- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (bodhitharta @ Dec. 19 2009,11:43) Here I am challenging Stu to examine the issues of Atheism -vs- believeing in God
Often you seem angry at God is this a tenable position to have?From your view you seem to say that you are not mad at God but instead the theological position of believeing in God and yet once again if you have no belief how can you have an argument?
Quote (bodhitharta @ Dec. 19 2009,12:15) Quote (bodhitharta @ Dec. 19 2009,11:43) Here I am challenging Stu to examine the issues of Atheism -vs- believeing in God
Often you seem angry at God is this a tenable position to have?From your view you seem to say that you are not mad at God but instead the theological position of believeing in God and yet once again if you have no belief how can you have an argument?
Hi BD.No, it is not a tenable position to be seriously angry at something that does not exist. That would be insane. However, my mock anger is used to highlight the point that the Abrahamic god(s) are the nastiest characters in the history of fiction.
My experience has been that, while I can put myself in the shoes of a christian, at least accepting some premises of certain arguments from that point of view for the sake of discussion, christians rarely seem willing to put themselves in the atheist position and look at things from the point of view of no gods.
Thank you for asking.
Stuart
Hi BD.
I was wondering if you could let the other members know the rules to this debate.
Is it exclusively between you and Stu?
Just asking in case others start replying when they weren't suppose to.
Quote (heaven @ Dec. 19 2009,20:59) Hi BD. I was wondering if you could let the other members know the rules to this debate.
Is it exclusively between you and Stu?
Just asking in case others start replying when they weren't suppose to.
Yes, this is exclusive to me and Stu. This is the only way for individual clarity “One on One”
Quote (Stu @ Dec. 19 2009,18:12) Quote (bodhitharta @ Dec. 19 2009,12:15) Quote (bodhitharta @ Dec. 19 2009,11:43) Here I am challenging Stu to examine the issues of Atheism -vs- believeing in God
Often you seem angry at God is this a tenable position to have?From your view you seem to say that you are not mad at God but instead the theological position of believeing in God and yet once again if you have no belief how can you have an argument?
Hi BD.No, it is not a tenable position to be seriously angry at something that does not exist. That would be insane. However, my mock anger is used to highlight the point that the Abrahamic god(s) are the nastiest characters in the history of fiction.
My experience has been that, while I can put myself in the shoes of a christian, at least accepting some premises of certain arguments from that point of view for the sake of discussion, christians rarely seem willing to put themselves in the atheist position and look at things from the point of view of no gods.
Thank you for asking.
Stuart
I guess what I am saying is you really seem to be seriously affected and you have occupied a considerable amount of time to this “Mock” anger.What I find interesting is that you seem to not have any “real” anger about the way men behave towards one another instead preferring to blame what you say you don't believe in, so from a “no god” point of view what would be the best behaviour and should you not occupy yourself with that behaviour as opposed to struggling to convince others that what you don't believe in is somehow a “Nasty Character”?
What if someone was convinced by your point of view what would you tell them next?
Quote (heaven @ Dec. 19 2009,04:59) Hi BD. I was wondering if you could let the other members know the rules to this debate.
Is it exclusively between you and Stu?
Just asking in case others start replying when they weren't suppose to.
YeaThis could be a good one for the Debates thread.
Keep it locked and have an alternate for others to respond.
Just a suggestion!
WJ
Quote (bodhitharta @ Dec. 20 2009,04:02) I guess what I am saying is you really seem to be seriously affected and you have occupied a considerable amount of time to this “Mock” anger. What I find interesting is that you seem to not have any “real” anger about the way men behave towards one another instead preferring to blame what you say you don't believe in, so from a “no god” point of view what would be the best behaviour and should you not occupy yourself with that behaviour as opposed to struggling to convince others that what you don't believe in is somehow a “Nasty Character”?
What if someone was convinced by your point of view what would you tell them next?
Indeed what would be the best 'behaviour' if one really had a missionary zeal to make the world a better place?As taught to most humanities students through the examples of political cartoons, the one thing a brutal dictatorship cannot stand is mockery, and in fact I think it could be a test if you weren't sure if you were dealing with such a regime. From that point of view I have a lot of respect for politicians in western democracies in that they do take a lot of merciless mockery from the media without much complaint, realising that they have nothing to gain by trying any kind of retaliation (notwithstanding the kind of relationships spin doctors have with the media).
The only response to such mocking is a reasoned argument, putting the pros and cons of each policy and most of the time allowing public debate to inform any legislation that may result. The same should apply to any discourse be it ethics or transport infrastructure planning.
My observations then are these: most flavours of islam cannot stand mockery. Just think Danish cartoons. Christian fundamentalists cannot stand mockery. Just think Psalm 14:1. These two human belief systems pass this crude test for 'brutal dictatorship', not in the conventional political sense but in the religio-political sense.
It is particularly interesting that islam does not have a hierarchy of leadership and so the nature of the brutality is that there is no overall control of it: people are free to be as brutal as they want, or to oppose it by reading from scripture, and there are no 'right answers'. I suppose you could say the same for christian fundamentalism too, but there is less overtly physical violence, but more psychological violence so the effect is less graphically obvious.
