Holy texts should be respected by scholars
- Thread starter Lawdog
- Start date
People need other people.
If I was the only atheist in a small tribe of theists, this could make me an outcast and vastly reduce my chances of survival, let alone procreating.
Evolution has made us this way. It's unavoidable.
Ideologies (common ways of thinking) bind people.
Evolution has made us this way.
Religion, nationalism, racism, atheism, communism, wiccans, the boy scouts, my astronomy club.
Can we look at an ideology and declare it "good" or "bad"?
How can we classify ideologies?
Can we look at the cost/benefit over time to individuals and society and the world?
Can we objectively state that racism is "bad"? Bad for whom? If your goal is to maintain your group identity at all costs, is racism bad? No. If, however, your goal is to maximize the prosperity of all humans, since we now all share the entire planet, is racism then bad? Yes.
Is my astronomy club and our values bad? If our goal is to learn about our universe and share our interests with other like-minded people, is amateur astronomy bad? No. If our goal is to forcibly promote astronomy as the national hobby and have astronomy conformance written into the constitution, is my astronomy club bad? Yes.
Is nationalism bad? If your goal is to protect your soverignty while respecting the soverignty of other nations, is nationalism bad? No. If your goal is to forcibly promote your government on others and bend them to your will, then is nationalism bad? Yes.
Is religion bad? If your goal is to find your personal reason for existence and share that search with other like-minded people, is religion bad? No. If your goal is to forcibly promote religion as the "correct" way for all people to find their path, is religion bad? Yes.
So we see, like anything, there are usually two distinct aspects. If fire good or bad? Is killing good or bad? Is chocolate-toffe ice cream good or bad?
I guarantee you can answer either way to almost any question of this nature.
From this I conclude that religion is good and bad. Many, many people find great comfort in their certainty of a permanent father figure. Of a higher purpose to their lives. Of eternal continuance of their consciousness.
Others feel the same things and cannot tolerate anyone who does not, and must bend them to their will. Others see an easy way to control masses of people.
The holding of any ideology is an open invitation to abuse and manipulation.
Therefore, weak-minded wiccans, communists, atheists, patriots, theists, boy scouts, and astronomers can be easily swayed to good or bad applications of their ideologies.
The vast majority of people are not control hungry megalomaniacs. We are the vast majority. Strengthen your minds. No matter what your ideology. Keep the prosperity of all foremost in your planning. Don't seek to control and dominate, and laugh at those who would.
If I was the only atheist in a small tribe of theists, this could make me an outcast and vastly reduce my chances of survival, let alone procreating.
Evolution has made us this way. It's unavoidable.
Ideologies (common ways of thinking) bind people.
Evolution has made us this way.
Religion, nationalism, racism, atheism, communism, wiccans, the boy scouts, my astronomy club.
Can we look at an ideology and declare it "good" or "bad"?
How can we classify ideologies?
Can we look at the cost/benefit over time to individuals and society and the world?
Can we objectively state that racism is "bad"? Bad for whom? If your goal is to maintain your group identity at all costs, is racism bad? No. If, however, your goal is to maximize the prosperity of all humans, since we now all share the entire planet, is racism then bad? Yes.
Is my astronomy club and our values bad? If our goal is to learn about our universe and share our interests with other like-minded people, is amateur astronomy bad? No. If our goal is to forcibly promote astronomy as the national hobby and have astronomy conformance written into the constitution, is my astronomy club bad? Yes.
Is nationalism bad? If your goal is to protect your soverignty while respecting the soverignty of other nations, is nationalism bad? No. If your goal is to forcibly promote your government on others and bend them to your will, then is nationalism bad? Yes.
Is religion bad? If your goal is to find your personal reason for existence and share that search with other like-minded people, is religion bad? No. If your goal is to forcibly promote religion as the "correct" way for all people to find their path, is religion bad? Yes.
So we see, like anything, there are usually two distinct aspects. If fire good or bad? Is killing good or bad? Is chocolate-toffe ice cream good or bad?
I guarantee you can answer either way to almost any question of this nature.
From this I conclude that religion is good and bad. Many, many people find great comfort in their certainty of a permanent father figure. Of a higher purpose to their lives. Of eternal continuance of their consciousness.
Others feel the same things and cannot tolerate anyone who does not, and must bend them to their will. Others see an easy way to control masses of people.
The holding of any ideology is an open invitation to abuse and manipulation.
Therefore, weak-minded wiccans, communists, atheists, patriots, theists, boy scouts, and astronomers can be easily swayed to good or bad applications of their ideologies.
