Religion

[(Q)]

Depends on when and where the verses are revealed.

There are two parts to the Quran. Some verses were revealed in Mecca and give the principles of Islam and the path of faith. Others were revealed in Medina at those times when the Prophet was under attack and was fighting for his life and for the lives of his followers.

"As the ranks of Muhammad's followers swelled, he became a threat to the local tribes and the rulers of the city. Their wealth, after all, rested on the Kaaba, the focal point of Meccan religious life. If they threw out their idols due to the preachings of Muhammad, the tribal and city leaders feared, there would be no more pilgrims, no more trade, and no more wealth.

Muhammad turned to raiding caravans bound for Mecca. Caravan-raiding was an old Arabian tradition and according to Watt was "a kind of sport rather than war"[8] and that the object of the raids was to take animals and other goods but killing was carefully avoided. [9]; Muslims justified the raids by the Meccans' confiscation of the property they had left at Mecca and the state of war deemed to exist between the Meccans and the Muslims.

In March of 624, Muhammad led some three hundred warriors in a raid on a Meccan merchant caravan. The Meccans successfully defended the caravan and then decided to teach the Medinans a lesson. They sent a small army against Medina. On March 15, 624 near a place called Badr, the Meccans and the Muslims clashed. Though outnumbered more than three times (one thousand to three hundred) in the battle, the Muslims met with success, killing at least forty-five Meccans and taking seventy prisoners for ransom; only fourteen Muslims died. This marked the real beginning of Muslim military achievement."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad#War[/QUOTE]

 

[S.A.M.]

Uh-huh. And I said that even the military will react to defend a country from other sources; ie. nature. Are we back at square one?

Only if you refuse to admit that the primary purpose of a military defense is to train people to kill in defense.

First of all, I showed you that you were wrong in that religion offers absolutes when you claimed it was my opinion, and you didn't even acknowledge that, after I acknowledged yesterday I was wrong. Intolerance?

Did I not acknowledge that it was a result of human thought and that religion is not a requirement for absolutism? And no, I believe you have a right to your opinions; if everyone thought alike there'd be nothing left to discuss. So I acknowledge that some people interpret religious texts and see moral absolutes, just as some other people see ethical principles as moral absolutes, reagrdless of religion. Am I clear now?

I agree with a lot of what you say about theists in general; I'm neither blind nor stupid, though you seem to think so.

Secondly, I never said we as humans DON'T create our own absolutes, regardless of whether we're right or wrong.

Yes, I agree. So we are agreed on this then? That has to be a first.

The entire point was that monotheistic religions (caveat for Ron) only offer absolutes, not theories.

I do not know about all other monotheistic religions, but as far as Islam is concerned, an educated Islamic scholar and a lay man with no knowledge of the history and the religion are not equal in their understanding of the verses. Even Muhammed was unable to get his message across to all the people.

Religion is man made, and there is much debate on whether "thought" was part of the equation. Thought would infer thinking, which is antithetical to monotheistic religions (another caveat for Ron).

This is an atheistic view, so I have no comment.

No, the problem is that there is no ONE god. If there were, we would all know about it and would all agree, there would be no confusion. There would be no so-called prophets as we would all instinctively know of that one god.

You know, I love the way you think. (really, it's very refreshing)
Is it ever possible for all human beings to instinctively know anything for sure?
First of all, instinct and reason are contradictory processes; the more we depend on reason, the less we trust our instincts and vice eversa.
So maybe we did know, and made a mess of it when we started reasoning through everything. How about that?

 

[(Q)]

Agreement is an act of will, not necessarily a symptom of knowing.

If you rather insist on attempting to rationalise that which is instinctive (i.e. by definition unlearned) I am not so surprised if you run into problems.

Why not try from time to time to agree instinctively instead of reasoning?

--- Ron.

That IS the point, Ron. Instinctively, if we were the creation of ONE god, we would all know it. We would all agree with one another those tenets of that ONE god.

An omnipotent, omniscient god would only know too well that revealing his word to a single individual; ie. prophet, that there would be confusion and misinterpretation. Of course, the so-called prophets throughout history have done exactly that.

