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

[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.

Id rather read the Qu'ran than Donald Trump's Tweets and quotes. But I guarantee I'd find more calls to violence, hatred, and bigotry in the Koran!

But some is good...much is incoherent though Imo!

So, why is it that some Religious figures are so violent against Idolators and heretics?

If God is so offended by them, can't he kill them?

 

[Dawnofhope]

I think we humans have a universal conscience. By that I mean that if we could take the facts of specific moral situation XYZ and present it to a jury of unbiased minds in any society in the world, they would reach the same verdict. The difficulty in proving that is that it's hard to find an unbiased jury on many questions. I also think that one potent source of biases is religion.

To prove religion promotes the advancement of civilisation or retards it is not straightforward. We need to consider a complex interplay of history, culture and sacred text.

I wonder if you are making an assumption about universal conscience. About 2 - 4 % of the population are sociopaths and have little or no empathy for others and are personally exploitative for their own benefit. Not surprisingly a disproportionately high percentage of this group would make up prison populations. I don't they would fit the model of us all having a universal consciousness. If it exists sociopaths certainly don't seem too interested.

For example, let's say that situation XYZ presents the facts that to the consciences of most people represents a justifiable killing in a clear case of self-defense. But Christians who interpret the Bible's sixth commandment to mean that killing is always a sin would be biased by that interpretation and disagree. They follow their reasoning mind and ignore their conscience.

Again I wonder of you are being a little naïve as to the power of our culture, market forces, and politics to also influence the way we may think. What we should strive towards for therefore is to better understand the forces that shape the way we think and feel. If those forces lead us towards prejudice and hatred then we endeavour to free ourselves from their influence.

I agree that religion can cause bias, prejudice, and hatred but I believe it can also empower us to rise above such forces too. That is my experience of religion as a practising theist for the last 30 years. Of course that would automatically have me labelled as biased in your estimation.

I think that, if a Creator exists, and if it wanted us to have free will along with moral guidance, a universal conscience, a simple cross-cultural system that doesn't rely on language or interpretation, is precisely the way it would be done.

When it doesn't conflict with conscience, the moral guidance offered by religion is useless but it does no harm. When it conflicts, it's a potential bias.

I agree with the first part. As discussed what you consider to be your conscience may really be a product of your upbringing and culture where you make unconscious assumptions.

I can't think of a civilization in which the people have abandoned religion or one that I would describe as flourishing.

Levels of prosperity, multiculturalism, and international cooperation have all increased markedly since WWII. It could therefore be argued as a global community we are flourishing. Obviously there are some serious down sides. We have a lot of work to do. To what extent religion helps or hinders that work is of vital importance for us all.

 

[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.

The founder of Islam talked about pouring boiling water on people like me, crucifying us, cutting off hands and feet of people like me, he cut off many heads...is it ever okay to defend such barbaric, cruel, viscous, brutal torture, humiliation, mutilation, dismemberment, and hatred of human beings, under any circumstances?

Its one thing to kill people in war...torturing, dismembering, and and mutilating them is a step further on the "mentally deranged sociopathic" scale. Then to do it in the name of God, just makes it far more horrific imo!

That kind of psychopathic behavior compared to Donald Trump's errors, makes Trump look like a cuddly Teddy Bear in comparison.

Take a stand against extreme bigotry, hate, tyranny, violence, torture, humiliation, disfigurement, and mutilation of human beings who have different beliefs!

 

[David T]

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

Really..... Let's see African decent according to cutting edge science late 1700s was actually understood to be inferior scientifically. So we can read John lockes writings and others justifying all kinds of nonsense based on "science".

Lets see homo sexuality was a mental disorder till 1975 dsm. So really science is what magically pure? It's not even rational most of the time unless it's basic simple mechanical stuff. I could go on and on because Christianity used to be the driving force behind science itself justifying all kinds of cultural superior nonsense. Today science tends to be self contained that way. I love science but I am honest about it not religious.

 

[joe1776]

I wonder if you are making an assumption about universal conscience. About 2 - 4 % of the population are sociopaths and have little or no empathy for others and are personally exploitative for their own benefit. Not surprisingly a disproportionately high percentage of this group would make up prison populations. I don't they would fit the model of us all having a universal consciousness. If it exists sociopaths certainly don't seem too interested.

In the example I gave you, the word "universal" implies that our ability to discern right from wrong is cross-cultural. It doesn't mean that everyone is equally capable of it anymore than we are equally capable of intelligence, another characteristic that might be called "universal."

