Is the Critique of Islam Islamophobic?

[Sculptor]

I'm pretty sure even you know that makes no sense whatever.

Oh, it makes perfect sense.

If you're right, there will be nothing to see. Death ends all.

If I'm right, we'll both be standing in front of God.

FFS. This is a version of God that even you have not had the balls to assert.

[Eodnhoj7]

Calling you a prospective terrorist is not paranoia. I've no fear of terrorism.
I've more change of dying from a bizarre washing machine accident.
You are just paranoiacally responding to the media hysteria.

Or maybe you should learn how to word things.

Change = chance.

Maybe you should learn to accept that people make typos and respond to what they said?

I dont care.

[Immanuel Can]

FFS. This is a version of God that even you have not had the balls to assert.

Oh, I not only assert it -- for after all, it would mean nothing if only I did, because what do I know more than any man? But I say it because God Himself asserts it.

I'm just telling you you can expect Him to turn out to be right. Apparently, you're already staking your future against it. I just wouldn't do that. Jesus said, "He who rejects Me and does not receive My sayings, has one who judges him; the word I spoke is what will judge him at the last day."

I will see you there. And you will remember that we had this conversation. You will not be pleading that you didn't know.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Calling you a prospective terrorist is not paranoia. I've no fear of terrorism.
I've more change of dying from a bizarre washing machine accident.
You are just paranioacally responding to the media hysteria.

You may have no fear of terrorism due to various reasons but it would be very selfish of you if you do not have concern for terrorism as a whole and its negative impact and threat to humanity, in this case, Islamic-based-terrorism.

US imperial aggression has a far more significant negative impact on the world. There is no doubt in my mind that the source of most terrorism is the bellicose interfering influences of the super powers.

I agree US imperial aggression has contributed to much evil and violence, but that was the not-longer-ago history. Trump's current foreign policy is not imperialistic based on is inward-focus 'nation-first' policy, withdrawing of troops from the M/East, etc.

You are still selfish if you are not concern with all types of evil and violent from whatever the sources and to give attention to what is most critical to humanity in the future.

What is most critical and dangerous threat to humanity in the future will come from Islamic-based terrorism which is no-holds-barred.
For Muslims the ultimate reward from God is martyrdom where the reward is ten fold from that of ordinary deeds.
Islam [per Quran] do not give preference to the Earthly world but their focus is eternal life in paradise.
Thus if Muslims can exterminate all non-Muslims and then themselves, it is a win-win for them since whatever the outcome they are assured of eternal life in paradise, flooded with virgins.
WMDs [nuke and biological] are a fact and they are getting more and more powerful. It is also a fact, WMDs are getting cheaper and can be easily obtainable in the black market and this will be a reality in the future.
When operatives of Al-Qaeda were capture, investigators got access to manuals depicting their organizational structure. Within this organization structure one of the department was assigned as the nuclear-arms department.

The current super-power countries has nuclear arms but they are limited by MAD, [mutually agreed destruction] while it is no-holds-barred with Islamic-based-terrorists.

You are not concern with the above potential WMD threats by Islamic terrorists?

[Veritas Aequitas]

When these neural inhibitors weakened for various reasons [old age being one], then the person is driven toward clinging to a god for security and psychological comfort.

You know why that's such a weak argument? Because it works equally well for any ideology you can insert in the blank. One could argue that as neural inhibitors are weakened, people lose their ability to reason and become Atheists. Since it has no evidentiary basis, this line is both irrefutable and devoid of proof.

What would be better is to look at what Flew actually wrote, and to decide whether his arguments are the ramblings of a decaying brain, or the lucid pronouncements of a man made wise by time.

I think you'll find that it's the latter. But you'll never know unless you read what Flew actually thought.

I was the one who mentioned 'Flew' in the first place.
I do not dispute Flew's conversion to Deism [btw, not theism].
I also did not question Flew's intelligence.

What I discussed is with reference to the neural algorithm that inhibit the terrible impulses of the existential crisis inherent in all humans.
This is not directly applicable to any other ideology which are mostly secondary, while the basic survival impulse is primary.
One can give up all sorts of ideology but [in the theists' case] not the ideology that is linked directly to survival and the promise of eternal life in paradise.

