Islam and Modern Terrorism - The Divine Solution.

[desiresjab]

If someone were to ask What is the progress of religion? one might have to answer: Nothing. Other possible answers might be:

1 They no longer use human sacrifices.

2. They exonerated Galileo, finally.

3. They mainly stopped arguing cosmology with science.

4 Religions are slightly more tolerant of other religions, i.e. slightly more tolerant than an outright pogrom.


Answers which are not possible are:

1 Religion has stopped or slowed down warring.

2 People are nicer and more moral than ever before. (The cumulative effect of centuries of religion.)

3 Religion has united people.

4 Greed is waning


There are no such problems when answering the question: What is the progress of science?

Any progress of religion seems well hidden.

Progress defined by Big Religion is often cast more in geopolitical or statistical language than spiritual. There is no way to mathematicize spirituality yet, if ever. So instead we get the number of converts to this or that Christian denomination broken down by country, or a simple map of territory controlled by Moslem extremists as measures of progress, when nothing could be further from the truth. Those political constructs measure nothing about the value of religion, but only its advance across strategic territory.

Big religion abuses personalized religion because it has different goals. The acquisition of territory may be unreligious to people who take relgiojn to heart. The fight and goals of Big religion may not be to their personal tastes. They may see the necessary actions of those goals as contradicting their religious values.

Big religion knows all the tools of mass hyteria and mass hypnosis. It invented some of them.

[desiresjab]

How do you turn peaceful religionists into war mongers?

You convince them something they cherish is under attack, for instance their highly personalized religion.

For a good propagandist it is not hard to marshall Christians to the cause that Christianity is under attack. It is not that hard for the moslems either. These are the millions on either side that lend their moral permission to extremists, if nothing more.

These puzzles full of smoke and mirrors can be hard to see rightly, but I think I figured this one out.

Yes, Christians and Moslems are both under attack. But not really from each other but from secularity. Such is the image making power of the propaganda overlords that they can even disguise who the battle is between. There is a war on Christianity; there is a war on Moslemia. Rather than face Moslems and Christians openly, it is safer to turn them against each other and control that.

No, every tiny move is not planned and part of a plot. Many moves are forced because of the goal itself, which predetermines many parameters and makes everything seem planned, or as if conspiracy theorists are saying that. However, the adoption of parameters consistent with a plan is itself a plan, or can easily be construed so. Then, yes, I believe the fix is in.

The goal of the secular reductionists is to sideline religion. I do not disagree that I wish it were sidelined. I disagree with mass manipulations by billionaire think tanks.

No one has to be in charge of this conspiracy by corporations to turn us all into good customers who do not blow other customers up because of religious differences, because capitalism itself has devised a conspiratorial plot as the philosophy developed. The general scheme of capitalism is clear: grab all you can and make everyone a good customer. With the help of greedy men (never in short supply) to foster and implement the philosophy, sub plots will arise as necessity dictates.

[YesNo]

But that's not what people mean when they say God is omniscient.

Let me put it differently. The only omniscient agent that I acknowledge is one that does not contradict my ability to make a choice, nor the ability of a quantum "particle" to make a choice. Hence that agent cannot know in advance what my choice will be although that agent might guess or try to influence me. I know you might counter that such an agent is not "omniscient" or not all powerful. I would respond that that agent is omniscient and powerful enough for me.

It's reasonable to talk about human agency, whether behavior is pre-determined or not.

How do you get human agency with determinism? I would say that is not reasonable.

The murderer pulls the trigger and "causes" the death, because those are the rules of our language. That's what the word "causes" means.

It might be worthwhile looking at Stephen Mumford and Rani Lill Anjum's "Causation: A Very Short Introduction" before proceeding with this. The topic of causation has a long history that is not obvious nor trivial.

Whether God knew that the trigger-man would shoot his own mother since the creation of the universe makes no difference in this respect. Those who believe in a determined universe (Calvinists, for example) blame others for crimes and punish them for crimes (sometimes, they punish them for imaginary crimes, like witchcraft). The proposition that fatalism means that its proponents cannot differentiate between a human and a washing machine is ludicrous.

The people who believe in a determined universe, whether Calvinists or atheists, are wrong. That has been shown by quantum physics almost a century ago.

