We will continue to HATE you until you embrace ...

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: 4882
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

We will continue to HATE you until you embrace ...

Post by Spectrum » February 26th, 2018, 3:01 am

1. Because you are disbelievers
"We hate you, first and foremost, because you are disbelievers;
you reject the oneness of Allah – whether you realize it or not – by making partners for Him in worship, you blaspheme against Him, claiming that He has a son, you fabricate lies against His prophets and messengers, and you indulge in all manner of devilish practices."

It reads: "What’s important to understand here is that although some might argue that your foreign policies are the extent of what drives our hatred,
this particular reason for hating you is secondary, hence the reason we addressed it at the end of the above list.

"The fact is,
even if you were to stop bombing us, imprisoning us, torturing us, vilifying us, and usurping our lands, we would continue to HATEyou because our primary reason for hating you will not cease to exist until you embrace Islam."
The question is whether the above comply with the core ethos of the religion.

Agree/Disagree?

Views?
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.

User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 2704
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: We will continue to HATE you until you embrace ...

Post by LuckyR » February 26th, 2018, 4:38 am

Depends on who gets to define "core". Personally I prefer statistical definitions to arbitrary opinions. Therefore by my measure : no.
"As usual... it depends."

Burning ghost
Posts: 2039
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: We will continue to HATE you until you embrace ...

Post by Burning ghost » February 26th, 2018, 4:56 am

"Religion", like many other cultural attributes, is used to push political agendas (I would go as far to say that we cannot take one without the other, only try and steer people toward open-minded views.)

I think society better serves the people if the predominating view is secular, and that the secular view is happy to defer to non-secular ideas in some areas. One without the other seems destined to dogmatic failure.

I don't care for zealots (religious or otherwise.) I am happy to listen to them though and I think we should all do so quietly and with dignity rather than feeding the hatred. I know all hatred is misplaced, so I don't fret about it too much any more.

To paraphrase:

"He who despises himself must respect himself as one who despises." - Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil.

The mistake of secular thinkers is to too often assume the religiously dogmatic lack rational capacities. They can be reached, but it is a slow and grueling task where pain and suffering will be taken on by both parties.

To take on the words of Nietzsche we can well say - He who hates others necessarily must hate himself and know their faults as his own; therefore he must respect them as he respects himself because he understands the extent of evil in every man's breast.

Of course, we're cowardly creatures so we avoid our own faults at eveyr step. There is always hope though :)
AKA badgerjelly

Karpel Tunnel
Posts: 146
Joined: February 16th, 2018, 11:28 am

Re: We will continue to HATE you until you embrace ...

Post by Karpel Tunnel » February 26th, 2018, 5:44 am

Spectrum wrote:
February 26th, 2018, 3:01 am
The question is whether the above comply with the core ethos of the religion.

Agree/Disagree?

Views?
The key tricky word being 'core'. Religions are complicated phenomena often including contradictory beliefs or at least seemingly contradictory ones. It fits their ethos, it fits ISIS's core ethos, I would guess. Parts of wider Islam may disagree. FAcets of the Koran may seem to contradict it, others may seem to support it. Religions are made up of religious people. They have here a version of Islam. Who are any of us to say they are not complying with the core ethos of their religion. If they say the Koran is correct and perfect, there might be some room to use parts of it against what they wrote here. But I think they can come back with their interpretations and rules for application and prioritization of the same texts. They get to do that by definition, it is their religion. Not that I am saying they are moral just that it is pretty much a category error to say it is or isn't their religion's core ethos. It's like me telling you you actually like strawberry ice cream and making arguments in favor of it. Note, that is another kind of category error, but one that I think is on a par for sillyness.

Eduk
Posts: 1367
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

Re: We will continue to HATE you until you embrace ...

Post by Eduk » February 26th, 2018, 2:57 pm

Does it matter? I don't mean that flippantly by the way.
If it is part of the core ethos or if it isn't part of the core ethos what action will you take?

Spectrum
Posts: 4882
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: We will continue to HATE you until you embrace ...

