Sounds like London-ish thing to say, I suppose.

what makes it silly? can you explain?

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

So it always existed. — Arcane Sandwich

What, exactly, always existed? — tim wood

The Universe.

Sounds like London-ish thing to say, I suppose

Could you go into more detail on your reference?

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Sure. See

What, exactly, always existed?
— tim wood

The Universe. — Arcane Sandwich

Sorry, non-responsive, a non sequitur. — tim wood

The Universe has always existed. That is True.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

If you say so.

Seems par for the course for this guy. Lots of non-sequiturs.

That's an opinion, not a fact.

Ah right but when you insult people it's an objective fact XD you're such a dick.

↪Arcane Sandwich
Ah right but when you insult people it's an objective fact XD — flannel jesus

Well, technically speaking, it is.

you're such a dick. — flannel jesus

And this is news to you, in some way?

Well, technically speaking, it is. — Arcane Sandwich

ok that's dumb lmao.

Well, technically speaking, it is. — Arcane Sandwich


ok that's dumb lmao. — flannel jesus

But is it false?

yeah. You seem to be unable to distinguish between your own thoughts and objective fact, but you're good at realizing other peoples thoughts aren't fact. You think that if you believe something, that makes it a fact. It's boring and shallow.

You think that if you believe something, that makes it a fact. — flannel jesus

I don't think that. Never have, never will.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

I'm not sure. Maybe. You seem to have some sort of point, but it's a bit unclear. To my ear, at least.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Maybe = modal operator for "maybe".

The Quran is a symbol.
Burning the Quran is a symbol.
A flag is a symbol.
Burning a flag is a symbol.

Burning a symbol does not harm the (alleged) reality which a symbol represents.

Substitute the crucifix in Andres Serrano's Piss Christ for the Quran. Numerous people were offended by the art work and its symbolic meaning, but Christ was not harmed in any way, shape, or manner. Presumably Christ is beyond the possibility of harm. Neither was the message of Christ harmed. The message in the Quran was likewise not harmed.

A Nazi-organized book burning in the city square in the 1930s was a symbolic act conducted on symbolic objects. In itself, a book burning does not harm the text represented in 'the book'. What IS a crime against humanity IS burning the reality represented by the symbol: a synagogue torched with its occupants inside; the expulsion of authors from their jobs, homes, communities and their eventual burning at death camps.

Casting doubt on the validity of a prophet, the prophet, or any prophet is symbolic.

Retaliation with violence against a symbolic act is not allowable in civil societies, whether it is knifing a Quoran burner in London or beating up a flag burner in Los Angeles, or a imprisoning peace demonstrators in Moscow.

• What are your thoughts on Emerson's Transcendentalism?
• What are your thoughts on Peirce's Reasonableness?
• What do you think of Materialism?

Are there good reasons, today, to burn a Quran? — flannel jesus

I voted no.

About five years ago, there was a bitter debate on this Forum about a case in Indonesia where the Governor of Jakarta Indonesia was jailed for blasphemy for allegedly insulting the Koran. (He was released in 2019.) That debate can be reviewed here. It got to be a very heated argument about whether Islam recognises the separation of church and state. I got a lot of heat for saying anything whatever about 'Islam', which was said to be a social construct or a form of stereotyping. So in that view, saying anything whatever about Islam was like a form of racism (indeed that comparison was explicitly made.)

I think Islam sits awkwardly with liberal democracy, as it is basically theocratic in outlook. I don't think there's an easy way to reconcile them. But I also don't think making deliberately provocative statements or demonstrations like Quran burning does anything to help. It just incites further division, outrage and violence on both sides. It's important to try and find common ground rather than causes for further division.

There is a certain asymettry in the relationship between believers and secular culture. For the secular, religion is a personal matter. Liberal democracy will protect the right of the individual to freedom of religion as a matter of principle. But at the same time, as it is seen as a personal matter, it can't have any claim to be true in any sense other than the personal. Whereas for the believer, it's a matter of life and death and the fate of the soul. There's a very deep, if rather long, reflection on the 9/11 terrorist incidents which explores these tensions, Terror in the God-Shaped Hole: Confronting Modernity’s Identity Crisis, David Loy, 2003. Worth the read.

Burning the Koran is a reckless provocation. Given that Islam is a religion where fundamentalism enacts and endorses violent retaliation for perceived slights and blasphemy, it's not hard to imagine the reaction.

Remember the 2015 attack on Charlie Hebdo, the French satirical magazine that republished the Danish cartoons of Mohammad? Twelve people were killed including eight journalists. For satire.

The question isn't about burning the Koran, it is about freedom of expression and to what extent any type of criticism of a religion might be taken as blasphemy punishable by death.

One of my favourite Muslim commentators, Irshad Manji thinks the West need to play a role in potential change:

I'm asking Muslims in the West a very basic question: Will we remain spiritually infantile, caving to cultural pressures to clam up and conform, or will we mature into full-fledged citizens, defending the very pluralism that allows us to be in this part of the world in the first place? My question for non-Muslims is equally basic: Will you succumb to the intimidation of being called "racists," or will you finally challenge us Muslims to take responsibility for our role in what ails Islam?

Will you succumb to the intimidation of being called "racists," or will you finally challenge us Muslims to take responsibility for our role in what ails Islam?

I wonder if, in a sense, burning qurans is part of that challenge. I kind of see it that way. "I'm burning this quran, it's up to you and your community to deal with that in ways other than violence. Otherwise you'll never be recognized as the so called religion of peace that you think you are".

That's more or less the gist of it, yes. You can do that with any written document to prove the exact same point.

Maybe....
— Arcane Sandwich
You claim fuel becomes fuel in the burning. I observe that means that fuel Is fuel before it is fuel. You say it always existed. I ask what always existed, and you say the Universe. How is that an explanation of your claim that fuel is fuel before it is fuel? — tim wood

Ever noticed how the word "fool" looks and sounds oddly similar to the word "fuel"? You can burn the latter, and you can also burn the former. :naughty: :fire:

It tests those enlightenment-era values against older religious values involving inviolable divine directives or the sanctity of the holy book.
— BitconnectCarlos

Perfectly said.
Flawless.
Impeccable. — Arcane Sandwich

Do those values really need testing though? In the U.S. I know with certainty the government is not going to try and stop me from burning a holy book (unless I'm breaking some fire code).