Now we have, what, somewhere in the vicinity of 10,000 gods, all claimed to be the ONE god?

Hasn't that ONE god clearly fouled up his method of communication? Didn't he learn the first time round?

 

[perplexity]

Hasn't that ONE god clearly fouled up his method of communication? Didn't he learn the first time round?

If on occasion he just can't be bothered, then I know how he feels.

--- Ron.

 

[S.A.M.]

"As the ranks of Muhammad's followers swelled, he became a threat to the local tribes and the rulers of the city. Their wealth, after all, rested on the Kaaba, the focal point of Meccan religious life. If they threw out their idols due to the preachings of Muhammad, the tribal and city leaders feared, there would be no more pilgrims, no more trade, and no more wealth.

Muhammad turned to raiding caravans bound for Mecca. Caravan-raiding was an old Arabian tradition and according to Watt was "a kind of sport rather than war"[8] and that the object of the raids was to take animals and other goods but killing was carefully avoided. [9]; Muslims justified the raids by the Meccans' confiscation of the property they had left at Mecca and the state of war deemed to exist between the Meccans and the Muslims.

In March of 624, Muhammad led some three hundred warriors in a raid on a Meccan merchant caravan. The Meccans successfully defended the caravan and then decided to teach the Medinans a lesson. They sent a small army against Medina. On March 15, 624 near a place called Badr, the Meccans and the Muslims clashed. Though outnumbered more than three times (one thousand to three hundred) in the battle, the Muslims met with success, killing at least forty-five Meccans and taking seventy prisoners for ransom; only fourteen Muslims died. This marked the real beginning of Muslim military achievement."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad#War

Yes it's interesting is it not? I wonder how they were able to defeat an army that outnumbered them three to one. And it must have been especially hard on Muhammed since the Qureysh were his tribe and he grew up among them.

In 622, with open acts of violence being committed against the Muslims by their fellow Quraishi tribesmen, Muhammad and many of his followers fled to the neighboring city of Medina.

So they were forced to flee their homes by the Quraysh.

This migration is called the Hijra and marked the beginning of Muhammad's reign as both a temporal as well as a religious leader. Following the hijra, tensions between Mecca and Medina escalated and hostilities broke out in 623 when the Muslims began a series of raids (called ghazawāt in Arabic) on Quraishi caravans. Ghazawāt (s. ghazw) were plundering raids organized by nomadic Bedouin warriors against either rival tribes or wealthier, sedentary neighbors. Since Medina was located just off Mecca's main trade route, the Muslims were in an ideal position to do this. Even though many Muslims were Quraish themselves, they believed that they were entitled to steal from them because the Meccans had expelled them from their homes and tribes, a serious offense in hospitality-oriented Arabia.

In late 623 and early 624, the Muslim ghazawāt grew increasingly brazen and commonplace. In September 623, Muhammad himself led a force of 200 in an unsuccessful raid against a large caravan. Shortly thereafter, the Meccans launched their own "raid" against Medina, although its purpose was just to steal some Muslim livestock. In January 624, the Muslims ambushed a Meccan caravan near Nakhlah, only forty kilometers outside of Mecca, killing one of the guards and formally inaugurating a blood feud with the Meccans. Worse, from a Meccan standpoint, the raid occurred in the month of Rajab, a truce month sacred to the Meccans in which fighting was prohibited and a clear affront to their pagan traditions.It was in this context that the Battle of Badr took place.

You would not be applying your Western moral absolutes here, would you?

 

[S.A.M.]

Not quite.

The problem is the infliction of the knowing best, as if the only reason to reason is to get to budge.

No problem if they mind their own business, content enough to know best for themselves.

--- Ron.

That is right and I agree with you completely.

 

[(Q)]

Only if you refuse to admit that the primary purpose of a military defense is to train people to kill in defense.

Can you show that?