Post by Spectrum » February 27th, 2018, 1:15 am

LuckyR wrote:
February 26th, 2018, 4:38 am
Depends on who gets to define "core". Personally I prefer statistical definitions to arbitrary opinions. Therefore by my measure : no.
What is 'American' in essence and legally is defined by the US Constitution [changeable by the majority] and nothing else. Thus an individual or group cannot unilaterally write their own constitutions to claim they are legally Americans.

It is the same with 'What is Islam' and 'Who is a Muslim', these definitions are specifically defined in the Quran - the constitution of Islam.
Therefore the ethos - the core essence of Islam cannot be determined by statistical definitions of the majority or otherwise.

I believe the shortfall here is you have not read the Quran thoroughly to understand the core ethos and essence of 'What is Islam' and 'Who is a Muslim'.

My claim is the people of I.S.I.S are more in alignment and compliance with the core and other conditions and terms of the Constitution of Islam than the so called moderates. This can be done by using the 6,236 verses of the Quran -the Constitution of Islam - as a checklist and counting the number of terms complied.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.

Spectrum
Posts: 4882
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: We will continue to HATE you until you embrace ...

Post by Spectrum » February 27th, 2018, 1:34 am

Burning ghost wrote:
February 26th, 2018, 4:56 am
"Religion", like many other cultural attributes, is used to push political agendas (I would go as far to say that we cannot take one without the other, only try and steer people toward open-minded views.)
The difference with Islam is, it is both an religious and political ideology at the same time.
There is a big problem with Islam i.e. its all powerful God condone the political act of killing and oppressing non-believers and the Quran is immutable, thus this point is eternal.
When politics [especially bad ones] cannot be separated from religion, such an ideology is inherently a problem which must be addressed and resolved.
I think society better serves the people if the predominating view is secular, and that the secular view is happy to defer to non-secular ideas in some areas. One without the other seems destined to dogmatic failure.
Note my signature below. I understand religion is a critical necessity at present [not the future] to enable people to deal with an inherent existential crisis.
Whilst religions are critically necessary, no religion should be loaded with evil elements. Islam is one religion that is loaded with tons of evil laden elements which had inspired SOME evil prone Muslims [expressed in OP] to commit terrible evils [as evident], this will continue in the future.

Since Islam [in a greater part] is inherently and malignantly evil, we must recognize this fact and deal with it accordingly.

Why I raise this OP is to highlight the fact to enlighten the majority who are enveloped by darkness [due to various reasons] on this related subject.
I don't care for zealots (religious or otherwise.) I am happy to listen to them though and I think we should all do so quietly and with dignity rather than feeding the hatred. I know all hatred is misplaced, so I don't fret about it too much any more.

To paraphrase:

"He who despises himself must respect himself as one who despises." - Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil.

The mistake of secular thinkers is to too often assume the religiously dogmatic lack rational capacities. They can be reached, but it is a slow and grueling task where pain and suffering will be taken on by both parties.

To take on the words of Nietzsche we can well say - He who hates others necessarily must hate himself and know their faults as his own; therefore he must respect them as he respects himself because he understands the extent of evil in every man's breast.

Of course, we're cowardly creatures so we avoid our own faults at eveyr step. There is always hope though :)
Note this thread I raised; the supporting point here is the necessary respect for basic human dignity [a serious topic in Philosophy of Morality] and the need for optimality.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.

Spectrum
Posts: 4882
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: We will continue to HATE you until you embrace ...

Post by Spectrum » February 27th, 2018, 1:52 am

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
February 26th, 2018, 5:44 am
Spectrum wrote:
February 26th, 2018, 3:01 am
The question is whether the above comply with the core ethos of the religion.

Agree/Disagree?

Views?
The key tricky word being 'core'. Religions are complicated phenomena often including contradictory beliefs or at least seemingly contradictory ones. It fits their ethos, it fits ISIS's core ethos, I would guess. Parts of wider Islam may disagree. FAcets of the Koran may seem to contradict it, others may seem to support it. Religions are made up of religious people. They have here a version of Islam.

Who are any of us to say they are not complying with the core ethos of their religion.

If they say the Koran is correct and perfect, there might be some room to use parts of it against what they wrote here. But I think they can come back with their interpretations and rules for application and prioritization of the same texts. They get to do that by definition, it is their religion. Not that I am saying they are moral just that it is pretty much a category error to say it is or isn't their religion's core ethos. It's like me telling you you actually like strawberry ice cream and making arguments in favor of it. Note, that is another kind of category error, but one that I think is on a par for sillyness.
Note my reply to Lucky above.

