my quote:
unfortunately, this way of thinking is embedded in your mind probably since birth to assume and construct opinions without any sort of proof and reasoning
Dear,
Anyone with a bit of knowledge about philosophy (or political philosophy) knows that there is nothing in your opinion referring to any paradigm within the field. Even the last word of the above sentence is something you should not be using at all. There is nothing that has to do with reason in your opinion. It is mostly angry rant.
Moreover, you assume the whole time that this is in me and that is in me since birth or whatever, which is also another nonsense opinion. This whole statement is nothing but a rhetoric to come across as reasonable. However, if you are referring to psychoanalysis, then it is whole a lot easier to make assumptions about YOU. But lets not even go there.
I ask, assuming that you believe that each side of a discussion has an equal right to ask questions, about proof and reasoning for the god and religion or whatever you believe him. In return of my 'RANTING QUESION' you reply that I do not have a basic knowledge of philosophy etc and my question is a rant.
what is more simple than asking for proof.
When you go to the bank and ask to withdraw 100 Euros do they check your account if you had a 100 euros and when they ask you instead of showing proof do you accuse them of ranting?
I have never claimed to be well informed in the field of philosophy and am not doing so right now. Neither have I claimed to be 'at least' a political philosopher.
however if you choose to call your religion a philosophy then I am somewhat informed about your 'philosophical prodcution of your religion' and am simply asking you for proof that your peyghambar is more than someone who historically was poor and found an ingenuous way to make himself rich based on other people's property.
my quote:
When one is cornered, such as a murderer over the body with the murder weapon in their hand, knowing getting caught means death or a life sentence, they would try to run if surrounded they will definitely will attempt to shoot their way out. This is exactly being done here
your reply:
These are assumptions coming from your traumatized mind. Believe me, political analysis is not done like this. This is a "Akhoondi" and very Iranian way of thinking about issues, using simple analogies. You dont simplify issues like this. Political science, sociology and in general social sciences are far more complicated than that.
Somehow, not surprisingly, more insults directed at my simple example above.
I have to disagree with you about simplifying matters because in such a case even a high school kid can at least produce some sort of response.
Again, for at least the fifth time, I request respectfully, for you or anyone else in this forum to produce some sort of structured evidence of how my 'not respecting an opinion just because it belongs to someone and only respecting it based on the philosophy itself' interacts with 'POLITICAL SCIENCE' , 'SOCIOLOGY', and far more complicated 'SOCIAL SCIENCES'.
please produce direct or indirect evidence if your anger allows it.
I dont if he does that or not. But if he does it that his issue. When Voltaire and those other humanists were writing, they did not know that other gods will be created. Today in the world we see a culture of aggressive consumerism that has nothing to do with rational or humanistic thinking. Moreover, around you, you see a lot of people who are "dinkhoo", and like to get obsessive with issues, creating gods in their heads. Hollywood culture is a good example. In my opinion that is the biggest waste of generations and human minds...This is what also philosophy has moved towards. That is to say that there is no absolute truth in anything especially coming to ideologies. The guy under explains it better (btw, i do not care who he is but he is right!).
agreed.
i requested:
I am not familiar with this book. However, rather than launching REPRESSIVE personal attacks such as you I would appreciate you providing a link to an online version so I can read through it and then we could have a discussion on it if you would like. I thank you ahead of time.
your reply:
Not sure where to find the book. But I think you get the concept. It is very simple.?
I am afraid for me, maybe because of my slow mind or inquisitive character or even my training at school, to get a 'concept' I need to study it. and that is not possible by reading a single paragraph.
I need more.
my quote:
But the crucial step is to go beyond that anger and learn more and free yourself from invisible chains.
I hope we all could achieve that.
your reply:
What is Freedom? this is concept which is often debated about. What is free your self from chains? How to become free?
In my view this can be achieved by questioning complex issues and seeking answers from any source necessary and a free thinker would dig for different sources on an unresolved topic.
That would at least represent a free way of thinking, or at least it does to me.
I wrote:
one way to vent the anger is use personal attacks and libel, as you are doing now, but no matter what you say I, personally, will never respect an opinion be it yours or others because 'you' have that opinion. I am not here to server your vanity.
you replied:
You dont need to respect. As long as you can tolerate the existence of people with different way of thinking. Unfortunately, you seem not to better than the people you accuse of not being able to tolerate your existence.
here i think there is a misunderstanding.
I never said i did not tolerate the existence of such person, with the exception of societies in which they can affect my way of life and well being. I said I will not and cannot respect their philosophy. What they want to believe in or practice is totally their own personal choice.
I can practice this right in secular societies that are not ruled by such people, but if i am in such an environment in which such people can hurt me and my loved ones i would first try to avoid them (my family's escape from IR) or if i cannot do that i will attempt to resist them by any means necessary.
I wrote:
Namaaz that is the pillar of the muslim religion starts with:
حمد و سوره
saying:
قل هوالله لأحد
مشکل همین جا شروع میشه
مگه آدم خودش مغز نداره که بهش دستور داده بشه بگو خدا یکی است .
هر وقت کسی توانست به من ثابت کند چیزی رو که میگن خدا وجود داره در هوا و اون تیکه سنگی که در کعبه به اسم الله بوده و مردم به قریش پول میدادن که برن زیارتش نیست اون وقت تازه میشه نشست و راجه به احد بودنش حرف زد
unfortunately I cannot respect the above statements. They are pillars of mental and as a result of that physical slavery of other human beings.
you wrote:
In be man rabti nadare. But again, human slavery is explained in many ways. Things are not simple as this, unless you have a very akhoondi way of thinking about issues.
I don't understand.
Are you saying you have stopped practising the 'philosophy or religion' of islam. or are you stating that namaz and hamd o sooreh be to rabti nadareh.
In the first case you are right what i wrote be to rabti nadare choon digeh een chiza ro reject kardi.
In the second case how can you be a muslim and the most important pillar of Islam be to rabti nadareh ?
could you explain that to me please.