"I don't think it is right to equate Islam with violence"

[ken]

How about we let others decide?

On what basis will we accept their decision? We have no way of adjudicating anything yet.

You asked me for a challenge: I gave it to you. One question, and one-sentence answer.

Where is it?

If you had read My previous replies in this thread properly, then you would have already noticed that I have already stated the Only thing that is actually the Truth IS 'what' everyone agrees with.

The reason I started writing in capitals is because as I have continually said to you will NOT read nor listen to what I actually write.

The only Truth that is important and could actually be fully accepted is WHAT is agreed upon by everyone. Tbe basis that we would accept it is that there is actually no one disagreeing, including you.

[ken]

How about if each of you hold your own view, and let the other go. Is either view a matter of life and death, or are they just random opinions that don't really matter to anyone else?

I think that's where the buck stops, thedoc. He's never going to admit a basis on which we can conclude anything, so for him all opinions are eternally going to appear equal.

Fffffing absolutely WRONG assumption again.

When will you ever stop making assumptions?

You are making a complete fool of yourself here.

Read My reply to your "challenge".

And, keep challenging Me. I ask for it and I LOVE it, because I KNOW I can back up every thing that I say.

So without any means of adjudication of the rightness or wrongness of an opinion, ken's gone as far in terms of knowing anything as he's going to go. There's no future for a discussion like that, so I'm content to take your advice. I'll let him go his own way.

Back to the OP, I suppose...

See running away again.

YOU are the ONE who said the rightness or wrongness of an opinion all depends on evidence, data, and logic. I have questioned you in regards to this BUT you will NOT answer any of those questions. That I guess IS because you have gone as far as you can in terms of knowing anything further.

I have provided you with WHO and WHAT the adjudicator IS for KNOWING the rightness or wrongness of absolutely any and EVERY thing, and HOW it is the only true way to do it.

The trouble with you is you are holding dead fast to your already obtained beliefs, and then jumping to (wrong) conclusions. This is stopping you from actually seeing what I am writing and saying.

[Immanuel Can]

the Truth IS 'what' everyone agrees with.

Patently absurd. There never has been an agreement between "everyone," not since the dawn of time; and majorities have frequently been dead wrong. By your standard, then, you would never know anything, because "everyone" never agrees, or else you would blindly follow whatever local majority was around you, and would call Sharia "truth" if the majority in your locale held to it.

You can, of course, choose either of the above: I don't recommend them, and I certainly don't accept either way as some guarantee of "truth."

I was right: we've got nothing to work with here.

[ken]

the Truth IS 'what' everyone agrees with.

Patently absurd. There never has been an agreement between "everyone," not since the dawn of time; and majorities have frequently been dead wrong. By your standard, then, you would never know anything, because "everyone" never agrees, or else you would blindly follow whatever local majority was around you, and would call Sharia "truth" if the majority in your locale held to it.

You can, of course, choose either of the above: I don't recommend them, and I certainly don't accept either way as some guarantee of "truth."

I was right: we've got nothing to work with here.

You are WRONG AGAIN, you mean.

You are just trying to run away AGAIN.

You do not agree that every human being NEEDS clean enough air, clean enough water, enough nutrients, and attention in order to keep living?

I would think every human being could agree with that because if they did not, then we could use them to find out it if that statement is True or not.

If you do not agree with that statement, then will you put yourself forward for experimental use? We deprive you of just one of those things and we will see how long you keep living for.

If you are not willing to step up to the challenge and we can not find any other human being also willing to try this, then we ALL can and actually do agree on some things. So, your assumption that "the Truth IS 'what' everyone agrees with" as being patently absurd IS WRONG from a certain perspective. And, your assumption that, "There never has been an agreement between "everyone," not since the dawn of time;" may well be right or may be wrong hitherto, but how are you ever going to prove either way?

By the way what is SEEMINGLY absurd to you does NOT mean that it is a falsehood, wrong, and/or incorrect.

If there are some things that everyone could agree with, then, since the dawn of time (whatever that means in relation to this), there could and would be an agreement between everyone.

By the way, you quickly changed FROM Me saying "the Truth IS 'what' everyone agrees with" to jumping to a conclusion of Me "blindly follow whatever locale majority was around...". Can you SEE how your beliefs and assumptions lead you blindly to making absolute foolish comments and replies here very quickly? You have repeatedly done this throughout this thread.

Do you KNOW the difference between 'everyone' and a 'majority'?

And, then for some unknown reason known only by you, you go onto talking about following just one of many religions, and then advising that that would not be the best thing to do. Why do you keep trying to steer away from, and run away from, the actual issue between you and I.

[thedoc]

the Truth IS 'what' everyone agrees with.

Patently absurd.
I was right: we've got nothing to work with here.

You do not agree that every human being NEEDS clean enough air, clean enough water, enough nutrients, and attention in order to keep living?