Again I wonder of you are being a little naïve as to the power of our culture, market forces, and politics to also influence the way we may think. What we should strive towards for therefore is to better understand the forces that shape the way we think and feel. If those forces lead us towards prejudice and hatred then we endeavour to free ourselves from their influence.

I think you confuse effect for cause. Our cultures, the market forces and our politics are shaped by us humans. They don't shape us.

I agree that religion can cause bias, prejudice, and hatred but I believe it can also empower us to rise above such forces too. That is my experience of religion as a practising theist for the last 30 years. Of course that would automatically have me labelled as biased in your estimation.

I don't think religion causes biases, prejudice and hatred. I think religion is just one of the pretexts that people use to satisfy their need to feel superior to others. It's the attitude that "Our religion is superior to theirs!" that causes prejudice and satisfies that need.

As a moral force, I think religion has been proven powerless. Christian beliefs, for example, didn't motivate the abolition of legal slavery, the cause of women's rights, or homosexual rights; but despite scripture that opposes such advances, religion couldn't stop them either.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Really..... Let's see African decent according to cutting edge science late 1700s was actually understood to be inferior scientifically. So we can read John lockes writings and others justifying all kinds of nonsense based on "science".

Lets see homo sexuality was a mental disorder till 1975 dsm. So really science is what magically pure? It's not even rational most of the time unless it's basic simple mechanical stuff. I could go on and on because Christianity used to be the driving force behind science itself justifying all kinds of cultural superior nonsense. Today science tends to be self contained that way. I love science but I am honest about it not religious.

Few rational people would argue that the progress of science has been anything other than quite hit-and-miss - all involved are human after all - but religions have been the instigators of much violence and friction, which perhaps could have been avoided if they never existed. Science was inevitable, that is the factual situation, since most of it was just waiting to be discovered - new knowledge building on existing knowledge. Religions tend to build on myths, so more like building on quicksand, unlike science. Stick to what you want to believe if you must. As far as I'm concerned religions have no place in my life.

 

[Frater Sisyphus]

The founder of Islam talked about pouring boiling water on people like me, crucifying us, cutting off hands and feet of people like me, he cut off many heads...is it ever okay to defend such barbaric, cruel, viscous, brutal torture, humiliation, mutilation, dismemberment, and hatred of human beings, under any circumstances?

Its one thing to kill people in war...torturing, dismembering, and and mutilating them is a step further on the "mentally deranged sociopathic" scale. Then to do it in the name of God, just makes it far more horrific imo!

That kind of psychopathic behavior compared to Donald Trump's errors, makes Trump look like a cuddly Teddy Bear in comparison.

Take a stand against extreme bigotry, hate, tyranny, violence, torture, humiliation, disfigurement, and mutilation of human beings who have different beliefs!

There are also pixies on the moon that have college degrees and do motorsports for fun.

I quite frankly don't understand why you keep quoting me when have haven't addressed or even taken consideration to anything I said.
I did think you where an ok dude Mr Dope but I'm second guessing that here.

Still an accurate quote for most scriptures (irrelevant to my initial points on Islam and the non-relevance of the Quran to it) is that their interpretations have a tendency to reflect the interests of the reader more than the words themselves. It strikes me as odd that this (even though it's not even a valid criticism of the Quran, unlike Hadith) is what you're hung up about with the Quran (which you've only read twice) when these themes are what you admit to have an obsession with, at the apparent expense of the forum.

To reaffirm my initial statements, these things you are complaining about I don't see in the Quran and I believe it to be anti-those things.

 

[Frater Sisyphus]

I have major problems with mainstream Islam doctrine/theology, Dogma, many of the Hadith, the narrow religiousity. I am very willyfully a heretic in most senses to Islam, but not the Quran. The Quran is a word from God, one that needed to be revealed to humanity.
Skepticism and neutral openmindedness are crucial to me, science to spirituality. Piety without greyface, the merging of outward searching as with inward searching. I'm a Sufi, I have a disdain for the mainstream sects and have no part in their cultic charade. Eventually, I would hope that Islam comes back to being Quran-centric over time and tries to adapt to the modern world better.

 

[Augustus]

Drivel. I am sorry to say...

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.

Typical scientistic cliches that accompany the naive form of rationalism. What does it even mean to 'slander science'? There are many sciences that exist independently of each other.