Atheists who persist in believing in determinism are looking for a mechanism by which they can nullify human consciousness through some form of reductionism. What I am trying to show is that such a position is ludicrous, just as you claim, even without quantum physics.

If those atheists are right, then we are equivalent to deterministic mechanisms such as computers or washing machines. The way one relates to computers and washing machines is by being rational. However, that is not the way we relate to each other. When we push a button on a deterministic mechanism, we expect a deterministic result to follow. We expect the machine to respond to us "rationally" or we replace it. However, humans require empathy, not button pushing. Since those atheists can, in fact, distinguish between a human being and a washing machine, their deterministic perspective is compromised. By their very ability to differentiate between a human and a machine, they falsify their position. They know the difference between rationality and empathy.

Of course, they will counter and say that they need time for their "science" to build a machine that can pass the Turing test. But even Turing admitted that his test will fail given human psi abilities (a form of empathy) that cannot be programmed into any computer.

Neither a "free will" dependent on supernatural souls nor a "determinism" dependent on an understanding of how neurons firing in our brains control our thoughts are likely to have much moral impact. We will always act as if we have free will, whether or not we do. Also, Sam Harris does not speak for all atheists (although I agree that atheism is dogmatic, as are most religions).

If we act as if we have free will, then we have free will.

There are limits to our freedom. Atheists like to take a reductionist view and claim we are limited by neurons as well as genes and atoms. We are limited by these, but there are even more powerful limits to our freedom. We are also limited by other agents. However, atheists don't believe in agents. They think all agency can be reduced to neurons. That is their fundamental error.

[Danik 2016]

The reaction of the Mayan gods according to the Popol-Vuh when they noticed the extension of the knowledge of the humans they had created:
“Perfect was their sight, and perfect was their knowledge of everything beneath the sky. If they gazed about them, looking intently, they beheld that which was in the sky and that which was upon the earth. Instantly they were able to behold everything. They did not have to walk to see all that existed beneath the sky. They merely saw it from wherever they were. Thus their knowledge became full. Their vision passed beyond the trees and the rocks, beyond the lakes and the seas, beyond the mountains and the valleys.
Their knowledge of everything that they saw was complete—the four corners and the four sides, that which is within the sky and that which is within the earth.
But this did not sound good to the Framer and the Shaper:
'What now can be done to them so that their vision reaches only nearby, so that only a little of the face of the earth can be seen by them? For it is not good what they say.Is not their existence merely framed, merely shaped? It is a mistake that they havebecome like gods.'
THEIR eyes were merely blurred by Heart of Sky. They were blinded like breath upon the face of a mirror. Thus their eyes were blinded. They could see only
nearby; things were clear to them only where they were.4 Thus their knowledge was lost"
Extracts from: http://holybooks.lichtenbergpress.ne...ock.pdf?810c00 pp 185-188.

[YesNo]

That story of the Mayan Gods limiting humans seems like a good example of how our freedom can be limited by other agents.

[YALASH]

Misunderstanding Removed:

The Hadith teach that Muhammad engaged a 6 year old girl and married her at 9.
This is a literature forum and I'm using religious texts to assert my points.

Peace be on you.
Quran and practice of Holy Prophet (peace and blessings be on him) was to begin with, hadith was collected 150 years or so latter. First two are judge over the third one, whose purpose is supportive.

The mention of six year age is tied to one person only. There are many problems:
1-Hisham ibn ‘Urwah is the only man who said about Hadith.
2-He mentioned this hadith in old age, and he admitted he suffered severe memory loss in that age.

"....several historical events and Ahadith narrations demonstrate that Hadhrat Ayesha was likely 15-16, or as old as 19-20 at the time of her consenting marriage to Prophet Muhammad. For example ........"
Reference:
http://www.muhammadfactcheck.org/?mu...e-was-underage

Perhaps you know the consent age of girls in modern age. Some are mentioned in above reference too.

[Ecurb]

If we act as if we have free will, then we have free will.

There are limits to our freedom. Atheists like to take a reductionist view and claim we are limited by neurons as well as genes and atoms. We are limited by these, but there are even more powerful limits to our freedom. We are also limited by other agents. However, atheists don't believe in agents. They think all agency can be reduced to neurons. That is their fundamental error.

You've been having these discussions since I came to these boards, and nothing has ever been resolved. Since this is a literary board, let me make one suggestion: the discussion is about the meaning of the words "choice", "free", and "will", not about the nature of the universe. This being the case, I can prove that people can make choices (be "agents") whether or not the course of the universe is predetermined (I couldn't care less whether it is or not).

