Resurrection

IN THE NAME OF ALLAH, THE SOURCE OF MERCY, THE MOST MERCIFUL.

On YouTube - Excavating The Empty Tomb (beyond a reasonable doubt) PART 5

http://www.youtube.com/all_comments?v=tTJT67kgsfc&email=comment_reply_received

And because of their saying: We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, Allah's messenger - they slew him not nor crucified him, but it appeared so unto them; and lo! those who disagree concerning it are in doubt thereof; they have no knowledge thereof save pursuit of a conjecture; they slew him not for certain. (The Noble Quran 4:157) But Allah took him up unto Himself. Allah was ever Mighty, Wise. (The Noble Quran 4:158)

husainfahmy 4 days ago in playlist Excavating The Empty Tomb (beyond a reasonable doubt)

@husainfahmy

Why would anyone listen to this junk when Islam did not start until around 670 AD? You are a cult just like mormons, the CC, SDA, JW and likewise be left behind just like the rest.

THERAPTURECOMES 4 days ago

@THERAPTURECOMES why would anyone listen to you when Christianity didn't start until 1900 years ago?  Hinduism is MUCH older!

TruthSurge 4 days ago

@TruthSurge Christianity came out of the OT(believing by FAITH) and was prophesied in the OT hundreds of time and the last days are out of the OT with hundreds of prophecies about this. The bible is one book with the NT in the OT concealed and the OT in the NT REVEALED. When the rapture happens, take a look around and see if ALL the Hindu's are still here or not,

THERAPTURECOMES 4 days ago

@TruthSurge

Thank you. Searth for Truth is a carefully crafted process.

husainfahmy 2 days ago

@THERAPTURECOMES

Those who love Jesus (Peace Be Upon Him) would accept the messenger of God lifted him up to the Heavens rather than crucified. By the way Islam came into existance on 570 AD and this is the last Testament to mankind it makes sense. Please keep an open mind/heart read the Noble Quran before passing Judgement. When truth is hurled against falsehood, false perishes as falsehood by nature bound to perish.Thanks to TruthSurge for uploading. (Salaam) Peace be on you.

husainfahmy 2 days ago

@husainfahmy Oh stop it. You are just as insane as he is and have as little evidence as he does.

norbolt 2 days ago

@norbolt

In a discussion it is unsportsmanship to call your opponent insane. (Reflects Breed) The evidence is all around you. If you care to see it. If you fail to see it; as critical analysis blinds your pattern of reasoning, Logically you cannot have a Creation without a Creator. The very first Neutrino. Having said that, those who harness a belief that Humanity descends from animals will eventually live and lead a life of an animal. To deny ones innate self drives Humans to self destruction

husainfahmy 2 days ago

@husainfahmy What evidence do you have that shows everything that exists needs to have a creator? What evidence do you have that shows belief in evolution leads to animalistic behavior? Also, isn't it just as bad to call someone an animal as it is to call them insane? You are not exactly leading by example here.

norbolt 2 days ago

@norbolt

If you read carefully, I did not refer anyone as an animal. It is not in my nature to refer a person rather they are directed towards the act. To see the evidence, open up your Heart and Mind to the marvels around and within you. Hopefully, someday you will see it before it's too late. None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free.

husainfahmy 1 day ago

@husainfahmy That is exactly the same thing. Nobody actually claims another person *is* an animal when they call them one. 

The meaning of calling someone an animal is saying they "behave" like one, or "lead the life" of one, as you so eloquently put it. As for your "evidence" I see nothing connecting "Hey, this world is kind of amazing" with "There must be an 

omnipotent being in the sky who did it all and whom we shall worship". It might as well have been a magic giraffe who farted out the world

norbolt 1 day ago

@husainfahmy How far does science have to advance before you'll stop attributing the rest of what we don't know to an omnipotent god? God is the explanation you put on things you don't understand because you can't handle the thought that you actually don't know something. We've explained the tide, the lightning, diseases, mutations, nuclear reactions... None of them are causes by a god, and nothing we've examined ever has been. Stop attributing his doing to what we haven't figured out yet.

norbolt 1 day ago

@norbolt

Can Science prove Life came into existance in a state of nothingness.That's Magic. Illusion/Magic is a deception of the Mind. The quest to know your Creator is a long and tedious process. Please apply the power of Critical thinking and evaluation. Embark on it before the Master switch is turned off. Negative Breads Negativity. Logic and rationality are the language of the Mind. Love and Wisdom are the Humility of the spiritual soul. So to you is your belief and to mine is my belief.

