Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Islamic Hatred

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Because people who take things seriously are called extremists. That's just how that word is used.

 

So Muslim scholars that devote their lives to arguing for the compatibility of Islam with Western values aren't taking their religion seriously?  Really?

 

'Extremist' Muslims aren't labeled extremist because they're the only ones that take their religion seriously.  They're labeled extremist because they're willing to kill for their interpretation of Islam.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So Muslim scholars that devote their lives to arguing for the compatibility of Islam with Western values aren't taking their religion seriously?  Really?

Yes, really. If you subject the two sets of values to a rigidly rational evaluation, the conclusion is that Islamic and western values are not compatible.

You have to compromise and neglect parts of one or both, before you can subscribe to them simultaneously. You can't be a faithful servant to God and embrace freedom at the same time. It's a contradiction.

Edited by Nicky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The recent Economist has a graphic on a survey of Muslim opinion. Note the answer to the question of whether people who leave Islam should get the death penalty. In Egypt, a huge majority supports killing apostates. meanwhile, Even in Tunisia, most liberal of the Maghreb countries, almost 30% of respondents say it is okay to kill Muslims who give up Islam. The most liberal areas -- by this poll -- are the ex-Soviet republics.

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, really. If you subject the two sets of values to a rigidly rational evaluation, the conclusion is that Islamic and western values are not compatible.

 

And?  Islam is not compatible with itself!  Its holy book contradicts itself numerous times, much like the Bible.  In virtue of this, I fail to see why Islamic scholars who accept western values are being more contradictory than your extremists.  They are all picking and choosing verses they like, interpreting away those they don't, in order to glean a consistent worldview out of contradictory source material.  I see no reason to accept the idea that one set of them is 'more serious' about ideas or about their own religion than the other.  And that's certainly not why we would label one group 'extremist.'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The recent Economist has a graphic on a survey of Muslim opinion. Note the answer to the question of whether people who leave Islam should get the death penalty. In Egypt, a huge majority supports killing apostates. meanwhile, Even in Tunisia, most liberal of the Maghreb countries, almost 30% of respondents say it is okay to kill Muslims who give up Islam. The most liberal areas -- by this poll -- are the ex-Soviet republics.

 

Thanks for the link.  I'd be interested to see the numbers for Muslims in America too.  For this link, it's worth noting that the percentages being charted are percentages out of only those Muslims that support Sharia law in the first place.  This causes big problems with the way they've drawn their graph.  For example, although Iraq and Lebanon look similar in the numbers of how many people support killing apostates (42% and 46%), they aren't.  In Iraq, 91% of respondents support the basic premise of imposing sharia law, so the percentage given for killing apostates just about represents all Muslims (42% of 91% yielding 38% overall).  In Lebanon, only 29% of Muslims even agree with the imposition of sharia law in the first place, so the number that support killing apostates is 46% of 29%, or 13% overall.

 

Either way, clearly the majority of Muslims in many parts of the world do not agree with even basic requirements of Western values such as religious freedom.  Islam in these regions is still stuck in its own Dark Ages.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For this link, it's worth noting that the percentages being charted are percentages out of only those Muslims that support Sharia law in the first place.

Wow, I completely missed that! So, that graphic does not really tell us what muslims think. We'd have to multiply each percent with the percent of muslims who support Sharia. So,m in Egypt (for instance) where 74% want Sharia, and about 86% of those want apostates killed, if implies that about 63% of all Egyptian muslims want sharia and also want apostates killed.

 

The original report is at PEW here, but it is huge and would take some wading through. Glancing at PEW's summaries, it looks like they did not poll American muslims.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And?  Islam is not compatible with itself!  Its holy book contradicts itself numerous times, much like the Bible.  In virtue of this, I fail to see why Islamic scholars who accept western values are being more contradictory than your extremists.  They are all picking and choosing verses they like, interpreting away those they don't, in order to glean a consistent worldview out of contradictory source material.  I see no reason to accept the idea that one set of them is 'more serious' about ideas or about their own religion than the other.  And that's certainly not why we would label one group 'extremist.'

Alright, let's get a little more specific. Off the top of my head, the two main western values are:

1. Reason (the belief that men ought to form a view of the world based on logic applied to the product of our senses)

2. Individual rights (the belief that, in a social context, men ought to be free to speak their minds, believe whatever they wish, and act as they wish so long as they don't violate others' rights). This second one is a little less well defined, even in western culture, but there is a clear belief in free speech, total religious freedom, and a wide variety of other individual rights.

