Islamic reaction to radical Muslims

[imb706]

quote] I don't get it how hard it is to understand that we do not encourage terrorism at all.[/quote]

Maybe you don't but other muslims do.

I have many real sources, but since it is easier for you to understand visual images better,

Ah, you have real sources but you're just not going to show them. Riiiight.

Do some research about "your" Federal Reserve and why Kennedy was killed. Do some research about AIPAC and the military-industrial complex. Then you will know why American soldiers are dying every day in Iraq and Afghanistan, for the interest of someone else. That is the most stupid thing to do, to give your life for the interest of others. And after that they will burn in hell forever. And what is more amazing that their still loosing the wars, with all their money, weaponry and technology.

Muslim diatribes and conspiracies get boring fast. I much prefer the Westboro Baptist Church. Hell, they burned the Qu'ran in front of the Iraqi embassy once. They got balls..

[ozymandias]

ahaha, nobody has forced you to read it.

Never claimed anyone did.

The way you react only proves my point, that is that Americans don't want to face up to the reality.

If you presented any evidence as to what you present being reality, it was buried in the ignorant bigotry that I did not want to waste time reading.

Feel free to present your evidence in a calm, and rational way, and I will read it. Until then, you will be dismissed as the crackpot you appear to be.

They are used to be manipulated by the mass-media and their politicians.

SUUUUURE we are.

[ozymandias]

Ozymandias,

How can you draw a conclusion that it's Muslims that you mentioned that committed terrorism.

They canbe pretending.

Sure, they can be -- or they can be legitimately doing what they feel their religion calls them to do, as all evidence seems to imply.

Islam is against terrorists.

How can you be so sure that all Muslims on the planet agree with you? These people can be just as honest in their faith *IN THEIR WAY* as any other religious people on the planet.

[ozymandias]

Ozymandias

We Pashtuns and Muslims of PF hope you are okay.

Just a quick vacation, with no access to the internet -- nothing to worry about.

[ozymandias]

You said that without religion you use moral that is universally accepted. what do you mean by that?

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

Morals do not have to be derived from religion -- it is not only possible to be a moral person without religion, it is in fact impossible to be altruistic *WITH* religion.

You don't need a god to tell you that it is immoral (or at least amoral) to cause unneeded and unnecessary suffering in others -- concern for their pain ought to be enough to tell you what is right. It is immoral to steal, as this causes harm to another, with or without a god. It is immoral to repress another's rights, as this harms another.

Taking it a step beyond the simple 'harm to others' aspect, you can even derive morals based on the purely selfish 'how does this harm me' aspect. Stealing promotes an environment where theft is allowed -- which promotes the possibility of harm to yourself. Allowing the strong to trample the rights of the weak allows for an environment where if someone stronger comes along, your own rights will be trampled -- not to mention the fact that you will need to constantly be proving who is stronger and wasting time and effort defending your rights.

[ozymandias]

Ozymandias,

Are you open to hear me out on why you need religion?

I am open to hearing it -- and I will discuss the topic openly, but it may be more appropriate to put the arguments in this thread:

http://www.pashtunforums.com/showthread.php?p=26861&posted=1#post26861

[MeemWawMeemNoon]

Calculus makes sense nowadays and any Joe Schmo can act cool. However, Newton did the ground work. Today, Calculus has been taken to different heights, but credit is still given to its founder.

Religion did the ground work. Islam still has the answer to any and I mean any societal issue, past, present and future. So it is easy to say we don't need religion after religion gave all the answers.

"By the time a man realizes that his father was right, he usually has a son telling him that he is wrong."

[ozymandias]

Calculus makes sense nowadays and any Joe Schmo can act cool. However, Newton did the ground work. Today, Calculus has been taken to different heights, but credit is still given to its founder.

Religion did the ground work. Islam still has the answer to any and I mean any societal issue, past, present and future. So it is easy to say we don't need religion after religion gave all the answers.

"By the time a man realizes that his father was right, he usually has a son telling him that he is wrong."

I believe that is a false analogy -- you are comparing a person practicing calculus to the person that derived calculus from natural laws -- essentially teaching themselves and the world calculus. You then state that it's easy to practice morals once the hard work of 'deriving' the morals was done -- by religion.

This would be an apt comparison where I to have made the claim that it is possible to simple *be* moral without a god, but that is not what I claimed. I claimed that it was possible to re-derive morals themselves from natural laws *WITHOUT* using the prior teachings of a religion.

