Topic: Evil of religion, and investment into IBB, Islamic Bitcoin Bank (Read 8423 times)

اِنَّ  الَّذِیۡنَ یَخۡشَوۡنَ رَبَّہُمۡ بِالۡغَیۡبِ لَہُمۡ مَّغۡفِرَۃٌ  وَّ  اَجۡرٌ  کَبِیۡرٌ ﴿۱۲﴾
 
Verily! Those who fear their Lord unseen (i.e. they do not see Him, nor His Punishment in the Hereafter, etc.), theirs will be forgiveness and a great reward (i.e. Paradise).

Surah : Al- Mulk (67:12)

senbonzakura: what is the meaning and significance of your userpic ?

LoL  I don't "demand" you anything.  It would be too easy if I could have you forget about your superstitious beliefs by just asking.

I wish you were not using the word "islamic" in your banking business, just as I wish there were no more religion in this world.  This is not a request.  Merely a hope.

yes.

However, to the statement "all muslims are bad" I will say that more precisely, the actions that they make whenever they are motivated through the muslim religion, are bad.  The reality is that many people are not completely evil, because (a) they don't really spend time to understand fully what they are doing, so this is ignorance=bliss situation. And (b) many people have several conflicting morals, thanks to our day and age, that sometimes they do good things too.

yes, so anyway, because religion is bad, we should all boycott IBB.

including any islamic people who happen to use bitcoins.

because all muslims believe in islam.

and islam is a religion.

and religion is bad.

so ALL MUSLIMS ARE BAD.

or not.

You are bringing into the mix a different meaning of color than the one we discuss. When we spoke about the world being Black-and-White, we didn't mean a physical color, but a two state property of logic called the "Law of Excluded Middle", meaning that there is no third state between true or false.  


There is a theory that all our knowledge about the world is developed in a black-and-white logic, in an incremental, hierarchical process.  This theory, developed by Ayn Rand, is called "The Objectivist Epistemology".


You don't have to prove any arbitrary statement is false. A person who claims it must prove it to you.  The position "I don't know" in reality is as good as "No".  To continue with the flying teapot example, if you are an engineer designing a satellite, you don't have to account for the teapot in your formulas.

The flying teapot and the concept of god is a fantasy, by definition, since it comes out of a mental construction. God was never observed by anyone.  There is nothing wrong with fantasy, just like there is nothing wrong in a fantastic dream. However, you are supposed to use the fantasy to develop an application to the real world. Not to declare that your fantasy is part of reality just because you have imagined it.  Your argument for the existence of god is: "I imagine it, therefore it exists". Or, "I and 6 billion people imagine it", therefore it exists.

And the worst thing you can do with fantasy, is to bring it into reality in a form of Law. Since fantasy does not require proof, you can think up any Law whatever, even if it contradicts another law. In particular, it could contradict the Laws defined by the objective, observable nature, the ones you can really prove -- the tendency of living beings to try to stay alive and enjoy life to the fullest potential of their biological ability, and do whatever they can to achieve it. Hence, for a tree it is to strive for sun light, for a lion it is a tendency to kill prey, and to a human it is to create. To "Live and Prosper" in the words of Spock.

The logical axiom that is the basis for bringing fantasy into reality is the concept that individual is less than a community. It probably came through observing ant colonies. Our armies model this system very closely.  However, this theory does not account the fact that a human is much more intelligent than an ant, and depending on the task, two humans can achieve more independently than working together.  A historical example is Edison and Tesla. If Tesla would have joined Edison, he would not have developed AC Power Transmission. This not to say that any form of cooperation is bad.  The cooperation of people to create a combined product from different pieces has worked very well, but only in the context of capitalism. This system allows every person to excel in doing of his little piece, since he is motivated to innovate.

Only the owner of this forum can set the rules.   There is no such thing as freedom of speech. Instead, there is freedom to pursue an objective, as long as you don't impose of private property of others. For example, I can not submit an atheist essay to an Islamic newspaper  and expect it published.  The newspaper real estate belongs to the owner of the newspaper, and he sets the rules on his own property.

However, people express their opinions on this forum, saying that don't enjoy their experience (as a customer of the forum), because instead of it being about bitcoin, it is about promotion of  a religious dogma.  IBB makes a statement that zero percent loans are good for you not only financially, but morally, according to Sharia laws. Since the owner of the forum wants to keep his customers satisfied, he can enforce a policy on the site that is going to retain his customers. Also that policy would not go against his own moral convictions.

i always claim that im proof otherwise.