You are claiming that there are Islamic scholars who believe in these two values, are arguing that these are Islamic values, and have identified specific segments in Islamic books that preach these values. Please, name these scholars, show where they argue for these two values, and show where Islamic books preach these two values. (like I said, in the case of individual rights the West is lacking, so it would be unreasonable to demand that you prove that the Quran preaches for individual rights as defined by the Declaration of Independence or Ayn Rand - so, if you can show that the Quran preaches individual rights at least to the extent the most socialist western countries protect them, I'll accept that as a "western value" and be satisfied with your evidence)

But I doubt you can. I think even the most moderate Islamic scholars simply advocate for Islam getting out of the way, and not imposing its values on everyone. I have never heard a single Islamic scholar (or, for that matter, any mainstream Christian scholar) argue FOR reason (and all that entails, including the abortion of accidental, unwanted pregnancies, extramarital sex, homosexual sex if you're a homosexual, etc., etc.), or for freedom (including the freedom to insult any religion, to leave any religion, to engage in homosexual activity, to have an abortion, etc, etc.).

The only way reason and freedom will prevail in Islamic countries is the same way it prevailed in the West: through secularism. Not through looking for support in religious text.

Edited by Nicky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Three Stages of Jihad, a youtube video of 24:51 duration.

 

In my own words: This is an explanation of how the chronological progress of Muhammed in his career, first as a ridiculed figure, then a bandit, and then as a conqueror, created the contradictory exhortations found in the Koran.   

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XX6cJueu9tw

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mysticism is based on the primacy of consciousness, which is a rejection of reality.

You are part of reality.  When you reject reality, you are rejecting yourself.

This is probably why so many varieties of mysticism are openly and specifically anti-life.

 

The ultimate goal of a truly devout Muslim (which holds true for Christians and Jews, as well) is to reach heaven; the after-life.

The purpose and the drive is for life to be over.  That is the prime directive.

 

Freedom is a requirement for life here, as man, on this Earth.

For a mysticist, life is waiting in a long line which you can't exit for an entire lifetime.

 

This is why moderate mysticists, who advocate freedom and capitalism, are contradictory.  I'm not going to point it out to them, though; contradictions can be solved in one of two ways, and it could be either. . .

 

Edited by Harrison Danneskjold
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But I doubt you can. I think even the most moderate Islamic scholars simply advocate for Islam getting out of the way, and not imposing its values on everyone. I have never heard a single Islamic scholar (or, for that matter, any mainstream Christian scholar) argue FOR reason (and all that entails, including the abortion of accidental, unwanted pregnancies, extramarital sex, homosexual sex if you're a homosexual, etc., etc.), or for freedom (including the freedom to insult any religion, to leave any religion, to engage in homosexual activity, to have an abortion, etc, etc.).

 

There is a big difference, that you seem to be glossing over, between arguing for reason and arguing for reason and everything Objectivists think reason entails, and the latter is a ridiculous requirement.  To illustrate why, let me simply continue your list of what we both agree reason entails: free market capitalism, ethical egoism, and atheism.  You're never going to find a religious scholar that agrees with Objectivists about what reason entails, for obvious reasons: then they wouldn't be religious in the first place.  I'm talking about Islamic scholars who affirm the fundamental importance of reason and embrace the basics of Western society: religious freedom, gender equality, freedom of speech, rule of law.  That said, finding one example took me about 30 seconds on Google: Fathi Osman Sample quote: '“We have to realize that God’s law is not an alternative to the human mind, nor is it supposed to put it out of action,” Dr. Osman wrote in an essay on Islam and human rights. “Openness is life, while being closed off and isolated is suicidal.”'

 

The only way reason and freedom will prevail in Islamic countries is the same way it prevailed in the West: through secularism. Not through looking for support in religious text.

 

And why do you think secularism was able to prevail in what were still majority Christian countries? Precisely because Christians themselves came to accept the compatibility of Christianity with a secular society. This occurred partly because scholars, like Thomas Aquinas, reinterpreted the religious texts as compatible with reason and secular society. It bears noting here that a similar move towards reason and secularism occurred in Islam's history, through thinkers like Avicenna. Unfortunately, these thinkers did not ultimately exert the kind of lasting influence on Islam that similar Christian theologians did on Christianity. Thus, the theocratic nature of Islam throughout much of the world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a big difference, that you seem to be glossing over, between arguing for reason and arguing for reason and everything Objectivists think reason entails, and the latter is a ridiculous requirement.