The vast majority of people are not control hungry megalomaniacs. We are the vast majority. Strengthen your minds. No matter what your ideology. Keep the prosperity of all foremost in your planning. Don't seek to control and dominate, and laugh at those who would.
I thought you might.samcdkey said:
looking_forward
Registered Senior Member
samcdkey said:
I think it would be better said "nothing will be out of science's reach." True, today science is limited by the knowledege and tools of this age, so the areas that science cant touch are taken up by religion, such as consciousness, creation, etc. But in ancient times, science was limited to a much greater extent, hence the false gods created to account for these unknowns, like thunder and the rising of the sun and the harvest. As of now, yes, science is limited and can not give definite answers on some subjects, but looking at the past pattern of the growth of science, and considering the knowledge of science is growing exponentially, i do not think it is pretentious at all to say that science will have a much much bigger, and eventually practically infinite grasp on the reality of our universe as time progresses.
looking_forward said:
Actually science (or more specifically an empirical approach to knowledge) can only flourish in an atmosphere of ignorance - dreaming of the end of knowledge acquired by science is just like dreaming of peace in the material world - it inspires a lot of people to act but the end result is never achieved
looking_forward
Registered Senior Member
samcdkey said:
Maybe if this respect went both ways but it does not. First, most atheists such as myself do not believe that there is no God, they just personally dont believe it (I am generalizing here i know that some atheists outright say there is no god but i believe there are far more like myself who just do not believe things until they see evidence, so god is just like a pending subject that we disregard in this evidence-lacking state) Therefore, an atheist's viewpoint does not attack a theist's. But the theist's viewpoint that there is a god directly disagrees with the atheist viewpoint.
The atheist says, "i do not believe in god. he may exist and you may believe in him but i do not."
The theist says "There is a god, it is not that i personally believe there is a god, it is reality that god exists, therefore your belief is wrong"
In my own experience, such as with my brother who is a theist, i will tell him that i can see how and why he would believe in god, but that i personally do not. On the contrary, i have never heard him once say that he understands the reasons for my skepticism, he is outright offended that i do not blindly accept silly beliefs. Theists believe that we are constantly trying to invalidate their beliefs, but it is by the theist's very nature and belief that he is contantly trying to invalidate the viewpoint of the atheist. I guess im waiting to get some respect for using modern evidence and logic to form my beliefs rather than ancient myth.
looking_forward said:
My point is no one can force anyone to believe or disbelieve; your brothers strength of conviction may equal your own. I dislike the idea of anyone determinig what's right for others; thats a slippery slope which only goes downhill and leads to no long term resolution.
samcdkey said:
But, your religion demands belief, therefore it has been going down that slippery slope for centuries.
You should therefore denounce your religion immediately for the reasons YOU have provided.
How do you justify the killing of apostates yet have on many occassions claimed you have no problem with your religion?
(Q) said:
All affiliations demand loyalty.
You should refrain from deciding what other people should do.
There is no punishment of death for apostacy in the Quran or the Shariah; the basis for death in apostacy in Islam is by Islamic jurists in countries which are predominantly Islamic. This in turn is based on a Hadeeth attributed to the Prophet. However the Quran clearly states that death is only recommended for murder or terrorism; which cleary contradicts the Hadeeth. Death sentencing for apostacy is a political decision since it is not applicable to all Muslims everywhere, only those within their country. So it is not a universal law. The problem of death in apostacy is a social problem not a religous one.
Last edited:
samcdkey said:
Exactly! And with those demands, religion determines whats right for you, the very thing you claim to dislike!
I'm only pointing out the next logical step. Sorry if you thought I was trying to force you into doing something you disliked.
Round and round she goes, where she stops, no one knows. Do you honestly read what you write? Look at it and then tell me what part of that is not Islamic?
So, why would one doctrine contradict another? Who dropped the ball?
Don't be silly, it wouldn't possibly be allowed in non-Islamic states, it's utterly barbaric, and I'm shocked you find it acceptable.
It wouldn't be a problem at all if not for the religion, since one is meeting their death as a result of leaving the religion. What is the social/political problem with that and what exactly is being done about it?
(Q) said:
Not if its my choice.
:m:
Here:
S. A. Rahman, a former Chief justice of Pakistan (Punishment of apostasy in Islam," Kazi Publ., (1986) ISBN 068618551X) examined and concluded that there was no death penalty in any of the 20 instances of apostasy mentioned in the Qur'an.
