muslims PART 2

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Because I don't see the point in debating with a wall.

I had already formed conclusions for myself on this issue before entering this debate. Otherwise I would not have debated, but would only have listened. I dare say the same is true of you. No one argues if they don't already have a view, for otherwise what would they say? The view people start out with may be considered a bias, and I understand that people will always have their start-out biases when they enter a debate. So yes, I am biased now. However, I try to think carefully about every point people raise, and if what they say is beyond my current knowledge, to research them.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

If someone refuses to even consider the real-world underpinnings behind the religious attrocities of the past and the future there is nothing I can say to change that.

You can only lead a horse to water...

I have considered the real-world underpinnings you speak of, and I agree that environment is an important factor. I have never denied that.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Simply put, everything is a factor, but environment far outweighs the purely theological.

I think this is a large generalization. While sometimes environment is very likely the most important factor, other times, religion is the very likely the most important factor. As I argued in post 49. And I've done more research this weekend, by the way. I can now cite more examples, ones that are very large scale and clearly purely religion.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

The simple fact that perfectly peaceful, yet devout muslims, exist in some parts of the world proves that it must be something other than the muslim belief that leads to violence.

Not necessarily, for the peace is a modern twist in an overall violent history, and the trend is back toward violence. It's also true that people do interpret their religions in different ways. The liberal interpretation of Islam is, I agree, far less violent than fundamentalist Islam. However, fundamentalist Islam is what the religion has been over most of the spectrum of history, fundamentalist Islam is what the religion started out as, and fundamentalist Islam is what it is more and more reverting back to.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

And the fact that christians can be very violent proves that that religious belief system does not necessarily lead to peace.

No, because it's more than one religious belief system you're looking at, more than one interpretation of Christianity, just as we're seeing more than one interpretation of Islam.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

No, because it's more than one religious belief system you're looking at, more than one interpretation of Christianity, just as we're seeing more than one interpretation of Islam.

Then the key would be to encourage the peaceful forms of islam (or christianity) and discourage the violent ones. Not the much more difficult and controversial method of asking people to toss aside the faith they grew up with in favor of a completely different one.

And since the fundamental faiths tend to be more violent (i.e. the ones who hold scripture over reality, or say that a certain scripture is reality no matter what is show to them), those should be avoided.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

No one argues if they don't already have a view...

Tell that to Socrates.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Then the key would be to encourage the peaceful forms of islam (or christianity) and discourage the violent ones. Not the much more difficult and controversial method of asking people to toss aside the faith they grew up with in favor of a completely different one.

And since the fundamental faiths tend to be more violent (i.e. the ones who hold scripture over reality, or say that a certain scripture is reality no matter what is show to them), those should be avoided.

*light-bulb over head

I have an idea! Let's go back to the old days of outlawing Catholicism! And while we're at it, let's get Evangelical Christians, Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, and Orthodox Jews!

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

*light-bulb over head

I have an idea! Let's go back to the old days of outlawing Catholicism! And while we're at it, let's get Evangelical Christians, Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, and Orthodox Jews!

Just in the halls of the government. They can do whatever they like anywhere else.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Then the key would be to encourage the peaceful forms of islam (or christianity) and discourage the violent ones. Not the much more difficult and controversial method of asking people to toss aside the faith they grew up with in favor of a completely different one.

Encouraging the more peaceful forms of Islam is one of the solutions I suggested in the strategy I offered. Considering Islam's history and modern trends, however, as well as what the doctrines themselves say, I don't think that this solution is enough on its own. It won't solve the problem.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Just in the halls of the government. They can do whatever they like anywhere else.

Yeah, and then let's all vote for Stalin!

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Tell that to Socrates.

Actually, Socrates very definitely did have views. His argument was that one must know what one is basing one's argument on. One must know what one's assumptions are. Because the Sophists didn't have solid backing for their statements, their arguments were twigs floating on water rather than buildings founded on land.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

And since the fundamental faiths tend to be more violent (i.e. the ones who hold scripture over reality, or say that a certain scripture is reality no matter what is show to them), those should be avoided.

*Starts pointing fingers.*

It is primarily liberals who are advocating abortion (which has exterminated 40 million children in the US), and it was Hindus who invented the caste system. It was the atheist Stalin who butchered 20 million of his own people, and Communism was an atheist movement.