Evidence?? it is so evident in the Abrahamic religions, the central focus of each religion is the promise of eternal life in heaven.
Even non-theistic Buddhism and Jainism where the focus is dealing with the existential crisis but no eternal life is promised.

I did not mention the term "senility."

It's what you meant, though. You can call it "atrophy of neurons," if you prefer.

Yes, but in this "atrophy of neurons" i.e. specific neurons related only to existential and eschatological issues.

For Christians, they establish a personal relationship with Jesus/God.

No. God establishes His relationship with them. The initiative is actually on the other side, not the human side.

What is that?
Yes, God/Jesus took the initiative thus initiated the "offer" BUT the Christian has to response in terms of a surrender and accept the offer.

In any personal relationship there is an implied agreement, thus a contract or divine covenant in the case of Christianity.

There are many types of "agreement." One can "agree" on a fact, "agree" to an arrangement, "agree" to a contract, "agree" to a proposition, "agree" to meet...what kind of "agreement" are you supposing here?

You are getting rhetorical.
This agreement as I had qualified contains the elements of a contract, i.e. offer, acceptance, consideration, mutual agreement.

John 3:16 is definitely an offer by God,

• “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

'that whoever believes in him ...' is a statement of offer.

When a Christian believe in Jesus/God, that is an acceptance, i.e. which is based on faith.

So far, so good.

Whatever salvation stated in the offer is conditional

Not so good.

It's actually an unconditional offer. It's an offer of personal transformation by the hand of God, not a bilateral contract in which human capability is supposed to play its part. After all, the point is that human capability proves inadequate to establish the necessary relationship. Mankind fails, falls short, and left to himself and apart from the Author of Life, dies.

Salvation is not a bargain to help the capable; it's a resurrection from the dead. (Romans 6:3-5)

It cannot be that salvation is guaranteed upon declaring oneself to be a Christian.

And yet, it is.

However, bear in mind that there is no lying on this point. God is not fooled by human beings, if they suppose that anything less than a full repentance and commitment of faith is involved. He knows their hearts (1 Sam. 16:7).

Salvation is only promised on condition the Christian fulfilled the contractual terms till Judgment Day.

No, not so.

John 5:24 -- “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life." Interestingly, that second "has" is actually the Greek verb tense "is," as in present, now, an accomplished fact. So such a person HAS eternal life, and IS passed out of death into life already.

Belief -- genuine belief, not mere assent, and certainly no bilateral contract -- is the sole condition of salvation...just as John 3:16 also says, "whoever believes in Him."

You missed the most critical point where I asked;
What if the said Christian prayed to Satan as his co-savior the next day?

• VA: It cannot be that salvation is guaranteed upon declaring oneself to be a Christian. What if the said Christian prayed to Satan as his co-savior the next day?
  Salvation is only promised on condition the Christian fulfilled the contractual terms till Judgment Day.

John 5:24 mentioned,
“... but has passed out of death into life."
But did not state 'everlasting life' as in John 3:16.

As implied in the context of the whole Gospel, e.g. 'eye of a needle' verse, the Christian still has to work to the best his abilities to earn the rewards along with the eternal life in heaven.

I may have short-circuited my point above, I re-present my point again,

• 1. A person has to enter into a contract with God as a Christian via John 3:16 to gain a passport to eternal life in heaven.
  2. That passport is merely to gain entry into heaven but there is still the consideration to where and how one will live one's eternal life in heaven.

If a Christian prayed to Satan as his co-savior the next day and continued from there on, that would imply the contract in [1] is broken and void.

Thus as long as one is a Christian-proper there is a prevailing contract between the Christian and God.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I will see you there. And you will remember that we had this conversation. You will not be pleading that you didn't know.

lol...

You asked me for evidential evidence re Flew and I provided.

What evidential evidences do you have for your above absurd claims.
Your above are the manifestations of desperation arising from an existential crisis that compelled you to believe in the above as a security blanket. It is all psychological and if you understand the root causes and deal with it, you will not fall for such absurd claims.