husainfahmy 22 hours ago

@husainfahmy Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. I agree trusting in a claim that a supernatural being created the world is a long and tedious process. It's also a process of self delusion, which is why it is so difficult. I do not have a belief in where life came from. I am waiting for someone to find out. You blindly trust what your peers have told you, and have thus given up the pursuit of truth. 200 years ago you would have said the gods made lightning.

norbolt 22 hours ago

@norbolt

Embrace the obvious. The world exists Now. Our faculty dictates that there must a power that brought this world to its existence. Call it what you like, Energy, Super Natural Being, Creator etc. Work on this self awareness and stop assuming Peers, Blind Faith, etc. When the brain thinks that we really are healing. It then changes as if healing is happening, and this stimulates the actual area of the body that we are imaging at the cellular level. Be convinced that this possible.

husainfahmy 21 hours ago

@husainfahmy I know perfectly well that the world exists. I am simply rejecting your baseless explanation for *why* it exists. Your openness to say the world might have been created by "energy" is invigorating, however, as there is no need to worship energy. Energy has no consciousness that would be offended if we did not, and has no opinion on how we should lead our lives. Do not fall your faith "obvious". Had you not been raised as a believer, you wouldn't be one.

norbolt 20 hours ago

@norbolt

Correction I wrote call it Energy NOT created by 'energy'. Assumptions could be very misleading. If you know the world exists 'WHY' are you not curious as how it came about. The very purpose of this discussion is to put our thoughts and knowledge together; learn and part company with our lives that suits best. I also said Embrace the obvious and NOT call/fall your faith "obvious". None of us ever can be raised as anything as long as we are able and willing to tread in our chosen path.

husainfahmy 20 hours ago

@husainfahmy It is a fact that most religious people were raised that way, and that most religious children have the same religion as their parents. How you were raised is the absolutely greatest influence on your choice of religion. I am very curious why the world exists, but I am not going to jump to conclusions and base my explanation on an old book written before they could even explain lightning. That is not a trustworthy source.

norbolt 20 hours ago

@norbolt

The only truthworthy source is Self Realisation. Seek it sincerely and you shall find it; if it is ment to be.
husainfahmy 17 hours ago

@husainfahmy Far out, man! No, seriously. You can't trust your own mind and what "feels right" to figure out what's true and what's not, especially not when the ideas you are considering come from an ancient book written by, by today's standards, absolutely backwards and clueless people. Peer review and demonstrable facts are required. The human mind is weak and can be influenced by all sorts of feelings and chemical imbalances, self-induced or otherwise. One mind is, as old books, untrustworthy

norbolt 17 hours ago

@norbolt

The Human Mind is an amazing tool. Please do not under estimate it. Everything comes from any book should be computerable to a trained Human Mind. The Mind can be influenced only if one lets it through drugs or any other means.

husainfahmy 16 hours ago

@husainfahmy This is demonstrably false. You can simply consider the atheists, christians, muslims, jews, hindu and buddhist religions. At *least* 5 of these groups must have gotten it wrong, and that's just a fraction of the existing world views. The mind does not help here. Most of these people just believe as their parents did. Evidence and facts are required, not "self realisation".

norbolt 16 hours ago

@norbolt

You are being so naive. Most people do not believe as their parents do. In practice we all have a Mind of our own and we are proud of it. No one will deny in their right Mind. The issue is not which group is right or wrong. Deep thinking required to either accept a Creator or reject it. Its as simple as that. This discussion is to learn the pros and cons of the existence of a Creator. We are what we think. All that we are arises with our thoughts. With our thoughts, we make our world.

husainfahmy 1 second ago

@husainfahmy Oh stop it. You are a muslim, yes? Are your parents muslims? Think you would be a muslim if you were brought up in the USA by christian parents?

norbolt 4 minutes ago

@husainfahmy And of course the issue is which group is right or wrong. You have a bunch of people going around there making life changing decisions based on beliefs which are simply not true! I know you don't care about truth, but some of us do and feel this is important.

norbolt 2 minutes ago

@norbolt

Please Live your Life of truth, End of Discussion.

husainfahmy 1 second ago

This has been flagged as spam show

THERAPTURECOMES 2 days ago

@THERAPTURECOMES

Do you seriously think that you can win hearts and minds by slinging insults. Your preaching is back firing with hatred to your cause. The way we communicate with others and with ourselves ultimately determines the quality of our lives. However, A filthy mind produces filthy language, leads a filthy life and ends up in a filthy environment.(GUTTER) Replace FILTH with PEACE and experience the deference. Love thyself as hatred destroys only thyself and no other.