I'm fine with not requiring the Objectivist standard of reason. I'll take your standard.

That's right: just give me your honest assessment of what is rational, and then prove that Islam is for it. Either that, or stop claiming that Islam, or any part of it, stands for reason. You don't believe it either.

 

You can't possibly tell me that requiring you to use YOUR own standard to define your own words would also be a ridiculous requirement.

You're never going to find a religious scholar that agrees with Objectivists about what reason entails, for obvious reasons: then they wouldn't be religious in the first place.

Reason is logic applied to the product of our senses. I don't know if religious scholars agree with that definition or not. But it's irrelevant whether they agree with it or not.

The point is that no matter what you call the process of applying logic to our senses (reason, thingamabob or just adfs;jldsaklj;fas), applying logic to our senses to determine the truth value of various statements about reality is in fact a western value, and religion rejects that value. That has nothing to do with the definitions of words. That is an irreconcilable, fundamental difference.

Edited by Nicky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're never going to find a religious scholar that agrees with Objectivists about what reason entails, for obvious reasons: then they wouldn't be religious in the first place.  I'm talking about Islamic scholars who affirm the fundamental importance of reason and embrace the basics of Western society: religious freedom, gender equality, freedom of speech, rule of law.

 

I agree with Dante here. Of course in every religion there's things you're supposed to do (pray, participate in rituals, etc) and things you're forbidden from doing (ie: sex out of wedlock, eating certain foods, etc). This isn't unique to Islam- Why can't Jews have cheese on their hamburgers?- there isn't a logical explanation for it. It's simply a rule they're supposed to follow because God (a parent figure) has told them to. In this sense, religion is based on faith (anti-reason). Then there's passages like the ones below (taken from the Quran) that do support reason and contradict earlier passages: 

  • [God says]: "The things that my Lord has truly forbidden are: Shameful deeds, in open or in secret; Sins and lies against truth or reason; Assigning partners to Allah, for which He has given no authority; And saying things about Allah, which you do not know." 7:33
  • [Muhammad says]: "BEHOLD, God enjoins justice, and the doing of good, and generosity towards [one's] fellow-men; and He forbids all that is shameful and all that runs counter to reason, as well as envy; [and] He exhorts you [repeatedly] so that you might bear [all this] in mind." 16:90

(Note that reason is not defined here.) There's also passages that voice condemnation about racism, slavery, and murder. Again, all of these passages are contradicted somewhere in the Quran... Muhammad himself owned over 50 slaves!

  • "All mankind is from Adam and Eve, an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab; also a white has no superiority over a black nor a black has any superiority over white except by piety and good action... Nothing shall be legitimate to a Muslim which belongs to a fellow Muslim unless it was given freely and willingly. Do not, therefore, do injustice to yourselves." Muhammad's Last Sermon
  • "There are three categories of people against whom I shall myself be a plaintiff on the Day of Judgement. Of these three, one is he who enslaves a free man, then sells him and eats this money..."
  • "...whoever kills a soul unless for a soul or for corruption [done] in the land - it is as if he had slain mankind entirely." 5:32 (This is specifically about Israelites, but I've seen it applied to all people in the news & on other sites.)
  • "Do not kill a soul which Allah has made sacred except through the due process of law." 6:151

These passages alone don't prove much- just that Islam, or more specifically it's holy book, is full of contradictions. Sometimes it advocates reason, and other times it advocates faith. Are these views compatible? No, of course not- like Dante said above, "They are all picking and choosing verses they like, interpreting away those they don't, in order to glean a consistent worldview out of contradictory source material." I think we can all agree with that.

 

Now the question that hasn't been answered is, "Why do you think Muslims who accept western values are "less serious" about Islam, or "more contradictory" than Islamic extremists (ie- suicide bombing terrorists)?" This is the crux of Epstein's view- and until it can be answered, I fail to see the point of all this back-and-forth about religion being contradictory (that we all agree with).

Edited by mdegges
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Why do you think Muslims who accept western values are "less serious" about Islam, or "more contradictory" than Islamic extremists (ie- suicide bombing terrorists)?"