The extremes do not justify the mean, and food, water, and shelter, are the basic extremes that do not justify the appreciation for good music, or good food and wine. Some people like wine, but more like beer, so is beer better for you than wine? You would be foolish to say so. The truth is not determined by majority vote, that only applies to politics and that is demonstrably not the best, or the most honest, people on the planet.

[SpheresOfBalance]

If you look at muslim countries objectively they actually are relatively peaceful (or were, until they were fucked over). It's OTHERS who are always attacking THEM and trying to control THEIR resources. I'm fed up with arseholes and their bullshit agendas. They need to go fuck themselves and stop poking at wasp nests.

Tell them veggie, I definitely agree!

I'm reminded of a song: money, money, money, moooooney, moooooney!

For those that like Soul:
For the love of money - O' jays Full Version
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ll3uipTO-4A

Lyrics:
Money money money money, money (x6)
Some people got to have it
Some people really need it
Listen to me y'all, do things, do things, do bad things with it
You wanna do things, do things, do things, good things with it
Talk about cash money, money
Talk about cash money- dollar bills, yall

For the love of money
People will steal from their mother
For the love of money
People will rob their own brother
For the love of money
People can't even walk the street
Because they never know who in the world they're gonna beat
For that lean, mean, mean green
Almighty dollar, money

For the love of money
People will lie, Lord, they will cheat
For the love of money
People don't care who they hurt or beat
For the love of money
A woman will sell her precious body
For a small piece of paper it carries a lot of weight
Call it lean, mean, mean green

Almighty dollar

I know money is the root of all evil
Do funny things to some people
Give me a nickel, brother can you spare a dime
Money can drive some people out of their minds

Got to have it, I really need it
How many things have I heard you say
Some people really need it
How many things have I heard you say
Got to have it, I really need it
How many things have I heard you say
Lay down, lay down, a woman will lay down
For the love of money
All for the love of money
Don't let, don't let, don't let money rule you
For the love of money
Money can change people sometimes
Don't let, don't let, don't let money fool you
Money can fool people sometimes
People! Don't let money, don't let money change you,
it will keep on changing, changing up your mind.

========================================================

For those that like Prog Rock:
(my preference because it cuts even harder)

The Big Money - Rush (official video)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQgu0MpnKq8

Lyrics:
Big money goes around the world
Big money underground
Big money got a mighty voice
Big money make no sound
Big money pull a million strings
Big money hold the prize
Big money weave a mighty web
Big money draw the flies

Sometimes pushing people around
Sometimes pulling out the rug
Sometimes pushing all the buttons
Sometimes pulling out the plug
It's the power and the glory
It's a war in paradise
It's a Cinderella story
On a tumble of the dice

Big money goes around the world
Big money take a cruise
Big money leave a mighty wake
Big money leave a bruise
Big money make a million dreams
Big money spin big deals
Big money make a mighty head
Big money spin big wheels

Sometimes building ivory towers
Sometimes knocking castles down
Sometimes building you a stairway
Lock you underground
It's that old-time religion
It's the kingdom they would rule
It's the fool on television
Getting paid to play the fool

(Instrument solos and jam)

It's the power and the glory
It's a war in paradise
It's a Cinderella story
On a tumble of the dice

Big money goes around the world
Big money give and take
Big money done a power of good
Big money make mistakes
Big money got a heavy hand
Big money take control
Big money got a mean streak
Big money got no soul...

[ken]

Patently absurd.
I was right: we've got nothing to work with here.

You do not agree that every human being NEEDS clean enough air, clean enough water, enough nutrients, and attention in order to keep living?

The extremes do not justify the mean, and food, water, and shelter, are the basic extremes that do not justify the appreciation for good music, or good food and wine. Some people like wine, but more like beer, so is beer better for you than wine? You would be foolish to say so.

WHAT has ", so is beer better for you than wine?" got to do with anything here?

I am the ONE saying everything is relative to the observer, so why are you trying to argue the same way, against Me?

The truth is not determined by majority vote, that only applies to politics and that is demonstrably not the best, or the most honest, people on the planet.

I NEVER said it was a vote. I said the 'WHAT' everyone could agree with IS the Truth.

Human beings never have nor never will I think "vote" for what IS Truth. Truth, from My perspective, is ONLY 'what' could be agreed upon by everyone.

What is so hard to understand about this, that people want to try and turn it around from what I am actually saying.

Also, you, yourself, are using the 'majority' word. What is it with people jumping from ALL, everyone, to SOME, majority? HOW can I make it clear that everyone means ALL and not just the majority?

[Hobbes' Choice]

You lover boys are having an argument about nothing.
Here's the thread title"
"I don't think it is right to equate Islam with violence"
The question is no contention is Bill. You have to agree that on the face of it that it is as true as Bill's consistency. Who cares?