husainfahmy 22 hours ago

======

Excavating The Empty Tomb (beyond a reasonable doubt) part 12b

http://www.youtube.com/all_comments?v=qBcYuNnmawY&email=comment_reply_received

And because of their saying: We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, Allah's messenger - they slew him not nor crucified him, but it appeared so unto them; and lo! those who disagree concerning it are in doubt thereof; they have no knowledge thereof save pursuit of a conjecture; they slew him not for certain. (The Noble Quran 4:157) But Allah took him up unto Himself. Allah was ever Mighty, Wise. (The Noble Quran 4:158)

husainfahmy 4 days ago

@husainfahmy Not spam, but definitely off-topic and irrelevant.

paradigm71 3 days ago

@paradigm71

The relevance is that Jesus is the messenger of God, Not a Son as claimed by the Christians. Perhaps one should revisit the definition of God. He is The One; Not Divisible! The eternal!. He begetteth not nor was begotten. And there is none comparable unto Him. No? beginning No end. Only Death is an absolute certainty in Life. The rest is based on Belief, Faith, Fun, Evidence, Logic, Love, Respect, Humility, Devotion, Peace, Prosperity, Perseverance, so on and so forth.

husainfahmy 2 days ago

@husainfahmy I guess when TruthSurge is done with this series, he'll have to another showing how the Quran is fictional too.

paradigm71 2 days ago

@paradigm71 oh no, i'm not getting beheaded man! actually, I'm not really up on the Islam stuff. Not too interested. only from the obvious angle as in let's get rid of this bullshit if it's going to cause people harm. but as for the Quran... it's got to be the most boring thing I've read.

TruthSurge 2 days ago

@TruthSurge

A Research on Islamic way of Life will boost your channel.Negative or Positive. If you take a close look at the US statistics; Trillions of public tax funds are channeled to spread the cooked up negative aspects through the Media resulting in more people end up researching and spreading the Word. A bonanza to Truth Seekers. The best thing you could get out is an alternative form of Living Life or at least enrich your critical faculties. Take the Plunge and be the TruthSeeker. .

husainfahmy 1 day ago

@husainfahmy I've seen how it can "boost" my channel. My 4 or 5 vids with Muhammad in them got a strike and ALL those vids deleted from my channel. I will not be doing ANYTHING concerning Islam except to ridicule it. Sorry bout dat!

TruthSurge 1 day ago

@TruthSurge

Thanks, Regarding deleting Vids YT must be having the policy to keep the service clean and beneficial to the wider audience. In my experience Ridicule and Insults have reverse psycological effects and in some cases strengthens ones Faith in the positive direction of life. The major block to compassion is the judgement in our minds. Judgement is the mind's primary tool of separation from good and bad. Work towards a better world of Respect, Tolerance, Peace and Happiness. Regards.

husainfahmy 23 hours ago

@husainfahmy yeah, but my vids mainly are two kinds: comedy and serious examinations of the Bible/Christianity. I don't really have enough time in my life to fight Islam by attracting millions of followers who can only reply by saying "You only say that because you know nothing about Islam. W atch this vid to learn!" I have no time for that.

TruthSurge 12 hours ago

@TruthSurge

Yes, serious examinations of the Holy Scriptures are a better strategy and gives a lot of Satisfaction and Reward as long as they are tastefully designed for consumption. Rather than fighting; learning the Islamic point of view, could offer an alternate source of Intellectual flavour. You are right very few people possess the correct knowledge of Islam. Pick and choose only the Wisdom it offers. Thank you for your efforts to show the truth and Best Wishes in all your endeavours.

husainfahmy 1 hour ago

@paradigm71

An attempt by TruthSurge will not be the last as many (Non Muslim Scholars of the Arabic Language) over the last 14 centuries have made futile attempts to discredit the Noble Quran. The question is can we handle the Truth. If Islamic way of life is practiced as it was prescribed; this short life on earth will be productive and fruitful. I would strongly suggest that get first hand information rather than relying on the Media and Non Practicing Muslims. Best Wishes to TruthSurge.

husainfahmy 1 day ago

@husainfahmy Oh okay, then. The Western holy book is in error because your holy book says it is. And your holy book is perfect. Uh-huh. That's exactly the same thinking that Christians have about your holy book. If it's more accurate than the Bible, it's only because it was written six centuries later and if it hasn't been proven to be imperfect, it's probably because, as TruthSurge suggested, that more Muslims would be willing to kill you for suggesting it's imperfect.

paradigm71 23 hours ago

@paradigm71

If Holy Books are too much to digest, go with your gut feeling 'THE NATURAL DISPOSITION' This is built in software on every human being. In order to tune in one has got to think in terms of Gratitude. Cultivate a sense of loving kindness, wellness, peace, happiness, and compassion for ourselves, our loved ones, neutral people, and even to the aggressors in our lives and see the difference. Holy books are mere a form of guidance to a lost Soul. Truth always Prevails sooner or later.

husainfahmy 22 hours ago

@husainfahmy Yes, truth always prevails sooner or later. I think it would be later though. Because religious fanatics is dangerous.