Abdullah Saeed and Hassan Saeed (Freedom of Religion, Apostasy and Islam, Ashgate Publishing, (March 30, 2004), ISBN 0754630838) argue that the law of apostasy and its punishment by death in Islamic law conflicts with a variety of fundamentals of Islam and with the modern concept of the freedom to choose one's religion. They contend that the early development of the law of apostasy was essentially a religio-political tool, and that there was a large diversity of opinion among early Muslims on the punishment.
The Hadeeth is based on sayings and doings attributed to the Prophet.
Most modern Muslims, however, believe that the Quran is the last word not the Hadeeth.
Countries have death penalties for murder, for treason.
They kill millions of people for policy and on baseless premises.
I do not approve of them either.
Laws, however are political decisions not religious.
That logic is specious, since you presume that human nature is dictated by religion, when it is human nature that distorts religion (among other things) to justify violence.
The problem?
1. Mismatch between philosophy and practice in Islam
2. Overcoming foreign policy by developed countries which promotes and sustains such behavior to fulfill their vested interests.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0109/S00196.htm
The solution? education and reform.
http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu/people3/Esposito/esposito-con4.html
Last edited:
Wwwww...whad I do?wesmorris said:
*averts eyes - hunkering down against the inevitable beating*
Awesome! Thanks! That wes though, he's one badass nerdlord.samcdkey said:Don't worry super. I'm a good fighter and I'm in your camp
(*bringing out WMD* )
Obviously my last long post threatened his plans for world domination!
superluminal said:Awesome! Thanks! That wes though, he's one badass nerdlord.
This in particular:
Don't seek to control and dominate, and laugh at those who would.
I'm a contrarian. It's pathetic.
samcdkey said:
So, you dislike it unless you like it?
4.089 from the quran:
~~~~~
"They long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve, that ye may be upon a level (with them). So choose not friends from them till they forsake their homes in the way of Allah; if they turn back (to enmity) then take them and kill them wherever ye find them, and choose no friend nor helper from among them."
I wonder if you noticed the words 'conflict' and 'religio-political'? In other words, a religious contradiction. And that's just one of them. And it exists despite your claim of not finding any contradictions in Islam.
Are you ready to strip down Islam to find more contradictions?
So what? It's a glaring contradiction in Islam, like many others. I suppose though, that you'll most likely defend your religion and not acknowledge the contradiction exists?
But which country will kill you for leaving your faith? I'm listening...
Actually, if you look at the origins of written law, they were used to establish social classes.
Is it in your human nature to be violent, your parents, family, friends, anyone you know at all?
You WILL find that it is religion that will make those who are not of a violent nature justify violence for their religions. Those people would never do so based on your logic.
And of course, you'd have to show what violent acts those who do justify their violent acts with religion would commit if religion didn't exist and why? They are committing those acts for their beliefs, so if the beliefs didn't exist, what reason would they commit the acts?
You'll need to explain and quantify that claim as it suggests that Muslims are hypocrites or they design their own religions.
Ah yes, blame your own problems on someone else, typical. Sorry, that doesn't fly in the least.
From the link:
"there are many Muslims who see Islam holistically, that religion is related to politics and society"
That would preclude your argument that the problems are political in nature when the politics of the religion ARE the religion.
Further:
"There's an enormous difference between Islamist practice in Saudi Arabia and Islamist practice in many parts of Africa, and certainly in Malaysia and Indonesia."
It would appear that Islam, as a religion whose intent was to establish an absolute way of life, has failed and that those who claim to practice it only use it to design their own brand of religion. Nothing new here.
Lastly:
"The reality of it is that while there are reformers that are pushing for these reforms, democracy is a messy game, as I try to tell people. We forget that the American Revolution was followed by the Civil War, even bloodier. We forget the French Revolution and the post-French Revolution. So we shouldn't be surprised, particularly when coming out of authoritarian cultures, to see a lot of failures along with gradual success. It's going to be a struggle both at the intellectual level and at the political level. We forget when we talk about the Reformation and the Enlightenment, we tend to think that it was just intellectual conversation -- "Luther, and the Pope, and Calvin sat around...." There were religious wars!"
Are we to also expect religious wars in your reform?
And it also appears that your version of education is not the same as mine. You appear to want to "educate" people on Islam, which is essentially an oxymoron.
(Q) said:
I did not realize you were an authority on the Quran and Islamic law.
If you like I can send you the books.
Gasp! people actually are capable of misremembering/misinterpreting?
You don't say!!!!
Ones that have laws saying so?
I bow to your superior knowledge
Actually if we REALLY want to rid the world of violence, there is an easier way .