[Dontaskme]

The fear of Islam's advocacy of evil and violent acts upon non-believers [as evident] is real fear, thus not a phobia.

Can anyone prove me wrong on the above?

[Immanuel Can]

I will see you there. And you will remember that we had this conversation. You will not be pleading that you didn't know.

lol...

You asked me for evidential evidence re Flew and I provided.

I"m sorry...you seem to have misunderstood. I did not address the above to you, but to Sculptor. Did it misfire?

The comment, though true, is relevant to my earlier conversation with him; it would be perhaps too pointed and abrupt for the tenor of conversation I've been having with you. It would be out of context.

However, as for Flew...what actual evidence do you have that his decision to be a Deist was created by neural deterioration? And how do you account for him having composed such a cogent and logical defence of his decision, supposing he were in a state of neural decline?

[SpheresOfBalance]

the SoB Snipped all the justifications.

You're correct, Man created this age old, so called god, in his image. It can logically be no other way. Man was terrified of the then total disregard for life by those in control in those archaic days, and understandably so. All men fear dying, especially those in so called power, which is why they seek it! The god of those days was simply another way to try and seek it. They could put their image of their god in there pocket, (book), and like Ian Anderson said, 'wind him up on Sundays.' Which doesn't necessarily mean that there is no such mindful creator of it all. Just that early man had awoken to the idea of philosophy, and that, to date, there has been no necessary proof of such a creator.

Humans are still largely in their ignorant state of evolution. They have always made positive headway, look at the day relative to yesteryear! But they have a long way to go before they can even come close to seeing everything clearly.

I just hope we can do so before we cut our own throats, as it's surely true that we're doing a pretty good job at cutting them.

[Sculptor]

You may have no fear of terrorism due to various reasons but it would be very selfish of you if you do not have concern for terrorism as a whole and its negative impact and threat to humanity, in this case, Islamic-based-terrorism.

US imperial aggression has a far more significant negative impact on the world. There is no doubt in my mind that the source of most terrorism is the bellicose interfering influences of the super powers.

I agree US imperial aggression has contributed to much evil and violence, but that was the not-longer-ago history. Trump's current foreign policy is not imperialistic based on is inward-focus 'nation-first' policy, withdrawing of troops from the M/East, etc.

We'll have to see whether of not this mind numbingly capricious loon is good for that. If that was in fact the case I expect that the US might become a less likely target.

You are still selfish if you are not concern with all types of evil and violent from whatever the sources and to give attention to what is most critical to humanity in the future.

I have my concerns, but I am more interested in the causes of that violence. I'm not going to sit and moan about the obvious consequences of imperialism without pointing the finger AT imperialism.
Would there ever have been an IRA were it not for the British invasions of Ireland?
As for the roots of Islamic terrorism, I think it is worth considering the relationship between Israel and the West, and history back to the Crusades.
As for the net result of terrorism I think we do terrorists a favour by obsessing about it.
Like I said above I have more chance of dying from a freak washing machine accident or some random act of criminal activity.
In the UK people are more in danger FROM DEATH, from government cuts, homelessness and dependency on benefits.
Governments prefer to have to bogeyman an external threat,
So excuse me if I'm less interested in that.

What is most critical and dangerous threat to humanity in the future will come from Islamic-based terrorism which is no-holds-barred.

Hysterical bollocks.

For Muslims the ultimate reward from God is martyrdom where the reward is ten fold from that of ordinary deeds.
Islam [per Quran] do not give preference to the Earthly world but their focus is eternal life in paradise.

I don't dig religion. If nutters want to give up their lives to this stupidity I am powerless to change that.

Thus if Muslims can exterminate all non-Muslims and then themselves, it is a win-win for them since whatever the outcome they are assured of eternal life in paradise, flooded with virgins.

More hysterical bollocks

WMDs [nuke and biological] are a fact and they are getting more and more powerful. It is also a fact, WMDs are getting cheaper and can be easily obtainable in the black market and this will be a reality in the future.

