the probabilities and philosophy involved are simply mind boggling. For example, for there to be a big bang which is when all things started into existence there must also have been a before the big bang. This means that there must have been no time before time started, yet surely 'before' time suggest that 'before' was a time.

I know that the big bang has it's own counter theories, yet they all have similar issues.

To say that agnostics are sitting on the fence just isn't true. It's a case of us needing to be given compelling evidence before making a decision either way. I don't think that's "sitting on the fence", I think it's just reason and logic.

You also say that agnostics 'sit on the fence' just incase there is a god so they still get to go to heaven? Is it not true that any person just has to ask for forgiveness to be allowed into heaven, even if they are atheist? That kind of blows that argument out of the water. Besides, that's all just nonsense that was written in the bible or whatever. That's all just nonsense so the priests and politicians at the time held power over the population. What about members of tribes deep in the amazon that have never came into contact with civilization, those tribes who worship the sun god and snake god and whatever god? Would they be sent to hell even though they have never even been shown a bible before? What a load of <deleted>.

I do not believe in any organised reigion. In fact I believe that the bible/koran/(insert scritpure here) is made up nonsense, partly because of the overwhelming evidence against them and no supporting evidence for them.

As for whether there is a god, I cannot possibly know. And neither can you.

Fair enough....I agree with your arguments, or at least I can see where you're coming from.

My belief is based on the pile of evidence that the Bible et al are nonsense. My belief is based on the pile of evidence that gods, as described by the various religions, can not exist.

To say that I can not possibly know is true......if one wants to get precious about it, you could also say that I do not know for certain that unicorns, elves, goblins, martians, or the tooth fairy exist or not.

Do you also reserve judgement on the existance/non-existance of those creatures?

Personally, I separate religious scriptures from the possibility of their being a god. Otherwise, I would be an atheist. I don't even consider the bible etc when thinking of a higher power. They, to me, are irrelevant bullshit.

We know goblins and elves and stuff to be made up , nobody has tried to claim otherwise. It doesn't mean they don't exist though

Martians do not belong on that list. Alien life is a probability.

So you arrived at the concept of a god/gods independantly of any scriptures or texts?

How do we know that goblins are any more made up than a god?

I did say Martian....an alien specifically from Mars. Do you have proof that Martians do not exist? Has mankind searched every last corner of that planet and found it devoid of life, or is it a reasonable assumption from what we do know?

So you arrived at the concept of a god/gods independantly of any scriptures or texts?

Yeah, why not. Why should the Christians/Muzzies etc hijack the idea of god? What gives their fairy-tales the right to determine what god is or is not? I could write my own bible if I wanted to it would have no bearing on the existence of god whatsoever.

How do we know that goblins are any more made up than a god?

We don't, but I have never experienced people trying to convince me Goblins do exist.

I did say Martian....an alien specifically from Mars. Do you have proof that Martians do not exist? Has mankind searched every last corner of that planet and found it devoid of life, or is it a reasonable assumption from what we do know?

Did I ever say they don't exist? It would be reasonable to say that they probably don't because of the harsh conditions on Mars but life exists in the most hostile places on Earth.

So you arrived at the concept of a god/gods independantly of any scriptures or texts?

Yeah, why not. Why should the Christians/Muzzies etc hijack the idea of god? What gives their fairy-tales the right to determine what god is or is not? I could write my own bible if I wanted to it would have no bearing on the existence of god whatsoever.

How do we know that goblins are any more made up than a god?

We don't, but I have never experienced people trying to convince me Goblins do exist.

I did say Martian....an alien specifically from Mars. Do you have proof that Martians do not exist? Has mankind searched every last corner of that planet and found it devoid of life, or is it a reasonable assumption from what we do know?

Did I ever say they don't exist? It would be reasonable to say that they probably don't because of the harsh conditions on Mars but life exists in the most hostile places on Earth.

I don't mean to imply that the concept of "god" only comes from the major religions. I was commenting on your dismissal of "holy" scriptures.....I took you to embrace with that all religious media (not just literally "scripture" (written word)), including song or sermon, verbal tradition etc of the lesser followed religions of the world. Animist tribesman, Hindus, Buddhists etc......any faith-based belief system.

If I took it right, then you may have (in dismissing any "scripture") had your own independant concept of what "god" is. That would be interesting.

