Creating a Religion

[Uncle Martin]

Originally posted by: TINNY

.....they always take literal meanings, ignoring (they cannot be bothered to really comprehend) the figurative aspect.......

Is it not the subjective nature of a figurative interpretation that actually leads to fanaticism? How can anyone comprehend something that is open to any and all interpretations? This is not limited to Islam, but all organized religion.

[TINNY]

Yes it is the best way in my opinion. Religion is something that is not needed but if people wish to devote time on it, then by all means. However, the government should not promote one religion over another.

If the religion is the truth, why not? The government should abide by the divine principles. But that does not necessarily restricts freedom of religion. People can freely practise other religions to a certain extent as to not pose a threat to the harmony of the society.

 

You can't get to absolute truth by any means, but science is the best set of methods we have. Why religion would be good at all is beyond me.

Read my post again

Hm, yes. And secularism as well as other religions were shunned and still are in the fundamentalist world of today. Why religion or dogma is dangerous when used as a powertool is because you take an old myth someone made up a long time ago, and you use it as some sort of guidance. The leader of a certain superpower is guided by his invisible friend and he likes to put ideology before fact. This is of course to go down the road of disaster.

I agree about dogma. Religion does not necessarily mean dogma. Secularism can also be dogma as I have mentioned about communism's disaster to humanity.

[TINNY]

So the line between them is somewhat floating then? The thing they have in common must be belief in supernatural things, right

I think this depends on whether there is free-will. The answer might lie in cognitive psychology or neurology (I know almost nothing about them, but I think these two are the branches that will constitute whether there is free-will). Free-will implies that there is no cause for our actions, meaning that it acts on its own account. Thus, something supernatural can occur (even our very actions are supernatural since they are based on free-will) because there does not necessarily be a cause to the event. Whereas determinism would imply that there is a cause for everything. I wonder whether atheists believe in free will. Anyway, Stephen Covey stated that humans have free-will in his 7habits book where he says that we can choose our response to a stimulus (but of course he's a mormon). Might be worth to check out. (I got the audiobook from warez).

[TINNY]

That's as strange as Christians that claim Christianity existed before their supposed Jesus was born. It is an obvious attempt to give Islam a claim it can not support thru factual History. Basically that area was all Semitic. A group of them left and wondered the world and kept their religion with them. They are today's Jews. While most of those that stayed in the area were converted (often by sword) to Islam some 1400 years ago.

Straying of topic... The point is, before Muhammd received revelation, Arabia was in chaos. After that, there was clear progress to the point that Islam dominated the world of knowledge and had a huge empire.

[TINNY]

n today's major Revelation based religions (those with written texts claimed to be from a god) they pick and choose which passages they want to follow and which to ignore ot twist into something else.

Then they are not truly abiding the revelation.

[TINNY]

Originally posted by: Freethinker

highly probably due to the influence of secular European thought. Then, the Islamic nations became backward and intellectual progress from Muslims slowed. Hmmm... it seems to show that secularism did not bring progress.

That the people choose to accept the promotion of ignorace based on Islam is NOT the fault of Secular movements. This should be listed as a PLUS in Secularism's column.

Never mind about whose fault it is. By accepting secularism, they were evidently overtaken by Europeans.

Yet there are many Muslems that would assert that you are wrong. And the same problem exists with Christianity.

Same applies to atheists

And this is why we need to rid soceity of the harm religions bring. You had specifically stated that Islam is only practiced correctly when it is the ONLY philosophy allowed. When the Government itself is strictly aligned with Islam

What's the problem? Didn't I mention the prosperity of Islam when righly practised? About the harm, I mentioned also social Darwinism.

Exactly. Just the same as the Christian effort to pursue knowledge as long as it stays with-in the boundaries established in the Bible.

Once again, I mentioned that by abiding to the Qur'an, intellectual progress was phenomenal.

They are the reason we are seeing the fighting we are in the World

and Social Darwinism?

[TINNY]

Originally posted by: Uncle Martin

Is it not the subjective nature of a figurative interpretation that actually leads to fanaticism? How can anyone comprehend something that is open to any and all interpretations? This is not limited to Islam, but all organized religion.

The basic tenets of Islam is clear. But the interpretation is open to subjective reasoning and critical thinking.

[Stargazer]

Originally posted by: TINNY

Yes it is the best way in my opinion. Religion is something that is not needed but if people wish to devote time on it, then by all means. However, the government should not promote one religion over another.

If the religion is the truth, why not? The government should abide by the divine principles. But that does not necessarily restricts freedom of religion. People can freely practise other religions to a certain extent as to not pose a threat to the harmony of the society.

What religion would you say is true, and how come an old myth can be more true than the results of science?

