Mega-machine, Life and God

The denial of God has lead man to seek marvel at oneself and at the creation by man by his own hands The building of structures of Marvel starting with the Pyramids of Egypt to the mega-machines of the modern day; i would argue has added to the arrogance of man.

 Jumping forward a few thousand years and to the modern industrial revolution of a couple of Hundred years ago, mixing this with Liberalism and the secular world order philosophy negating God-and-the-natural-law.

 Lewis Mumford is a scholar of Philosophy and Technics and civilization and ontologically maps the evolution of technology and civilization (see: Pentagon of Power)

 This evolution of technology and civilization has continued but I would argue to disastrous conclusions! That Man suddenly marvelled at the Mechanics and science and it has become "the God" to all the mechanistic modes of life, seeing and understanding the world purely in a scientific or rational mind, the "Clock in Clock out" nature of work etc. are all proof of this and embodiment of this principle.

 Humankind mapping the mechanistic machines to ourselves, we, replicating, mimicking the Machines we have built! In a reflexive manner.  Creating, shaping and feeding off the machine, the machine shaping us, dictating! Has the Machine become our God! Are we a slave to the machine?

Lo! Certainly, the machine is bigger; being a slave to the machine is no erroneous position!

I say the debt (Usury) slave is real! In addition, a modern social norm for humankind!

The machine has become bigger, we are living in the machine, the way we live, our morality i would argue is defined, dictated, shackled, and humankind easily exploited in all forms including philosophically and morally by this machine

The "City" is a modern mechanistic articulation of Engineering for society, the modern work-life balance is an expression of the machine! The tall cubicle structured-buildings that we live in in the city is a machine like (anti-natural) expression of a mechanistic nature.

 I would argue that Liberalism/Atheism breeds this (mechanistic type of) expression and will continually do so to the detriment of quality of life (if left uncontrolled) the speed at which technology is developed, speeds up the pace of mankind at which it works !

Left uncontrolled, how much more will we have to give our lives to the Machine! 60 hour workweeks are already practiced is their room for more sacrifice.

Capitalism, Liberalism and atheism are all intertwined into this mechanistic mode....

I believe in best practices in living life Some of the natural ways of the God-Worshipping way is in harmony with obeying the natural way differs remarkably in the fundamentals of the mechanistic way.

 

Erroneous islamic positions in debate ?

Muslims have a tendency to debate with almost UTOPIAN litter when debating or talking secularists .... We have a cycle of rehasing utopian visions in our stances !

Since many of the principles and rituals of islam Cannot or is hard to be understood by the libralists ... "Why do we fast? Why do we have to pray 5 times a day? Why do we do wear hijab etc. etc.

Sharia law is now a sticking point for the "new world order" ... We should not allow ourselves to fall into the dialogue the communistics or any of the other isms fell into ....

We also bring apologetics into the equation heavily ...

We should bring more of a realistic aim to the debate ....i advocate the following few points ...

1. Pointing out some benefits of sharia ...

i.e. abandonment of the Usury model and moving to another

2) Seperate segregated gender education increases understanding

3) etc...

5) Pointing out that many of the principles and rituals are linked to the orders of God and are for the believers, for example, a woman wearing hijab which is an order for the "believing women" i.e. a sign of Piousness for the individual person and since the state Caliphate is a state for the believers, muslims in general i..e comprising of majority of muslims, this law can be followed quite easily as is linked to God-Fearing-ness of the individual ....

6) Many of the non-believers believe that Sharia law will be applied when 95% of the population are non-muslims, this is an erroneous understanding and should be made clear from the beginning....

7) That they will have to all convert to islam ... which is an erroneous misconception although if the Sharia is implemented it will probably comprise of a majority of Muslims ...

8) Many principles of islam are easily understood and obeyed when a person is muslim since the foundations and roots of the nature of the person has been changed. And since Sharia law is a complete way they all compliment one another and are easily followed as part of the culture as a whole ... Therefore It is folly to go into sharia specifics ...

In concluding, Nit-Picking from Sharia which is the norm can be a dangerous way of dialogue, since no context is given and the individual is left out of the equation .. and importantly they will see Sharia through the secular glasses .... Give the context, give the Culture and norm of the society, be generalistic and not specific since being specific leads to confusion in understanding for the non-muslim.

debate: can we live better lives without Religion?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHmNGyGkFl8

I think Peter Cave was hit by a train in this debate ..alot of his

arguments had no substance and were slogans rather than actual points of principle.

Also i think some members of the audience didnt "get it" i.e. from the questions being

asked afterwards.

just some points on the debate:

1)The old cliche about "Religion causes wars" i think one should ask what is the

motivation "for the war" or the "person/leader" starting the war, as some people

point to George bush or even Hitler and say that he is Chrisitan war-mongerer, but i think the better

question is what is their "motivations" i.e. Oil, imperialism which are not religious motivations.

Thus the better understandin can be gained in whether religion causes wars or the motivation behind

the wars ...

2) The title of the debate i think should of been closer to "..can we live better

lives better lives under "Abrahamic faiths".." Rather than the Religion umbrella

since Hinduism, Jainism, Paganism etc.. are without a doubt opprssive ways of existence and

their ways of understanding God and should be irrelevant for the debate.

