Questions for Muslims

[icehorse]

If religions are ideas, then atheism, by definition, (which is the idea that there is no God/deity), would be classified as a religion.

The main problem here is the misapplication of subsets. If your logic worked, then we could say:

"If a dog is an animal, then a cat, by definition (which is also an animal) would be classified as a dog."

But clearly a cat is not a dog. They are both animals, but they are different types of animals.

Similarly, atheism is not religion. They are both ideas, but they are different types of ideas.

 

[Jabar]

The main problem here is the misapplication of subsets. If your logic worked, then we could say:

"If a dog is an animal, then a cat, by definition (which is also an animal) would be classified as a dog."

But clearly a cat is not a dog. They are both animals, but they are different types of animals.

Similarly, atheism is not religion. They are both ideas, but they are different types of ideas.

I believe Atheism is nonbelief from ignorance.

Religion are not ideas, specifically Islam is a complete way of life.

 

[icehorse]

I believe Atheism is nonbelief from ignorance.
Religion are not ideas, specifically Islam is a complete way of life.

I have read the entire Quran (in English). I have studied two other translations. I have studied a bit of the Hadith. I have read several biographies of Muhammad. I have Muslim friends. I don't think I'm ignorant. I'm sure that more exposure to Islam would not change my mind. If anything, as I debate Muslims, I tend to see them using the same old arguments. (BTW, the "you're ignorant" argument is a common one I hear. And I hear many Muslims say this to many non-believers.)

I agree with you that Islamic instructions cover a complete way of life. But these instructions are a collection of ideas.

 

[Jabar]

I have read the entire Quran (in English). I have studied two other translations. I have studied a bit of the Hadith. I have read several biographies of Muhammad. I have Muslim friends. I don't think I'm ignorant. I'm sure that more exposure to Islam would not change my mind. If anything, as I debate Muslims, I tend to see them using the same old arguments. (BTW, the "you're ignorant" argument is a common one I hear. And I hear many Muslims say this to many non-believers.)

I agree with you that Islamic instructions cover a complete way of life. But these instructions are a collection of ideas.

They are not a collection of ideas.

But an instruction manual for this tested life.

So what is your point?

 

[icehorse]

Hi Augustus,

I agree that it's an oversimplification to say there are only two categories of violence. Would you agree that we could construct a continuum that ranges from "violence with no discernible religious component" to "violence clearly motivated by religion"? On such a continuum we would see many examples fall in between the two ends, but would be closer to one end or the other? For example, Genghis Khan was (perhaps surprisingly), religiously tolerant, as opposed to the Crusades which were clearly heavily motivated by religion.

 

[icehorse]

They are not a collection of ideas.

But an instruction manual for this tested life.

So what is your point?

Hi Jabar, perhaps we're just disagreeing over the definition of a few words. An instruction manual is a collection of ideas.

 

[Jabar]

Hi Jabar, perhaps we're just disagreeing over the definition of a few words. An instruction manual is a collection of ideas.

It is a divine intruction manual.

If you try and degrade the Qur'an by saying it is a collection of ideas...

Try again.

 

[icehorse]

It is a divine intruction manual.

If you try and degrade the Qur'an by saying it is a collection of ideas...

Try again.

For the sake of this part of the discussion only, let's assume you're correct and that it's divine. It's STILL a collection of ideas that Allah thought would be good for people to follow.

 

[Jabar]

For the sake of this part of the discussion only, let's assume you're correct and that it's divine. It's STILL a collection of ideas that Allah thought would be good for people to follow.

Okay, if you mean it in that way then i would agree.



What's your point?

 

[EtuMalku]

Okay, if you mean it in that way then i would agree.



What's your point?

His point is that all religions are simply philosophies . . . whether you believe them to be of divine origin or man-made is beside the point

 

[Jabar]

His point is that all religions are simply philosophies . . . whether you believe them to be of divine origin or man-made is beside the point

Okay.