The Constitution of Islam is fixed in the immutable Quran delivered from God to his messenger, Muhammad.
Thus 'What is Islam' and 'Who is a Muslim' must be confined to the Quran - the Constitution of Islam.

As stated in the Quran, there are room for lesser compliance with the terms in the Quran i.e. to the best of one's abilities. But there is no provision in the Quran for anyone to change the terms of the covenant [an unforgivable sin] nor go against of the terms which would be a sin.

Strawberry ice cream??
If one sign a contract re advertising where the contractual terms stipulated one must eat only strawberry ice cream within certain conditions, then one must east strawberry ice cream and no other, else the contract will be void. What is there to argue when such is the mutually agreed and contracted terms.

It is the same with being a Muslim.
To be a Muslim, a person has to 'sign' [explicitly or implicity] a contract [covenant] with Allah to conform with the terms within the immutable Quran. This is the logical and technical way and there is no other way, then one must comply with the agreed terms in the Quran to the best of one's abilities.

To answer the OP question, by default one has to read and understand the terms of the contract, i.e. the Quran.
This is the default, e.g. a lawyer has to have a full understanding of any contract before s/he can defend the related case in court.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.

Spectrum
Posts: 4882
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: We will continue to HATE you until you embrace ...

Post by Spectrum » February 27th, 2018, 2:08 am

Eduk wrote:
February 26th, 2018, 2:57 pm
Does it matter? I don't mean that flippantly by the way.
If it is part of the core ethos or if it isn't part of the core ethos what action will you take?
The critical issue here [thus the OP question] is the majority do not understand what is the core ethos and essence of the Quran, i.e. the contractual terms a person had signed/agreed with Allah to be a Muslims so as to reap the rewards promised by Allah.

What is critical and a threat to humanity is, besides I.S.I.S [those in the OP] there are other Muslims committing terrible evils and violence around the world since 1,400 years ago to the present and will be in the future. One example is the stats below;

Image

To resolve the above threats to humanity, it is essential we understand what are the core principles and elements of Islam. Then we can match the evidence of the evil acts committed by those in the OP, their ideology to the core ideology of Islam.

Note at present the authorities had gotten rid of I.S.I.S in Iraq and Syria physically but the people [groups and lone wolf(s) ] of I.S.I.S are emerging in other places all over the world. This problem is recurring because the authorities either or are ignorant or deliberately avoid to understand the root cause is the ideology of Islam and not the Muslims.

So understanding the above in the OP as the core of Islam [objective fact] is critical.
.. even if you were to stop bombing us, imprisoning us, torturing us, vilifying us, and usurping our lands, we would continue to HATE you because our primary reason for hating you will not cease to exist until you embrace Islam
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.

Eduk
Posts: 1367
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

Re: We will continue to HATE you until you embrace ...

Post by Eduk » February 27th, 2018, 3:45 am

Well logically spectrum what we do ideally is wean those Muslims who do think that a core principle of their religion is to hate non Muslims towards Muslims who don't think that that is a core principle of their religion.
That would get rid of the problem nicely.

Burning ghost
Posts: 2039
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: We will continue to HATE you until you embrace ...

Post by Burning ghost » February 27th, 2018, 4:16 am

Spectrum -

I think you should follow the line of your PM to me and drop this subject for now. What you say is partly hypocritical, and strikingly so. You denounce one ideological and replace it with your own opinion ... and it is ONLY your opinion, yet you say what we "must" do.

You also seem to have forgotten that you said "maybe" and "definitely" merely a handful of days ago (on another thread - one which no doubt inspired you to start this one.) I grow tired of people who say two contrary things and then deny/ignore saying them.

It is also farcical to assume that Islam is a problem because it is being politicized. It is almost like you refuse to accept the history of literally every other religion on the planet. Islam is being politicized because it serves the purposes of those playing in nationalistic and identity politics.

If people could set aside religious ideas or national interests we'd likely be able to have a better conversation with them. Sadly I don't see any quick fix solution, and what is more I think it impossible for people to understand themselves as individuals without a system of identity from which to work from (hence the constant confliction of the human condition.)