So, should one attempt to dissuade with evidence, or the complete lack thereof, of any god? That is usually a futile gesture that has little effect in fora like this but that I include in my posts anyway just as a reminder in case anyone is still seduced by the illusion of design.
Should one point out that all of the violence attributed to god is actually just violence between people with the egotistical addition of “god is on our side”? (have you ever heard the concession that 'god is not on our side today'?) Well yes of course, but you cannot do that and take the position that god exists and is nasty and inconsistent with how the universe appears to be. You are right that the behaviours of humans towards humans are what is really in question, but there is little point in trying to convince religious fundamentalists of that. Reduction of the cruelties wrought in the name of gods is the goal, but this is not the place to fight that battle that way.
Should one mock the god of belief relevant to the audience? If it cannot stand mockery then it is not omnipotent. If it cannot stand mockery then it can probably be classed as a dictator like all the others that cannot stand mockery. In short, if the god cannot be reasonably seen to be able to do what its followers claim, then the obvious conclusion of the lack of its existence removes one label used for inter-personal (or international) violence.
The answer to this question may, in the past or today still, have determined whether you got shot by the asker:
Are you a Catholic or a protestant?
Are you sunni or shia?
Are you muslim or Catholic?
Are you Jewish or christian?
Are you Jewish or Roman?
You know the list goes on and on…The civil war in Sri Lanka is one of the few modern conflicts that does not have a significant religious labeling of the combatants.
Demonstrating that it is immoral or inconsistent or naive to believe in gods will not stop violence and warfare, but it will remove one source of ingrained tribal affiliation that contains no empirical or even rational basis for human conflict.
It might be harder for some leaders to motivate their people to warfare if they cannot appeal to Imaginary Sky Friends to guarantee their success. People might be less inclined to put their lives on the line if they valued them more as the ONLY life they will have.
It might stop madrassas in Pakistan teaching mindless brutality to young men in the name of the 'religion of peace'. African men might be less likely to inflict HIV on their wives if the pope was shown to be preaching the teachings of a fraudulent deity.
So, I say get angry about this! Use mock anger to show that the god for which a person is fighting is unjust, as written. Show that the god, if it exists, cannot possibly be like what is written in scriptures or taught in synagogues, mosques and churches round the world.
This is, as I say, if one had a missionary zeal to make the world a better place. My primary interest however is to stop fundies from misrepresenting the evidence of the world around them in telling and retelling the lies of the creationists. If people could appreciate natural history and their evolutionary heritage and common ancestry with all other living organisms, then I think the world would be a better place. Do you agree?
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Dec. 20 2009,10:29) Quote (bodhitharta @ Dec. 20 2009,04:02) I guess what I am saying is you really seem to be seriously affected and you have occupied a considerable amount of time to this “Mock” anger. What I find interesting is that you seem to not have any “real” anger about the way men behave towards one another instead preferring to blame what you say you don't believe in, so from a “no god” point of view what would be the best behaviour and should you not occupy yourself with that behaviour as opposed to struggling to convince others that what you don't believe in is somehow a “Nasty Character”?
What if someone was convinced by your point of view what would you tell them next?
Indeed what would be the best 'behaviour' if one really had a missionary zeal to make the world a better place?As taught to most humanities students through the examples of political cartoons, the one thing a brutal dictatorship cannot stand is mockery, and in fact I think it could be a test if you weren't sure if you were dealing with such a regime. From that point of view I have a lot of respect for politicians in western democracies in that they do take a lot of merciless mockery from the media without much complaint, realising that they have nothing to gain by trying any kind of retaliation (notwithstanding the kind of relationships spin doctors have with the media).
The only response to such mocking is a reasoned argument, putting the pros and cons of each policy and most of the time allowing public debate to inform any legislation that may result. The same should apply to any discourse be it ethics or transport infrastructure planning.
My observations then are these: most flavours of islam cannot stand mockery. Just think Danish cartoons. Christian fundamentalists cannot stand mockery. Just think Psalm 14:1. These two human belief systems pass this crude test for 'brutal dictatorship', not in the conventional political sense but in the religio-political sense.
It is particularly interesting that islam does not have a hierarchy of leadership and so the nature of the brutality is that there is no overall control of it: people are free to be as brutal as they want, or to oppose it by reading from scripture, and there are no 'right answers'. I suppose you could say the same for christian fundamentalism too, but there is less overtly physical violence, but more psychological violence so the effect is less graphically obvious.
So, should one attempt to dissuade with evidence, or the complete lack thereof, of any god? That is usually a futile gesture that has little effect in fora like this but that I include in my posts anyway just as a reminder in case anyone is still seduced by the illusion of design.
Should one point out that all of the violence attributed to god is actually just violence between people with the egotistical addition of “god is on our side”? (have you ever heard the concession that 'god is not on our side today'?) Well yes of course, but you cannot do that and take the position that god exists and is nasty and inconsistent with how the universe appears to be. You are right that the behaviours of humans towards humans are what is really in question, but there is little point in trying to convince religious fundamentalists of that. Reduction of the cruelties wrought in the name of gods is the goal, but this is not the place to fight that battle that way.