 

Hm, yes. And secularism as well as other religions were shunned and still are in the fundamentalist world of today. Why religion or dogma is dangerous when used as a powertool is because you take an old myth someone made up a long time ago, and you use it as some sort of guidance. The leader of a certain superpower is guided by his invisible friend and he likes to put ideology before fact. This is of course to go down the road of disaster.

I agree about dogma. Religion does not necessarily mean dogma. Secularism can also be dogma as I have mentioned about communism's disaster to humanity.

Secularism in itself is not a dogma. What you mentioned was communism. As you probably noticed, I also said that some do put ideology (not necessarily religion) before facts.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: TINNY

do we see so much fanaticism in muslims?

That's an interesting question. One that I have thought over a few times.

I think it is because of ignorance. most don't strive to perfect themselves, and understand the basic tenets and concepts of Islam as a whole. As FT said, they take certain verses and reject others that don't fit with their whim. They become complacent, lazy, and take the easy way. They don't bother to keep up with the latest developments

Interesting. "latest developments"? Has Mohammad come back and added to the Quran?

 

All that is proven with "latest developments" is that the source of revelation, in this case the Quran, is of no objective/ absolute value. It is nothing more than a source of excuses to justify personal decisions. Someone decides to do something because that is what they personally choose. Then they search the Quran to find passages that support it. Same as Christians and the bible.

 

But the Quran is filled with passages that promote hate and prejudice. That promote the agressive attack against any other form of belief or lack there of. Along with specific statements to harm and kill those others.

 

As to why it seems to promenent in Muslems right now is the focus of attention of the media an individual is exposed to. It is obvious that in Muslem areas, the "media" (information sources) are exposing the 'fanaticism" of the infidel (nonMuslem).

 

Remember, the current US admin has on many occasions, including some of the very first words out of Bush's mouth after 9/11, was the "Crusades". The Christian version of jihad.

Don't you notice that top muslim scholars never preach fanaticism and terrorism?

That's a joke. All you are doing is to claim that all of the "Top Muslim Scholars" that DO preach fanaticism are not "Top Muslim Scholars". Yet we know for a fact that the Mideast is filled with madaris that the ONLY education children get are the Koran and hate for the Infidels (nonMuslims).

It's all coming from certaiin sects and wrongly guided fanatics, people who are ignorant.

Nope, just people that selectively view the Koran differently. Well ya. Anyone that gives full validity to the Koran IS ignorant.

The reason they adopt terrorism and fanaticism could be selfishness, anger/hatred,

and adherence to the Koran.

They are not adhering to the basic morality of the Quran.

Yes they are. The Koran, just like the bible has it's very basis in claiming it's followers are THE correct ones. And that all others are to be condemned and punished.

As far as I remember, I've never read or heard a hadith/sunnah (practise/words of Muhammad) about him acting in a violent way.

Repentance 9 :29

"Fight against such of those to whom Scriptures were given as believe neither Allah nor the Last Day, who do not forbid what Allah and His apostle have forbidden, and do not embrace the true faith, until they pay tribute out of hand and are utterly subdued."

 

Repentance 9:4-6

"Proclaim a woeful punishment to the unbelievers...When the sacred months are over slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them. If they repent and take to prayer and pay the alms-tax, let them go their way. Allah is forgiving and merciful[!]"

 

Repentance 9:5

"When the sacred months are drawn away, slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them, and confine them, and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush."

 

The Spoils 8:60:

"Let the unbelievers not think they will escape Us... Muster against them all the men and cavalry at your disposal, so that you may strike terror into the enemies of Allah..."

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: Uncle Martin

Originally posted by: TINNY

.....they always take literal meanings, ignoring (they cannot be bothered to really comprehend) the figurative aspect.......

Is it not the subjective nature of a figurative interpretation that actually leads to fanaticism? How can anyone comprehend something that is open to any and all interpretations? This is not limited to Islam, but all organized religion.

 

And one has to wonder why, if these books (the bible, Koran, ...) are the perfect word of an all powerful god, they can not be taken literally. Always the excuse made of having to "correctly interpret" what their claimed god has literally commanded.

 

But the SECULAR concerns and morals of the individual are appauled by the literal commands placed on them. So they twist the literal word into what ever version of reality they wish to adopt and promote.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: TINNY

Yes it is the best way in my opinion. Religion is something that is not needed but if people wish to devote time on it, then by all means. However, the government should not promote one religion over another.

If the religion is the truth, why not?

And as soon as ANY religion can provide even the first shred of support to show it is the TRUTH, then perhaps we should consider it for guidance. But all have failed completely to do so.

The government should abide by the divine principles. But that does not necessarily restricts freedom of religion. People can freely practise other religions to a certain extent as to not pose a threat to the harmony of the society.

Who draws the line of "to a certain extent" and based on what guidelines?