There is an extremely interesting report from Geertz in his "The Interpretation of Cultures" in Indonesia regarding the rise of Islamic politicking in the governmental system. His was generally that no matter what the underlying cultural pattern would lead to division due to the fall of rural communities and the centralization of political powers - the mishmash of religions traditions there is a telling story for how different mythos is appropriated and put to use to disrupt social cohesion (and please, not diatribe about the effect of Islam on Indonesians cultural traditions - I don't care for that kind of uncompromising attack upon any particular "group" that is no more than a convenient expression of individual humans ongoing identity crisis expressed in political movements.)

And I don't even agree with your general idea that "religion" will be redundant in the future. I think that is a more dangerous idea than any destructive interpretation of Islam you wish to vindicate. Of course you likely have what I would term a rather selective definition of what "religion" is.
AKA badgerjelly

Spectrum
Posts: 4882
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: We will continue to HATE you until you embrace ...

Post by Spectrum » February 27th, 2018, 4:42 am

Eduk wrote:
February 27th, 2018, 3:45 am
Well logically spectrum what we do ideally is wean those Muslims who do think that a core principle of their religion is to hate non Muslims towards Muslims who don't think that that is a core principle of their religion.
That would get rid of the problem nicely.
The truth as per the Quran is the core principle is to hate non-Muslims.
If you wean those Muslims who had adopted the truth of their religion as hating non-believers towards being Muslims as not-hating non-Muslims, that would be promoting a lie.

That would like asking or brainwashing an American citizen who had pledged allegiance to the US Constitution, not to obey the terms of the constitution.

If they are not to hate non-Muslims they should not be Muslims at all, as by the core of the religion, they have to hate non-Muslims.


Note my original thesis;
  • 1. DNA wise, ALL humans has the potential to commit evils.
    2. A percentile [20% conservatively] are unfortunately born with an active evil tendency.
    3. The Quran [core of Islam] has tons of evil laden elements -
    4. which triggers those in 2 to commit terrible evils and violence [as evident].
Those who are prone to hatred as inspired by the religious texts belong to point 2 above. They are unfortunately born with an active evil tendency to hate and commit other evil acts.

To tweak the brain of 300 millions Muslims individually would be very tough. It may be possible in the future, but it would be more efficient to get rid of the religion in the nearer future and replace it with fool proof approaches to deal with the inherent existential crisis.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.

Burning ghost
Posts: 2039
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: We will continue to HATE you until you embrace ...

Post by Burning ghost » February 27th, 2018, 5:01 am

The truth as per the Quran is the core principle is to hate non-Muslims.
It says the same thing for Judaism and Christianity. Those sentiments were lifted from the Old Testament. So it is inherently the Old Testament that is to blame ... that is your logic. So it is NOT ISlam to blame it is the preceding religious structures upon which the Islamic tradition is based - and combined with a warring tribal culture in the Arabic world; a culture which still resonates in modern Arabic cultures (irrespective of religious content.)

Tunnel vision on religious ideology merely blinds you to everything else causing a presentation of "facts" as mere hyperbole to reinforce the idea you're pushing - rightly or wrongly.

Again, I say you're a hypocrite here. You preach your views and claim them as "facts" and "truths." This is no different to a religious zealot; of whom most religious people are not. They are just people living in a world and using certain templates to navigate the world, they don't tend to adhere to "religious" pressures per say, more they adhere to cultural tradition and tribalism (to which religions a poltical mechanisms can be attached.)
AKA badgerjelly

Spectrum
Posts: 4882
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: We will continue to HATE you until you embrace ...

