Even if you removed Islam, Judaism, and Christianity you'd still have fanaticism

[Frater Sisyphus]

I have read the Qu'ran front to back twice.

It is incoherent and talks about people like me getting their hands and feet chopped off, crucified, smitten, humiliated, boiling water poured on their skin, says not to be friends with Jews and Christians and kill Idolators and non-muslims!

It's odd that this is all you have apparently gotten out of reading it (if you actually have). It's a very candid scripture and doesn't shy away from human reality, but it's also an incredibly beautiful and mystical scripture that contains an essence of universality. I see God (Allah) saying "Look at all this terrible stuff you are doing, you're capable of so much better"

The Jew/Christian thing is quote contextual, it's not anti-Semitic at all but I guess how certain passages could be made seen to be so when disregarding the whole 'narrative' the Quran starts with; that Judaism and Christianity perverted God's original message to mankind. And of course there is the whole "Jews are God's holy people" which the Quran denies, as we all are humans, we are all "chosen" if we follow the path so to speak.

 

[Mox]

Gene centric v multi-level selection theories

See for example the dispute between Richard Dawkins and EO Wilson: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...elfish-and-what-ants-can-tell-us-9849956.html

There is no dispute, the selfish gene theory applies at every level.

It doesnt matter which copy of a gene is dispersed into the environment.

As I stated earlier, in familes and closely related groups, you share genes with each other, it matters not which individual gene is preserved, it matters only that copies of genes are replicated and allowed to be effectively immortal living through chains of descendants.

Now, when organisms assist with the rearing of their close relatives, such as Ants in a colony, or people in a closely related egalitarian hunter gatherer village, they are in fact helping the survival of copies of their own genes, in others.

Homosexuals and people who are barren, can still ensure the survival of their genes, as copies in their close relatives, by caring for them and allowing/helping them to mature and have children of their own.

The article you submit merely highlights that the selfish gene does in fact operate at second and probably third orders.

 

[icehorse]

It got me thinking of all the terrorist that exist that are not Muslim I began to think that aside from the subject of so-called "Islamic terrorism," even if there were no member of the Abrahamic religion, human beings would find someone way to disagree violently.

To me this argument (and its many variations), is like saying: "Why should we try to cure cancer, there will still be other diseases?"

 

[Mock Turtle]

Why did Newton create the myth about time? Why didn't they go straight to Einstein? Whom BTW is not original at all he said so himself.

Progress in science, however woeful it can be, is hardly the same as creating myths so as to control others.

 

[Augustus]

There is no dispute, the selfish gene theory applies at every level.

Perhaps you could tell them then seeing as they are under the impression that there is indeed a dispute.

Anyway, there are countless scientific disputes, it's how scientific progress happens. As Max Planck said "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."

If you went through history following 'cutting edge' science and basing your worldview around it it would have changed drastically over the years. The same will be true if you project into the future.

We only have a limited understanding of the world we live in, and are thus often wrong about it.

Have you found any scientific evidence that truth is always objectively good and false information is always objectively harmful yet?

 

[Mox]

If you went through history following 'cutting edge' science and basing your worldview around it it would have changed drastically over the years. The same will be true if you project into the future.

Imagine ignoring every scientist who said ''I know we could do X'' simply because we couldnt be absolutely sure his/her theory was absolutely water tight. Even though it would have allowed us access to life saving technology, as it was close enough to the mark to allow it to function.

After all if we are hopelessly wrong about physics, then I am very surprised indeed we are using iphones or other computer devices that actually function and have this conversation.

Newtonian physics is good enough to get us to the moon and back, but not calculate Mercury's orbit with total confidence, due to relativistic effects of a nearby star.

The point is, it is objective.

The most objective way of looking at reality.

Which is after all what we are all doing.

 

[Spiderman]

It's odd that this is all you have apparently gotten out of reading it (if you actually have). It's a very candid scripture and doesn't shy away from human reality, but it's also an incredibly beautiful and mystical scripture that contains an essence of universality. I see God (Allah) saying "Look at all this terrible stuff you are doing, you're capable of so much better"

The Jew/Christian thing is quote contextual, it's not anti-Semitic at all but I guess how certain passages could be made seen to be so when disregarding the whole 'narrative' the Quran starts with; that Judaism and Christianity perverted God's original message to mankind. And of course there is the whole "Jews are God's holy people" which the Quran denies, as we all are humans, we are all "chosen" if we follow the path so to speak.

Thing is,
The food that is used to kill rats is well over 90% food that tastes good, is good, and healthy for the rat. That tiny percent of it that is poison kills the rat.

Most of the Qu'ran is nothing I object to, aside from it being quite incoherent. I really like the book of "Mary" and the writings about the miracles of Jesus.

Thing is, it doesn't matter if the Qu'ran says good things. I knew a racist man who said many bad things about minorities, while himself volunteering at a soup kitchen in an area of Chicago, that entirely fed minorities (I don't remember a single person being fed there who wasn't a minority). Does his good deeds for minorities, and some good things he says, suddenly make his racism less repulsive?

In jail, I knew a guy with a swastika and Hitler tattoo, who said many good things, did nice things for people, had friends who were minorities, and was well-respected.

