Welcome
Login:   Pass:     Register - Forgot Password - Resend Activation

Forum Messages Posted by Melek74

(1506 Messages in 151 pages - View all)
<<  ... 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 [127] 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 ...  >>


Thread: The virus of religious moderation

1261.       Melek74
1506 posts
 30 Dec 2008 Tue 07:14 pm

 

Quoting femmeous

 intersting that your info is half-half.

 

"According to the indictment of the prosecutor’s office, cited by the daily Cumhuriyet, Adnan Oktar and associates raped young women many of whom were under the age of 18 on camera and blackmailed them by threatening to release the sex tapes to their friends and family members. Many of these young women were then forced to entice select young men from wealthy families with the promise of sex in exchange for attending events organised by the BAV. The court heard how in turn these girls were formed into a group called of what they referred to as "odalisques" (cariyeler) and were ordered to videotape their sex sessions with these young men and deliver the tapes to Oktar.[59]

Amidst ambiguous circumstances all charges were dropped by that court only to be picked by another court 8 years later. In 2008 Oktar was convicted a variety of crimes including engaging in criminal threats.[56][50] On May 2008 Oktar and 17 other members of his organisation were sentenced to 3 years in prison. Oktar intends to appeal these charges"

 

 Ah yes, thank you, I couldn´t find more info on that.



Thread: The virus of religious moderation

1262.       Melek74
1506 posts
 30 Dec 2008 Tue 06:15 pm

 

Quoting TheAenigma

This is crazy!!  I thought Turkey was secular?  In which case why would they block the site?   They would rather believe in fairy tales than science...no problem, but why deny access to something that dares to disagree?  Even if Turkey were NOT secular, I understood it to be the case that many modern muslims can happily integrate evolution into their religion ...

 

Insults?  If you are a public figure you have to accept it.  This has the familiar ring of people running to "mummy" when they cant accept criticism...

 

This is one of the tricks that are used by the religions:

 

1. The religion of (insert name of religion here) is always right.

2. If (insert name of religion here) is wrong, see No. 1 (and then we´ll ban you, kill you, excommunicate you, shun you, send our mummy to spank you).

 

An example from another religion:

1. The Pope is infallible (when speaking ex-cathedra, bla bla).

2. The very FIRST edict that is considered to be infallible was, yes, you got it, that the pope IS infallible.

 

You can´t win with that.

 

Interestingly enough, Oktar was sentenced to 3 years in prison for creating an illegal organization for personal gains, which he´s appealing right now. It reminds me of some of the evangelicals here in the States who preach to ignorant masses on Sundays and count their money on weekdays.

 

 



Thread: The virus of religious moderation

1263.       Melek74
1506 posts
 30 Dec 2008 Tue 05:51 pm

 

Quoting Daydreamer

Hardly a surprise as he´s a fierce advocate of atheism

 

Turkish court bans Richard Dawkins website

Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins

Dawkins (above) described the work of Muslim creationist Adnan Oktar as ´preposterous´

A Turkish court has banned internet users from viewing the official Richard Dawkins website after a Muslim creationist claimed its contents were defamatory and blasphemous.

Adnan Oktar, who writes under the pen name of Harun Yahya, complained that Dawkins, a fierce critic of creationism and intelligent design, had insulted him in comments made on forums and blogs.

According to Oktar´s office, Istanbul´s second criminal court of peace banned the site earlier this month on the grounds that it "violated" Oktar´s personality.

His press assistant, Seda Aral, said: "We are not against freedom of speech or expression but you cannot insult people.

"We found the comments hurtful. It was not a scientific discussion. There was a line and the limit has been passed.

"We have used all the legal means to stop this site. We asked them to remove the comments but they did not."

Oktar, a household name in Turkey, has used hundreds of books, pamphlets and DVDS to contest Darwin´s theory of evolution.

In 2006 his publishers sent out 10,000 copies of the Atlas of Creation, a lavish 800-page rejection of evolution.

Dawkins, one of the recipients, described the book as "preposterous". On his website the British biologist and popular science writer said he was at "a loss to reconcile the expensive and glossy production values of this book with the ´breathtaking inanity´ of the content."

It is the third time Oktar and his associates have succeeded in blocking sites in Turkey.

In August 2007 Oktar persuaded a court to block access to WordPress.com. His lawyers argued that blogs on WordPress.com contained libelous material that the company was unwilling to remove.

Last April, he made a libel complaint about Google Groups, which was subsequently blocked.

He failed to ban Dawkins´ book the God Delusion in Turkey after a court rejected his claims that it insulted religion.