Should one mock the god of belief relevant to the audience? If it cannot stand mockery then it is not omnipotent. If it cannot stand mockery then it can probably be classed as a dictator like all the others that cannot stand mockery. In short, if the god cannot be reasonably seen to be able to do what its followers claim, then the obvious conclusion of the lack of its existence removes one label used for inter-personal (or international) violence.
The answer to this question may, in the past or today still, have determined whether you got shot by the asker:
Are you a Catholic or a protestant?
Are you sunni or shia?
Are you muslim or Catholic?
Are you Jewish or christian?
Are you Jewish or Roman?
You know the list goes on and on…The civil war in Sri Lanka is one of the few modern conflicts that does not have a significant religious labeling of the combatants.
Demonstrating that it is immoral or inconsistent or naive to believe in gods will not stop violence and warfare, but it will remove one source of ingrained tribal affiliation that contains no empirical or even rational basis for human conflict.
It might be harder for some leaders to motivate their people to warfare if they cannot appeal to Imaginary Sky Friends to guarantee their success. People might be less inclined to put their lives on the line if they valued them more as the ONLY life they will have.
It might stop madrassas in Pakistan teaching mindless brutality to young men in the name of the 'religion of peace'. African men might be less likely to inflict HIV on their wives if the pope was shown to be preaching the teachings of a fraudulent deity.
So, I say get angry about this! Use mock anger to show that the god for which a person is fighting is unjust, as written. Show that the god, if it exists, cannot possibly be like what is written in scriptures or taught in synagogues, mosques and churches round the world.
This is, as I say, if one had a missionary zeal to make the world a better place. My primary interest however is to stop fundies from misrepresenting the evidence of the world around them in telling and retelling the lies of the creationists. If people could appreciate natural history and their evolutionary heritage and common ancestry with all other living organisms, then I think the world would be a better place. Do you agree?
Stuart
When you say “Most flavours of Islam” I find that you are confusing cultural memes with actual Islam as described in the Quran. The Quran plainly states that Muhammad is simply a man and in speaking to him the scripture even says for him not to grieve over their mockery for they are not his responsibility.There should be no compulsion in religion and mockery should never be an issue of violence, this does not mean that violence should not occur when oppression and injustice reared its head.
Not even from a humanistic or evolutionary perspective would it be rational to allow extinction without fighting for survival.
Now, if human behaviour towards humans is the real question are we really, by voicing this assertion trying to convince fundamentalists of that, or would you be attempting to assist others in thinking within reason instead of running headlong into radical irrationality.
Most Christians, Muslims, Jews…. are not even familiar with their own scriptures and often misrepresent these writings. Those who study them the most are often the ones who use the knowledge for less than desirable means.
Quote Show that the god, if it exists, cannot possibly be like what is written in scriptures What is written in scriptures is the tree of the knowledge of good and evil
You should after tasting it excel in
the best of deeds.For instance if you are really into evolution and its study it doesn't really matter if it is a viable concept or not because your study of it may do some good, surely it is not evil to try to understand your origins but some will say that your rejection of creation theory is the rejection of God but I don't know if that is the point.
Perhaps lacking any reasonable understanding of the possibility of Creation theory you grasp what you can grasp instead of being dishonest and simply accepting what cannot be grasped(At least not at this time)
I don't believe that if it was proven to you that God created everything in 6 days you would deny it.
However, regardless of why or when we all still have a common ancestry because we all originated from the earth with DNA that is all somewhat connected.
We need not distance ourselves from all that is on earth but instead we should close the gaps so that we can care better for each other and our planet whether it was inherited or given.
Quote (heaven @ Dec. 19 2009,20:59) Hi BD. I was wondering if you could let the other members know the rules to this debate.
Is it exclusively between you and Stu?
Just asking in case others start replying when they weren't suppose to.
Why has someone changed around my thread titles?Also why was this done without changing around the subtitles giving it a different message
Quote (bodhitharta @ Dec. 20 2009,12:17) When you say “Most flavours of Islam” I find that you are confusing cultural memes with actual Islam as described in the Quran. The Quran plainly states that Muhammad is simply a man and in speaking to him the scripture even says for him not to grieve over their mockery for they are not his responsibility. There should be no compulsion in religion and mockery should never be an issue of violence, this does not mean that violence should not occur when oppression and injustice reared its head.
Not even from a humanistic or evolutionary perspective would it be rational to allow extinction without fighting for survival.
Now, if human behaviour towards humans is the real question are we really, by voicing this assertion trying to convince fundamentalists of that, or would you be attempting to assist others in thinking within reason instead of running headlong into radical irrationality.
Most Christians, Muslims, Jews…. are not even familiar with their own scriptures and often misrepresent these writings. Those who study them the most are often the ones who use the knowledge for less than desirable means.
Quote Show that the god, if it exists, cannot possibly be like what is written in scriptures What is written in scriptures is the tree of the knowledge of good and evil
You should after tasting it excel in the best of deeds.
For instance if you are really into evolution and its study it doesn't really matter if it is a viable concept or not because your study of it may do some good, surely it is not evil to try to understand your origins but some will say that your rejection of creation theory is the rejection of God but I don't know if that is the point.