We should stick to the faith we believe to be true, or the nonfaith we believe to be true, unless we come to stop believing in that faith or nonfaith. We should be intellectually honest.

One thing that should be pointed out is that the amount of violence a religion causes does not make it right or wrong. If radical Islam causes a lot of violence, that doesn't mean that that perspective of Islam is incorrect. If America is the Great Satan, killing me may well be a good deed, and exterminating all Americans may also be a very good deed. However, since we don't view that religious perspective as correct, we can only resist it.

[HOBBIT]

"It is primarily liberals who are advocating abortion (which has exterminated 40 million children in the US)"

Many things wrong with your statement. First and foremost - fetuses aren't children. Not murder in the least. People on both sides of the spectrum support a woman's right to choose.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by HOBBIT

"It is primarily liberals who are advocating abortion (which has exterminated 40 million children in the US)"

Many things wrong with your statement. First and foremost - fetuses aren't children. Not murder in the least.

Responding to this would take us off topic, I think.

Originally Posted by HOBBIT

People on both sides of the spectrum support a woman's right to choose.

Here is the Republican Party on abortion:

We say the unborn child has a fundamental right to life. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and we endorse legislation that the 14th Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children. Our purpose is to have legislative and judicial protection of that right against those who perform abortions. We oppose using public revenues for abortion and will not fund organizations which advocate it. We support the appointment of judges who respect the sanctity of innocent human life.

Here is the Democratic Party on abortion:

The Democratic Party stands behind the right of every woman to choose, consistent with Roe v. Wade, and regardless of ability to pay.

The Democratic Party is largely liberal, and the Republican Party conservative. There are of course people who don't fall into either of these large categories, however.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

You can only lead a horse to water...

Just thought I'd mention in response to this, I'm glad I'm not a horse that needs to be lead to water! I don't like being led around! Though if you provide me with convincing enough evidence that the water is in fact that way, I'll go get a drink!

[Spock]

THIS IS MUSLIMS

THERE IS A THREAD ON ABORTION SOMEWHERE

IF YOU ALL CONSIDER THAT BEFORE POSTING HERE FURTHER, WE WON'T

HAVE TO SPLIT OFF THE THREAD.

THANKS

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

It is primarily liberals who are advocating abortion (which has exterminated 40 million children in the US),

What hobbit said.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

and it was Hindus who invented the caste system.

Another example of why fundamentalism is a bad thing.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

It was the atheist Stalin who butchered 20 million of his own people, and Communism was an atheist movement.

The issue here was more about absolute power in one individual than faith. But Stalin presented communism in much the same way as some fundamentalists present their faiths: the absolute truth. He made communism a "religion".

Thus again: fundamentalism = bad for society.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

We should stick to the faith we believe to be true, or the nonfaith we believe to be true, unless we come to stop believing in that faith or nonfaith. We should be intellectually honest.

I have no problem with that on a personal level. The issue is how you balance this with interacting with the rest of society that do not share your views. Do you see them as inferior or wrong, or do you accept that their views may be just as true as yours from their point of view?

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

One thing that should be pointed out is that the amount of violence a religion causes does not make it right or wrong. If radical Islam causes a lot of violence, that doesn't mean that that perspective of Islam is incorrect. If America is the Great Satan, killing me may well be a good deed, and exterminating all Americans may also be a very good deed. However, since we don't view that religious perspective as correct, we can only resist it.

If "right and wrong" speaks to what is good for human society, then it does make a difference how much violence a certain belief system allows people to accept as justified.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Just in the halls of the government.

What do you mean by this, specifically?

And to be a bit more on-topic, do non-Muslims have any say in Muslim society?

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

What do you mean by this, specifically?

And to be a bit more on-topic, do non-Muslims have any say in Muslim society?

The basic separation of church and state. No "christian", "muslim" or "jewish" states and, more importantly, no laws based on scripture alone. Sure, laws may coincide with scripture (i.e. some of the ten comandments, etc.). But they have to stand on there own ground. Just being from a holy book aint good enough, and is, in fact, irrelavant to their implementation.