Does the absence of people trying to convince you of something mean that the particular un-promoted thing does not exist? Yet you do believe that goblins don't exist.

Part of my point....".... It would be reasonable to say that they probably don't .....", and so I choose believe it

shoot......sorry....I did not mean to reply inside the quote.

If I took it right, then you may have (in dismissing any "scripture") had your own independant concept of what "god" is. That would be interesting.

Nope

If god exists, then I have no idea in what form. How can I form an opinion on something that I don't even know the existence of?

I dismiss the scriptures because the theory of evolution, carbon dating etc has proven them wrong. That, and there is no supporting evidence. We seem to have come full circle. I dismiss the scriptures because they are <deleted>. I don't dismiss god because their is no evidence either way.

If no scriptures ever existed, that would not rule out the possibility of there being a god. Organised religion does not hold the sole rights to the possibility of there being a higher being. Please differentiate between the two.

Does the absence of people trying to convince you of something mean that the particular un-promoted thing does not exist? Yet you do believe that goblins don't exist.

I refer you to an earlier comment of mine.

We know goblins and elves and stuff to be made up , nobody has tried to claim otherwise. It doesn't mean they don't exist though

Well, I've been to the scene of lots of dead bodies and folk about to cross over to their, if they believe, maker ( sad but true). Not sure about the existence of Gods, however, " The spark of life" is an amazing thing to see leave someone, amazing and shocking and sometimes beautiful at the same time ( if the person is suffering ).

does that mean that i can be proud because i don't believe in the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus anymore?

Yes indeed, if it is the case that many, if not the majority, of your seemingly intelligent peers do believe in the Bunny and Santa.

Is it not a matter of pride to be able to rise above commonly held beliefs with independant thinking?

my perception of pride differs from yours Harcourt.

Do you have anything to contribute Naam?

Do you have anything to contribute Naam?

none of your business.

I thought as much!

Please don't reply inside quotes. It is confusing and it is against the rules. Although I notice that replies are in bold, it still better to quote outside--stay on the safe side of the rules.

this is the problem we have, anyone can contradict the bible, say things are changed and not true, even make a very funny film about it ' Monty pythons life of brian ' , and not much happens.

but do the same against the quran and shit , you have started a holy war !!!

Go back to the time of the crusades and the western (Roman Catholic) crusaders slew more Eastern Orthodox christians than they did Muslims due to the different interpretations of the Christian godhead.

The Western (RC) concept was set in stone at the Council of Naescea (or however it is spelt) and a good portion of the writings then extant were thrown out as not conforming to the decisions of the political groupings there. The Eastern Orthodox adopted a different set of writings, some of which were also accepted by the RCs, some were not.

In Judaism, study of the Talmud is accompanied by study of many commentaries by learned scholars over many centuries - the older the commentary, the more attention is paid to it. But the Old Testament itself was not written down at any one time, nor were parts of it written down until centuries after they had first been conceived.

All these books were conceived and developed in times of minimal literacy and were verbally communicated for many years before being written in their current form. And even recently there have been 'new' versions of the bivle issued in various languages, based upon the basic version available to the commentator at that time.

Open up, translate and publish all the Dead Sea Scrolls and watch the brouhaha develop. Society has survived by having it's various social structures to fall back upon, and these have been mainly religious in nature, but I do not think that any one of the great religions has a solid foundation in fact. All have been subverted by political needs throughout their existence.

Open up, translate and publish all the Dead Sea Scrolls and watch the brouhaha develop. Society has survived by having it's various social structures to fall back upon, and these have been mainly religious in nature, but I do not think that any one of the great religions has a solid foundation in fact. All have been subverted by political needs throughout their existence.

High-resolution images of all the Dead Sea scrolls are now available online, and can easily be found with a Web search. They can also be purchased in inexpensive multi-volumes - on disc media or in book form - or viewed in certain college and university libraries.

http://en.wikipedia....lls#Publication

Sorry to be picky, but I thought I'd check.

Also:

All these books were conceived and developed in times of minimal literacy and were verbally communicated for many years before being written in their current form.

Some texts in the Hebrew Bible are believed to have been recorded quite soon after the verbal message was given, e.g. Amos. I need to go and check (after work) about others.

I thought that the 'Hebrew' bible was mainly written in Aramaic and that would indicate Roman/post-Roman times.