I bet there are hillbillies who have bigoted views, wave confederate flags, but at the same time say nice things, have good qualities, have compassion for others, and do good deeds for people. Does that mean that suddenly we should base our lives on a book or teachings from them or be inspired from such people, read their writing etc?

Bottom line is, the Qu'ran calls people to hatred, violence, anti-Semitism, bigotry, and brutal tortures for people who oppose Islam. The Qu'ran teaches that Muslims should fight until there is no Religion but Islam. The Qu'ran teaches that Islam is the only acceptable Religion. Yes, that is toxic, dangerous, misleading bigotry that has cost our world dearly and ruined many lives...and because the Qu'ran says some good things, doesn't suddenly mean we shouldn't take a stand against the hate it promotes!

 

[sun rise]

When religion grows old it’s capacity to assist us transcend the human condition wanes. Because many of us don’t understand how religion can lose its vitality then we imagine it was no good in the first place.

And we ignore the disparity which emerges between the core teachings of a religion and what those who claim to follow it actually do.

I do believe these ancient religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam do not have the healing power to resolve these issues of violence, conflict and division in humanity, because they are intimately involved, and a part of the problem

They are also part of the solution depending on which part of the scriptures one focuses on.

But let me guess, all of these Qur'an inspired atrocities committed in the name of Islam have nothing to do with Islam, right?

Of course religiously motivated terrorists site their scripture to prove they are right and everyone else is wrong. That happened as well during the US civil war.

A more balanced view is to understand the historical context of the beginning of the various religions, how people have interpreted the scriptures over time, how various adherents of the religion today focus on it, whether today's believers even know what the scripture really says and how the cultural milieu influences how people interpret the scripture.

I can probably find a scriptural answer to balance the opposite assertion for any religion. I've found Abraham Lincoln to be my teacher in this point. For example:

The shepherd drives the wolf from the sheep's for which the sheep thanks
the shepherd as his liberator, while the wolf denounces him for the same
act as the destroyer of liberty. Plainly, the sheep and the wolf are not
agreed upon a definition of liberty.​

 

[Augustus]

Imagine ignoring every scientist who said ''I know we could do X'' simply because we couldnt be absolutely sure his/her theory was absolutely water tight. Even though it would have allowed us access to life saving technology, as it was close enough to the mark to allow it to function.

After all if we are hopelessly wrong about physics, then I am very surprised indeed we are using iphones or other computer devices that actually function and have this conversation.

Newtonian physics is good enough to get us to the moon and back, but not calculate Mercury's orbit with total confidence, due to relativistic effects of a nearby star.

Good example for why false information isn't necessarily harmful.

The point is, it is objective.

The most objective way of looking at reality.

Which is after all what we are all doing.

Not everything lends itself to be studied as objectively as physics though, especially the social sciences.

Sometimes science is close to the truth, other times less so. Scientific racialism and phrenology were once considered good science and were favoured by rationalists of their day. Medical treatments have often caused far more harm than good. In certain fields (psychology, neuroscience, medicine, etc) close to or more than half of published research findings are probably wrong.

Also the sciences only give us a limited understanding of the world, and offer next to nothing in important areas such as values, morality and sense of purpose. Even the most scientific minded need to supplement their worldview with subjective narratives.

You can try to base your worldview on as much 'objective' information as possible, but that still leaves you woefully short of a functioning worldview so you need to add your own subjective narratives to fill the gaps.

For example, your ideological claim that objective truth is intrinsically good and anything which is not objective truth is intrinsically bad. There's certainly no truth in it anyway.

 

[Shad]

Have you found any scientific evidence that truth is always objectively good and false information is always objectively harmful yet?

Marriage.

 

[Mox]

Good example for why false information isn't necessarily harmful.

.

It isnt false information. It is an incomplete description of the laws of physics.

 

[Mox]

Sometimes science is close to the truth, other times less so. Scientific racialism and phrenology were once considered good science and were favoured by rationalists of their day. Medical treatments have often caused far more harm than good. In certain fields (psychology, neuroscience, medicine, etc) close to or more than half of published research findings are probably wrong.

Drivel. I am sorry to say.

The scientific method as a way of discerning truths about reality, separating fact from fiction, is unparralleled in success and range of application, effecting every aspect of modern human life.

You would likely not exist were it not for science and the scientific method. From agriculture to anti biotics. Your dependence on science and technology is almost total.

You can slander science all you like, but from where I am standing your criticism is devoid of any rational coherent justification. Plus, it's a bit rich. Coming from a westerner with an internet connection.

As for pseudo sciences like phrenology and racialism, those examples merely demonstrate you do not understand what the scientific method entails.

 

[Mox]

For example, your ideological claim that objective truth is intrinsically good and anything which is not objective truth is intrinsically bad. There's certainly no truth in it anyway.

Objective truth is certainly better than delusional article of faith. If you wish to empower your own life and that of others. If you wish to reach the stars, praying for a lift wont get you very far, science, however, will take you there in a gleaming spaceship. Eventually.

You are free to walk your own path.

Good luck amigo.