Perhaps lacking any reasonable understanding of the possibility of Creation theory you grasp what you can grasp instead of being dishonest and simply accepting what cannot be grasped(At least not at this time)
I don't believe that if it was proven to you that God created everything in 6 days you would deny it.
However, regardless of why or when we all still have a common ancestry because we all originated from the earth with DNA that is all somewhat connected.
We need not distance ourselves from all that is on earth but instead we should close the gaps so that we can care better for each other and our planet whether it was inherited or given.
The christian book of mythology contains Saul of Tarsus’s equivalent advice on mockery, to dust off one’s shoes…and presumably forget about the scriptural evangelical imperative.When you say that I might be confusing cultural islam with koranic islam, I find the distinction a trivial one. Can’t we treat religions as processes, by which some standard (objectionable though it may be) is set then people are cajoled to meet that standard in their everyday actions and thoughts? Could we not then measure the effects of that process as a way of assessing what the religion is? After all, you might think its ideals were utopian, but communism proved disastrous (for the same reasons that islam is disastrous, essentially) but would you want to try and make a distinction between the communism described by Lenin and Marx and the regimes of Mao and Stalin? The goals of communism do not actually work in practice, and neither do the goals of Abrahamic faiths. People are beheaded violently in the main squares of Saudi Arabia, christian televangelists are run out of town because they preached Leviticus then picked up a rent boy on the way home. Who are the ‘real’ muslims and christians? It is a fatuous question. “What is islam”? is not a fatuous question: judge it by its deeds.
While the books themselves are ambiguous on many points, ‘theory’ is all very well. We need to see what happens in practice. In practise christianity includes under its title people who do not believe in gods, but call themselves that for fear of being thought a muslim.
Also, I happen to think that if you hear a christian claim that he holds a belief that is part of his religion, then it is a christian belief to be treated like any, regardless of what books, canonical or otherwise, confirm it. If you cannot allow this then religions will be allowed to shrink away from any accountability. When a suicide bomber blows herself up in a crowded market, having just screamed ‘god is great’, that is a part of islam. How should a muslim respond? Walk away from it regretting all involvement? I think so!
Of course that is not possible because this is a religion that calls for death for apostates. You say religion should not be a matter of compulsion, but that is not what the koran says.
Regarding creationism, there is no theory of divine creation. There is no honest scientist who would say that the effect of supernatural beings is impossible, but there is no explanatory power to be had by invoking gods, and there is no part of the standard model of natural history that should appeal to the credulous ideal of magic by an Imaginary Sky Friend. It is all too well described and supported by evidence for that.
That leaves the creationist with two honesty issues: firstly scriptural mythology is directly contradicted by physical evidence, so there is a need to lie about and misrepresent evidence, and secondly because the word supernatural by definition is something that cannot be known (otherwise it would be part of the ‘natural’) it is the creationist who is making up a fantasy story based on the writings of ancient, ignorant Middle Eastern goal herders and tent repairers. That itself is a travesty and denial of human endeavour. What did their god give them curiosity for if all they are going to do is deny the products of others’ investigations of the world and lie about them?
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Dec. 20 2009,14:47) The christian book of mythology contains Saul of Tarsus’s equivalent advice on mockery, to dust off one’s shoes…and presumably forget about the scriptural evangelical imperative. When you say that I might be confusing cultural islam with koranic islam, I find the distinction a trivial one. Can’t we treat religions as processes, by which some standard (objectionable though it may be) is set then people are cajoled to meet that standard in their everyday actions and thoughts? Could we not then measure the effects of that process as a way of assessing what the religion is? After all, you might think its ideals were utopian, but communism proved disastrous (for the same reasons that islam is disastrous, essentially) but would you want to try and make a distinction between the communism described by Lenin and Marx and the regimes of Mao and Stalin? The goals of communism do not actually work in practice, and neither do the goals of Abrahamic faiths. People are beheaded violently in the main squares of Saudi Arabia, christian televangelists are run out of town because they preached Leviticus then picked up a rent boy on the way home. Who are the ‘real’ muslims and christians? It is a fatuous question. “What is islam”? is not a fatuous question: judge it by its deeds.
While the books themselves are ambiguous on many points, ‘theory’ is all very well. We need to see what happens in practice. In practise christianity includes under its title people who do not believe in gods, but call themselves that for fear of being thought a muslim.
Also, I happen to think that if you hear a christian claim that he holds a belief that is part of his religion, then it is a christian belief to be treated like any, regardless of what books, canonical or otherwise, confirm it. If you cannot allow this then religions will be allowed to shrink away from any accountability. When a suicide bomber blows herself up in a crowded market, having just screamed ‘god is great’, that is a part of islam. How should a muslim respond? Walk away from it regretting all involvement? I think so!
Of course that is not possible because this is a religion that calls for death for apostates. You say religion should not be a matter of compulsion, but that is not what the koran says.
Regarding creationism, there is no theory of divine creation. There is no honest scientist who would say that the effect of supernatural beings is impossible, but there is no explanatory power to be had by invoking gods, and there is no part of the standard model of natural history that should appeal to the credulous ideal of magic by an Imaginary Sky Friend. It is all too well described and supported by evidence for that.
