Philosophical Question - Amiguing

[paul1981]

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
قُلْ يَا أَيُّهَا الْكَافِرُونَ
لَا أَعْبُدُ مَا تَعْبُدُونَ
وَلَا أَنْتُمْ عَابِدُونَ مَا أَعْبُدُ
وَلَا أَنَا عَابِدٌ مَا عَبَدْتُمْ
وَلَا أَنْتُمْ عَابِدُونَ مَا أَعْبُدُ
لَكُمْ دِينُكُمْ وَلِيَ دِينِ

"In the name of God the Merciful
Say O disbelievers
I do not worship what you worship
Nor do you worship what I worship
I Abed not served
Nor do you worship what I worship
Your religion and I have mine"

Courtesy of Google Translate.

[nicholas]

"In the name of God the Merciful
Say O disbelievers
I do not worship what you worship
Nor do you worship what I worship
I Abed not served
Nor do you worship what I worship
Your religion and I have mine"

Courtesy of Google Translate.

Almost.

In the name of God, most gracious, most merciful
Say (Oh Muhammad): "O unbelievers!
I do not serve that which you serve,
Nor do you serve Him whom I serve:
Nor am I going to serve that which you serve,
Nor are you going to serve Him whom I serve:
So to you your way and to me mine"

Emphasis mine.

[Linde]

There is a difference between being ignorant of someone's beliefs and not believing in them.
 
Some people have reinterpreted the Quran based on scientific discoveries, but why were Gods revelations to Muhammad based on the incorrect scientific beliefs of the time it was written?

God could simply have been revealing the revelations in terms comprehensible to the prophet. Given that I don't believe any god exists outside the mind of the prophet (nor that anything else anyone perceives exists outside their minds), but is rather the product of some divination through drug/starvation/sensory depravation induced hallucination, I find it hard to believe that any assertions about the age of the world or the circumstances of its creation would check out with scientific findings a couple of thousand years later. Hell, I don't even think that the current scientific notion of that will make sense in another couple of thousand years.

Both science and divination is based on the exploration of observations. The scientific method might be more refined, but they are both equally useless when it comes to finding absolute truth. While I respect anyone who builds their beliefs on the basis of arguable conclusions and observations, I wouldn't blame anyone for believing X or Y about the creation of the earth. As far as I'm concerned, the scientific explanations are only plausible within the scientific models built on what little we are able to observe, and the religious explanations are just based on hallucinations and philosophical musings. In the end it doesn't really matter to most people by any other means than to satisfy their curiosity. "Knowing" something is simply the result of arrogance, but we are able to afford that.

[weirdami]

...and you never ask yourself why?

Why you like something is undefinable. You like something because you like something. That's just how it works.

[mingle]

Nostalgia, pure and simple...

My first experience with computers was an Apple II at high school. Soon after I received a VZ-200 (Laser 200) computer for xmas. After that one broke down I exchanged it for a VIC-20, then onto a C64, then an A500, then A1200.

Obviously the Amiga was a huge step up from the C64 and my first real computer.

Any advantage the Amiga (as a system) once had, has long since been negated by the huge technological advances in computing. Many of the old 'amiga advantages' that made it such a revolution in its day just aren't relevant today. So it boots slightly quicker than a PC. As for 'responsiveness', I don't see my A1200 being any more responsive than my windows PC. On the flip side of the coin, there are all the disadvantages: slow, not many serious modern apps, limited and expensive hardware, etc, etc...

Hanging onto the Amiga as some sort of saviour of the computer world is just as silly as holding the C64 up as the next messiah (see what I did there?).

The amiga, to me, is what I remember from back in the late 1980s/early 1990s, nothing more...

My $0.02...

Mike.

[Linde]

Why you like something is undefinable. You like something because you like something. That's just how it works.

Why you like something can often be expressed in terms of other things you like, qualities and properties you admire. If not, it can be explained in terms of your experiences and values. So that's not just how it works.

[ChaosLord]

A lot of animals have unique capabilities beyond those of humans. They may not be able to converse in abstract concept,

Some animals can absolutely positively converse in abstract concepts.

Other animals may definitely be more intelligent than humans.  There is no proof that humans are more intelligent than Bottlenose Dolphins or Porpoises.