 

[Spiderman]

Reading an article and in the comments one read: "If they got rid of the brainwashing that is called Islam...."

Brainwashing....?

It got me thinking of all the terrorist that exist that are not Muslim I began to think that aside from the subject of so-called "Islamic terrorism," even if there were no member of the Abrahamic religion, human beings would find someone way to disagree violently. I say this because often times terrorism is allocated to Islam and there have been comments stating that getting rid of a belief system means to get rid of the terroristic mindset along with it. But the thing is, getting rid of an ideology does not necessarily mean getting rid of fanaticism. Recently there are news reports that there are people in Haiti rioting due to high gas prices. Human beings regardless of belief system will always terrorize each other over something.

Regarding the title of the OP, fanatic views are promoted in the Qu'ran and example of Muhammad!

I've left the verses, but you ignore them, like so many others.

Anyone want to enter a contest?

You get a compliation of hateful bigoted statements from Donald Trump. I get a collection of hateful, bigoted statements, antisemitism, calls to violence, torture and mutilation of non-muslims, in the Qu'ran, and let's see which bigotry and hate is worse, Trump or the founder of Islam?

Anyone up for the challenge?

To attack Donald Trump and then defend the Qu'ran is obvious hypocrisy! Pure and simple! I see it a lot with politically correct double-standards that run rampant in our culture!

If you are going to condemn hateful bigotry, don't defend it in any of it's ugly forms! Hypocrisy is the word for that!

 

[shunyadragon]

And we ignore the disparity which emerges between the core teachings of a religion and what those who claim to follow it actually do.

I will disagree, I acknowledge the fallible humanness in all considerations whether religious or not, but you are ignoring the actual scripture, teachings and relationships that are taught through history in the ancient religions.

[/quote]
They are also part of the solution depending on which part of the scriptures one focuses on. [/quote]

Being selective on the scripture to come up with what you want does result in many different divisions and conflict in the history of religion. The reality is you cannot be selective because the fact is the believers are not, They embrace the good, the bad, and the ugly, which is the reality of ancient world view. It remains a fact that they define there sense of community and identity separate from the other religions.

Of course religiously motivated terrorists site their scripture to prove they are right and everyone else is wrong. That happened as well during the US civil war.

,

These are simply clera and specific examples of the nature of the relationships between the religions, which in reality has not changed.despite your misplaced optimism.

A more balanced view is to understand the historical context of the beginning of the various religions, how people have interpreted the scriptures over time, how various adherents of the religion today focus on it, whether today's believers even know what the scripture really says and how the cultural milieu influences how people interpret the scripture.

This helpful in understanding the religions and history, but it does not resolve the foundation beliefs that divide the religions.

I can probably find a scriptural answer to balance the opposite assertion for any religion. I've found Abraham Lincoln to be my teacher in this point. For example:

The shepherd drives the wolf from the sheep's for which the sheep thanks
the shepherd as his liberator, while the wolf denounces him for the same
act as the destroyer of liberty. Plainly, the sheep and the wolf are not
agreed upon a definition of liberty.​

You surely can, but so can I and frequently do when I study the religions. That is why I believe there is positive value in the religions in the progressive evolving spiritual nature of humanity found in the religions.

. . but nonetheless being selective in citation of scripture does not resolve the foundation issues and scripture that actually describe hostility toward those who believe differently in the ancient religions.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

I recommend reading this post as though someone posted it to you.
What would you think of it?

I know I'm a nobody. I do not make a difference in a bunch of strangers on the net. My goal is to learn but I understand that once I press shut down on a computer my world continues without people here on RF that is the difference.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

????

Of course there is more to it, but this is not a coherent response.

That analogy means people can be susceptible to do things that are harmful things. This can be said about people who perform terrorist attacks. If leaders in the occult can make other people drink poison and make them believe it is supposed to transfer your soul to the ether, then a charismatic leader can make you swallow a bunch of vitamins.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

'You' would probably think something like. ''Damn this guy just got triggered, better leave him alone before he pops a vein''.

I did.

Triggered?

Hardly. I'm making money relaxing on my weekend off and drinking a nice moonshine. I'm good.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

You're correct, there are non-Muslim terrorists in the world. But Islam is responsible for the vast majority of religiously motivated terror attacks in the world. That's just a statistical fact. But let me guess, all of these Qur'an inspired atrocities committed in the name of Islam have nothing to do with Islam, right?

You sure about that? From where I'm sitting white supremacist terrorist have done far more than what extremist Muslims have done in my existence.

 

[Spiderman]

You sure about that? From where I'm sitting white supremacist terrorist have done far more than what extremist Muslims have done in my existence.

Let's ignore the hundreds of millions of people who live in Muslim-majority countries, who are braiwashed into conversion, bullied, forced to wear a burka or be raped or imprisoned, imprisoned for years or executed for saying the truth about Muhammad or criticizing the Koran, or women under Islamic regimes who can't drive or get an education, or stoned to death, while everyone who disagrees with the policies can't protest or they get their tongues cut out, heads cut off, or face years in prison.

Sounds worse than death to me! Far worse! And such ignorant tyrannical policies and bullying affect hundreds of millions of people!