Sharia compliant trading platform

[gooseman]

have you ever read an islamic mortage agreement lol.

I reckon the Nakheel is okay though. % of rental yields innit?

funnily enough i haven't.

it's just like everything in securities; replication.

 

[MrGecko]

I think people that treat religion with disdain and are dismissive of those who believe in faith are, as a general rule, arrogant and ignorant.

People say "you don't understand science" while not having a scooby doo about religion.

 

[scose-no-doubt]

Absolute boll0cks mate. Can't remember how they word it but they get around it by calling a spade by every other name.

 

[Dommo]

I think it's more about being perceived to be intelligent in western culture. Can't be clever if you're religious can you? Been that way since Darwin, his scrap-book and the backtracking church clashed horns.

I think you sometimes encounter a degree of that, because faith is unprovable/irrational in an otherwise rational person. My view is that if you believe, you just have to allow yourself that logical flaw.

I see no conflict between BigBang/multiverse/Darwinism etc and belief. It seems noteworthy that we appear to be the only species aware of the Darwinian phenomenon, and the only one capable of actively, intentionally defying it.

70 years is just way too short a time for a consciousness to exist (and I concede that this is not a good argument for anything).

There is no way to win this argument.

 

[robster970]

Why does a belief in the afterlife and/or religion = fallibility?

It is another illustration of denial, a human condition that often cause problems not only to yourself but frequently to others especially if the others collude with you.

 

[robster970]

People say "you don't understand science" while not having a scooby doo about religion.

I would say most people don't understand science or the scientific process either.

 

[FX Bandit]

Since a couple of people have brought up Darwin, it's trivia time!

Did you know that Darwin was the most appalling racist whose opinions would have rendered him utterly beyond the pale were he alive today?

Clever chap, excellent schooling, but a rampaging racist. Possibly he didn't like those gayers either, but I'm not sure about that.

 

[scose-no-doubt]

It is another illustration of denial, a human condition that often cause problems not only to yourself but frequently to others especially if the others collude with you.

WTF?

Anyway a religious man could say that you are in denial. That you don't want to believe that you were created. That you refuse to accept you'll be judged and have to answer for your actions.
Swings and roundabouts and depends on your viewpoint.

 

[robster970]

I don't think he's celebrated for his societally validated value system. Interesting factoid though.

Racism was rife then. It's still rife now but that doesn't stop people from contributing something of interest.

I heard the guy who owns Ikea is incredibly right wing but that doesn't stop people enjoying low cost flat pack furniture.

Interesting factoid though FX.

 

[arabianights]

Whether true or false, it is apparently unprovable, ergo a variety of views.

There is, however, a perfectly obvious null hypothesis... what makes religion a special case?

Incidentally there is plenty in organised religion falsifiable one way or the other (contrast to deism)

 

[scose-no-doubt]

Since a couple of people have brought up Darwin, it's trivia time!

Did you know that Darwin was the most appalling racist whose opinions would have rendered him utterly beyond the pale were he alive today?

Clever chap, excellent schooling, but a rampaging racist. Possibly he didn't like those gayers either, but I'm not sure about that.

Darwin was a man on a mission to prove white superiority.

Talk about using biased info in application of his theories to humans -which was mainly done by others and not himself anyway. Wonder how different his results would have been if he'd assessed Nubians vs Ancient Europeans.

Clever of him to pick his side during the height of the British Empire when the wealth of knowledge of a million other nations had been absorbed and white-washed

Evolution for you

 

[robster970]

WTF?

Anyway a religious man could say that you are in denial. That you don't want to believe that you were created. That you refuse to accept you'll be judged and have to answer for your actions.
Swings and roundabouts and depends on your viewpoint.

Can't you see how denial is bad personally but also when it's a collective thing it's even worse?

Anyway, I know the religious do say that, it's a common argument and they are perfectly entitled to it.

 

[scose-no-doubt]

Can't you see how denial is bad personally but also when it's a collective thing it's even worse?

Anyway, I know the religious do say that, it's a common argument and they are perfectly entitled to it.

Yep I can... but as I said, whether denial or not is a matter perspective.
Also, I don't see why you think that religion can harm society. That's all.

 

[Dommo]

There is, however, a perfectly obvious null hypothesis... what makes religion a special case?

There is, it coincides precisely with False, and remains a null hypothesis.

Incidentally there is plenty in organised religion falsifiable one way or the other (contrast to deism)

Agreed.