Why is irrational or incoherent about the idea that something like chemistry is far more reliable than neuroscience or psychology? This is a fact, even if you choose to ignore it.

It is objectively correct to say that the sciences are a major source of incorrect information. That this is true doesn't negate the fact that science, in general, is the best tool we have for understanding much of the world we live in.

It does mean we should apply scepticism to scientific knowledge the same as to any other form of knowledge.

A peer-reviewed scientific journal for you:

PLoS Med. 2005 Aug;2(8):e124. Epub 2005 Aug 30.
Why most published research findings are false.
Ioannidis JP

There is increasing concern that most current published research findings are false. The probability that a research claim is true may depend on study power and bias, the number of other studies on the same question, and, importantly, the ratio of true to no relationships among the relationships probed in each scientific field. In this framework, a research finding is less likely to be true when the studies conducted in a field are smaller; when effect sizes are smaller; when there is a greater number and lesser preselection of tested relationships; where there is greater flexibility in designs, definitions, outcomes, and analytical modes; when there is greater financial and other interest and prejudice; and when more teams are involved in a scientific field in chase of statistical significance. Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true. Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias. In this essay, I discuss the implications of these problems for the conduct and interpretation of research.

Why most published research findings are false. - PubMed - NCBI

some more information

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis

I could go on, but it makes my point.

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.

A lot of what you attribute to science is actually technology that was not pioneered via the 'scientific method'.

Formal science has had a lot less influence on technology than you assume.

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

There is no such thing as 'the scientific method', it is a myth taught in high schools. There are many scientific methods that depend on discipline, era, personal idiosyncrasies, etc.

Nobel winning physicist Steven Weinberg:

Not only does the fact that the standards of scientific success shift with time make the philosophy of science difficult; it also raises problems for the public understanding of science. We do not have a fixed scientific method to rally round and defend. I remember a conversation I had years ago with a high school teacher, who explained proudly that in her school teachers were trying to get away from teaching just scientific facts, and wanted instead to give their students an idea of what the scientific method was. I replied that I had no idea what the scientific method was, and I thought she ought to teach her students scientific facts. She thought I was just being surly. But it’s true; most scientists have very little idea of what the scientific method is, just as most bicyclists have very little idea of how bicycles stay erect. In both cases, if they think about it too much, they’re likely to fall off.


Racialism and phrenology were not deemed pseudosciences at the time, so it is an anachronistic fallacy to apply current perspectives to them. Some of our current knowledge will be deemed 'pseudoscientific' in the future. The point remains that these were deemed good science at the time, and educated, rational scientists believed in them and propagated them.

Science and it's methods are not fixed and clearly demarcated. Scientism tends to be a consequence of having little concern with the philosophy of science and thus uncritically accepting science as fact despite the obvious need to apply a degree of critical analysis to diverse scientific findings from different disciplines.

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.

Again this doesn't support the point you were making that objective knowledge is always good and false knowledge is always bad which you again have completely failed to provide any actual evidence for. Instead you make silly arguments about praying for space ships.

Objective knowledge is important if you are building a plane, it's not nearly so important regarding you motivations for building that plane in the first place.

Someone can be 'delusional' in one area of life and highly rational in others, or do good for 'delusional' reasons.

Newton, Bacon, Boyle, Bradwardine, etc made massive contributions to science while believing they were doing God's work. Rather than hindering it, their 'delusion' motivated their scientific discoveries. The experiment method in science was in part motivated by a rejection of the Greek belief in human rationality due to the flawed state of man due to the biblical fall.

"The experimental approach is justified primarily by appeals to the weakness of our sensory and cognitive capacities. For many seventeenth-century English thinkers these weaknesses were understood as consequences of the Fall. Boyle and Locke, for their part, also place stress on the incapacities that necessarily attend the kind of beings that we are. But in both cases, the more important issue is the nature of human capacities rather than the nature of the Deity. And if the idea of a fall away from an originally perfect knowledge begins to decline in importance towards the end of the seventeenth century, it nonetheless played a crucial role by drawing attention to the question of the capacities of human nature in the present world." Peter Harrison - The fall of man and the foundations of modern science


So it is 'delusional' to believe all false information is intrinsically harmful, and even more delusional to believe that your own worldview is completely uninfluenced by 'false' narratives.