Did I not acknowledge that it was a result of human thought and that religion is not a requirement for absolutism? And no, I believe you have a right to your opinions; if everyone thought alike there'd be nothing left to discuss. So I acknowledge that some people interpret religious texts and see moral absolutes, just as some other people see ethical principles as moral absolutes, reagrdless of religion. Am I clear now?

Nope. Religious texts don't assume absolutes, they preach them. It is the individual who choses to acknowledge those absolutes or not.

Is it a moral absolute for atheists not to intentionally harm others? Yes. In self-defence? No.

The point is that if all were atheists and never intentionally harmed others, there would be no reason for self-defence. Am I clear now?

I agree with a lot of what you say about theists in general; I'm neither blind nor stupid, though you seem to think so.

I never said you were stupid, did I? If so, I apologize. However, one cannot follow the tenets of a religion when many, if not all of the tenets are absolutes that are contradictive. Anything gleaned from religion that may appear useful did not originate because of that religion, but through natural means.

Yes, I agree. So we are agreed on this then? That has to be a first.

No, I think we actually agreed upon something else a while back, though memory escapes me, let me check my calendar.

I do not know about all other monotheistic religions, but as far as Islam is concerned, an educated Islamic scholar and a lay man with no knowledge of the history and the religion are not equal in their understanding of the verses. Even Muhammed was unable to get his message across to all the people.

Hence, the religion is Muhammedanism and there is no ONE god. There would be no need for verses as we would all instinctively know how to live, according to that ONE god.

We were born atheists, not theists.

This is an atheistic view, so I have no comment.

But, you too are an atheist, I simply believe in one less god then you. You don't believe in Zeus, do you?

You know, I love the way you think. (really, it's very refreshing)
Is it ever possible for all human beings to instinctively know anything for sure?
First of all, instinct and reason are contradictory processes; the more we depend on reason, the less we trust our instincts and vice eversa.
So maybe we did know, and made a mess of it when we started reasoning through everything. How about that?

Possibly, but I doubt it. If there was anything we as humans would instinctively know, it would be the ONE god that existed, the creator of us and the universe, the ONE entity that controls all human destinies, that which is the very fabric of space, tim, nature and our very being.

For the amount of effort theists have invented their all-powerful, all-knowing god to be, that god has not shown one iota of those efforts, that power and that knowing.

 

[(Q)]

If on occasion he just can't be bothered, then I know how he feels.

--- Ron.

Seems he bothered to create an entire universe, in all its splendour, wonderment and detail, just for us.

Seems that god isn't the all-powerful, all-knowing god he is purported to be if he can't be bothered to communicate his word with at least some clarity.

Maybe he's just lazy and sloppy?

 

[(Q)]

Yes it's interesting is it not? I wonder how they were able to defeat an army that outnumbered them three to one. And it must have been especially hard on Muhammed since the Qureysh were his tribe and he grew up among them.

Defeating an army while outnumbered is irrelavent to the discussion.

Maybe he thought the Qureysh would simply roll over?

So they were forced to flee their homes by the Quraysh.

You would not be applying your Western moral absolutes here, would you?

Did you read those quotes?

 

[S.A.M.]

Can you show that?

Military:

While military can refer to any armed force, it generally refers to a permanent, professional force of soldiers or guerrillas—trained exclusively for the purpose of warfare.

War: (redirected from warfare)

War is a conflict involving the organized use of weapons and physical force by states or other large-scale groups. Warring parties usually hold territory, which they can win or lose; and each has a leading person or organization which can surrender, or collapse, thus ending the war. Wars are usually a series of military campaigns between two opposing sides involving a dispute over, amongst others issues, sovereignty, territory, resources, religion, or ideology.

Military campaign:

Military campaigns are usually a connected series of battles (or instances of combat in warfare between two or more parties wherein each group seeks to defeat the others) and the maneuvers that is conducted by a military force (regular or irregular) seeking victory in a war. Military campaigns are more often undertaken by permanent, professional force of soldiers or guerrillas—trained units as distinguished from the operation by militia or other temporary forces.

Nope. Religious texts don't assume absolutes, they preach them. It is the individual who choses to acknowledge those absolutes or not.

Give me an example of an absolute preached by a religious text.