Fact :

Torah contains a brutal god.

Christian uses Torah to further "understanding" their fabricated stories,

Islam copy Bible and Torah to make the "Perfect" one.

Christian is Fabricated,

Islam copy both Torah "The Brutal God" and Christian "The Fake God".

Islam = A Brutal Fake God.

Reality ?

All abrahamic religion is just one huge mess. No joke.

Arthyna 5 hours ago

@Arthyna

Hope you got the equation Right to live the life of your Dreams with inner Peace. That is all matters at the end of the day. Enjoy, while it lasts.

husainfahmy 1 hour ago

@husainfahmy Amen. LOL !

Arthyna 20 minutes ago

Self Ownership

[The following post is by Redmond Weissenberger, Managing Editor of the Dollar Vigilante and Director of the Mises institute of Canada]

"...the basic axiom of libertarian political theory holds that every man is a self-owner, having absolute jurisdiction over his own body. In effect, this means that no one else may justly invade, or aggress against, another's person."

Murray Rothbard, 1982.

Having absolute jurisdiction over his own body gives the right to abuse his body and as a result someone else (The State) ends up footing his medical bills. The human race is interdependent with each other and individual freedom was and never in reality absolute. Freedom carries responsibilities and thus are monitored for the greater good of humanity. Corrupt governance and policies adopted by the post WW2 Rulers of USA have caused death and economic destruction to its people and beyond. Perhaps one should look for the root cause for such a behaviour. Liberalness might work in an Utopian society where we are are all perfect Human beings. http://hussain-fahmy.blogspot.com/2012/01/shariah-islamic-law.html

February 29, 2012 | Hussain Fahmy

"Having absolute jurisdiction over his own body gives the right to abuse his body and as a result someone else (The State) ends up footing his medical bills."

Incorrect.
A person having his own body as an absolute property certainly can abuse his own body. This has nothing to do with others. Let me break it into 2 commonly believed myths regarding Hussain's statement:

1. A person under influence of drugs can commit a crime of aggression against someone else's body or property. True? Yes. Tell me how is this different from a person not under influence of drugs that commits the same? As you might know, the government enforcement officers TYPICALLY commit crimes of aggression against someone else's body and property while not being under influence of drugs. So, there, is the proof that it is incorrect to assume that the influence of drugs has anything to do with crime. Secondly, on this same point, a crime is a crime, and a person committing it had decided "premeditated" to commit it, whether on drugs or not, and shall be dealt with in exactly the same way, do you object?

2. A person abusing his own body ends up consuming the state resources for two reasons and no others:

a - because that person was VIOLENTLY FORCED BY THE STATE to contribute to the state resources. Are you saying that while being VIOLENTLY FORCED BY THE STATE to contribute, he has no right to consume them back? Do you personally save for retirement with an intent to not spend it sometime?

b - because the state decides to spend it's resources to "help" this person who had abused his body. This decision to waste resources is a VOLUNTARY one, a person in trouble DOES NOT FORCE the state to do anything about it.

February 29, 2012 | mava

@ Hussain:

Some quick thoughts:

"Having absolute jurisdiction over his own body gives the right to abuse his body and as a result someone else (The State) ends up footing his medical bills."

Since the state produces nothing of value, it can foot no bill without stealing money from those who actually do produce something of value--i.e., the entrepreneur, tradesman, farmer, artisan, etc. If someone wishes to abuse their own body, that is their business--not yours or mine, but neither should we be forced to pay for the consequences.

"The human race is interdependent with each other and individual freedom was and never in reality absolute."

"[I]nterdependent" is a statist's dream-word, connoting an infinite number of totally imaginary relationships, to all of which can be attached an infinite number of equally imaginary responsibilities. Instead, try thinking in terms of voluntary interaction. The only reason individual freedom isn't "absolute" (yet) is that the state got the jump on us.

"Freedom carries responsibilities and thus are monitored for the greater good of humanity."

The only "responsibility" of freedom is not to infringe on the freedom(s) of others, which would also automatically secure "the greater good of humanity," Or, as the Spanish (language) saying goes: Vive tu vida, y no la mia! (Yes, I know the punctuation isn't right.)