We use the words in the past tense. We might say, "John freely chose to go to Walmart instead of Target last Monday." Of course, John's choice, because it was in the past, cannot be otherwise than it was. Still, the words we use to describe it are both appropriate and meaningful. They mean that no OUTSIDE AGENT coerced John into going to Walmart. It is utterly irrelevant whether John was coerced by the neurons in his brain. Our "choice" to use the word "choice" does not even speak to that possibility (or impossibility).

An omniscient observer (we'll call him "God",although he could be some futuristic neuroscientist) can see the future (we'll posit), just as we puny humans can see the past. Therefore, although He will know exactly what "choices" we will make in the future (just as we know what choices we made in the past), it remains reasonable to describe these decisions as "free choices".

Of course Religion, being an attempt at the universal and timeless, does not "progress". On the contrary, the world has fallen from Eden. Gods and demigods (for the Greeks) no longer walk the earth. If you want progress, look elsewhere.

Nice story, Danik. Don't skip to the end of the book and find out what happens. It will ruin the suspense.

[Danik 2016]

That story of the Mayan Gods limiting humans seems like a good example of how our freedom can be limited by other agents.

I meant it more in the sense that our vision is partial. We don´t have access to the whole picture.

[Danik 2016]

You've been having these discussions since I came to these boards, and nothing has ever been resolved. Since this is a literary board, let me make one suggestion: the discussion is about the meaning of the words "choice", "free", and "will", not about the nature of the universe. This being the case, I can prove that people can make choices (be "agents") whether or not the course of the universe is predetermined (I couldn't care less whether it is or not).

We use the words in the past tense. We might say, "John freely chose to go to Walmart instead of Target last Monday." Of course, John's choice, because it was in the past, cannot be otherwise than it was. Still, the words we use to describe it are both appropriate and meaningful. They mean that no OUTSIDE AGENT coerced John into going to Walmart. It is utterly irrelevant whether John was coerced by the neurons in his brain. Our "choice" to use the word "choice" does not even speak to that possibility (or impossibility).

An omniscient observer (we'll call him "God",although he could be some futuristic neuroscientist) can see the future (we'll posit), just as we puny humans can see the past. Therefore, although He will know exactly what "choices" we will make in the future (just as we know what choices we made in the past), it remains reasonable to describe these decisions as "free choices".

Of course Religion, being an attempt at the universal and timeless, does not "progress". On the contrary, the world has fallen from Eden. Gods and demigods (for the Greeks) no longer walk the earth. If you want progress, look elsewhere.

Nice story, Danik. Don't skip to the end of the book and find out what happens. It will ruin the suspense.

I think that the "book" is still being written. I don´t mean the Popol-Vuh now but the story of present humanity.

[Ecurb]

Now that we've hijacked the thread, I'll offer Tolstoy's take, from War and Peace:

When an apple has ripened and falls, why does it fall? Because of its attraction to the earth, because its stalk withers, because it is dried by the sun, because it grows heavier, because the wind shakes it, or because the boy standing below wants to eat it?

Nothing is the cause. All this is only the coincidence of conditions in which all vital organic and elemental events occur. And the botanist who finds that the apple falls because the cellular tissue decays and so forth is equally right with the child who stands under the tree and says the apple fell because he wanted to eat it and prayed for it. Equally right or wrong is he who says that Napoleon went to Moscow because he wanted to, and perished because Alexander desired his destruction, and he who says that an undermined hill weighing a million tons fell because the last navvy struck it for the last time with his mattock. In historic events the so-called great men are labels giving names to events, and like labels they have but the smallest connection with the event itself.

Every act of theirs, which appears to them an act of their own will, is in an historical sense involuntary and is related to the whole course of history and predestined from eternity.

[fajfall]

Misunderstanding Removed:

Peace be on you.
Quran and practice of Holy Prophet (peace and blessings be on him) was to begin with, hadith was collected 150 years or so latter. First two are judge over the third one, whose purpose is supportive.

The mention of six year age is tied to one person only. There are many problems:
1-Hisham ibn ‘Urwah is the only man who said about Hadith.
2-He mentioned this hadith in old age, and he admitted he suffered severe memory loss in that age.

