Do Not Bash Muslims!

Discuss philosophical questions regarding theism (and atheism), and discuss religion as it relates to philosophy. This includes any philosophical discussions that happen to be about god, gods, or a 'higher power' or the belief of them. This also generally includes philosophical topics about organized or ritualistic mysticism or about organized, common or ritualistic beliefs in the existence of supernatural phenomenon.
Spectrum
Posts: 5160
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: Do Not Bash Muslims!

Post by Spectrum » March 10th, 2018, 10:30 pm

Fanman wrote:
March 10th, 2018, 11:55 am
Spectrum:

Note, re what you've stated about the Islamic Ideology being very dangerous, I think that you're right, you've convinced me on that score. I think it is also repressive (especially towards women) and I find it to be anachronistic; more so than Christianity, which has shown signs of evolution such as allowing gay marriage, would Islam ever allow that to occur? Bearing the dangers and repressive nature of Islamic ideology in mind, I think (purely my opinion) that it will either evolve or dissipate as human rights action progresses - given "x" number of years.

No matter how many Muslims practice their beliefs in peace, because of the negative verses in the Koran which propagate harm, Islam cannot justifiably, in terms of the Ideology, be called "a religion of peace" - so the authorities position on Islam is questionable. This is my opinion and it may be bias as I'm a Westerner, but that's the way I see things at this time. Does any of this mean that we should bash Muslims, of course not, but since there's nothing that can be done to "fix" the ideology, it is understandable that people vent their frustrations regarding the acts of terror towards the culprits.

The authorities will play the politics which best benefit their political position, and at this time, because the majority of Muslims conduct their beliefs in peace, there is no reason to attack the Ideology. In my experience, the West must always seen to be open-minded and accommodating / tolerant of others. I think that where political relationships are beneficial and also generate hard cash, the authorities will tolerate a lot more than if there is nothing to gain - perhaps even the loss of lives. I'm not saying that the authorities are implicit, but even they believe Islam is very dangerous I wouldn't expect them to express that view, not only because of the ramifications of doing so, but it would contradict their own Western Ideology.
Noted your point.
I would suggest if you have the time, research on the Quran to make your conclusions on the evil of Islam more objective. I did that for almost 3 years on a full time basis.

However note this OP - focus on the ideology and not the believers and even the perpetrators who were unfortunately born with an active evil tendency and thus were triggered to commit evil acts by the evil laden elements in the Quran.

Why the evil prone believers will naturally triggered to commit evil acts is because their motivation level has been reduced to the lowest i.e. at the existential level by the existential crisis which turn them to behave like animals, like a drowning man fighting for his life.
When a person's consciousness, awareness and dominant motivation level is triggered [subliminally] at the most fundamental level of existence and the threat of mortality, that person will do whatever it takes to ensure their psychological security.

Why the authorities are impulsive to be politically correct is because among other secondary reasons, the main reason is they have been cowed by the effective strategies of terrors cast upon them as exhorted in the Quran. The authorities and non-Muslims may not be conscious of it but they are definitely affected subliminally - because it is a very natural response.
The Quran understood the effective of that psychology and some authorized guides even insist Muslims must cast terrors into the mind of non-believers at least twice a year. They are doing more times than that and the internet is enhancing its effects and results.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.

User avatar
Fanman
Posts: 2952
Joined: December 14th, 2011, 9:42 am

Re: Do Not Bash Muslims!

Post by Fanman » March 11th, 2018, 1:01 am

Spectrum:
Yes, 'how best to live' is too general, subjective and dangerous if not qualified properly. Note the violent Islamists believed theirs is the best way to live. There are so much negative baggage attached to religions, how can one claimed religion is 'the best way to live'. Obviously all [if not most] believers will insists their religion provide the best way to live.
My point is not based upon the subjective interpretation of “how best to live” within religious ideologies. I'm claiming that all religions expressly give instructions on “how best to live” as a matter of fact, and because of that “how best to live” can be construed as one of the main themes of all religions. The generality of religious instructions of “how best to live” is not relevant to the point I'm making. Also, don't you think that reducing everything religious to existential crisis is too general?
So far you have not given any convincing causes of religions.
It matters not whether you perceive teleology and the ontological argument as causes of religious belief, the fact is that they are.