February 29, 2012 | Jaybird

@mava – Please apply the power of Critical Thinking. My point is: if a person in his right Mind (Sane) commits a crime on himself or others, they are equally punishable by law. Are you disputing this? If you are then we have a serious issue with our belief system. If you mean and believe paying Taxes is a VIOLENTLY FORCED BY THE STATE TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE STATE REVENUES then as human beings we have the birth right to migrate to a safer zone as we all did many years ago. Most Tax payers pay their hard earned money as taxes for the common good, to support the needy, the destitute and a correctional institution to the self abuser. Now taxes are collected to wage War. As for your grievance with the so called elected Democratic Government please read my statement - Corrupt governance and policies adopted by the post WW2 Rulers of USA have caused death and economic destruction to its people and beyond. Wonder why no comments on this statement. 

I have all the right to spend my saving for retirement on anything I please as long as I do not harm myself or anybody else and in compliance with the tenets of my belief system. 
If your intention behind paying taxes is to secure the welfare of the self abuser. By promoting this ideology you are opening a can of worms. Perhaps you should look at the birth place of Democracy. (Greece) The US being the richest country in the World does not have the resources to HELP the millions of homeless who have no opportunities because their Elected Governments chose to spend Trillions on Death and Destruction in faraway lands, let alone for those who abuse themselves. We should refrain from wasting valuable resources and direct all available resources to those who believe that self abusing is COOL.

March 1, 2012 | Hussain Fahmy

@Jaybird – As for the state produces nothing of value defers from country to country. Mine produces and spends it on the welfare of its citizens. Let me get this right, what you are stating is that the self abuser has the right to destroy himself with no consequence to us as long as we do not pay. What about our conscience? Can we watch a human being destroy himself even if it is his choice. My conscience will bother me a great deal for the sake of humanity. Don’t you think that we should make every effort to prevent that rather than promote. False belief leads to False conclusions. We have approximately 50 to 70 Trillion cells in our body. They are not a Statist Dream-Work. They co-operate and communicate to keep us fit and healthy. Individual Freedom is a Pipe Dream and no state can jump on to absolute Rule, Focus on Human Rights.

March 1, 2012 | Hussain Fahmy

@ Hussain Fahmy

There are several problems that I have with your statements.

First, is the one where you put forward that I should force you to not harm yourself, because if you do, then I will suffer, in my conscience, for the sake of humanity.

I am not very clear on who do I care about, you or myself? If I my conscience is suffering by seeing you harming yourself, then it is clear that I only care about myself. If I cared for you, then I should feel happiness instead, seeing you doing self harm, because this is what you want to do.

The way I understand caring for someone, is to see to it that that someone does what he wants, not what is good for him. It may or may not be the thing that harms him. As long as it is what he wants, I am happy.

Why do I say this? Because, my friend, you are tossing objective and subjective together. These are separate things, and the distinction has been put forth by many Austrians. Before we can find who is right or wrong about this, you should let me know if you reject the distinction between objective and subjective or not. If you new to this, just see further on "objectivism". Also, Gary North (Religious writer, but in this case the writing is completely secular) has a great short paper on Price Stability, which explains objective vs. subjective through economic devices.

Now, let me assume for a second that you are familiar with the distinction, and wholly reject it. In this case, I can not continue talking to you, because we can not understand each other. For instance, I believe that I always shall let the other person to make choices, because the choices are subjective, and there is no way for me to make them. You, on the other hand, would say that some choices you can make for me, because you know no such distinction. Thus, we can not agree, and guess what, we will have to each mind our own business, or go to war against each other.

Each minding our own business to keep the peace, is, incidentally, the objectivistic outcome. Now, you have mentioned Islam. I have to say that I do not know much about Islam, so whatever I say below, do not take it as an offence, but as a mistake.

It seems to me, that Islam rejects objectivism. As a consequence, it has to want war. Think about it. If you are unable to trust me that doing something that you think is bad for me, is actually good for me, then you must stop me. And I do not want to be stopped, so you must use force. Since you use force, I will have to respond with force, - I have no other choice. You might say, yes I do have the choice, just do what you want me to do. But, will you also do what I want you to do? No, you will not, because it will not be what you think is good for yourself. Now, we are at the dead end. How are we going to decide who knows best? You will say: let us read from the holy book, and whatever it says on the subject, must be true, and we both shall accept it. But, my friend, you are a follower of Allah (PBUH) and Mohamed who was his prophet, true, but I am not of your religion. I have my own views on things that are in your holy book. And thus, we can not have one single judge. So, we are back to war. Is the war good for you? I know it is not good for me. I do not want to fight to make you do what I think is right. I only want to fight to stop you making me do what you think is right. And, I suspect, you think the same thing. Because of this reasoning, we can agree that what is really good for both of us, is not to make war, and allow each of us to do what he believes is right.

Come full circle and back to an objective truth: It is good for both of us to mind our own business. As you can see, once an objectivist, always an objectivist. Pretty much as with Islam (or so I been told).

What do you say?