That leaves the creationist with two honesty issues: firstly scriptural mythology is directly contradicted by physical evidence, so there is a need to lie about and misrepresent evidence, and secondly because the word supernatural by definition is something that cannot be known (otherwise it would be part of the ‘natural’) it is the creationist who is making up a fantasy story based on the writings of ancient, ignorant Middle Eastern goal herders and tent repairers. That itself is a travesty and denial of human endeavour. What did their god give them curiosity for if all they are going to do is deny the products of others’ investigations of the world and lie about them?
Stuart
First off let me clear something up:(1) Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things.
( Al-Baqara, Chapter #2, Verse #256)And yes you are confusing the Arabic culture with what essentially brought that culture out of the dark ages and not just Arab culture but the entire world out of the dark ages.
All of the inequities that you see now in that culture is a resurgence of preislamic arabic culture.
But Islam works like this:
———————————————–
as summarized by al-Hashimi (a cousin of Caliph al-Ma'mun) in the following letter to one of the religious opponents he was attempting to convert through reason:[12]Bring forward all the arguments you wish and say whatever you please and speak your mind freely. Now that you are safe and free to say whatever you please appoint some arbitrator who will impartially judge between us and lean only towards the truth and be free from the empary of passion, and that arbitrator shall be Reason, whereby God makes us responsible for our own rewards and punishments. Herein I have dealt justly with you and have given you full security and am ready to accept whatever decision Reason may give for me or against me. For “There is no compulsion in religion” (Qur'an 2:256) and I have only invited you to accept our faith willingly and of your own accord and have pointed out the hideousness of your present belief. Peace be upon you and the blessings of God!”
————————————————–Communism proved disastrous not because of its ideal but because of the corruption imposed upon it. Of course in actual practice it would work but the fact is corruption of a practice does not reflect the ideal state of a practice.
The corruption of the banking industry does not reflect that the banking industry is not beneficial, corruption and neglect in the food industry doesn't equate to commercial farming to be a destructive practice.
Now when you say something should be judged by its deeds are you then over looking the proponderance of the evidence that all religion has had a net positive effect?
Is a computer Natural or SuperNatural? Does it spring up, organize and function of its own accord?
Life assembles according to a genetic code, right?
Now, I understand you think that the genetic code is self writing, however if that were true that would be Super Unnatural wouldn't it?
The iniquities are done in the name of islam, and I therefore class them as islamic. You cannot deny people their isalm, if you could then they could reasonably deny you yours. I think there is also a great deal of dishonesty in the islamic world about what its mythology actually says. The very means by which young people are exposed to the koran in most islamic countries, by mindless compulsory rote learning, suggests to me that there is little critical consideration of it tolerated and defining what islam is scripturally becomes a matter of irreconcilable arguments between people who are recalling contradicting sections of it without analysis. There I am just going on what I have seen on television!
We would seem to disagree on whether you can judge a man by what he does rather than what he says. It is a very Catholic apologist kind of statement to say that the net effect of religion has been positive. Although we systematically covered up child abuse, persecuted Galileo, abducted a Jewish child Edgardo Mortara, ran a brutal inquisition and tell Africans not to wear condoms resulting in (is it an estimated 2,000,000?) deaths from preventable disease, look at all the good we have done to make up for it! Hmmm. Exactly what good was that? Mohammad was a pedophile in today’s terms. If that is wrong today, but was OK then, what is the point of the religion AT ALL? Clearly, incorruptible timeless religious principles are neither timeless nor incorruptible. Maybe Mohammad did not advocate his own practices…
If the banking sector or food industries are found to be corrupted in some way, the net result more often than not, especially in the longer term, is that a government will impose legislation that covers everyone in the sector regardless of how honest or safe their practices were. Their assumption is that the food manufacturers, judged by just a few incidences of a particular kind of food poisoning, are all potential food poisoners. I think that is fair. It is how we in New Zealand have come to have some of the safest food in the world. We also have the lowest level of corruption in of anyone. As it happens, we are amongst the least religious nations too.
You may attribute all the bad to Arabic culture and all the good to islam, but remember the meaning of the word: it was not just the mindless chanting of allah but in the blank expressions on the faces of the Danish cartoon protesters (a rent-a-crowd?) that we saw how this religion requires you to put yourself second, to submit. It was the effect of that which gave the Arabian peninsula political stability. However, brutal dictators bring political stability too, and therein lies the kind of danger that has since produced what the West understands jihad to be.
I assume that you are not denying that there is a koranic imperative to put apostates to death.
Regarding the genetic code, I have heard all these rhetorical questions before from t8 and others, and I have replied to them in the various relevant threads. If you would like to raise a specific point about natural history that you think disproves a standard scientific model, then I would be interested.
Stuart
BD if all the atmospheric oxygen disappeared we would be in danger instantly. If all bodies of water vanished we would be in strife pretty soon. A lack of food would begin to kill us within weeks. If love and human company deserted us we would also begin to suffer in short order. These are all things we would need back as essential components of living as a human.
If islam disappeared this afternoon, could you make a compelling case for needing to reinvent it?