 

 http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/sep/18/turkey

 

 

I guess in Turkey what Oktar thinks is more important than scientific truths.



Thread: The virus of religious moderation

1264.       Melek74
1506 posts
 30 Dec 2008 Tue 02:19 am

 

Quoting catwoman

High goals, but politically impossible, until, as Dawkins says, religion loses it´s unearned, undeserved utmost respect and we can actually discuss religions as belief systems, not any different then other ideologies.

 

Thank you Catwoman, it´s nice to know there´s at least one person out there who understands. I´m surprised that there´s so many people who do not see the absurdity of it all - the belief systems that religions propagate that are based on myths from times where people thought Earth was flat, the willingness of people to condemn and even kill others based on those beliefs, the absurdity of having to "respect" those beliefs even if they are harmful to the societies and our species as a whole, and the total social ban on criticizing them. I think it´s time to examine those beliefs and ask oneself, why do we believe? Is it because we were told to by our fathers and grandfathers and great-grandfathers? Where´s the evidence for any of the religion´s claims? Are the claims religions make moral? We need to be able to QUESTION and CRITICIZE those beliefs and not play nice when faced with the absurdities and not pretend that we respect other´s beliefs. And the moderates are the guilty here. They pick and choose what to believe, which beliefs are acceptable and which are just to be ignored, and then they propagate the myths that religions are "peaceful". There´s no such thing, at least not among the big 3 (Christianity, Judaism, and Islam). People just choose to ignore the uncomfortable parts of the so called holy books and pick and choose whatver fits their needs - at the same time failing to talk against those who take those books literally. At least the radicals are honest in their convictions.

 

If you like Dawkins, I think you´ll like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MuyUz2XLp1E&feature=PlayList&p=A490902178E6854D&index=0&playnext=1 

Sam Harris is my favorite one, he´s so nice and respectful, and a fantastic debator.



Thread: Pronounciation: narrowing of vowels.

1265.       Melek74
1506 posts
 29 Dec 2008 Mon 11:28 pm

 

Quoting caliptrix

I think the pronunciation may be a bit complicated if you want to hear the professional explanations. Many Turks even don´t know that there are many rules about the changing vowels, the correct diction. I even don´t know, but one of my friends had diction classes, and he explainted the shape of speech/pronunciation of the professional speakers, for example speakers on the tv.

 

One of these complicated rules are about the vowel "e". As you asked in your question, -ecek has this type changing -e- sound. I personally don´t think that is soo much important to learn by reading, but just hear how the people speak, you can get it better.

 

As an example, poem readers say"gidicee(ð)z" instead of "gideceðiz". Of course, that is pretty hard to write these things by referencing the same language. You are trying to learn how to pronunc and I am writing the same Turkish letter in the different word. But just as to be trying to simple;

pronounced - written

geliceeðz - geleceðiz

yapýcaaðz - yapacaðýz

yapabiliceeðz - yapabileceðiz

 

Other examples can be "deðil". We never pronounce it as it is written. It always shorten and say "diil". another word like this: "kaðýt" but pronounced "kaat"(k goes lighter)

 

For the future tense -ecek/acak; it may be even more shorter but that doesn´t mean it is correct and/or recommended. Like this "yapçaz". If you talk so fast, you probably say "yapacaðýz" as "yapýcaz" or "yapcaz" or even "yapçaz".

 

But as a foreigner, no one has to be perfect to know every single professional speaker rules.

 

 Many thanks That´s exactly what I was looking for. {#lang_emotions_flowers}



Thread: The virus of religious moderation

1266.       Melek74
1506 posts
 29 Dec 2008 Mon 11:18 pm

It´s very nice that people want to bild bridges of understanding, but until holy books are re-written and religious dogmas updated to the modern ethical standards and scientific knowledge, no such bridge is possible. As long as there´s one person in the equation thinking that the other person is "wrong" in their beliefs and will go to "hell" , there´s not understanding possible, only, at most, "tolerance", and all too often intolerance, hatered and violence.

 

 

Here´s some more reading from Sam Harris - he´s far more eloquent than I am on this topic.


"People of faith fall on a continuum: some draw solace and inspiration from a specific spiritual tradition, and yet remain fully committed to tolerance and diversity, while others would burn the earth to cinders if it would put an end to heresy. There are, in other words, religious moderates and religious extremists, and their various passions and projects should not be confused. However, religious moderates are themselves the bearers of a terrible dogma: they imagine that the path to peace will be paved once each of us has learned to respect the unjustified beliefs of others. I hope to show that the very ideal of religious tolerance-born of the notion that every human being should be free to believe whatever he wants about God-is one of the principal forces driving us toward the abyss.