March 2, 2012 | mava

Hussain,

Thanks for your followup.  Some further thoughts:

"As for the state produc[ing] nothing of value[, this] d[if]fers from country to country. Mine produces and spends it on the welfare of its citizens."

I fear we are using different definitions of "the state."  The definition I prefer is Murray Rothbard's "a gang of thieves writ large."  (Cf. St. Augustine, et al.  You Austrian scholars feel free to correct!)  A state may appear to "produce" something of value, though I cannot imagine what or how, since, at least theoretically, the only capital a state "owns" it acquired from someone else--i.e., a "citizen" and that "from the barrel of a gun."  Rothbard (following, I believe, Etienne de la Boetie) also speaks of the state as "a monopoly on the use of force in a given territory," and, if you doubt this definition, go ahead and try to compete with your friendly local SWAT team.  Moreover, as you say, your state "spends [what you allege it produces] on the welfare of its citizens"; therefore, your state is by definition a "welfare state," which leads to the problem with your next point(s):   

"Let me get this right, what you are stating is that the self abuser has the right to destroy himself with no consequence to us as long as we do not pay.  What about our conscience? Can we watch a human being destroy himself even if it is his choice. My conscience will bother me a great deal for the sake of humanity. Don’t you think that we should make every effort to prevent that rather than promote."

Our God-given natural rights encompass our life, liberty, and property, which includes our individual body and what we choose to do or not do to/with that body.  I realize that last clause may strike some as odd, though it shouldn't when properly understood.  The basic idea is that just as no one has (or should have) the right to take your life or liberty from you, neither has anyone the right (without your permission) to do anything with your property--including those "50 to 70 Trillion cells" between a homey's hoodie and the soles of his Timberlands.  If he wants to tattoo his armpits or staple his buttocks shut, let him knock himself out.  Again, it's no business of mine, not because I think it's "good" and not because I want to "promote" that sort of thing and not because I lack a conscience.  If the guy were later to accost me from a park bench saying, "Hey, Dude, help me out, I stapled my buttocks shut!" of course, my conscience would dictate that I call him an ambulance, but only because he asked me to help him and not because I wish to save him, in particular, or "humanity" in general.  Whatever our moral or religious persuasion, on a purely pragmatic level, shouldn't we let live simply because we want others to let us live too?  But in any case, you're darned right, I'm not willing to pay a penny of it.

As for someone's choosing to "destroy himself," the same approach applies.  This doesn't mean you wouldn't try to talk him out of it--e.g., A hot babe gives your buddy the cold shoulder and he  falls into a deep funk, so you say: "C'mon, Bro', there's plenty good fish in the sea--let's go down to the strip club!"  Or, as a friend once advised, "Look, Man, no chick is worth this!"  ('Took his advice to heart and, hey, still got her in the end!)  But, by not "preventing" him--i.e., by not intervening in what has to be the most important decision in a person's life--"to be or not to be" (See Hamlet, Act III)--you are allowing that person to exercise his free will, which is the sine qua non of natural rights.

"False belief leads to False conclusions."

You're scarin' me here, Hussain . . .  Just like the word "humanity" gives me the willies.  Can you really believe this stuff?  A heckuvalotta bad's been done in the name of "belief" and "humanity."  One often hears these slippery kinds of words dripping off the forked tongues of "our leaders," usually right around the time they are preparing to use yet more violence to quell ongoing violence that they themselves incited in the first place.  Beware "humanity," Hussain, especially when "crimes" are being committed "against" it!  Ever hearda Libya or Syria?  Or maybe Eye-WRECK or Af-GONE-istan?  

As for "[f]alse belief lead[ing] to false conclusions," since anything we might believe, as opposed to knowing through reason, depends on faith, which is unproveable (at least in this existence), it follows that all conclusions based on belief (alone) will be more or less false. Your statement would make more sense as follows: False premises lead to false conclusions. Remember: ¡Vive tu vida, y no la mia!  ("Live your life, not mine."  But is sounds more beautiful in Spanish.)

And now, I reascend to my normal state of snarkily brooding cynicism.  Until next time, Selam!    

"We have approximately 50 to 70 Trillion cells in our body."

Yes, but a great blue whale's probably got quadrillions.  Not to mention, his "manly hydraulics" are twice as long as your car. What's more, he can hear more acutely than you can think. So? (Incidentally, I do believe that the cetaceans and pinnipeds, in general (perhaps along with all the "great fishes?"), "should be protected," and I applaud whenever Sea Shepherd scores against the Japanese or other whale-hunters, er, "researchers." I imagine a sort of "jubilee" year or decade for the seas, especially after Fukushima. It (i.e., a fishing moratorium) has worked for various species such as the striped bass. And, yes, I freely admit, this reveals an inconsistency in my "anarcho-capitalist" thinking. DIscussion anyone? Jeff must surely have an opinion on this, hailing as he does from marine-resource-rich Canada.)