 

[Dawnofhope]

In the example I gave you, the word "universal" implies that our ability to discern right from wrong is cross-cultural. It doesn't mean that everyone is equally capable of it anymore than we are equally capable of intelligence, another characteristic that might be called "universal."

I agree.

I think you confuse effect for cause. Our cultures, the market forces and our politics are shaped by us humans. They don't shape us.

It works both ways. We both shape our culture and our culture shapes us. Consider the massive expenditure that companies put into marketing their products and services. They do this because to some extent because corporations know they can influence our thoughts and behaviours. Similarly, what we call democracy can often degenerate into mass manipulation.

I don't think religion causes biases, prejudice and hatred. I think religion is just one of the pretexts that people use to satisfy their need to feel superior to others. It's the attitude that "Our religion is superior to theirs!" that causes prejudice and satisfies that need.

Agreed.

As a moral force, I think religion has been proven powerless. Christian beliefs, for example, didn't motivate the abolition of legal slavery, the cause of women's rights, or homosexual rights; but despite scripture that opposes such advances, religion couldn't stop them either.

Religion in Western culture has certainly lost its efficacy. The problem as we've discussed is the religion originating during times of humanities relative lack of maturity in comparison to todays lack of maturity.

It would be unfair to acknowledge that many Christians have promoted human rights despite their sacred writings and still do. They recognise that some of what was written nearly two thousand years ago is no longer relevant today.

We need to recognise the universal teachings in religion compared to those that were for a set period or age.

 

[Mox]

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

Have a drink for me.

 

[Mox]

A lot of what you attribute to science is actually technology that was not pioneered via the 'scientific method'.

You show me a technology that wasn't developed from a scientific theory or two...actually don't bother.

You are yet another tedious science denier, you are totally illiterate scientifically, I am bored talking to you. So I am putting you on ignore. Later tater.

 

[Mox]

There is no such thing as 'the scientific method', it is a myth taught in high schools. There are many scientific methods that depend on discipline, era, personal idiosyncrasies, etc.

Yup, no point talking to you.You really are completely ignorant about the subject.

But here you are anyway. Before our communications end permanently.

''The steps of the scientific method go something like this:

1. Make an observation or observations.
2. Ask questions about the observations and gather information.
3. Form a hypothesis — a tentative description of what's been observed, and make predictions based on that hypothesis.
4. Test the hypothesis and predictions in an experiment that can be reproduced.
5. Analyze the data and draw conclusions; accept or reject the hypothesis or modify the hypothesis if necessary.
6. Reproduce the experiment until there are no discrepancies between observations and theory. "Replication of methods and results is my favorite step in the scientific method," Moshe Pritsker, a former post-doctoral researcher at Harvard Medical School and CEO of JoVE, told Live Science. "The reproducibility of published experiments is the foundation of science. No reproducibility – no science."

 

[Augustus]

You are yet another tedious science denier, you are totally illiterate scientifically, I am bored talking to you. So I am putting you on ignore. Later tater.

No big loss.

When one's cognitive dissonance is so strong that quoting Nobel prize winning physicists and peer-reviewed scientific journals while also calling science 'the best tool we have to understand the world' is somehow akin to 'science denying' simply by saying sciences like psychology are less reliable than Chemistry there is little hope for a reasonable discussion based on what I actually say.

 

[Spiderman]

There are also pixies on the moon that have college degrees and do motorsports for fun.

I quite frankly don't understand why you keep quoting me when have haven't addressed or even taken consideration to anything I said.
I did think you where an ok dude Mr Dope but I'm second guessing that here.

Still an accurate quote for most scriptures (irrelevant to my initial points on Islam and the non-relevance of the Quran to it) is that their interpretations have a tendency to reflect the interests of the reader more than the words themselves. It strikes me as odd that this (even though it's not even a valid criticism of the Quran, unlike Hadith) is what you're hung up about with the Quran (which you've only read twice) when these themes are what you admit to have an obsession with, at the apparent expense of the forum.

To reaffirm my initial statements, these things you are complaining about I don't see in the Quran and I believe it to be anti-those things.

Im not an "okay dude", I have many problems.

But one thing I am is compassionate, don't commit violence, and despise hate and bigotry!

Bigotry, hate, and harsh policies run rampant in many countries with a Muslim majority. Islam has a very violent history, conquered much land, instituted harsh policies, and the agression, terrorism, and bigotry has harmed millions of people in my life time.

Muhammad was a violent extremist, and it is a historical fact!