 

To reach the conclusion of political freedom:

1. Existence exists

2. Man's method of knowing it is reason

3. Man's purpose is the fulfillment of his own life

4. Man must be allowed to use his own mind; he must be free

 

Starting from mysticism:

1. Existence doesn't exist

2. Man's method of knowing it is through mysterious forces which he can never understand

3. Man's purpose is to escape existence and reach the mysterious forces

4. Man must obey the forces, at all costs

 

And since the purpose of obeying Alleh is to reach heaven (to die), to enforce obedience at gunpoint goes hand-in-hand.

(I don't personally know any Muslims, but) a mystical capitalist; a modern Conservative:

1. Existence doesn't exist

2. Man's method of knowing it is through mysterious forces, although reason can be useful sometimes

3. Man's purpose is to be happy and then die

4. Man must be free

Edited by Harrison Danneskjold
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now the question that hasn't been answered is, "Why do you think Muslims who accept western values are "less serious" about Islam, or "more contradictory" than Islamic extremists (ie- suicide bombing terrorists)?" This is the crux of Epstein's view- and until it can be answered, I fail to see the point of all this back-and-forth about religion being contradictory (that we all agree with).

 

This question is answered in the video The Three Stages of Jihad.  There is method to the madness, a reason behind the apparent contradictions which are not really contradictions just the ruthlessly expedient maneuverings of a sect in a quest for political power, emulating the career and manueverings of their prophet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These passages alone don't prove much- just that Islam, or more specifically it's holy book, is full of contradictions. Sometimes it advocates reason, and other times it advocates faith.

I agree that those passages don't prove much. I disagree that they prove that Islam advocates reason. Even just "sometimes". The statement "reason is good, because God said so...btw., you must do everything God says, including kill non-believers" is in no way advocacy of reason. Not even in part.

The West is what it is because it rejected such statements and ACTUALLY embraced reason.

"Why do you think Muslims who accept western values are "less serious" about Islam, or "more contradictory" than Islamic extremists (ie- suicide bombing terrorists)?"

I'm not going to answer a loaded question until you first prove that the assumptions in your question are true. Until then, my answer is that your question is bs. There are no devout Muslims who embrace western values, and there is nothing in Islam that is a core western value.

So far, you haven't. You're yet to show a single Islamic scholar who embraces western values, or a single Islamic passage that advocates for a single western value. Your quotes do not show that. Even your hand picked, out of context quotes that are supposed to embrace western values are irrational and savage beyond even the most loose of western standards. Most of them are about why "the forbidden" (that would be the content of laws) is what God considers shameful. That's what you want me to accept as "western values"?

 

I'm talking about Islamic scholars who affirm the fundamental importance of reason and embrace the basics of Western society: religious freedom, gender equality, freedom of speech, rule of law.

1. You're not really talking about any specific Islamic scholars who preach those things. So far, you're talking about hypothetical scholars. I'd love the opportunity to look into a specific name or two, and prove how much they reject western values, or how little they have to do with Islam. If you're willing to name names, that is.

2. Gender equality is not a western value, on account that neither the sexes nor the genders are equal. Indiscriminate rights, irrespective or race, religion, gender, sex, sexual orientation, etc.: that is the western value. Sorry, but a shy "let's not treat our women as kettle" doesn't count as embracing western standards on the subject of equality in rights. 

 

Rule of law also isn't a western value: rule of objective, rational law is. Islam does embrace the rule of law, of course: but not any kind of law you'd want to live under. Islam embraces God's word as law.

 

And why do you think secularism was able to prevail in what were still majority Christian countries? Precisely because Christians themselves came to accept the compatibility of Christianity with a secular society. This occurred partly because scholars, like Thomas Aquinas, reinterpreted the religious texts as compatible with reason and secular society.

Your inferrence doesn't work. Statement 1 (Aquinas' philosophy moved western civilization towards secularism) is true.

 

But from it, statement 2 (Aquinas, or the Church and its scholars later on gave their permission for secularism to take a hold) does not follow. Secularism is more than just Aquinas reviving Aristotle. Secularism is shutting the Church out of academia, science and government. By force or by refusing to listen to them, not by mutual agreement. That is what happened. The Church never volunteered to leave people be. They were shut out.

 

Aquinas did not make the world secular. Three hundred years after Aquinas the Church was still merrily running Holy Wars and Inquisitions.

