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 ....
No comments:
Post a Comment