We have been slow to recognize the degree to which religious faith perpetuates man´s inhumanity to man. This is not surprising, since many of us still believe that faith is an essential component of human life. Two myths now keep faith beyond the fray of rational criticism, and they seem to foster religious extremism and religious moderation equally: (i) most of us believe that there are good things that people get from religious faith (e.g., strong communities, ethical behavior, spiritual experience) that cannot be had elsewhere; (2) many of us also believe that the terrible things that are sometimes done in the name of religion are the products not of faith per se but of our baser natures-forces like greed, hatred, and fear-for which religious beliefs are themselves the best (or even the only) remedy. Taken together, these myths seem to have granted us perfect immunity to outbreaks of reasonableness in our public discourse.

Many religious moderates have taken the apparent high road of pluralism, asserting the equal validity of all faiths, but in doing so they neglect to notice the irredeemably sectarian truth claims of each. As long as a Christian believes that only his baptized brethren will be saved on the Day of judgment, he cannot possibly "respect" the beliefs of others, for he knows that the flames of hell have been stoked by these very ideas and await their adherents even now. Muslims and Jews generally take the same arrogant view of their own enterprises and have spent millennia passionately reiterating the errors of other faiths. It should go without saying that these rival belief systems are all equally uncontaminated by evidence."

http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Secular-Philosophies/The-Problem-With-Religious-Moderates.aspx?p=1



Thread: The virus of religious moderation

1267.       Melek74
1506 posts
 29 Dec 2008 Mon 06:24 pm

The virus of religious moderation

PERHAPS it should come as no surprise that a mere wall of water, sweeping innocent multitudes from the beaches of 12 countries on Boxing Day, failed to raise global doubts about God’s existence. Still, one wonders just how vast and gratuitous a catastrophe would have to be to shake the world’s faith. The Holocaust did not do it.

God’s ways are, indeed, inscrutable. It seems that any fact, no matter how infelicitous, can be rendered compatible with religious faith. In matters of faith, we have kicked ourselves loose of the earth. Given the degree to which religion still inspires human conflict, this is not the good news that many of us imagine it to be.

One of the greatest challenges facing civilisation in the 21st century is for human beings to learn to speak about their deepest concerns — about ethics, spiritual experience, and human suffering — in ways that are not flagrantly irrational. Incompatible religious doctrines have Balkanised our world and these divisions have become a continuous source of bloodshed.

Indeed, religion is as much a living spring of violence today as it was at any time in the past. The recent conflicts in Palestine (Jews v Muslims), the Balkans (Orthodox Serbians v Catholic Croatians; Orthodox Serbians v Bosnian and Albanian Muslims), Northern Ireland (Protestants v Catholics), Kashmir (Muslims v Hindus), Sudan (Muslims v Christians and animists), Nigeria (Muslims v Christians)and Iran and Iraq (Shia v Sunni) are merely a few cases in point. These are places where religion has been the explicit cause of millions of deaths in the past decade.

It is in the face of such pointless horrors that many people of goodwill now counsel “moderation” in religion. The problem with religious moderation is that it offers us no bulwark against the spread of religious extremism and religious violence. Moderates do not want to kill anyone in the name of God, but they want us to keep using the word “God” as though we knew what we were talking about. And they don’t want anything too critical to be said about people who really believe in the God of their forefathers because tolerance, above all else, is sacred. To speak plainly and truthfully about the state of our world — to say, for instance, that the Bible and the Koran both contain mountains of life-destroying gibberish — is antithetical to tolerance as moderates conceive it.

In so far as religious moderates attempt to hold on to what is still serviceable in orthodox religion, they close the door to more sophisticated approaches to human happiness. Rather than bring the full force of 21st-century creativity and rationality to bear, moderates ask that we merely relax our standards of adherence to ancient superstitions and taboos.

But by failing to live by the letter of the texts — while tolerating the irrationality of those who do — religious moderates betray faith and reason equally. As moderates, we cannot say that religious fundamentalists are dangerous idiots, because they are merely practising their freedom of belief. We can’t even say that they are mistaken in religious terms, because their knowledge of scripture is generally unrivalled. All we can say, as religious moderates, is that we don’t like the personal and social costs that a full embrace of scripture imposes on us. It is time we recognised that religious moderation is the product of secular knowledge and scriptural ignorance.