To put it bluntly, every opinion under the sun can be expressed, including religious ones (even the baby eating one ), but none are endorsed or implemented purely because some book says it what "the man" wants. Prove it's a good policy in the real world and convince the rest of the population. And expect opinions to change about what is and isn't good for society as times change.

It's called democracy.

[Lotesse]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

The basic separation of church and state. No "christian", "muslim" or "jewish" states and, more importantly, no laws based on scripture alone. Sure, laws may coincide with scripture (i.e. some of the ten comandments, etc.). But they have to stand on there own ground. Just being from a holy book aint good enough, and is, in fact, irrelavant to their implementation.

To put it bluntly, every opinion under the sun can be expressed, including religious ones (even the baby eating one ), but none are endorsed or implemented purely because some book says it what "the man" wants. Prove it's a good policy in the real world and convince the rest of the population. And expect opinions to change about what is and isn't good for society as times change.

It's called democracy.

*sneaks in real quick, gives brownjenkins a little hug & peck on cheek, 'cause Lotsy loves the jenkins, then disappears again in swirl of black cloak*

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

What hobbit said.

What I said to him .

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Another example of why fundamentalism is a bad thing.

So you view Hinduism as a largely fundamentalist religion? In spite of their acceptance of many other religions as valid paths to God?

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

The issue here was more about absolute power in one individual than faith. But Stalin presented communism in much the same way as some fundamentalists present their faiths: the absolute truth. He made communism a "religion".

Thus again: fundamentalism = bad for society.

You believe your philosophy is right, and I don't believe you'd change your mind, no matter what evidence is presented you.

The more people are convinced they're right, whether they think they're believing in "absolute truth" or not, the more they correspond in behavior and outlook to what you see as fundamentalism. What you're saying is that people should keep an open mind, correct?

However, the more people look at evidence, the more people's minds close (on any issue), because they come to conclusions based on that evidence. The only way for people to really keep an open mind is for them to not know anything. Absolute certainty can as easily come from knowledge as from ignorance, and as easily from liberalism or any other perspective as from "fundamentalism". I've seen that, so I know what I'm saying is true. The only way to avoid absolute certainty is to promote absolute ignorance.

People get 100% sure of themselves whether they have a scripture or not. I know loads of people who are non-Christians and are as absolutely sure of themselves as they would be if they based their beliefs on a fundamentalist reading of a scripture. That is why in the last couple months I've stopped blaming God for man's ignorance of him. In previous years I thought, naively, "if people only knew all the superb evidence there is about God, they would surely believe!" I still am convinced that the evidence concerning God's existence and nature is extremely strong, but now I have come to see that many, many humans will reject him no matter what.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

I have no problem with that on a personal level. The issue is how you balance this with interacting with the rest of society that do not share your views. Do you see them as inferior or wrong, or do you accept that their views may be just as true as yours from their point of view?

Of course their views are true from their point of view, or to them. That doesn't make them true in fact, however. While knowing that they think they're right, I'm perfectly justified in thinking they're wrong.

If I think that the world is sitting on the back of a giant tortoise rather than orbiting the sun, you have the right to think I'm wrong. If evidence to you suggests that I'm wrong, then think I'm wrong! Meanwhile, if the evidence I see suggests most strongly that you're wrong, I'll believe that you're wrong. We should act on what we believe to be right or wrong in society, just as we should as individuals.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

If "right and wrong" speaks to what is good for human society, then it does make a difference how much violence a certain belief system allows people to accept as justified.

This depends what you see as "good for human society." If human society is morally perverted, corrupt and doing all kinds of evil, perhaps it deserves to be destroyed. Perhaps that is right for that society, though it may not make them happy.

But right and wrong aren't dependent on what makes people happy. It might make me happy to sit at home being lazy, or greedily exploiting people in other countries for the benefit of me and my society, but does that make it right? If right is simply what works for me, nothing is right or everything is right. "Right" is meaningless, and violence is just fine.

If what is "good for human society" is your standard by which right and wrong can be distinguished, what to you is "good for human society," and why should other people think you're right in setting that standard? I am really curious.


This post belongs in the Philosophy thread . This is necessary to get into here though also, of course, for the sake of the debate.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

And to be a bit more on-topic, do non-Muslims have any say in Muslim society?