Is it a moral absolute for atheists not to intentionally harm others? Yes. In self-defence? No.

So a girl who is being raped or a child who is being molested or a dog who is being whipped cannot attack in self defence?

Or do you mean it's not a moral absolute in self defence?
If so, how would you define or even claim self defence?
You might be mistaken in intent; so is the motive important or the result?

And what about ethical quandries?
Is it alright to kill 2 men to save one child?
Or is the one child not worth it?
Does the character of the two men play a role here?

Moral absoslutism is all very well in theory but making practical decisions based on them are very very difficult.

If you work in a hospital, you come across too many of them.

The point is that if all were atheists and never intentionally harmed others, there would be no reason for self-defence. Am I clear now?

Stalin was an atheist, so was Mao, so was Pol Pot They were also dictators and mass murderers- and we only know of them because they were famous; so why should I believe you when you say atheism will remove the need for self-defence. Seems to me all the atheists who reached political prominence turned into mass murderers- i.e. the evidence points in the other direction. An increase in atheism may remove moral boundaries for impressionable people (which you will agree make up a great deal of the population) and cause widespread increase in harm done.

However, one cannot follow the tenets of a religion when many, if not all of the tenets are absolutes that are contradictive. Anything gleaned from religion that may appear useful did not originate because of that religion, but through natural means.

You do not follow the tenets of a religion; you follow its philosophy.
When we discuss religion as a way of life, we use the verses to support its philosophy, not vice versa.

No, I think we actually agreed upon something else a while back, though memory escapes me, let me check my calendar.

Imagine that! Twice in as many months!

Hence, the religion is Muhammedanism and there is no ONE god. There would be no need for verses as we would all instinctively know how to live, according to that ONE god.

Let us agree to disagree.

We were born atheists, not theists.

Who knows? We lost touch with our real instincts eons ago.

But, you too are an atheist, I simply believe in one less god then you. You don't believe in Zeus, do you?

I might. There were a 100,000 (or 124,000) prophets before Mohammed. And human beings are so creative.

Possibly, but I doubt it. If there was anything we as humans would instinctively know, it would be the ONE god that existed, the creator of us and the universe, the ONE entity that controls all human destinies, that which is the very fabric of space, tim, nature and our very being.

Honey, if we were separated from our mothers at birth, would we instinctively recognise her 20 years later?

For the amount of effort theists have invented their all-powerful, all-knowing god to be, that god has not shown one iota of those efforts, that power and that knowing.

Why should he?

 

[S.A.M.]

Defeating an army while outnumbered is irrelavent to the discussion.

Just wondering. They were poorer and less well equipped. And so little is known about the strategies.

Maybe he thought the Qureysh would simply roll over?

Since he grew up among them, that would have been unlikely.

Did you read those quotes?

Yes, why?

 

[S.A.M.]

Seems he bothered to create an entire universe, in all its splendour, wonderment and detail, just for us.

Seems that god isn't the all-powerful, all-knowing god he is purported to be if he can't be bothered to communicate his word with at least some clarity.

Maybe he's just lazy and sloppy?

Maybe we are not that important in the general scheme of things?

 

[(Q)]

Military:

War: (redirected from warfare)

Military campaign:

Nice examples, so when are you going to show that, "purpose of a military defense is to train people to kill" ?

Give me an example of an absolute preached by a religious text.

Surely, you jest. How about:

"God is the Creator of everything."

Isn't that an absolute tenet?

So a girl who is being raped or a child who is being molested or a dog who is being whipped cannot attack in self defence?

Yes, I can see that your confused. Why the need for defence against people when the idea is to not intentionally do harm to others? That is where Islam fails and is shown as a man-made invention.

Or do you mean it's not a moral absolute in self defence?
If so, how would you define or even claim self defence?
You might be mistaken in intent; so is the motive important or the result?

If I never intentionally harmed you, would you need to defend yourself against me?

And what about ethical quandries?
Is it alright to kill 2 men to save one child?
Or is the one child not worth it?
Does the character of the two men play a role here?