"....several historical events and Ahadith narrations demonstrate that Hadhrat Ayesha was likely 15-16, or as old as 19-20 at the time of her consenting marriage to Prophet Muhammad. For example ........"
Reference:
http://www.muhammadfactcheck.org/?mu...e-was-underage

Perhaps you know the consent age of girls in modern age. Some are mentioned in above reference too.

Muslims cherry-pick which hadiths are 'weak' or 'strong'. Cruel verses are easier to cherry pick because there are so many more and so many historical examples to justify them. Child marriage has always been acceptable in Muslim societies, as has slavery and sex with slaves because the Qur'an and highest scholars have always allowed it. Ahmadiyyas will look someone straight in the eye and say hell isn't eternal in the Qur'an even though line after line the Qur'an says that hell is eternal and there will be no mercy.

[desiresjab]

Muslims cherry-pick which hadiths are 'weak' or 'strong'. Cruel verses are easier to cherry pick because there are so many more and so many historical examples to justify them. Child marriage has always been acceptable in Muslim societies, as has slavery and sex with slaves because the Qur'an and highest scholars have always allowed it. Ahmadiyyas will look someone straight in the eye and say hell isn't eternal in the Qur'an even though line after line the Qur'an says that hell is eternal and there will be no mercy.

Show me a "Bible" of any religion that is not cherry-picked by its followers. If followers didn't they could be committed. Many who cherry-pick the wrong verses are.

[caddy_caddy]

Hello everybody,
This is a long thread and things get so complicated here so I couldn't follow up with all the comments and arguments here.
However, let me speak from the real life point of view which is more relevant than the theoretical one.
You know I'm Lebanese and I can proudly tell you that I have two relatives ( brothers) that went to Jihad in Syria at the beginning of the Syrian Revolution.
One was 17 years old and the other around 20. They went separately , one after the other, without even coordinating with each other.
Before leaving to Syria , the youngest one wrote a letter to his mother . He said " Mom , I love you but those who are killed and raped in Syria are our mothers too. I don't have only two sisters, those girls in Syria are my sisters too"
Jihad in Islam to defend other Musilms is a must since all Muslims are brothers . What those guys did was an act of love and mercy and it 's a noble act and we're proud of them .This is Jihad against terrorism because what happens in Syria is nothing but terrorism . Don't expect us to wait for the free world to help us .
The two brothers were arrested shortly after arriving to Syria. The Youngest is still in the Syrian prisons and we know nothing abt him. The Oldest is in the Lebanese Prison and he is on trial . In the lebanese Prison , they put him with other Jihadist but extremist who have different beliefs than him. Once he said to his mother in one of her visits ," i'm afraid they would kill me " because those extremist kill other Muslims . We are their first enemies because of their misunderstanding of the rules of Islam .
Jihad is not terrorism , extremism is terrorism because it denies the right of any other part to exist (who is not like me).
We are terrified of extremist and we fear that one day they could enter our cities . If they enter they woudl kill and slay most of the people who do not follow their rules; I insist these are their rules not the Islam rules.
You might ask what's the difference between your relatives and the extremists. My relatives don't believe in slaying or bombing . They went to war , man to man.The judge wanted the oldest to sign a paper that he regrets what he has done but he refused and he is still in prison and he might spend his life in prison but he is not regretful. He keeps on saying this is part of my belief and refused to sign.
As u see in one cell in one prison you can find a jihadist and a terrorist and they are both unfortunately called Muslims.
They both read the Quran but each interprets in a different way.
They both went to war but one was motivated by love and the other by revenge and they are all Muslims.



As for eternity in hell : there are two questions, the question of justice and the question of mercy
1-justice justifies eternity in hell.
2-Mercy " that embraces everything " a verse from the Quran justifies salvation
what is the most important attribute of Allah: Justice or Mercy ?
Mercy is prior to justice .Muslims do not enter heaven by their " deeds " but by Allah's mercy too.
This is the ultimate divine law and you can find plenty of verses that speak abt mercy.

[YesNo]

I wish your family well, caddy caddy.

I agree with you that there is a difference between love and revenge as motivations. I like the idea that mercy embraces everything and is prior to justice.

[Whifflingpin]

Justice does not justify eternity in hell because, in justice, punishment is proportional to the crime and no-one can commit an offence which equates to eternal and boundless pain.