Religious moderates imagine that theirs is the path to peace. But this very ideal of tolerance now drives us toward the abyss. Religious violence still plagues our world because our religions are intrinsically hostile to one another. Where they appear otherwise, it is because secular knowledge and secular interests have restrained the most lethal improprieties of faith. If religious war is ever to become unthinkable for us, in the way that slavery and cannibalism seem poised to, it will be a matter of our having dispensed with the dogma of faith.

Moderation in religion has made it taboo even to acknowledge the differences among our religious traditions: to notice, for instance, that Islam is especially hostile to the principles of civil society. There are still places in the Muslim world where people are put to death for imaginary crimes — such as blasphemy — and where the totality of a child’s education consists of his learning to recite from an ancient book of religious fiction. Throughout the Muslim world, women are denied almost every human liberty, except the liberty to breed.

And yet, these same societies are acquiring arsenals of advanced weaponry. In the face of these perils, religious moderates — Christians, Muslims and Jews — remain entranced by their own moderation. They are least able to fathom that when jihadists stare into a video camera and claim to “love death more than the infidels love life”, they are being candid about their state of mind.

But technology has a way of creating fresh moral imperatives. We can no longer ignore the fact that billions of our neighbors believe in the metaphysics of martyrdom, or in the literal truth of the book of Revelation — because our neighbors are now armed with chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. There is no doubt that these developments mark the terminal phase of our credulity. Words like “God” and “Allah” must go the way of “Apollo” and “Baal” or they will unmake our world.

Sam Harris is author of The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article431642.ece

Maybe it´s time to stop pretending it is not a problem.



Thread: Israel Is Killing in Gazza!!!!!

1268.       Melek74
1506 posts
 29 Dec 2008 Mon 04:27 pm

 

Quoting tamikidakika

Unlike you, I`m openminded enough to see that any religion promotes violence, because a religion by definition is all about authority and the self interest of a group of people.

 

and unlike melekwhatever, I`m not an hypocrite to say that it`s only islam or christianity that legitimizes violence.

 

Yeah, you´re right, all religions legitmize violence. I´m shaking already thinking of the Bhuddist suicide bombers.



Thread: Israel Is Killing in Gazza!!!!!

1269.       Melek74
1506 posts
 29 Dec 2008 Mon 04:24 pm

 

Quoting justinetime

I would have to say you are wrong here Melek74. It is not Islam that legitimizes violence. It is the inhumane people, who distort Islam, twist it´s religion and make it their own belief to legitimize violence. It is the same with Christianity. A lot of people have distorted Christianity as well, to use it to their advantage in order to have domination over other countries as well.

 

You say religion is the problem. I say it is the people who distort religion as the problem.

 

I´ll agree to disagree with you here. It is the humane people that can pick the good parts out of the "holy books" and ignore that violent, despicable parts that may SOMETIMES give religion a good name. I´d invite you to read the Bible or the Q´uran sometimes from the perspective of what you´d have to do and believe if you were actually to follow the rules in the books. Then we can talk about twisting the religion.



Thread: Israel Is Killing in Gazza!!!!!

1270.       Melek74
1506 posts
 29 Dec 2008 Mon 04:21 pm

 

Quoting tamikidakika

a few questions for you;

 

1)why are you desperately trying to change your initial argument that islam is the only religion that promotes violence?

 

2)to what level islam takes terrorism? something worse than the crusade terrorism?

 

I´m not "desperate" about anything. I actually went and looked at my posts. Nowhere did I say that Islam is the only religion that promotes violence. What I am saying is the Islam makes killing and dying for religion something desirable for people who kill themselves and others.

 

I would thank god (if one existed) that not so many people actually do follow the "holy books" to the t.

 



(1506 Messages in 151 pages - View all)
<<  ... 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 [127] 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 ...  >>



Turkish Dictionary
Turkish Chat
Open mini chat
New in Forums
Crossword Vocabulary Puzzles for Turkish L...
qdemir: You can view and solve several of the puzzles online at ...
Giriyor vs Geliyor.
lrnlang: Thank you for the ...
Local Ladies Ready to Play in Your City
nifrtity: ... - Discover Women Seeking No-Strings Attached Encounters in Your Ci...
Geçmekte vs. geçiyor?
Hoppi: ... and ... has almost the same meaning. They are both mean "i...
Intermediate (B1) to upper-intermediate (B...
qdemir: View at ...
Why yer gördüm but yeri geziyorum
HaydiDeer: Thank you very much, makes perfect sense!
Random Pictures of Turkey
Most liked