Sorry, those are loaded questions and are irrelevant to the discussion. Besides, you'll need to provide a lot of details to substantiate why the necessity to kill two people to save one person. Threads like that have been created here but usually fail from the get go.

Moral absoslutism is all very well in theory but making practical decisions based on them are very very difficult.

If you work in a hospital, you come across too many of them.

Are hospitals in the practice of intentionally doing harm to others?

Stalin was an atheist, so was Mao, so was Pol Po

Here we go again, the same old tired pointless arguments about a few insane individuals who created ideoligies WITH the intention to harm others.

An increase in atheism may remove moral boundaries for impressionable people (which you will agree make up a great deal of the population) and cause widespread increase in harm done.

A very poor joke, at best. You'll need to show how embracing the concept of not intentionally doing harm to others somehow removes moral boundaries. If the intolerance of your religion, and others, are any indication of moral boundaries, then you've failed in that assumption.

You do not follow the tenets of a religion; you follow its philosophy.
When we discuss religion as a way of life, we use the verses to support its philosophy, not vice versa.

Then, treat it like a philosophy, instead of a religion, and remove all the ridiculous notions of gods, angels, intolerance and the rest of the garbage which shows religion as complete fantasy.

Let us agree to disagree.

So, you disagree that if ONE god were to exist, his only means of communicating to us is through a single individual? Hogwash!

I have some swamp land for you to buy.

Who knows? We lost touch with our real instincts eons ago.

More hogwash! As well, that has nothing to do with my statement.

I might. There were a 100,000 (or 124,000) prophets before Mohammed. And human beings are so creative.

There are prophets standing on most city street corners. You've decided to select one of them and make him your master. Again, I have some swamp land...

Honey, if we were separated from our mothers at birth, would we instinctively recognise her 20 years later?

Strawman.

Why should he?

To support the notion he actually exists.

 

[(Q)]

Just wondering. They were poorer and less well equipped. And so little is known about the strategies.

Then, perhaps it's all fabrication?

Since he grew up among them, that would have been unlikely.

Not really, Joseph Smith grew up amongst the same people he duped.

Maybe we are not that important in the general scheme of things?

You and I exist, we've shown that to each other by our communication here. Gods have never been shown to exist. I would submit that gods are far less important in the general scheme of things then we.

 

[S.A.M.]

Then, perhaps it's all fabrication?

Unfortunately there is evidence of the war from historians.

Not really, Joseph Smith grew up amongst the same people he duped.

Supports my hypothesis that he knew them well.

You and I exist, we've shown that to each other by our communication here. Gods have never been shown to exist. I would submit that gods are far less important in the general scheme of things then we.

You are most welcome to your opinions.

 

[S.A.M.]

Nice examples, so when are you going to show that, "purpose of a military defense is to train people to kill" ?

Do you expect a flyer that says, "like to kill, join the military"?
(reminds me of Asterix and the Roman legions 'See the world, they said. Join the army, they said.' )

I worked with the army for one year. And watched their training programs.
That is exactly what they learn, to kill as many of the enemy while protecting as many of their own. And how to dehumanize the enemy so they are merely "targets".

Surely, you jest. How about:

"God is the Creator of everything."

Isn't that an absolute tenet?

This is a moral absolute?

Yes, I can see that your confused. Why the need for defence against people when the idea is to not intentionally do harm to others? That is where Islam fails and is shown as a man-made invention.

And you intend to enforce your morality on people how exactly?

If I never intentionally harmed you, would you need to defend yourself against me?

And if you did, would I be justified in doing so?

Are hospitals in the practice of intentionally doing harm to others?

No but they make ethical decisions about saving people all the time.

Here we go again, the same old tired pointless arguments about a few insane individuals who created ideoligies WITH the intention to harm others.

How do you know that? According to you theists are warmongers; but history shows that atheists can be savages too. So what makes one right but not the other?

So, you disagree that if ONE god were to exist, his only means of communicating to us is through a single individual? Hogwash!

No I agree that we have different ideas about some things and it is pointless to go around in circles. We've been through this dance already.

I have some swamp land for you to buy.