[ChaosLord]

To get back to the nostalgia question: I personally got my A1200 18 years ago and simply never stopped using it, don't see how that has anything to do with nostalgia.

Hey, that's a good point!

Nostalgia usually involves someone liking something or doing something for some years then they stop doing it for many years then one day they decide to go back and do it again "out of nostalgia".

For example I mostly stopped using my C64 in 1985 and totally completely abandoned it by 1987.

The C64 is totally inadequate to my needs in 2013 just as it was totally inadequate to my needs in 1987.

But I have feelings of nostalgia for my C64 and would not mind firing up some of my fave old games again.

But now that you made me think about it I have now realized that the C64 is not totally inadequate to my needs.  It plays Jumpman perfectly well.  It plays M.U.L.E. perfectly well.  Sure the gfx and sfx could use an update but the gameplay is absolutely 100% perfect.  Gameplay is the most important aspect in a game for me.  So for certain uses, a C64 is ok for me and its not just nostalgia.

[psxphill]

God could simply have been revealing the revelations in terms comprehensible to the prophet.

But why? The revelations were supposed to be giving knowledge about facts, twisting the facts to make them understandable & never following it up when scientific knowledge has caught up seems a little strange.
 
People who have out of body experiences and swear that they float to the top of the room and were looking down on what is in the room can never tell you what is on the top of cupboards. They can only describe what is visible from their body. There are chemical imbalances that can make you feel like you're disassociated from your body though.
 
"As an example of the value of anecdotes in suggesting directions for research, Dr. Penny Sartori placed playing cards in obvious places on top of operating room cabinets at a hospital in Wales in 2001, while she was working as a nurse, as part of a supervised experiment. Although she's a believer in the afterlife, and documented fifteen cases of reported out-of-body experiences by patients during her research, not one person ever reported seeing the playing cards or even knowing they were there."
 
The spiritual feeling you get by praying or singing in a church can also replicated at a football match.

[Mrs Beanbag]

But why? The revelations were supposed to be giving knowledge about facts, twisting the facts to make them understandable & never following it up when scientific knowledge has caught up seems a little strange.

I don't know what facts you think revelation is about. (Or what form a revelation takes, because I don't imagine it was verbal.) Religion isn't about science, it's about right and wrong and human behaviour. It doesn't really matter if it says the Earth is flat, if the point is that you shouldn't push people off the edge of it.

[EDanaII]

A lot of animals have unique capabilities beyond those of humans. They may not be able to converse in abstract concept, but then again, who decided that that was such a remarkable ability? That's right, we did that ourselves. In a world guided by simple morals, we use those concepts that distinguish us from everyone else as an absolute measure of worth to rationalize our belief of superiority. This not only goes for animals, but for other cultures and human ethnicities as well.

Who said anything about superiority? Wasn't I. The person I was responding too made no such mention, nor did the person he was responding too. Special != Superior.

As to "remarkable abilities..." I find myself highly amused by your remarks on the subject...

[Linde]

But why? The revelations were supposed to be giving knowledge about facts, twisting the facts to make them understandable & never following it up when scientific knowledge has caught up seems a little strange.

Maybe it won't if you take the rest of my post into account.

[Linde]

Who said anything about superiority? Wasn't I. The person I was responding too made no such mention, nor did the person he was responding too. Special != Superior.

The post before those you mention said "The human body is not more special than the body of any other animal, it's just flesh and bones.", which is what was being questioned, i.e. being _more_ special in any sense. I don't think you'll ever find someone argue that humans just aren't special.

As to "remarkable abilities..." I find myself highly amused by your remarks on the subject...

Writing in english is hard enough for me without taking into account that some people on the internet will think that I sound pompous for using a perfectly valid and widely known word. I am more or less ignorant when it comes to the history of the language and its cultural nuances, but I don't think of it as a handicap.

By the way, you consistently spelled "to" wrong in your post.

[Thorham]

I don't think you'll ever find someone argue that humans just aren't special.

Yes you will :p I think humans find themselves special, fantastic, and what not.

[commodorejohn]

Some animals can absolutely positively converse in abstract concepts.

Interesting assertion. Tell me more - which ones? How have we discovered this?

[Linde]

Yes you will :p I think humans find themselves special, fantastic, and what not.

Oh, sorry. I actually meant the exact opposite of what I wrote