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Dec. 21 2009,07:33) The iniquities are done in the name of islam, and I therefore class them as islamic. You cannot deny people their isalm, if you could then they could reasonably deny you yours. I think there is also a great deal of dishonesty in the islamic world about what its mythology actually says. The very means by which young people are exposed to the koran in most islamic countries, by mindless compulsory rote learning, suggests to me that there is little critical consideration of it tolerated and defining what islam is scripturally becomes a matter of irreconcilable arguments between people who are recalling contradicting sections of it without analysis. There I am just going on what I have seen on television! We would seem to disagree on whether you can judge a man by what he does rather than what he says. It is a very Catholic apologist kind of statement to say that the net effect of religion has been positive. Although we systematically covered up child abuse, persecuted Galileo, abducted a Jewish child Edgardo Mortara, ran a brutal inquisition and tell Africans not to wear condoms resulting in (is it an estimated 2,000,000?) deaths from preventable disease, look at all the good we have done to make up for it! Hmmm. Exactly what good was that? Mohammad was a pedophile in today’s terms. If that is wrong today, but was OK then, what is the point of the religion AT ALL? Clearly, incorruptible timeless religious principles are neither timeless nor incorruptible. Maybe Mohammad did not advocate his own practices…
If the banking sector or food industries are found to be corrupted in some way, the net result more often than not, especially in the longer term, is that a government will impose legislation that covers everyone in the sector regardless of how honest or safe their practices were. Their assumption is that the food manufacturers, judged by just a few incidences of a particular kind of food poisoning, are all potential food poisoners. I think that is fair. It is how we in New Zealand have come to have some of the safest food in the world. We also have the lowest level of corruption in of anyone. As it happens, we are amongst the least religious nations too.
You may attribute all the bad to Arabic culture and all the good to islam, but remember the meaning of the word: it was not just the mindless chanting of allah but in the blank expressions on the faces of the Danish cartoon protesters (a rent-a-crowd?) that we saw how this religion requires you to put yourself second, to submit. It was the effect of that which gave the Arabian peninsula political stability. However, brutal dictators bring political stability too, and therein lies the kind of danger that has since produced what the West understands jihad to be.
I assume that you are not denying that there is a koranic imperative to put apostates to death.
Regarding the genetic code, I have heard all these rhetorical questions before from t8 and others, and I have replied to them in the various relevant threads. If you would like to raise a specific point about natural history that you think disproves a standard scientific model, then I would be interested.
Stuart
You still lump individuals together and somehow conclude that it is acceptable.A persons religion is not that of a group other than in name. Should I attribute to you crimes commited by Agnostics or Atheists? God forbid! You are STU and can only be judged as STU.
Don't you suscribe to personal responsibility?
I am an American black male, currently in Chicago several American black males are killing each other on a large scale so should I be grouped with them?
By the way there is no imperative to put apostates to death at least not in the Quran.
But this is not a debate about the tenants of Islam exclusively because I feel the same way about Christianity and any other religion, only an individual can experience religion in a personal way.
I asked a question regarding the genetic code and yet you refer me to threads as if we are not having a one on one debate.
I asked you do you feel the genetic code arose in and of itself, so tell me did it?
You also have conceded in my opinion that industries or practices with corruption in them do not mean that the industry or practice itself is corrupt.
Now let's dig a bit deeper and away from the groups and focus on “God”
Now you should consider if God is possible and I will consider if God is not possible. Let's reverse the roles and you make an argument for God and I will make an argument against the existence of God.
Quote (Stu @ Dec. 21 2009,07:40) BD if all the atmospheric oxygen disappeared we would be in danger instantly. If all bodies of water vanished we would be in strife pretty soon. A lack of food would begin to kill us within weeks. If love and human company deserted us we would also begin to suffer in short order. These are all things we would need back as essential components of living as a human. If islam disappeared this afternoon, could you make a compelling case for needing to reinvent it?
Stuart
Yes, If I am to believe that God created this world then I would need to consume the oxygen, water and food that was created for our benefit as well as human company. I would go to God in Peace(Islam) and ask him to no beg for him to bless us with what we were already blessed with.You seem to think I see God only in the terms of a certain religion but the greatest “Book” is the creation and nature itself it speaks volumes for God. The whole universe already submits to God willingly or unwillingly the whole Universe ia a MUSLIM/Submitter.
Even you will bow at death just like you entered life bowing and prostrated with tears!
BD
I do believe in personal responsibility, so when an islamist says that he is doing something in the name of islam I associate with him all people who also claim to do things in the name of islam, which muslims do routinely and far more vehemently than christians in my experience. All muslims are responsible for the actions done in their name. That is why I make it clear that I am not christian because I would not like people to think that I join with christians in accepting a human sacrifice for personal gain. If you don’t want to be tarred with the brush then dissociate yourself from it.