Non-Muslims are badly suppressed minorities in modern Muslim nations. They were suppressed minorities historically too, but then Christianity was worse. Now, predominantly Christian countries aren't unjust toward their minorities, and Muslim countries have stayed the same as they ever were. This may be a generalization, but overall it is true.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

The basic separation of church and state. No "christian", "muslim" or "jewish" states and, more importantly, no laws based on scripture alone.

From your post, it sounded as though you wanted to keep all religious people out of the government.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Sure, laws may coincide with scripture (i.e. some of the ten comandments, etc.). But they have to stand on there own ground. Just being from a holy book aint good enough, and is, in fact, irrelavant to their implementation.

There has to be an ethical standard in laws, else we are making bad laws. Many people's views on ethics come from scripture. Why should an atheist's or an agnostic's ethical perspective be favored over a religious person's ethical perspective in law? Secularism is as much a belief as religion is.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

To put it bluntly, every opinion under the sun can be expressed, including religious ones (even the baby eating one ), but none are endorsed or implemented purely because some book says it what "the man" wants.

The only way you'd be able to enforce this is by keeping all religious people from voting, for many will vote in ways determined by beliefs that stem from scripture.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Actually, Socrates very definitely did have views. His argument was that one must know what one is basing one's argument on. One must know what one's assumptions are. Because the Sophists didn't have solid backing for their statements, their arguments were twigs floating on water rather than buildings founded on land.

But read his works! He's saying all the time, "I don't know. I don't have an answer to this question. I don't have any idea, all I know is you're wrong." In the Apology, he more or less said that his wisdom was his knowledge that he didn't have wisdom!

Of course, I think he was full of it; I mean, come on..."Let's just randomly make this imaginary city, and of course because a city is exactly like a rational soul, there will be exact correlation between the parts of the city and the parts of the soul." *Socrates constructs it so, and then...* "Oh, wow, it worked out! Gee, whoda thunk, huh?"

He is so full of it.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

The Democratic Party is largely liberal, and the Republican Party conservative. There are of course people who don't fall into either of these large categories, however.

Like me. I need to find a monarchist party before the next election (and no, Bush doesn't count. )

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

The basic separation of church and state. No "christian", "muslim" or "jewish" states and, more importantly, no laws based on scripture alone. Sure, laws may coincide with scripture (i.e. some of the ten comandments, etc.). But they have to stand on there own ground. Just being from a holy book aint good enough, and is, in fact, irrelavant to their implementation.

To put it bluntly, every opinion under the sun can be expressed, including religious ones (even the baby eating one ), but none are endorsed or implemented purely because some book says it what "the man" wants. Prove it's a good policy in the real world and convince the rest of the population. And expect opinions to change about what is and isn't good for society as times change.

It's called democracy.

Which inherently sucks.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

The more people are convinced they're right, whether they think they're believing in "absolute truth" or not, the more they correspond in behavior and outlook to what you see as fundamentalism. What you're saying is that people should keep an open mind, correct?

Yes. And the way for people to keep an open mind is to realize that they don't really know anything 100%. They must realize that truths are relative, yet at the same time interdependant, and approach human society with this in mind.

You say: "The only way for people to really keep an open mind is for them to not know anything".

Not at all. You can have all kinds of personal convictions and still have an open mind. An open mind is not about what you believe to be true. It is about what you allow and accept other people to believe as true.

But right and wrong aren't dependent on what makes people happy. It might make me happy to sit at home being lazy, or greedily exploiting people in other countries for the benefit of me and my society, but does that make it right? If right is simply what works for me, nothing is right or everything is right. "Right" is meaningless, and violence is just fine.

"Right" is not what works for you. It is what works the best for everyone on this planet in the long term.

The problem with fundamentalists is that they do not have the ability to put themselves in other people's shoes, because the very nature of fundamentalism demands that all people wear the same shoes.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Which inherently sucks.

Some argue that the best form of government is a Benevolent Monarchy, which is what all religions essentially attempt to be.

[GreyMouser]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Like me. I need to find a monarchist party before the next election (and no, Bush doesn't count. )



Which inherently sucks.

Well, as Churchill said- "Democracy is the worst form of government- except for all the others"