Well seeing as you're not one to intentionally harm anyone, I'd be willing to take you on trust and buy the land.

To support the notion he actually exists.

He has no reason to.

 

[(Q)]

Unfortunately there is evidence of the war from historians.

Unfortunately.

Supports my hypothesis that he knew them well.

And still managed to screw them over.

You are most welcome to your opinions.

As you are welcome to your religious delusions.

I worked with the army for one year. And watched their training programs.
That is exactly what they learn, to kill as many of the enemy while protecting as many of their own. And how to dehumanize the enemy so they are merely "targets".

That doesn't support your claim, but that's ok.

This is a moral absolute?

No, it's a religious absolute, as you requested.

And you intend to enforce your morality on people how exactly?

I'm aghast at your response. Are you saying that we need to enforce people to not do harm to others? Wow, religion really has gone too far.

And if you did, would I be justified in doing so?

But, I wouldn't. So, justification is not required.

No but they make ethical decisions about saving people all the time.

Like what? Whether they should save them or not?

How do you know that? According to you theists are warmongers; but history shows that atheists can be savages too. So what makes one right but not the other?

Atheists are warmongers and we are savages too? hehe Too much, my sides are splitting.

No I agree that we have different ideas about some things and it is pointless to go around in circles. We've been through this dance already.

Actually, we haven't. But, I can see why you'd want to avoid this topic. It would completely dissolve your religion to nothing.

He has no reason to.

Of course he does, he has every reason. What about uniting mankind as one instead of what religion does not, divides people. Clearly, you completely miss this line of reasoning.

One way or another, mankind needs to unite and work together. If religion is the answer, god needs to step up to the plate. If he won't do that, we need to discard him and do it ourselves.

If you can't see that, then blind faith has literally blinded you.

That, or else you actually prefer mankinds divisions from religion.

 

[S.A.M.]

I'm aghast at your response. Are you saying that we need to enforce people to not do harm to others? Wow, religion really has gone too far.

You can't be that naive, surely? What in the name of heaven do you think is the purpose of the legal system?

But, I wouldn't. So, justification is not required.

What if someone else harmed me? Someone not as noble as you. Would I then be justified in defending myself? Say a nutter of the Stalin variety?

Like what? Whether they should save them or not?

You talk like a teenager sometimes.
Mostly its about choices; e.g. who would benefit most from an organ transplant when there is only one available organ and three possible recipients?

Actually, we haven't. But, I can see why you'd want to avoid this topic. It would completely dissolve your religion to nothing.

We have sweetie; this is like round one thousand plus of the same topic beaten to death from all directions.

Of course he does, he has every reason. What about uniting mankind as one instead of what religion does not, divides people. Clearly, you completely miss this line of reasoning.

One way or another, mankind needs to unite and work together. If religion is the answer, god needs to step up to the plate. If he won't do that, we need to discard him and do it ourselves.

If you can't see that, then blind faith has literally blinded you.

That, or else you actually prefer mankinds divisions from religion.

I see GWB has had a profound effect on your thinking. With us or against us, eh?
Well I for one won't presume to influence your thinking.
I need a break from you anyway.

 

[Carcano]

Has religion a monopoly on morality?

The argument of Us and Them, Black & White, Good & Evil, is often used by religion to describe the world.
Since they self-define themselves, almost consistently, as ‘good’ (Us) they insinuate, and often directly state, that the opposite (because they think in absolutes and so perceive polarities) the Them is ‘evil’.

The idea is that one must believe in God to become compassionate or loving or just.
They inadvertently expose their ‘goodness’ as being a product of a threat/promise or of duplicity.

Right! There are two categories: Entities and Qualities.

Religion inherently makes the error of fusing these two categories together.

So that one cannot be considered good (a quality) unless one believes in and worships a certain deity (an entity).

 

[lightgigantic]

“ Originally Posted by (Q)
Hasn't that ONE god clearly fouled up his method of communication? Didn't he learn the first time round? ”



If on occasion he just can't be bothered, then I know how he feels.

--- Ron.

lol
10 points ron