Just for the record - the concept of 'evil' is supernatural and as irrational as belief in God.
Human behaviour can always be explained, whether it's the behavior of psychopaths or Abu Ghraib guards (see the work of Phillip Zimbardo)

->Implying a 0% interest bank exist. But oh there are other fees, their name is not interest but you still pay
No interest=you loan, the guy can't repay, you fail.

Well if I need a loan I know what interest rate would pull me in.

The name of the bank imply that it is somehow related to a religion (and not to the other) and so there is a god (but not zeus or odin or thor) wich is not exactly... convincing
Add to that all the problems that religion always create and then you see why i am not convinced at all by that "bank"

After all no one would trust a flying spaghetti monster bank!

Only maths are strictly logical.   And I'm not the one who brought logic in this thread, anyway.

Occam's razzor is a logical principle.  It's not an axiom of Zermel-Fraenkel theory, for instance.  It doesn't have to be one of them to be widely accepted as logical principle.

If only mathematicians can have an opinion about the universe, then no wonder religion has so much success.

correct. but Occams razor, uses fuzzy-logic and use of it is determined by the user/scientist that uses it. -> two different persons could with the same set of facts(if there even exist such thing), come up with two different mutual-exclusive conclusions.
and it's therefor not "strictly" logically.

I don't know exactly what you mean by "strictly logic".  Logic is about applying a succession of axioms to a set of hypothesis in order to arrive to a conlusion.  If you add Occam's razor to the set of axioms, then there is no tea-pot orbiting around Jupiter.

Otherwise, from your "strictly logic" point of view, I don't know if Jupiter even exists as we know it, since I have never seen it through a telescope.  So to me it could just be an ordinary star.  Or a totally different planet.

Occam's razor allows me to affirm that all the photographs, descriptions and scientist studies about Jupiter are not lies, nor a huge international conspiracy against me, aimed at having me believe in a non-existent planet.

its only saying some thing about the likelihood for a teapot around Jupiter, you still don't have any conclusive proof.
my personal opinion about the teapot: "lol, there is no teapot"
the strictly logical conclusion about the teapot: "i don't know"
the agnostic view of the teapot: "i don't know, and it doesn't matter"

There is no tea-pot orbiting around Jupiter.  Neither there are any leprechauns or flying horses.

That's an application of Occam's razor.

If you don't agree with that, then you just can't affirm anything and you are not religious, you're nihilist.  You might as well say that we don't know for sure if the sun is going to raise tomorow.  And without occam's razor, we don't.

Common sense tells you there is no tea-pot around Jupiter.  So it should tell you there is no omnipotent God anywhere, caring about human beings and violating physical laws from times to times to guide their life.

BLACK-OR-WHITE logic is used in math. you can't use math in the real world(and i love math btw.).
the world is not black and white, it also have the colors green, yellow, and gray.

btw. how did you know about the teapot? have you seen it? have you any conclusive proof that it does not exist? your answer is incorrect, "no" is not the answer. the correct answer is "i don't know".

you see there is "i don't know"-answers in math. yet-to-proven/disproven theorems for example.
In computer science, you can also prove, that its impossible to prove/disprove something(like the halting problem).

conclusion: B-OR-W logic sucks. and can not always be applied to the real world, or even the math/science-world.

The topic of this thread is not:  "should I do business with IBB?".    Neither it is "should anyone be forced to do business with them?".

We were discussing about religion and why it sucks, and that lead me to express my opinion about IBB.  Now I can understand you don't like it but it is not because I don't have to use it that I won't express my opinion about it on the dedicated thread.

Evil is defined not in the context of religion or atheism, but in the context of moral code.  For example, for me, whose moral code is the recognition of basic human rights, which are (a) a right to private property, and (b) the right to purse an objective as long as I don't hurt right (a) of other people --- Sharia is evil, because it does not allow me to do so.

For another person, whose moral code is such that his individual aspirations go second to the ones of the community, obviously, whatever system the community uses will be good.  So if the community decides to hang a bunch of non-believers, that is considered ok.


To me logic is black and white. I don't follow "fuzzy" logic.  For example, what is the answer to the question: "is there a pink teapot floating in Earths orbit" ? The answer is "no".