"They are not a Statist Dream-Work."

Who said they were?

"They co-operate and communicate to keep us fit and healthy."

Which ain't easy for those of us who hate to work up a sweat!  (Sorry, Hussain, my morning coffee's done wore off . . .)

"Individual Freedom is a Pipe Dream and no state can jump on to absolute Rule, Focus on Human Rights."

"Individual Freedom" may be a "Pipe Dream" for those afraid to light up. By definition, the state's goal is "absolute rule." And, once again, the only "Human Rights" are (or should be) our natural rights--i.e., to life, liberty, and property.  All the other supposed "rights" are for sale--cheap!--to the lowest . . .

common . . .

denominator. FADE TO THE SOUND OF BLEATING SHEEP . . . . 

March 3, 2012 | Jaybird

@mava - A healthy discussion is based on a dialogue with facts and not assumptions. First I never used the words FORCE and ISLAM. This is a serious defective assumption. If you are thinking of diverting this discussion: Sorry. Let’s stick to having absolute jurisdiction over his own body gives the right to abuse his body and as a result someone else (The State) ends up footing his medical bills.

Seeing someone doing self harm brings you happiness. So if you see someone harming him/her self, it will make you happy as long as that is what they want. This is a self preserving belief. ME, I. Is this applicable to a Stanger like me or someone you deeply care? There is a difference between what someone wants and what’s good for them. Sometimes, what we want may not be good for us. I am sure you have heard of “Life’s full of Choices”.

I personally do not believe that I have the right to make choices for anyone. However, my belief is that if someone does make an incorrect choice which will harm them: only then, I have an obligation to point out the fact of its evil consequences. It’s entirely up the person to make his choices, but I will never ENCOURAGE it by PROMOTING it. For example, if you have someone who you care deeply is self abusing with drugs and you see them destroying their life in front of your very eyes and if YOU can live with the CONSCIENCE that’s OK because that is what that person really wants. Then my dear friend you have made a choice you will have to live by it. 

CONSCIENCE IS A SPIRITUAL QUALITY THAT BIDS MAN GOOD ATTITUDE AND THOUGHT AND HELPS HIM THINK STRAIGHT AND TELL RIGHT FROM WRONG. ONE OF THE IMPORTANT ASPECTS OF CONSCIENCE IS THAT IT IS COMMON TO MOST PEOPLE. IN OTHER WORDS, WHAT FEELS RIGHT TO THE CONSCIENCE OF A MAN ALSO FEELS RIGHT TO THE CONSCIENCE OF MOST OTHERS PROVIDED THAT THE SAME CONDITIONS PREVAIL. THE CONSCIENCE OF ONE MAN NEVER FALLS OUT WITH THAT OF ANOTHER. THE REASON LIES IN THE SOURCE OF CONSCIENCE. 

In conclusion, I do not agree with what you say about a self abuser but you have the right to believe and make choices as you wish. This discussion is solely to enlighten the effects of promoting an EVIL act which of course you have the freedom to label or give it a another meaning as you please. You don’t have to believe that WE ARE ACCOUNTABLE FOR OUR ACTIONS until that day arrives.

March 3, 2012 | Hussain Fahmy

Alright, Hussain.

So, I want to use drugs. My conscience tells me this is the right thing to do. Since conscience of all men, according to you must tell them the same thing provided the circumstances are the same, then explain to me how you came to conclusion that I am harming my body rather than helping it. Are you capable of examining my consciousness without trying to put yourself in the same circumstances first?

Main question: how do you know what is right for me?

March 3, 2012 | mava

@Jaybird - Your statements reminds me of Proof by Verbosity. Warning: Application of Excessive knowledge takes us nowhere. Finally, a statement to reflect on or you could call it a shocking statement - Every soul will taste of death. And we will be paid on the Day of Resurrection only that which we have fairly earned. Whoso is removed from the Fire and is made to enter paradise, he indeed is triumphant. The life of this world is but comfort of illusion. Believe or Not.

March 4, 2012 | Hussain Fahmy

@mava - Conveniently you have replaced CONDITIONS with CIRCUMSTANCES. Bravo. Your statement: want to use drugs and your conscience says it is the right thing to do is remarkable. A conversation is to learn from each other not to win over the point of view at all cost. We have made our positions of each other very clear. We part company with; to you is your way and to me is my way. Ponder very hard on this - When truth is hurtled against falsehood, falsehood perishes, for falsehood, by its nature bound to perish. I know you have the conscious capacity to prove this wrong however, I wonder if you could convince your subconscious Mind.