 

[Augustus]

Would you agree that we could construct a continuum that ranges from "violence with no discernible religious component" to "violence clearly motivated by religion"?

To some extent you can identify violence that has an ideological component [of which religion would be included], and violence of a more 'traditional' nature.

Humans have a tradition of romantic/utopian violence, whereby 'redemptive' violence can be used to 'progress' society. Modern Jihadism, the Musnster Anabaptists, left wing urban guerrillas, fascists, etc. would fit into this paradigm.

In these case, the ideological component is essential to the violence which would not make sense without it. Such movement seem to appear out of certain social conditions though. The ideology arises or gains popularity due to the conditions, then motivates behaviour. Certain conditions seem to facilitate extremism of one form of the other, so looking solely at the ideology as the 'cause' is not very useful. (couple of great books: N Cohn - The pursuit of the millennium, William Pfaff - The bullet's song)

On a larger scale, ideological violence is rarer, but neocons, the Crusades, Naziism could fit into a similar scheme. The problem at a larger scale though is that it can be hard to distinguish between ideological violence and 'traditional' violence. Few people look at the Iraq invasion as being an ideological war, preferring power, oil etc as explanations despite a pretty strong case for ideology as being a/the core component.

With the Arab conquest of India, for example, it is almost impossible to distinguish this from traditional conquering as nothing happened that didn't also happen in 'traditional' wars. As such it is pretty meaningless, if not incorrect, to label it ideological. How does it differ from the Mongols, Romans, Alexander, etc.?

Pre-modern violence is particularly hard to demonstrate as ideological/religious in nature with perhaps a handful of exceptions. Remember pious narratives were often post hoc rationalisations for plain old violence, and all societies were violent- especially the powerful ones.

What are your arguments about why monotheistic religions should be singled out as being especially violent compared to a baseline of all human history, rather than a baseline of zero?

[btw can you use the reply function please? Just makes it easier to find posts in longer threads with multiple discussions ]

 

[firedragon]

At least Atheists dont worship fathers, buildings, mullahs and murder in the name of God.
And they research rather than follow blindly.

 

[icehorse]

What are your arguments about why monotheistic religions should be singled out as being especially violent compared to a baseline of all human history, rather than a baseline of zero?

As I think I've said or implied before, I don't claim that religion is the source of all violence. Genghis Khan is a great example of such non-religious violence. The reason that I mostly single out Christianity and Islam, is that they ratify and sustain supremacist and conquest-oriented worldviews. Marginalizing these two religions wouldn't solve all of the world's problems, but it would be a step in the right direction.

 

[Augustus]

As I think I've said or implied before, I don't claim that religion is the source of all violence. Genghis Khan is a great example of such non-religious violence. The reason that I mostly single out Christianity and Islam, is that they ratify and sustain supremacist and conquest-oriented worldviews. Marginalizing these two religions wouldn't solve all of the world's problems, but it would be a step in the right direction.

That would be a modern argument though, which can't really be supported using historical examples.

You are also still using a zero baseline.

What do you think about the argument that Islam and Christianity acted as a bulwark against communism which was the most murderous ideology ever pound-for-pound? Does that give them 'money in the bank'?

Or that people being Christian or Muslim stops them from being something else, and that something else could possibly be worse. Secular ideologies do have a terrible record, unless you start arbitrarily picking and choosing. You can't say 2.5 billion people will become secular humanists, your arguments rest on the assumption that the alternative can't be worse (despite the evidence to the contrary).

[This isn't an argument against secularism, it is an argument against the assumption that they couldn't be replaced with something worse.)

 

[icehorse]

What do you think about the argument that Islam and Christianity acted as a bulwark against communism which was the most murderous ideology ever pound-for-pound? Does that give them 'money in the bank'?

One counter example is that the church was in bed with Russian, fascist leaders.

Or that people being Christian or Muslim stops them from being something else, and that something else could possibly be worse. Secular ideologies do have a terrible record, unless you start arbitrarily picking and choosing.