This is much more like a person with no formal calculus education re-inventing calculus and coming to the same conclusions and results as Newton -- the second derivation was not related to, nor founded upon, the work of Newton, thus your comparison falls apart.

At worst, you can use the morals of religion to compare to the morals of atheism, much like you can use the calculus of Newton to 'test' and 'compare' to any newly invented calculus -- but unlike mathematics, there is no one absolute right answer that can be proven when discussing morals.

This is much of what Leibniz did -- he 'discovered' calculus concurrently and independently from Newton.

[ozymandias]

The problem with atheist's view of morality is that its "relative" rather than "absolute" as in Islam. Their morals change with time. One things which is moral today might not be moral tomorrow depending on who has the power among them. While in Islam morality comes from God and since God has infinite knowledge and undrstands the true essence of things, he alone is worthy to make such rules. God has no personal stakes in this matter, he doesn't favour rich over the poor. while human beings are selfish and can make irrational decisions.

The problem with Islam's view of morality is that it is generated through belief in a deity that cannot be proven, and is based on the fear of the reprisals of that deity -- eliminating altruism.

Hitler was supported by vast majority of his people when he did what he did. Does it make it right?

Nope -- and not a single atheist that I have ever heard of would make that argument.

Does majority decide what is right and what is wrong?

Nope.

As we have seen vast majority people can easily be brainwashed by an idea and most people care more about when their next meal is coming from than worry about serious issues. If we leave it in the hands of people to decide what is good and bad then God help us all. We have seen how well that works out :P

I think you have a mistaken assumption on where atheists believe morals can be derived from -- it appears your entire problem is your assumption that people get to 'vote' on what is moral and what is not. You correct that assumption, and your problem goes away.

Rather than the majority rules logic you mistakenly think is used, it is much closer to a mathematical formula -- an action is moral if it *increases* the overall rights and safely of people on the planet, and amoral, or immoral if not. This is a vastly oversimplified explanation, but atheist morals are divorced from personal opinions and desires.

[MeemWawMeemNoon]

My point was made the quote at the end of the post.

I like the way you brought Leibniz into the discussion. Bravo!

[ozymandias]

My point was made the quote at the end of the post.

While that is a nice quote, I am not convinced it applies here, as atheistic morals are not a decedent of theistic morals, as I have already pointed out.

I like the way you brought Leibniz into the discussion. Bravo!

;-)

Like I said, I try to educate myself -- even to the point of obscure, non-mainstream facts like this -- which is why I find the claims that all Americans are simply brainwashed robots marching to the orders of the mass-media so amusing and absurd ;-)

[MeemWawMeemNoon]

The reason why I brought up the quote was to indicate that religion saves you time by having done the ground work for you. Otherwise, life would be a constant struggle to find what is moral and what is not.

[ozymandias]

The reason why I brought up the quote was to indicate that religion saves you time by having done the ground work for you. Otherwise, life would be a constant struggle to find what is moral and what is not.

How is using a system of morals derived from non-theistic sources any more difficult to use than one derived from theistic sources?

The only difference is in the derivation, something that need not be done every time you apply the results -- going back to calculus, how is it any harder to use Newtonian calculus (if that is what you were taught) than it is to use Leibniz(if that is what you were taught)?

[MeemWawMeemNoon]

In the case of Newton and Leibniz you are correct--they both had the same conclusion. Hence, if by a system of trial and error you would eventually reach the same moral understanding presented by the Holy Quran,then why not accept it half way through and simply submit, instead of spending a lifetime proving it for yourself.

[ozymandias]

In the case of Newton and Leibniz you are correct--they both had the same conclusion. Hence, if by a system of trial and error you would eventually reach the same moral understanding presented by the Holy Quran,then why not accept it half way through and simply submit, instead of spending a lifetime proving it for yourself.

The extra baggage, simply put.

Why believe in a god simply to adopt a moral system?

Besides, I am not suggesting a lifetime of trial and error, just some reasonable thought about your actions, and then teaching your children right from wrong. I am lucky enough that while my parents did teach me religion, they cared enough to teach me right from wrong independent of religion, so even if a lifetime of trial and error would be required -- that price was already paid.

Furthermore, I'm not sure how you are making the leap from "It's possible to be moral without a god" to "why not just believe in a god" -- that's a weak argument, and vaguely... confusing at best.

Lets also stay away from blurring the issue -- even if Islam could be proven to be 'the best moral system' (which it cannot), it does not necessitate a god. It would simply prove that regardless of the existence of a god, the moral system provided by that religion is the best.