March 4, 2012 | Hussain Fahmy

Sorry, I did not mean to replace it. This was how I understood "conditions" in the context of your post.

I am now restating my question, with your correction, and wait for your answer.

Alright, Hussain.

So, I want to use drugs. My conscience tells me this is the right thing to do. Since conscience of all men, according to you must tell them the same thing provided the CONDITIONS are the same, then explain to me how you came to conclusion that I am harming my body rather than helping it. Are you capable of examining my consciousness without trying to put yourself in the same CONDITIONS first?

Main question: how do you know what is right for me?

Where my question is going: it is fair for me to ask this, since you are stating that I have no freedom to harm my body, and therefore you then must know how to tell when I am harming it. If you do not know, then you can not apply the restriction to my freedom.

March 4, 2012 | mava

@mava – Our CONDITIONS are not the same. I chose to live my life in accordance with the Last Testament. I believe we have the freedom to harm ourselves as long as we are prepared to face the consequences. My position is to promote the good in the form of advice to those who I care. At times this could also be to a total stranger like you. No compulsion or force applied. Now we could pick on the nitty gritty of what is good and beneficial to the human kind and take a philosophical route for the sake of winning. Sometimes, a win is not the correct solution. My intention was to respond with my belief on the subject as you did with yours. I like to keep Life simple and stupid. I feel about your affirmation – “So, I want to use drugs. My conscience tells me this is the right thing to do” – If I could switch off my emotions I will not find any harm with your affirmations. Obviously we follow different belief systems and what makes it interesting is we can discuss openly and agree to disagree peacefully and by this process we sow the seed to change whenever our hearts open up. End of the day what counts is happiness. If you are happy with your affirmations, SO BE IT. Thanks and my sincere respects for being a good debater.

March 5, 2012 | Hussain Fahmy

Rev. Hussain,

The extra words were deemed necessary because you didn't appear to get "vive tu vida . . ."

As for what you characterize as "debate," your contribution is more like a sermon from a would-be bully pulpit.

And speaking of "paradise," TDV has a new overnight passport program you might want to look into.

Cheers!

March 5, 2012 | Jaybird

@ Hussain,

Yes, I too, treasure people around me who can talk peacefully, and are willing to allow me to do my own things. I am glad we have come to agreement.

The reason I argued was that it appeared to me for a second that you would want to stop me from harming myself, even if it was my intention.

My point was, that the road to peace with everyone is not to insist that others follow your beliefs. We can, and may-be should offer our assistance, but we can never insist on it. This is the core of peace.

As to the state taking a loss, I am glad it does, and I am guiding my life in such a way as to inflict biggest losses possible. This is because the state INSISTS on enslaving me "for my own good", leaving me no exit, nor room to stay away from it's goodness. Please, contrast this to my absolute indifference towards any private charity for example. Since they don't force me, I can ignore them and we both, I and them, remain in peace.

Right now, there is a war heating up against the so-called "Tax Heavens". Huge, obsessive - abusive states do not like the fact that some people prefer to escape the "inevitable paradise" that those states are building. My forecast is as follows: If they succeed and there is no more room left, they they are going to start paying big time, because all those cornered people will too try and succeed in inflicting the biggest financial damage possible.

March 5, 2012 | mava

@mava - I was fortunate to have got advice; after sifting the good from the bad to the best of my knowledge through the process of trial and error: the application has resulted in tremendous happiness. I try to impart advice that works without any coercion, force or in expectation of any reward. My Motto: I expect to pass through life but once. If therefore, there be any kindness I can show, or any good thing I can do to any fellow being, let me do it now, and not defer or neglect it, as I shall not pass this way again.

Road to Peace can be achieved from different routes depending on someone’s belief and the environment that person is bought up. What works for me will not necessarily work for someone else. The man with the money consciousness is constantly attracting money. The man with the poverty consciousness is constantly attracting poverty. Both fulfil the exact conditions by thought, word, and deed that make the path for the thing of which they are conscious, come to them.

In my long experience, fighting a State system never paid any dividends. Rather it drains ones resources and creates depression/anxiety. So rather than inflicting loss to the State/Country; move to a friendlier location and focus with faith and abilities to generate wealth rather than be dependent on any State/Country. Yes, some countries have misused public funds and have linked themselves to the force of evil. Their absolute power will not last long. It puzzles me how these people get voted in through the Democratic process. I do not agree with Senator Ron Paul on some issues; however he is probably the only POTUS candidate who could bring some solutions to the economic woes. Then again he does not stand a chance of winning as long as the Zionists Masters/Bankers have control over the manipulation of governance.

Salaam in my lingo means, Peace.

March 6, 2012 | Hussain Fahmy