 

Young girls are forced back into a burning school to their deaths because they did not have their religious garb on. Thus "abid(ing) by the divine principles".

 

Blacks are treated as nonhuman slaves including being killed because the bible says it's OK. Thus "abid(ing) by the divine principles".

 

Research is stopped in areas that can save millions of lives. Thus "abid(ing) by the divine principles".

I agree about dogma. Religion does not necessarily mean dogma. Secularism can also be dogma as I have mentioned about communism's disaster to humanity.

DOGMA - "a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a church" WWWebster

 

Also a GREAT movie!

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: TINNY

Free-will implies that there is no cause for our actions, meaning that it acts on its own account.

It is perhaps more accurate to say that Free Will asserts that the INDIVIDUAL is the CAUSE for our actions. Not that there is no cause. That an individual is Free to use there own WILL to make the final decision. That no specific outcome is predetermined and thus is unknowable in advance.

 

Naturally this is mutually exclusive from any Supreme Begin god beliefs. It is not possible for there to be an entity, a Supreme Being, that has Perfect Knowledge (Omniscience) and for there to be Free Will.

Thus, something supernatural can occur (even our very actions are supernatural since they are based on free-will)

IF we have Free Will, it is still NATURAL. It would be part of our NATURE. Thus it would NOT be Supernatural.

because there does not necessarily be a cause to the event. Whereas determinism would imply that there is a cause for everything.

Again you are misinterpreting what "cause" is. Droping for now, to allow the discussion to flow without dragging it into another BB discussion, the start of our existence, everything since then can be shown to be causal. Plus, there has never been an action/ decision made by a human that was completely ORIGINAL, without ANY prior exposure to related ideas.

 

And you have Determinism backwards. That there would be causes for everything does not mean all actions are strictly deterministic. A person could still decide between multiple possible reactions. Determinism asserts that ALL actions are strictly the results of causality with no options. That EVERY actions is the ONLY action and no decision between alternates exists.

I wonder whether atheists believe in free will.

So do I! :-) In my many years as an Atheist and Pres of an Atheist org, there is no consensus.

 

At least we don't pretend to adopt a stance that is impossible to support. We don't claim an all powerful Omnscient god and the mutually exclusive Free Will at the same time.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: TINNY

Then they are not truly abiding the revelation.

Always the answer. It is always the OTHER believer that has guessed wrong! It is always the OTHER interpretation that is in error.

 

Yet both have the same complete lack of consistancy and support behind them.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: TINNY

Never mind about whose fault it is. By accepting secularism, they were evidently overtaken by Europeans.

Nope, it was that the Christian god is the one true god and therefore was stronger than the false god of Islam. And many in the Bush administration are not afraid to state it anytime they are asked.

 

Bottom line. The battle was won by the stronger of the two. It had nothing to do with Muslims being too Secular any more that the Hurricanes in Fla being a result of Gays being accepted at Disney World.

Yet there are many Muslems that would assert that you are wrong. And the same problem exists with Christianity.

Same applies to atheists

With one MAJOR difference. Atheism does not have a singular agreed source of revelation. When Atheists disagree about mroal tenets and actions, it is NOT because of selective rejection of some claimed Perfect Word in writing. We are not exposing the basic fallacy of our philosophy by disagreeing. We are showing the strength it provides.

And this is why we need to rid soceity of the harm religions bring. You had specifically stated that Islam is only practiced correctly when it is the ONLY philosophy allowed. When the Government itself is strictly aligned with Islam

What's the problem? Didn't I mention the prosperity of Islam when righly practised?

Once again, you can't even get your own group of followers to agree on what when righly practised IS! Nor can you provide a single demonstration of the "prosperity of Islam" to which we could all agree. To some it would be forced adherence to sharia law at any and all costs. To others it is some Westerm Capitalistic variation.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: TINNY

The basic tenets of Islam is clear. But the interpretation is open to subjective reasoning and critical thinking.

So your all powerful god's divine revelation, the Koran, is no better than any other assortment of fairy tales either eh? Individuals are free to draw what ever arbitrary conclusions they wish and still claim to be following it. Sounds as reliable of a source as Mother Goose or Brothers Grimm.

[TINNY]

Originally posted by: Stargazer

Secularism in itself is not a dogma. What you mentioned was communism. As you probably noticed, I also said that some do put ideology (not necessarily religion) before facts.

Where's your proof that secularism is not dogma? I though secularism is an ideology that rejects god. communism surely is secular and, also, the proponents are atheists.

[TINNY]

Originally posted by: Freethinker

All that is proven with "latest developments" is that the source of revelation, in this case the Quran, is of no objective/ absolute value. It is nothing more than a source of excuses to justify personal decisions. Someone decides to do something because that is what they personally choose

'no objective value'?

This might be of use to check out:

http://www.harunyahya.com/miracles_of_the_quran_01.php