Actually this is the only way to believe in personal responsibility, because while some blame, others accept that they have a small part in the crime / whatever even if they were not the perpetrator. Now while I think this applies less to the food or financial sectors, it could not be more relevant for religion. If you call yourself a muslim then you give succor to those commiting violence in the name of islam, just as christian fundamentalists also give comfort in being devout ‘people of the book’, akin to the islamic terrorist’s fundamentalist views. If you live in a country where an atrocity has been committed (and it is not the Amish who are committing them, is it) you must accept that you have a responsibility. If it is a democracy, then did you vote for politicians who have something effective to do against islamic terrorism? If it is an islamic dictatorship then have you helped fight for a secular society in which no religion is allowed to be above the law? I think just saying ‘that is not islam’ is an abrogation of personal responsibility. I think the only honorable course of action is to become apostate. I think you are being dishonest about what the koran says regarding former believers, or in my case never-believers, and therefore I suggest to you that
There is no compulsion in religion. 2:256, Whosoever will, let him believe, and whosoever will, let him disbelieve. 18:29 and Unto you your religion, and unto me my religion. 109:6 are contradicted by these:Allah loveth not the disbelievers. 3:32
He loveth not the disbelievers. 30:45
Lo! We have prepared for disbelievers Fire. Its tent encloseth them. If they ask for showers, they will be showered with water like to molten lead which burneth the faces. Calamitous the drink and ill the resting-place! 18:29
Whoso seeketh as religion other than the Surrender (to Allah) it will not be accepted from him, and he will be a loser in the Hereafter. 3:85
Let not the believers take disbelievers for their friends in preference to believers. 3:28
They long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve … choose not friends from them. 4:89
Choose not disbelievers for (your) friends in place of believers. Would ye give Allah a clear warrant against you? 4:144
Take not the Jews and the Christians for friends. … He among you who taketh them for friends is (one) of them. 5:51
Do ye give them friendship when they disbelieve? 60:1
The disbelievers are an open enemy to you. 4:101
If they … assail your religion, then fight the heads of disbelief. … Fight them! Allah will chastise them at your hands, and He will lay them low and give you victory over them 9:12-14
Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah. 9:29
Fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you, and let them find harshness in you. 9:123
They long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve … take them and kill them wherever ye find them. 4:89
Genetics:
Everything in the biological world has arisen from the application of natural selection to the products of chemistry. I’m not sure what you mean by something arising “in and of itself”. Genes replicate by copying the template of an existing gene, with various kinds of ‘accidents’ causing changes over time, so in that sense they do. If you are asking about abiogenesis, then I do not know what the first replicating molecule was. No one does.God:
I will take a guess at which god you wish me to argue for and say it is the Abrahamic one. This is the best I can do at the moment. As I start to form it in my head I can already see why it is nonsense! But here goes:One could be convinced that there is more suffering on earth (because there are beings that can suffer) than in other parts of the universe. “Good”, “Joy” or however you describe it, can be seen as a neutral thing, essentially it is just the absence of suffering. Predator/prey relationships are full of suffering, mainly for the prey. Human awareness of human death (or tragic examples of it) might be described as suffering, certainly unpleasant. So is there more suffering than you would tend to expect if entirely natural processes were in play? Wouldn’t natural selection have stumbled on a way to stop animals, including humans, from being aware of such miseries as we are? After all, plants don’t appear to suffer. Surely there would be an evolutionary advantage in that as much as there is in being able to perceive the misery of a short, difficult existence on earth. If you accept that there is MORE suffering than you would intuitively have thought likely, then you should conclude that there is a vindictive creator, a ‘god’ that has made living things as toys for his callous play.
Your turn!
Stuart
Quote (bodhitharta @ Dec. 21 2009,10:43) Quote (Stu @ Dec. 21 2009,07:40) BD if all the atmospheric oxygen disappeared we would be in danger instantly. If all bodies of water vanished we would be in strife pretty soon. A lack of food would begin to kill us within weeks. If love and human company deserted us we would also begin to suffer in short order. These are all things we would need back as essential components of living as a human. If islam disappeared this afternoon, could you make a compelling case for needing to reinvent it?
Stuart
Yes, If I am to believe that God created this world then I would need to consume the oxygen, water and food that was created for our benefit as well as human company. I would go to God in Peace(Islam) and ask him to no beg for him to bless us with what we were already blessed with.You seem to think I see God only in the terms of a certain religion but the greatest “Book” is the creation and nature itself it speaks volumes for God. The whole universe already submits to God willingly or unwillingly the whole Universe ia a MUSLIM/Submitter.
Even you will bow at death just like you entered life bowing and prostrated with tears!
And the other thing I did was to kind of beg the question, that islam would even need to be invented by humans, that it is not a divine inspiration.What you write is all your own assertion, which is fair enough as that is all god-believer have anyway, however perhaps I could re-ask the question in this way (taking the bits about oxygen, food and love as read):
Once you had enjoyed the restoration of food, water, human companionship and love, why is there any particular reason to go out of your way to spend time and energy to form a 'relationship' with your god? Why submit to it? Why not just be indifferent or neutral about it?
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Dec. 21 2009,17:21) BD I do believe in personal responsibility, so when an islamist says that he is doing something in the name of islam I associate with him all people who also claim to do things in the name of islam, which muslims do routinely and far more vehemently than christians in my experience. All muslims are responsible for the actions done in their name. That is why I make it clear that I am not christian because I would not like people to think that I join with christians in accepting a human sacrifice for personal gain. If you don’t want to be tarred with the brush then dissociate yourself from it.