Post by Spectrum » February 27th, 2018, 5:10 am

Burning ghost wrote:
February 27th, 2018, 4:16 am
Spectrum -

I think you should follow the line of your PM to me and drop this subject for now. What you say is partly hypocritical, and strikingly so. You denounce one ideological and replace it with your own opinion ... and it is ONLY your opinion, yet you say what we "must" do.
I did not state I will give up my project re Islam. At present the issue of Islam is not active here so I will just nibble at it here and there.
You also seem to have forgotten that you said "maybe" and "definitely" merely a handful of days ago (on another thread - one which no doubt inspired you to start this one.) I grow tired of people who say two contrary things and then deny/ignore saying them.
Not sure what you meant.
Perhaps listing the specific will resolve the point, it is likely to be some misunderstanding.
It is also farcical to assume that Islam is a problem because it is being politicized. It is almost like you refuse to accept the history of literally every other religion on the planet. Islam is being politicized because it serves the purposes of those playing in nationalistic and identity politics.
Obviously there is a history of religion. What I am proposing is religion should not a history for the future periods and humanity need to wean off religion including Buddhism but priority is on Islam.
I understand religions has been abused by politicians, but one additional point with Islam is a politics as part of being a Muslim since Islam is commanded to be a total way of life which include politics.
And I don't even agree with your general idea that "religion" will be redundant in the future. I think that is a more dangerous idea than any destructive interpretation of Islam you wish to vindicate. Of course you likely have what I would term a rather selective definition of what "religion" is.
It is a fact from empirical evidence there has been a downtrend of religiosity within humanity from long ago. People on average are becoming less religious.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/mo ... -religious
Many argue the public polls on the religious views of Americans paint a clear picture: The American public is becoming increasingly secular. It is certainly true that by many established metrics people are turning their backs on the church and traditional religious views. Belief in God, church membership, church attendance, and religious identification have all been steadily declining for years.
The above refer to the American public but it is the same elsewhere around the world.

If there are increase, it is due to being religious by birth as in the case with Muslims.

Even then we are hearing more and more voices from non-theists in comparison to say 100, 50, 30 years ago.

I am well aware religions [theistic and non-theistic] are leverage upon the existential crisis and when we have alternatives [spiritual programs and the likes] to deal with the existential crisis, there will be no need for any organized religion and religiosity.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.

Spectrum
Posts: 4882
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: We will continue to HATE you until you embrace ...

Post by Spectrum » February 27th, 2018, 5:28 am

Burning ghost wrote:
February 27th, 2018, 5:01 am
The truth as per the Quran is the core principle is to hate non-Muslims.
It says the same thing for Judaism and Christianity. Those sentiments were lifted from the Old Testament. So it is inherently the Old Testament that is to blame ... that is your logic. So it is NOT ISlam to blame it is the preceding religious structures upon which the Islamic tradition is based - and combined with a warring tribal culture in the Arabic world; a culture which still resonates in modern Arabic cultures (irrespective of religious content.)
What I had stated in relation to Islam is from the Quran.

If there is hate from Judaism and Christianity, then they ought to be condemned and the problem be addressed and resolved.

As for Christianity, I understand whatever element of hate there is in the NT, that is overridden by the overriding pacifist maxim of 'love your enemies' and love your neighbors, etc.

In any case, the OP topic is related to Islam-Muslims not Christianity and Judaism.
It says the same thing for Judaism and Christianity. Those sentiments were lifted from the Old Testament. So it is inherently the Old Testament that is to blame ... that is your logic.
This is ridiculous. All evils acts of humans are traceable to some history and ancestry elements, so we blame them?
Each must take responsibility for whatever is within their constitution that represent their ideology.
Tunnel vision on religious ideology merely blinds you to everything else causing a presentation of "facts" as mere hyperbole to reinforce the idea you're pushing - rightly or wrongly.
My thesis is abstracted from empirical facts, e.g.

Image

plus the loads of evil committed by SOME Muslims all over the world.

Don't you have any empathy and compassion at all for the victims of terrible Islamic evils and the impulse to do something about it? I do.
My discussions so far has been based on facts and evidence plus forecasts and possibilities based on those evidences.
Again, I say you're a hypocrite here. You preach your views and claim them as "facts" and "truths." This is no different to a religious zealot; of whom most religious people are not. They are just people living in a world and using certain templates to navigate the world, they don't tend to adhere to "religious" pressures per say, more they adhere to cultural tradition and tribalism (to which religions a poltical mechanisms can be attached.)
As I had stated above, I started my thesis based on facts and glaring evidences.
Show me one point where what I presented is fantasy or lies?

Btw, this is a discussion forum where anyone can present their views [supported by arguments and evidences] but you sound as if asking me to shut up.
You've joined ANTIFA recently?
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.

Post Reply