 

[robster970]

Yep I can... but as I said, whether denial or not is a matter perspective.
Also, I don't see why you think that religion can harm society. That's all.

You are right, it is a matter of perspective which is why I don't buy the force it down your throat perspective on these things (apart from when I say, get over it).

Two reasons dude:

1) It represents a collective denial so this in my value system is a bad thing. Acceptance of a finite lifetime IMO would improve human relations and increase cooperation as we strive to stay alive as a species rather than rely upon the notion of an afterlife and second chances.

2) As a moral code of conduct it is divisive in the way that religions organise themselves. As I said in another thread, participants in religions, although claiming their participation is benign are culpable for the intolerance too.

 

[scose-no-doubt]

You are right, it is a matter of perspective which is why I don't buy the force it down your throat perspective on these things (apart from when I say, get over it).

Two reasons dude:

1) It represents a collective denial so this in my value system is a bad thing. Acceptance of a finite lifetime IMO would improve human relations and increase cooperation as we strive to stay alive as a species rather than rely upon the notion of an afterlife and second chances.

LOL. I have to respectfully disagree with that opinion, mate.

2) As a moral code of conduct it is divisive in the way that religions organise themselves. As I said in another thread, participants in religions, although claiming their participation is benign are culpable for the intolerance too.

Agree. Highly politicised now and far too much bad blood. I feel that in the world we live in, religion can only survive in regards to the individual.

 

[arabianights]

Also, I don't see why you think that religion can harm society. That's all.

History

 

[scose-no-doubt]

More blood has been spilled over money and power. Shall we do away with those too?

I think it's more a case of the ruling classes harming society than religion harming society.

 

[DionysusToast]

Also, in regards your insinuation that religion is a means of control for the illiterate and uneducated etc, how would you address the fact that there were huge advances made in maths (Al-Gebra), medicine (Al-Chemist), science & technology (including surgery) in general as well as infrastructure e.g street lighting and irrigation under Islamic rule in Western Europe? Was this an unexpected by-product of policy? Did citizens not develop these ideas under government mandates, set out to help educate the populous and society in general? I suppose the massive accumulation of books from all over the world, their translation and placing in vast libraries was done just to pass the Saturday afternoons :S

You do have it bad don't you ?

OK - here goes...

The masses didn't invent anything - some smart people did.
Just because a large percentage of the people are uneducated, does not mean that some people are not smart. Fact is - too many smart people would be a huge issue.
Just because a religion is popular does not mean it is responsible for the creations of scientists.

So - this claim that "under islamic rule" the world was perfect and science flourished - well it's the most retarded thing I've seen in a long time. Do you claim that your religion created irrigation ? Are you sure about that ?

Religion is and always will be a reminder that people don't need to be under the rule of other men.
Problem is, when the selfless leaders die off, bad apples claim religion for their own rather than a shared belief system, politicise it (normally incorporating it into the law of the land) then attempt to control believers with it. As noted in my second paragraph, I don't believe this works but they still try it.

Also, do you really believe that religion (or lack of as the case may be) is redundant in the modern world?

In religion you are under other men - but those men claim to be under instruction from a higher power.

Religion is a mental illness.

 

[scose-no-doubt]

You do have it bad don't you ?

OK - here goes...

The masses didn't invent anything - some smart people did.
Just because a large percentage of the people are uneducated, does not mean that some people are not smart. Fact is - too many smart people would be a huge issue.
Just because a religion is popular does not mean it is responsible for the creations of scientists.
never said it was. i said it didn't stifle or aim to herd the masses. you're arguing a different point to get your views across.

So - this claim that "under islamic rule" the world was perfect and science flourished - well it's the most retarded thing I've seen in a long time. Do you claim that your religion created irrigation ? Are you sure about that ?
never said this either

In religion you are under other men - but those men claim to be under instruction from a higher power.
Whose control am I under exactly? You do not know me and I doubt you know anyone who is devout in their religion. Even if you did you don't strike me as the type of person who would even actually listen to what they were saying.

Religion is a mental illness.
As diognosed by DT in his infinite wisdom, yes? Where did you get your doctorate in psychology again?

You obviously have no idea what you're talking about.

If your method of having a discussion with someone is to paraphrase with bias and be insulting then good luck finding someone else to talk to. I'm not wasting any more of my time.
Any more main stream, coffee shop atheist slogans to throw about before I go?