And as I understand things - the Koran was verbal initially (Mohammed stated what he thought, his followers wrote it down) and many versions were written contempoaneously. But these were codified later (same way as the Christians did at Nicaea) and a lot of stuff discarded.

So what is extant today is work that was subject to heavy editing centuries ago and does not fully represent the originators thoughts and sayings, but thos of a particular political group at a later stage.

I thought that the 'Hebrew' bible was mainly written in Aramaic and that would indicate Roman/post-Roman times.

And as I understand things - the Koran was verbal initially (Mohammed stated what he thought, his followers wrote it down) and many versions were written contempoaneously. But these were codified later (same way as the Christians did at Nicaea) and a lot of stuff discarded.

So what is extant today is work that was subject to heavy editing centuries ago and does not fully represent the originators thoughts and sayings, but thos of a particular political group at a later stage.

I believe only a small portion of the Hebrew Bible was written in Aramaic (Daniel, Ezra and a few other passages). There was also said to have been a "Gospel of the Hebrews" written in Aramaic by Matthew, but its provenance is contested by scholars, some of whom believe that the "M" material found in Matthew, but not in Luke or Mark, may be from this source. Whatever, it's not extant.

The Jews were and are still generally pretty fussy about their core texts being in Hebrew. They no longer acknowledge the Septuagint, written in Alexandria in Greek in the third and second centuries BCE, despite its claim to have been written by 72 different scribes in 72 separate rooms in 72 days!

Which raises the question of the reliability of the early versions of the Qur'an. If Muhammad memorized the messages correctly as they came from "Gabriel" and the "companions" (the initial memorizers and recorders) agreed in their version (and memorization for recitation is said to have been a fairly exact science in those days) then there may have been no great need for heavy editing.

This is from Wikipedia and may therefore have very biased presentation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Syro-Aramaic_Reading_of_the_Koran

This is from Wikipedia and may therefore have very biased presentation.

http://en.wikipedia....ng_of_the_Koran

This is the book referred to in Posts #5, #6 and #7 above. The academic community give it short shrift, and Richard Kroes claims the author is a Lebanese Christian with an agenda. I didn't read the whole Wikipedia article - too long, too much detail.

The Sana'a Manuscripts may be more interesting. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sana'a_manuscripts

The comment by Salim Abdullah at the end of the Sana'a Wiki article may reflect the fact that there may still be Muslims who believe the Qur'an was created - "has a history" - i.e. it is not eternal and did not "fall out of the sky".

The dispute over the createdness vs eternalness of the Qur'an was big in the early part of the Abbasid caliphate (9th century), the Mu'tazili arguing that the Qur'an was created and Hanbal, one of the most esteemed Muslim theologians, opposing this argument. Eventually, the caliphs reversed their support for the Mu'tazili and endorsed that of Hanbal and, later, Ash'ari and their followers, and the doctrine of an uncreated Qur'an became Muslim orthodoxy. Robert Reilly's The Closing of the Muslim Mind discusses these matters (and the other big question: Does God abide by natural law?).

Some eminent Muslim philosophers, e.g. Avicenna and Averroes (and probably the mathematician and poet Omar Khayyam), however, did not accept this position, and I think there are liberal Muslims now who believe in their hearts (though they're careful what they say) that the Qur'an is, in effect, created. They say that the Qur'an is in essence, uncreated, that the words as written down on paper by human hands may be fallible, and even some verses, e.g. relating to the battles and their consequences, legal questions, marriage obligations, etc, have a specific context, but they are contained within God's foreknowledge.

Don't ask me to clarify or justify these arguments. The Talk:Qur'an/Archive on Wikipedia is interesting. Look for the heading: Created and Uncreated Debated. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3AQur'an/Archive01

Although I have worked for many years in Muslim countries and with a mainly Muslim workforce, I have never done more than skim the surface of Islam.

My instinct has been that if I showed too much depth of knowledge, and said out load something with which a listener disagreed, I could be done for blasphemy, or accused of proseletizing a different brand of religion to that followed by my auditors. So I just kept myself fairly ignorant. Maybe with my future looking to be in Vietnam, I could dig a touch deeper.

Although I have worked for many years in Muslim countries and with a mainly Muslim workforce, I have never done more than skim the surface of Islam.