Actually this is the only way to believe in personal responsibility, because while some blame, others accept that they have a small part in the crime / whatever even if they were not the perpetrator. Now while I think this applies less to the food or financial sectors, it could not be more relevant for religion. If you call yourself a muslim then you give succor to those commiting violence in the name of islam, just as christian fundamentalists also give comfort in being devout ‘people of the book’, akin to the islamic terrorist’s fundamentalist views. If you live in a country where an atrocity has been committed (and it is not the Amish who are committing them, is it) you must accept that you have a responsibility. If it is a democracy, then did you vote for politicians who have something effective to do against islamic terrorism? If it is an islamic dictatorship then have you helped fight for a secular society in which no religion is allowed to be above the law? I think just saying ‘that is not islam’ is an abrogation of personal responsibility. I think the only honorable course of action is to become apostate. I think you are being dishonest about what the koran says regarding former believers, or in my case never-believers, and therefore I suggest to you that
There is no compulsion in religion. 2:256, Whosoever will, let him believe, and whosoever will, let him disbelieve. 18:29 and Unto you your religion, and unto me my religion. 109:6 are contradicted by these:Allah loveth not the disbelievers. 3:32
He loveth not the disbelievers. 30:45
Lo! We have prepared for disbelievers Fire. Its tent encloseth them. If they ask for showers, they will be showered with water like to molten lead which burneth the faces. Calamitous the drink and ill the resting-place! 18:29
Whoso seeketh as religion other than the Surrender (to Allah) it will not be accepted from him, and he will be a loser in the Hereafter. 3:85
Let not the believers take disbelievers for their friends in preference to believers. 3:28
They long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve … choose not friends from them. 4:89
Choose not disbelievers for (your) friends in place of believers. Would ye give Allah a clear warrant against you? 4:144
Take not the Jews and the Christians for friends. … He among you who taketh them for friends is (one) of them. 5:51
Do ye give them friendship when they disbelieve? 60:1
The disbelievers are an open enemy to you. 4:101
If they … assail your religion, then fight the heads of disbelief. … Fight them! Allah will chastise them at your hands, and He will lay them low and give you victory over them 9:12-14
Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah. 9:29
Fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you, and let them find harshness in you. 9:123
They long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve … take them and kill them wherever ye find them. 4:89
Genetics:
Everything in the biological world has arisen from the application of natural selection to the products of chemistry. I’m not sure what you mean by something arising “in and of itself”. Genes replicate by copying the template of an existing gene, with various kinds of ‘accidents’ causing changes over time, so in that sense they do. If you are asking about abiogenesis, then I do not know what the first replicating molecule was. No one does.God:
I will take a guess at which god you wish me to argue for and say it is the Abrahamic one. This is the best I can do at the moment. As I start to form it in my head I can already see why it is nonsense! But here goes:One could be convinced that there is more suffering on earth (because there are beings that can suffer) than in other parts of the universe. “Good”, “Joy” or however you describe it, can be seen as a neutral thing, essentially it is just the absence of suffering. Predator/prey relationships are full of suffering, mainly for the prey. Human awareness of human death (or tragic examples of it) might be described as suffering, certainly unpleasant. So is there more suffering than you would tend to expect if entirely natural processes were in play? Wouldn’t natural selection have stumbled on a way to stop animals, including humans, from being aware of such miseries as we are? After all, plants don’t appear to suffer. Surely there would be an evolutionary advantage in that as much as there is in being able to perceive the misery of a short, difficult existence on earth. If you accept that there is MORE suffering than you would intuitively have thought likely, then you should conclude that there is a vindictive creator, a ‘god’ that has made living things as toys for his callous play.
Your turn!
Stuart
Personal responsibility always applies to any religion and yes speaking out or fighting against opression or mischief is the responsibility of everyone within and without anyones religion.This is also how protestants became protestants(They protested the Catholic Church because of its corruption)
This however would not indicate that Catholics are corrupt Christians just that those who were the representatives were corrupt. It is those who are corrupt that are apostate so why or how could you becoming apostate be honorable? It's like you saying the school system is corrupt so I decided to stop being a teacher.
There is no contradiction in those statements at all.
Allah does not love the disbelievers or the evil doers but it is also to be noted “Vengence is mine saith the Lord”
Yes, there will be a painful punishment for those who reject Faith.
Also in your last example: take them and kill them wherever ye find them this is in regards to war where it should not be a mystery to you at all what happens war includes killing.
Genetics:
If you do not know what the first replicating molecule was, then the argument concluding that it was not Created has no valid basis does it? By the way when you say “template” exactly how does this “Template” function, how does it transfer data?
God:
Although you didn't do your role reversal that well I will do my best to be a little more objective than you. The idea of God arises as an evolutionary advantage as it creates an invisible hand to tie communities together in ever increasing numbers one can see from a social evolutionary aspect that as time has proceeded the number of “gods” has decreased as the adherents have increased and this has also meant that the smaller battles from town to town have evolved into warfare from country to country as you mentioned regarding predator /prey relationships inventing God would assist to balance such Human predator/prey relationships by the prey being converted and absorbed instead of being killed or enslaved as was the general rule in times past.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