 

Aquinas was helpful in the development of western civilization, but Islamic countries don't need little Aquinas's. Little Aquinas's aren't going to create a secular society anytime soon. What they need is secular intellectuals and leaders who learn not from Islamic scholars, or from Aquinas, but from the modern West. Intellectuals and leaders who are willing to FORCE Islam out of their realm, kicking and screaming. Now, following our lead. Not hundreds of years after an Islamic scholar reinvents the wheel. Today, religious scholars no longer hold the monopoly on intellectual thought, the way they did in Aquinas' time. Today, religious scholars are obsolete. Useless. Their rationalizations are not gonna compare to what a secular intellectual can come up with in his sleep.

 

Muslim countries need Salman Rushdies and Ali Hirsi Alis, not moderate religious scholars.

Thomas Aquinas, reinterpreted the religious texts as compatible with reason and secular society.

I'm not familiar with that aspect of Aquinas' work. Where does Aquinas argue that religion is compatible with secularism (separation of church and state).

Edited by Nicky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Economist published a correction to the article linked above. They now say that the sample that was questioned was only people who said that non-muslims were free to practice their religion. In countries where the people saying "yes" is small, it is likely that the sub-sample over-represents religious zealots.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thomas Aquinas, reinterpreted the religious texts as compatible with reason and secular society.

I'm not familiar with that aspect of Aquinas' work. Where does Aquinas argue that religion is compatible with secularism (separation of church and state). 

 

Aquinas was teetering on the edge of being killed just by suggesting that logic should play a role in man's view of the world, instead of just accepting God's word without though. I don't think dropping the concept "secularism" in the 1200s would've went over very well.

Edited by Nicky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This question is answered in the video The Three Stages of Jihad.  There is method to the madness, a reason behind the apparent contradictions which are not really contradictions just the ruthlessly expedient maneuverings of a sect in a quest for political power, emulating the career and manueverings of their prophet.

 

Ok.. then how do you explain Muhammad's last sermon given in 632 (the same year of his death), where he says: "All mankind is from Adam and Eve, an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab..."? Where does this fit into the "ruthlessly expedient maneuvering"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Starting from mysticism:

1. Existence doesn't exist

2. Man's method of knowing it is through mysterious forces which he can never understand

3. Man's purpose is to escape existence and reach the mysterious forces

4. Man must obey the forces, at all costs

 

And since the purpose of obeying Alleh is to reach heaven (to die), to enforce obedience at gunpoint goes hand-in-hand.

(I don't personally know any Muslims, but) a mystical capitalist; a modern Conservative:

1. Existence doesn't exist

2. Man's method of knowing it is through mysterious forces, although reason can be useful sometimes

3. Man's purpose is to be happy and then die

4. Man must be free

 

I bolded the parts that I disagree with. Firstly, the purpose of "obeying Allah" is not to die: it's to follow the correct & moral guidelines on earth in order to 1) live a more fulfilling life, and 2) reach a nice place after death (death is inevitable- but the idea here is that where you go is up to you. you can go somewhere wonderful or somewhere horrible. the choice is up to you.) Any religious person will tell you that it is good and right and dandy for him to be happy, as long as he stays within the correct & moral guidelines given to him by God. (Piece of cake, right? :stuart:)

 

Secondly, which religion believes/promotes the idea that "existence doesn't exist"? If X believes in God or heaven or whatever, does this mean he automatically rejects the fact that the chair he's sitting on is real? (I don't think so. He can't just imagine the chair away... he must come to the understanding that the chair does exist. Similarly, just because he believes in something that we agree isn't real, doesn't mean he believes in every made-up thing that isn't real- like the boogeyman.) 

Edited by mdegges
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok.. then how do you explain Muhammad's last sermon given in 632 (the same year of his death), where he says: "All mankind is from Adam and Eve, an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab..."? Where does this fit into the "ruthlessly expedient maneuvering"?

Well, what superiority is he talking about?   

 

The only real superiority that matters to him is that of the ummat al-Islamiyah. Not being wedded to a racist ideology works well for empire building, and Islam is explicitly imperialist in its ambitions to subsume the whole world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok.. then how do you explain Muhammad's last sermon given in 632 (the same year of his death), where he says: "All mankind is from Adam and Eve, an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab..."? Where does this fit into the "ruthlessly expedient maneuvering"?