The Qu'ran contains merciless, brutal, barbaric, cruel psychopathic tortures, mutilation, hatred, and calls to violence against some non-muslims, and I have proven this by simply showing it is in the Qu'ran.

 

[joe1776]

It works both ways. We both shape our culture and our culture shapes us. Consider the massive expenditure that companies put into marketing their products and services. They do this because to some extent because corporations know they can influence our thoughts and behaviours. Similarly, what we call democracy can often degenerate into mass manipulation.

Okay. I understand now what you meant and agree.

It would be unfair to acknowledge that many Christians have promoted human rights despite their sacred writings and still do. They recognise that some of what was written nearly two thousand years ago is no longer relevant today.

That's fine. As I wrote earlier, they did so because they are human with consciences..

We need to recognise the universal teachings in religion compared to those that were for a set period or age.

This is where you and I will have to agree to disagree or get into a very long debate.

My position is that the founders of religion were not divinely-inspired as they claimed. They meant well, but what they produced in moral guidance came from their consciences--the very same intuitive faculty that we all have. Some men wrote sacred texts, others wrote criminal laws, and both efforts are useless at best and biases when they conflict with the verdicts of conscience.

Conscience is a remarkable faculty. Moral acts happen in a seemingly infinite variety. Yet, if an act we consider is wrong, we will feel the wrongness immediately.

Your position will have to start with men being inspired by God. Mine begins with the thought that our remarkable conscience is the best evidence that a Loving Creator might exist and wants us to have free will along with moral guidance.

 

[David T]

Few rational people would argue that the progress of science has been anything other than quite hit-and-miss - all involved are human after all - but religions have been the instigators of much violence and friction, which perhaps could have been avoided if they never existed. Science was inevitable, that is the factual situation, since most of it was just waiting to be discovered - new knowledge building on existing knowledge. Religions tend to build on myths, so more like building on quicksand, unlike science. Stick to what you want to believe if you must. As far as I'm concerned religions have no place in my life.

Whee is the atomic bomb recipe in the Bible? Grandma's reading bronze age poetry is very very scary indeed.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Whee is the atomic bomb recipe in the Bible? Grandma's reading bronze age poetry is very very scary indeed.

Not science itself though, is it - just those who use it wrongly. Religions by their nature have caused more divisions probably than anything else, so they can be accused of being the causes of so many deaths. Like to offer up which religion I (or anyone else these days) should choose to believe, and why? Not that I would take up any offers - none make that much sense to me - apart from Buddhism. Why not stick with philosophy and leave the 'what about God' to the last day of your life - when your beliefs can't harm any others. One can live by any code one chooses without necessarily subscribing to some religion. It might have been inevitable that humans developed religion but we also admit our mistakes - some at least - and this was one of our greatest mistakes in my view. It's pure supposition that humans would not have developed as we have without religions.

 

[Augustus]

religions by their nature have caused more divisions probably than anything else, so they can be accused of being the causes of so many deaths.

Arguably they have caused more unity than anything else. How would you make a case that people would have been more united throughout history without religions? What would have been the unifying ideologies in societies?

The natural state of human society is division, the idea we have a common humanity has mostly developed via monotheistic religion.

Even if you argue that religion is no longer necessary, what historically would have replaced it and how would this have been more unifying?

 

[David T]

Not science itself though, is it - just those who use it wrongly. Religions by their nature have caused more divisions probably than anything else, so they can be accused of being the causes of so many deaths. Like to offer up which religion I (or anyone else these days) should choose to believe, and why? Not that I would take up any offers - none make that much sense to me - apart from Buddhism. Why not stick with philosophy and leave the 'what about God' to the last day of your life - when your beliefs can't harm any others. One can live by any code one chooses without necessarily subscribing to some religion. It might have been inevitable that humans developed religion but we also admit our mistakes - some at least - and this was one of our greatest mistakes in my view. It's pure supposition that humans would not have developed as we have without religions.

An amoral science always manifests immorally regardless. Unless we are talking about concrete. Are we talking about the psi of concrete? There is zero aspect of the term morality involved in terms of concrete.

But nature is spectrum and thus science is studying spectrum. The closer science gets to us the infinitely more scattered the reasoning becomes. this is a curious fact that plagues science. An atheist a believer an agnostic will not argue as to the morality of psi of concrete and all agree and easily communicate at that level. The communication breaks down though as soon as we start to move toward interpersonal. It's that aspect that determines how we interpret nature.