I think there was confusion

whether to debate with religion as a basis for "Better life" or islam as the basis.

3) Morality declines under Liberalism (as is proven) judge morality 100 years ago in many ways and morality, ethics etc. now ..... and i think the decline will contine even though evolution technologically has evolved not exactly inline with "quality of life" actually against it, see Lewis Mumford etc.

4) Real changes such as African-American converts in Prison (and whole Ghettos) to islam affirms the change that islam brings...

5) Peter Cave pointed to "Religious people always converting you", ACtually only Christian and muslim have a prolestyzing tradition .. NOT most others...

6) Peter Cave was not realistic as majority of people will not OR cannot comprehend

wisdom, morality, ethics, manerisms, humanism etc.. of a superior nature as MOST people

are simple, and only an elite few can philosophize to et to the truth but most (the masses) need

simple Do's and DONt's .... Just as Saleem Chagtai phoned BBC radio and gave a marvelous moral reasoning on BBC radio to Vanessa feltz that blew away reasonling of a 100 previous callers as most callers were using simplistic un-Wise Godly reasoning to justify a moral stance.

7) Wittgenstein was correct in ways as he set the limit to language preferring to see the world

in pictures (language a prejection of pictures) but he himself stated that God, etc. is outside the

realm of language , he is correct in some ways as our belief in God we use rationality just one

component of affimation.

8) Purely on Methematical-propablity Peter Cave should believe in God since he has nothing to lose as Reliion

is the gateway to the Afterlife, his Philosophy dismisses it totallally with his doubt

and focusses on humane morals ..

9) Cave kept on pointing to interprettion, i think you should of told him that 96-8% of muslims

are Sunni, with only 1 "real" Government being shia, that might of kept him quiet a bit more on

his flimsy interpretation point ...

10) Usury is forbdden also in Christian and Jewish faiths but just not practiced ... Maybe

foccussing on the EViLS of USURY as an Abrahamic tradition alone without Economic model would of quashed Cave ...

11) Someone should have told Cave that executions etc.. only happen under islamic authority and cannot be done without it ... since its a complete system and the cultural norm of the system would not be Adultery, fornication etc. like we have in Liberalism rather an abomination anti-Culture ...

Again, Cave had so many problematic statements ....

Debating with secularists !

The root frustration debatin with secualarists is the fact that they have no reference point or beliefs to rebut !

Criticism can be directed at an open faith as it's open in it's beleif, ways and circumstances !

The secularist can rebut anything stated by claiming "adherence to all good" !

But where is the reality !!

You cannot rebut a point of their belief if they have no point of belief or reference ... but encompassing all points currenlty in circulation in the modern era of morals of what is deemed "good" ..... such as "We treat all people equal" "same-sex marriage is okay " 2democracy is the way"!!!

Culture is a powerful thing ! ... The current prevailing Culture can rebut any of your points of attack by itself being a pre-eminant belief being "popular" "held onto" by the economic superior masses !!!

Money plays a HUGE role in making a culture a conon and showin itself to be superior and the "correct way"

A culture economically, scientifically, architecturally superior is in-itself is a powerful tool in givin the principles of the culture a "rubber stamp" in authority ... and being correct !!

In the debate within these circumstances, you are not only debating the life-principles of the secularists BUT "in the shadow" the culture itself !

Something to ponder ...

Rob Liddle (or Little?) of the Spectator

The debate around Rob's, the editorial cheif of the Spectator, article blog was embrolied in Controversy. In Robs Blog he stated the "fact" that "... gun crime is overwhelming the issue with black young males and what have they given us ? goat curry and rap-music"

Forgive the coarse quote recalled from memory in the late night her i am burning the midnite Oil.

His "demonization" of the Black folks again falls in the "BNP nick Grifin-esque" stylee... Mixing fact with Global uncontextualized realities .... Like the reality of "Rap" music being an African-American import stemming from the Ghetto's of the US. itself stemming from at least 50 years of oppression ...

Stating facts as some callers on the Radio stations has never been an issue in world debate .. What the problem is contextualizing "facts" and giving it an interpretation .... Europe has a history of failing to have the soft-touch in contextualising "facts".. The jews are EVIL ... they killed Christ ..... the Jews are evil they bla bla bla ,,,,,,

Uncontextualised "facts" and interpretations are the KEY to the harmonious (or disharmony) motion and intercourse of society !

Mixing isolated facts with specific incidents in isolated localities without bringing other factors such as poverty, culture and even history into context LEADS to an all out misinterpretation of reality !

This brings me to Napoloeans Mammoth Encyclopedia-Egypt written by the commissioned Orientalists to "understand" the natives of Egypt their ways, mode of thought for imperialistic ambitions .... How much "correct" interpretation from the "facts" was there in this Encyclopedia ?

Lest we forget that when we Britons migrate to the Costa-del-Sol or southern france, we all setup our own communities, create British Ghetto's and fail to learn the language ! Lest we not be hypocrits when other communities migrate to the Lands of the Britons and do the same .... Don't hit them with the Same brush we fail with .....