I'm assuming that you're talking about the various fascist regimes of the last 100 years? If so, I would contend that "secularism" was orthogonal to these regimes. It's far more meaningful to notice that these regimes were all quite dogmatic, and in that way I contend that they were attempts to replace old dogma (religion), with new dogma. As you know, dogma is antithetical to secularism. I think that when people call out the secular aspect of fascism, it's similar to calling out vegetarianism, because Hitler was a vegetarian. BTW, I have to give Hitchens credit for this argument, and he does a far better job of making this case than I do.

So I would say that if you look to the countries that have most accurately implemented SH (e.g. Scandinavia), you'll see good evidence.

 

[FearGod]

As I think I've said or implied before, I don't claim that religion is the source of all violence. Genghis Khan is a great example of such non-religious violence. The reason that I mostly single out Christianity and Islam, is that they ratify and sustain supremacist and conquest-oriented worldviews. Marginalizing these two religions wouldn't solve all of the world's problems, but it would be a step in the right direction.

If there were no Islam then i guess the world won't be as we know it today,
Islam ended a lot of awful things in our world which was controlled at that
time by the Roman and Persian Empires, then it isn't hard to notice the changes
that happened from the beginning of Islam and the civilized world during and after
the era of Islam.

 

[icehorse]

If there were no Islam then i guess the world won't be as we know it today,
Islam ended a lot of awful things in our world which was controlled at that
time by the Roman and Persian Empires, then it isn't hard to notice the changes
that happened from the beginning of Islam and the civilized world during and after
the era of Islam.

Islam and Christianity both have checkered pasts. But I would agree that there have been some benefits. But at this point in time, these religions are slowing down our development of wisdom, and we need new, improved wisdom these days.

 

[Augustus]

One counter example is that the church was in bed with Russian, fascist leaders.

I'm not arguing for the flawless morals of the Church as that is obviously untenable.

The Bolshevik coup didn't leave much room for moderation though.

I'm assuming that you're talking about the various fascist regimes of the last 100 years? If so, I would contend that "secularism" was orthogonal to these regimes. It's far more meaningful to notice that these regimes were all quite dogmatic, and in that way I contend that they were attempts to replace old dogma (religion), with new dogma. As you know, dogma is antithetical to secularism.

I'm using it to mean not religious, which is the context of your argument.

I think that when people call out the secular aspect of fascism, it's similar to calling out vegetarianism, because Hitler was a vegetarian. BTW, I have to give Hitchens credit for this argument, and he does a far better job of making this case than I do.

It's a very flawed argument though. When you are saying the world would be better without the monotheisms, you have to accept that this brings into play everything else that could replace them, not just the ones you want. It is an argument formed against religious apologists, not against secularist critics of anti-theism and doesn't transfer very well.

Hitchens lost all moral authority when he supported neo-con ideological violence in Iraq. This was no different to religiously motivated violence and was also 'dogmatic' given its total inability to recognise how utopian and unrealistic it was (he couldn't even bring himself to admit he was wrong even after it was proved that the war was a massive and very counter productive failure).

This is why I refuse to differentiate between religious and ideological violence, they are 2 sides of the same coin.

So I would say that if you look to the countries that have most accurately implemented SH (e.g. Scandinavia), you'll see good evidence.

If everyone was SH then the world would be more peaceful, fair enough. No problems with that claim.

This isn't going to happen though, and any belief that it is possible is every bit as utopian as believing in the second coming or a worldwide Islamic Caliphate. It is a form of the 'end of history' hypothesis that was ridiculous when it was written and even more ridiculous now.

This goes back to the main argument I've been making, you judge things against a baseline of all of the alternatives, not against a baseline of zero or a baseline of 'my personal preference'.

 

[Augustus]

Islam ended a lot of awful things in our world

Such as? The Sassanid Empire I'll give you, what else 'ended'?

then it isn't hard to notice the changes
that happened from the beginning of Islam and the civilized world during and after
the era of Islam.

Such as?