Note, I guessed you would eventually say that if I put forward any causes of religious belief that differed from your view - that you'd treat my list of causes as a straw man and knock it down in order to “trump” my claims. That's one of the reasons I was hesitant to produce a list. It is was obvious that you would eventually make that claim above. You really shouldn't be so predictable... Why ask me to produce a list of reasons for belief if you have a preconception (existential crisis) which is practically set in stone? It makes you seem preoccupied with being right.
Re my explanation re Ontological God - that is not an opinion.
I have provided very substantial arguments why a God MUST ultimately be ontological in the 'God is Impossible' thread and other posts.
Your not serious. It is patently your opinion. I don't think that the arguments you refer to here are substantive, they are very questionable and have been refuted in many different ways.
I don't think you have researched and reflect deeply on the doctrines of ALL religions. Thus yours is like opinions.
That's interesting. We don't have to “research and reflect deeply” on the doctrines of all religions in order to make valid points about different religions, because there are many aspects of religion that are generic, evident and provide an insight into the ideologies. What have I specifically stated that demonstrates I am only putting forward my opinion and have not admitted to doing so? Have I made any purely opinion based claims? If so what are they? I am not claiming that everything you've stated is 100% opinion, but there are things you have stated which seem to be like this:
Ontological - YES.
To be confident one will be saved with an eternal life in heaven [related existential crisis], one has to ensure with the maximum confidence level the God they believed is the greatest than which no greater can exists.
It is very typical for theists-A to condemn the god of another belief [theist-B] as inferior to their God. Theists-A will insist theists-B will go to Hell because their God is an inferior god.
To get 100% assurance, all theists will end up with the ontological God than which no greater can exists.
This is purely an opinion. And this:
Teleology
This is the belief all things are created by God for God's purpose which God only knows.
So the purpose humans were created is to serves God's purpose to believe in God so that they can securely end up in heaven with eternal life [surely not Hell] thus this is reduced to the existential crisis.
Which is opinionated, and not IMV an accurate reflection of teleology. There's nothing wrong with having an opinion and stating it, but when you apply it as a means of confirming your own ideas about the nature of reality it becomes problematic and questionable. Given the nature of what you're claiming, you should expect to be challenged.
Once a theist, now agnostic.

Spectrum
Posts: 5160
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: Do Not Bash Muslims!

Post by Spectrum » March 11th, 2018, 3:42 am

Fanman wrote:
March 11th, 2018, 1:01 am
Spectrum:
Yes, 'how best to live' is too general, subjective and dangerous if not qualified properly. Note the violent Islamists believed theirs is the best way to live. There are so much negative baggage attached to religions, how can one claimed religion is 'the best way to live'. Obviously all [if not most] believers will insists their religion provide the best way to live.
My point is not based upon the subjective interpretation of “how best to live” within religious ideologies. I'm claiming that all religions expressly give instructions on “how best to live” as a matter of fact, and because of that “how best to live” can be construed as one of the main themes of all religions. The generality of religious instructions of “how best to live” is not relevant to the point I'm making. Also, don't you think that reducing everything religious to existential crisis is too general?
I have done a detailed analysis of 100% of the 6,236 verses in the Quran.

The main % of elements [each verse has few elements] are;
  • Soteriological = 32% [death, judgment day, hell, doomed, rewards in heaven, etc.]
    Infidels = 55%
    Bible Stories = 35%
    Allah = 23%
    Muslims = 28%
When one read the Quran with reference to the above %, the critical element is the soteriological elements which directly related to the existential crisis.
>55% verse involved the non-believers as a threat to the security provided by the religion in holding back the existential crisis.

There are no other significant elements that support the purpose of the Quran.
If not for the critical existential factors, why should a Muslim submit him/herself to be a slave of Allah and has to bear with so much burden of religious protocols and compliance, prayers, fasting, has to pay tax, and other loads of burden on being a Muslim.
Some will even kill non-believers and even the parents and kins if need be. Why? as the best way to live?

I have not done an analysis of the Bible, but it is likely the existential elements relating to heaven, eternal life, threat of hell will be a significant proportion over other elements.
The majority of Christians also have to conform and willing pay a tithe, for what so significant, if not the existential elements.

As for Buddhism and Hinduism I have not done any analysis but based on my reading I am 100% certain the critical and central focus is the existential element.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.

Post Reply