As an aside, if you're interested in the topic, and if you haven't done so already, you should read the Quran. It is pretty boring and repetitive (clearly not the narration of one person), but it is short. You'll probably conclude that Mohammed was squarely in the Judaic-Christian tradition. All three are worshipping the same conception of God. Early on, the ideological differences are few: for instance, Mohammed objects to the notion of "trinity" as violating mono-theism, but many early christian groups did so too. Set in a different time and place, Islam could have been Mormonism.

Of course, it wasn't. Its time and place are crucial, because it is not the original core ideology that defines what muslims think today: it is the add-ons from place and time. Firstly, Mohammed became a political leader, who had to rally his people to battle. With this comes some "us vs. them" ideology. Almost all the exhortation against infidels comes in this context. Still, the exhortations are there, and subsequent leaders and scholars built layers of bad ideology and interpretation on top of that. Modern Christians think of the bible as if it came down mostly as it is, from centuries ago. Actually, the bible was put together and edited by early Christian scholars. A follower of Jesus should probably take heed of what is in the four Gospels, but a modern reader reads them as second-hand reports: thus retaining the freedom to reject some aspects. As for Paul -- such an influential figure in Christianity -- a modern reader might well ask why he should be given any more weight than a contemporary Christian scholar.

A similar re-interpretation has to take place in Islam. For Islam, an important step ought to be a "back to the Quran" move, where the non-Quranic reports from Mohammed's associates/disciples are put on a slightly lesser rung, and where the teachings of the next generation of scholars is given even less importance. There is no reason to think these scholars are in any different a position from the Christian Paul. Meanwhile (could be for a long while) Islam is what the bulk of its followers interpret it to be. To everyone else, that is what matters: not how they ought to interpret it, but how they do. If one looks at this way, there is clearly a modern Islam, a traditional but fairly peaceful Islam, and a traditional and militant Islam.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok.. then how do you explain Muhammad's last sermon given in 632 (the same year of his death), where he says: "All mankind is from Adam and Eve, an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab..."? Where does this fit into the "ruthlessly expedient maneuvering"?

 

I'd prefer not to jump into this topic with both feet, but just to clarify: Arab is not synonymous with Muslim. Muhammad here is not expressing equality among religions or religious followers, but ethnicities.

Actually, this kind of statement could fit easily within the "maneuvering" under discussion, as, in some senses, it opens up the whole world for Islam's eventual spread. Christianity needed to come to a similar conclusion as it developed, as to whether Christ's message was for the Jews alone, or also for the Gentiles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I bolded the parts that I disagree with. Firstly, the purpose of "obeying Allah" is not to die: it's to follow the correct & moral guidelines on earth in order to 1) live a more fulfilling life, and 2) reach a nice place after death (death is inevitable- but the idea here is that where you go is up to you. you can go somewhere wonderful or somewhere horrible. the choice is up to you.) Any religious person will tell you that it is good and right and dandy for him to be happy, as long as he stays within the correct & moral guidelines given to him by God. (Piece of cake, right? :stuart:)

 

Secondly, which religion believes/promotes the idea that "existence doesn't exist"? If X believes in God or heaven or whatever, does this mean he automatically rejects the fact that the chair he's sitting on is real? (I don't think so. He can't just imagine the chair away... he must come to the understanding that the chair does exist. Similarly, just because he believes in something that we agree isn't real, doesn't mean he believes in every made-up thing that isn't real- like the boogeyman.) 

For your second point: the chair only exists if God wills it.  If you pray hard enough, existence will change to suit your whims.  This, specifically, is the primacy of consciousness and it's present in every single variety of mysticism in the world.

For the first part: the primacy of consciousness rejects existence, not necessarily as illusory (although this is a frequent assertion) but as trivial.  It doesn't matter if you succeed or fail, prosper or suffer; it'll all work out when you're dead.

 

"Kill them all and let God sort them out" because, if good people go to heaven and bad people go to Hell, then it's okay to slaughter everyone indiscriminately; you're only doing the innocent a favor.

 

Ethics is based on metaphysics/epistemology and this is why.  Once you concede reality you've already abandoned morality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People, in general, are not stupid.  If you tell a small child that life is short, nasty and unimportant, but death is awesome, that child can and will figure out the rest for himself.  A lifetime is a long time to spend in anticipation.  You don't have to say "everybody must die, ASAP" to have the same effect; all you have to do is to convince everyone that they really, really want to die.

If reality doesn't matter then neither do you; if the "afterlife" is so good then you'll want to go there.  The rest follows with perfect logical consistency.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...