My instinct has been that if I showed too much depth of knowledge, and said out load something with which a listener disagreed, I could be done for blasphemy, or accused of proseletizing a different brand of religion to that followed by my auditors. So I just kept myself fairly ignorant. Maybe with my future looking to be in Vietnam, I could dig a touch deeper.

Yes, I would think discussion of Islam in many Muslim countries would be a no-go area. Pakistan gets worse by the day. http://www.newsy.com...hailed-as-hero/

You should be OK in Vietnam, though they can be less than tolerant, too. http://buddhism.abou...lee-bat-nha.htm

Kindle is a great device for overcoming national censorship laws and accessing all the written material you need.

Yes, I would think discussion of Islam in many Muslim countries would be a no-go area. Pakistan gets worse by the day. http://www.newsy.com...hailed-as-hero/

You should be OK in Vietnam, though they can be less than tolerant, too. http://buddhism.abou...lee-bat-nha.htm

Kindle is a great device for overcoming national censorship laws and accessing all the written material you need.

Pakistanis are all blinkered when it comes to religion - whether main-stream Sunni, Shia, sufi, Aga Khan's sub-set, christian or whatever. There are a dozen or more Muslim sects, several Christian sects, Punjabi Sikhs, so on and so on. And all will fight each other at the drop of a hat. I will not discuss them further or I'll get a holiday.

Here in Vietnam there is amazing tolerance, considering it's a Socialist state (in political terms). I have a forty kilometre drive to work, during which I pass about six churches, four or five Bhuddist temples, at least one Hindu temple (or so it looks - never stopped), also there is a Sikh temple in Saigon proper. I have seen mosques, but pass none here. The main holiday of the year is Tet, otherwise known as Chinese New Year, which is a Bhuddist festival, basically.

I note your article, but this seems to me to be more political than religious, and influenced by China, persecutors of Fah Lung Ghong and other secondary religions (which often have a political content as well). For me, religion and politics should not mix. But both offer structures for society, so they are bound to clash quite frequently.

Yes, I would think discussion of Islam in many Muslim countries would be a no-go area. Pakistan gets worse by the day. http://www.newsy.com...hailed-as-hero/

You should be OK in Vietnam, though they can be less than tolerant, too. http://buddhism.abou...lee-bat-nha.htm

Kindle is a great device for overcoming national censorship laws and accessing all the written material you need.

Pakistanis are all blinkered when it comes to religion - whether main-stream Sunni, Shia, sufi, Aga Khan's sub-set, christian or whatever. There are a dozen or more Muslim sects, several Christian sects, Punjabi Sikhs, so on and so on. And all will fight each other at the drop of a hat. I will not discuss them further or I'll get a holiday.

Here in Vietnam there is amazing tolerance, considering it's a Socialist state (in political terms). I have a forty kilometre drive to work, during which I pass about six churches, four or five Bhuddist temples, at least one Hindu temple (or so it looks - never stopped), also there is a Sikh temple in Saigon proper. I have seen mosques, but pass none here. The main holiday of the year is Tet, otherwise known as Chinese New Year, which is a Bhuddist festival, basically.

I note your article, but this seems to me to be more political than religious, and influenced by China, persecutors of Fah Lung Ghong and other secondary religions (which often have a political content as well). For me, religion and politics should not mix. But both offer structures for society, so they are bound to clash quite frequently.

Operation Passage to Freedom was the largest military evacuation in the history of the world.

Uncle Ho was killing and robbing the land from the Catholics in Hanoi so they moved them all to Saigon.

1954 I think or around that time. Around a million people.

It was when my GF came to Saigon. She was a teacher.

She told me that is what really started the American Vietnam war. Those Catholics are sure bloodthirsty people.

I wanted to add a personal thank-you to Humphrey and Mark for their use of the exotically evocative Saigon ("Pearl of the Far East") rather than Ho Chi Minh City - the latter evoking a marginal run-down industrial belt somewhere.

I've always had trouble actually speaking the four-word name. I gag on it.

So I'm adding the note of thanks. However, to my surprise, I found on the net that the city has only been known by that name since the 17th century. Before then it was a Khmer port named Prei Nokor. Those pesky Khmers were everywhere!

An interesting discussion on the origins and meaning of Saigon is at http://www.skyscrape...ad.php?t=216560