Thats been the practice so far, with disastrous results.
Neither does putting your head in the sand.
Two words: Islamist practice.
A conclusion is the place where you got tired of thinking.
--Martin H. Fischer
What do you think is happening right now?
I would be very surprised if we had any identical opinions at all.
And your estimable suggestion is .....?
P.S. I gather you have already culled these tedious arguments from previous posters; ergo, is there a point to this?
samcdkey said:
You may roll thine eyes, but that does not preclude the fact that what you said is hypocritical.
I don't consider myself an authority on Islam, I seriously doubt anyone can make that claim for any religion. Didn't you say yourself that religion is open for interpretation?
And of course, its been shown time and again that most here who disagree with religion are far more knowledgable on it than most theists who attempt to defend it.
And, as has been shown time and again with Islam and every other religion, people tend to ignore the blatant contradictions of their religion, as you have done. This has nothing to do with misremembering/misinterpretation and everything to do with cotradictions.
And judging by your response, you are once again ignoring those contradictions.
I see, you wish to chase your tail again. Islamic states IS the correct answer, the one and only answer. And it is shocking that you accept such a barbaric doctrine as a way of life.
Funny, I thought it was common knowledge? Perhaps not so under Islamic rule?
From the link:
"Natural selection has outfitted males with the tools for success in male-male competition, much of it violent.
Among vertebrates in particular, males tend to be relatively large, conspicuous in color and behavior, and endowed with intimidating weapons (tusks, fangs, claws, antlers, etc.) and a willingness to employ them, largely because such traits were rewarded, over evolutionary time, with enhanced reproductive success.
At the same time, since the sex ratio is one to one, for every harem master, there are 39 disappointed bachelors. As a result, some males will be immensely successful and others will be failures.
In addition, the greater the difference in reproductive payoff (variance in numbers of offspring), the greater the difference in aggressiveness among males. With reproductive success more variable, males are more competitive.
Before the cultural homogenization that came with Judeo-Christian colonial (and marital) doctrine, polygyny was the preferred marital system for more than 80 percent of human societies.
Larger size and heightened aggressiveness were likely to lead to more surviving children, especially in the long evolutionary childhood of the human species.
Reproduction, after all, lies at the root of why living things live, and why they seek to dominate.
This is not to claim that females aren't aggressive in their own way. There are interesting cases of vigorous female-female competition in animals... I predict, in fact, that further research will reveal that female-female competition among animals is more widespread than currently recognized.
When it comes to the most serious violent crime, homicide, men are far and away the most frequent perpetrators. They are also most likely to be the victims, precisely as evolutionary theory predicts.
Thus, even though a 13th-century Englishman was 20 times more likely to be murdered than an Englishman is today...
From an evolutionary perspective, therefore, it is not surprising that young men, especially those from disadvantaged social and ethnic groups, are overrepresented among drug addicts, violent criminals, prisoners, and death-row inmates. And that angry and alienated men make up the overwhelming majority of violent terrorists.
So people grow up that way, it is claimed, meeting the expectations that society imposes on them.
All of the above is not meant to imply that biology is the sole explanation for the gender gap in human violence. We cannot do a thing about our evolutionary bequeathal; hence, we had better do all we can to ameliorate those conditions that predispose people to violence."
Religion would be a good start as it has nothing to do with the evolutionary instincts of human reproduction, but instead provides reasons to commit violent acts.
Yet, you whole-heartedly accept those results since you accept your religion and have claimed to have found no contradictions.
The plot thickens.
Very well, when will Muslims be doing so?
Hence, the failure of the religion.
HA! Martin also had this quote to offer:
"Education is the process of driving a set of prejudices down your throat."
Religious wars?
If your opinions are driven by religious dogma, how credible are they? If you claim that religion is interpretive, then your opinions are based on YOUR personal interpretations of that religion. In other words, they are only valid with those who agree with your personal interpretations, hence not valid with other members of your faith who don't, members of any other faiths and those who have no faith at all - a very large percentage of the population.
Education, pure and simple.
The point is to show that you whole-heartedly accept your religion as true and that you find no contradictions in interpretive doctrines that show glaring contradictions, which up to now, you've refused to acknowledge. And even though you now appear to be acknowledging them, you continue to defend your religion and are now accepting those contradictions. What's worse, is that you also accept the barbaric nature of those doctrines as if they were perfectly natural.
You accept the killing of apostates.
You accept the violence of your religion and the wars generated by it.
You accept the past campaigns and wars that provided the fundamental building blocks of your religion.