But the thread is expression a matter of opinion, not a matter of fact. And so the two of you can yank at each other's chains for as long as you like; take either position; or neither. Nothing is going to change the fact that there is no objective truth about the rights and wrongs of "equating Islam with violence".

Regardless of to what degree Islam is violent or encourages violence you are still left with the question whether is it "RIGHT" to equate it with violence. On every level this is a matter of opinion, and neither of you has the quality of having an authoritative opinion; neither of you have any special knowledge on Islam and even if you did this would be offset against personal stances and ideologies.
Your problem here seems to stem from the delusion that, as person of belief, there can be a strict absolute (god given) moral stance that it is possible to stand against.

You first have to ask what you are asking.
Does Islam necessarily lead to violence?
What do you mean by violence?
To what degree can you equate Islam with it?
And what are the implications of equating Islam with it?

In my view demanding that otherwise "free" humans are expected to 'submit' to any ideology is violent.
Demanding obedience, over practice, belief and clothing is violent to the human spirit.
All you really have to ask is do Islamic countries practice this.

[Immanuel Can]

Do you KNOW the difference between 'everyone' and a 'majority'?

Of course. But as I said, it doesn't matter which one you go with: neither one is reasonable. Majorities are frequently wrong, and "everyone" never agrees. Neither will get us to truth.

We still need a more reliable method than polling the majority OR waiting for everyone to agree. What is it?

[Immanuel Can]

duplicate

[ken]

Do you KNOW the difference between 'everyone' and a 'majority'?

Of course. But as I said, it doesn't matter which one you go with: neither one is reasonable. Majorities are frequently wrong, and "everyone" never agrees. Neither will get us to truth.

I just gave an example when EVERYONE AGREES. Explain to all of us here how that example is wrong.

Your continual saying throughout this thread that things CAN NOT happen, even after I have already given examples of how they actually can and actually do happen is just making you look more and more foolish each time. Either refute my example if you can, or stop saying ridiculous things.

Not just truth but the actual ONE and only real Truth IS revealed when EVERYONE could agree. In fact that is the ONLY way Truth is found, because if there is no one disputing 'that' what is in agreement, then there is no one disagreeing with 'its' truth. And, before any person suggests that even if and when everyone is in agreement, then that does not necessarily mean it is the Truth, flat earth example, for example, well as I have already explained a couple of times already, even when the Truth is known it is still much better to NOT believe (in) it because as the story with the flat earth goes even when everyone is believing in something then 'that' could still be a falsehood, wrong, and/or incorrect. So, the best thing to do is even when accepting and agreeing in Thee Truth is to still always remain open. For when and if a further or newer Truth comes along, if a person is not open to 'that', then they will NEVER be able to find and see that Truth.

For example just like you are doing right here and right now imman.

We still need a more reliable method than polling the majority OR waiting for everyone to agree. What is it?

I have given WHAT IT IS. If and when everyone is in agreement, then that is the Truth. Either challenge it, refute it, or accept it, which one will it be. Just saying "everyone never agrees" is absolutely NOT accurate.

Your so called "reliable method" I have already challenged you on with numerous clarifying questions, but as I continually remind you, you will NOT answer those questions. Your refusal to answer the questions means you are refuting your own statements, for Me.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Do you KNOW the difference between 'everyone' and a 'majority'?

Of course. But as I said, it doesn't matter which one you go with: neither one is reasonable. Majorities are frequently wrong, and "everyone" never agrees. Neither will get us to truth.

We still need a more reliable method than polling the majority OR waiting for everyone to agree. What is it?

... and yet that is the REAL basis for "objectivity" in matters of taste and value.

[Immanuel Can]

I just gave an example when EVERYONE AGREES. Explain to all of us here how that example is wrong.

I already did. I gave you the example of all decisions made since the dawn of time. "Everyone" has never agreed, at any point in human history. In other words, you're setting a standard you're never going to be able to meet -- that is, if you actually mean "everyone."

But if you don't actually mean "everyone" but rather "majority," then you've still got the problem that the majority has historically often been wrong. At one time, the "majority" was quite convinced the Earth was the center planet in the universe. But that didn't make it true.

There are your examples.

[thedoc]

I just gave an example when EVERYONE AGREES. Explain to all of us here how that example is wrong.

The example you gave is wrong because everyone does not agree, there are a few who will say that not all of those things are necessary because not everyone wants to continue to live, and there are some who do not require attention to exist, they are just as happy to be left alone. You are not the end all and be all of the human condition, in fact you seem to be a bit of an aberration to the normal human condition.

[thedoc]

You do not agree that every human being NEEDS clean enough air, clean enough water, enough nutrients, and attention in order to keep living?

I am the ONE saying everything is relative to the observer, so why are you trying to argue the same way, against Me?

You contradict yourself, first you try to say that everyone agrees on a few absolutes, then you say that everything is relative to the observer, and observers are often different from each other, so what they think will not be the same.