More hysterical bollocks. I understand Trump has access.

When operatives of Al-Qaeda were capture, investigators got access to manuals depicting their organizational structure. Within this organization structure one of the department was assigned as the nuclear-arms department.

ditto

The current super-power countries has nuclear arms but they are limited by MAD, [mutually agreed destruction] while it is no-holds-barred with Islamic-based-terrorists.

You are not concern with the above potential WMD threats by Islamic terrorists?

Why are you not concerned to understand why there is growing discontent amongst British Muslims?
You are part of the problem.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I will see you there. And you will remember that we had this conversation. You will not be pleading that you didn't know.

lol...

You asked me for evidential evidence re Flew and I provided.

I"m sorry...you seem to have misunderstood. I did not address the above to you, but to Sculptor. Did it misfire?

The comment, though true, is relevant to my earlier conversation with him; it would be perhaps too pointed and abrupt for the tenor of conversation I've been having with you. It would be out of context.

However, as for Flew...what actual evidence do you have that his decision to be a Deist was created by neural deterioration? And how do you account for him having composed such a cogent and logical defence of his decision, supposing he were in a state of neural decline?

There is actual evidence the neurons in the brain begin natural accelerated atrophy during old age.

Loss of brain tissue occurs after age of 30: 0.2%/year.
Acceleration after age 70: 0.5%/year.
At age 75: 10% loss of brain tissue compared to age 30.
Link

But new research reveals one constant across parts of the globe: As people age, their belief in God seems to increase.
https://www.livescience.com/19971-belie ... m-age.html

I have argued elsewhere the main reason why theists cling to a God is due to an existential dilemma and existential crisis. The effects of this existential crisis [example, Angst] is subtle and not easily traceable to its cause in the brain. For example the "Fear and Trembling" re Keikegaard,

• Fear and Trembling (original Danish title: Frygt og Bæven) is a philosophical work by Søren Kierkegaard, published in 1843 under the pseudonym Johannes de silentio (John of the Silence). The title is a reference to a line from Philippians 2:12, "...continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling." — itself a probable reference to Psalms 55:5,[1] "Fear and trembling came upon me..." (the Greek is identical).
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear_and_Trembling

In many cases, [a]theists are the ones who has neural inhibitors that somehow could resist the impulses of the existential crisis that the theists to cling to a God to seek psychological comfort.

From the above, one can infer that Flew's conversion is most like due to the weakening of the "[a]theistic" inhibitors that drove him to become a deist. In Flew's case, his feeling of existential Angst would have been increasing and what is most effective to counter the discomfort was Deism.

Note the human brain operate with independent functions and operate interdependently via neural connections between various independent functions. In this case the existential functions [lower or early brain] are separate from the intellectual and higher reasoning functions.

[Veritas Aequitas]

As for the roots of Islamic terrorism, I think it is worth considering the relationship between Israel and the West, and history back to the Crusades.

Unfortunately you are very ignorant of the ethos of the ideology of Islam.
Thus you don't have any reasonable credibility to counter my justified and substantiated views on Islam.

The Daily Mirror quoted the following from the Magazine of I.S.I.S, i.e. the primary reason for hating and killing of non-Muslims is because they are disbelievers of Islam.
(read the below mindfully)

• "We [Muslims] hate you, first and foremost, because you are disbelievers;
  you reject the oneness of Allah – whether you realize it or not – by making partners for Him in worship, you blaspheme against Him, claiming that He has a son, you fabricate lies against His prophets and messengers, and you indulge in all manner of devilish practices."
  
  It reads:
  "What’s important to understand here is that although some might argue that your foreign policies are the extent of what drives our hatred,
  this particular reason for hating you is secondary, hence the reason we addressed it at the end of the above list.
  
  "The fact is,
  even if you were to stop bombing us, imprisoning us, torturing us, vilifying us, and usurping our lands, we would continue to HATE you because our primary reason for hating you will not cease to exist until you embrace Islam."
  https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-new ... ns-8533563

I have provided evidence from the Quran to support the above, mainly based on Quran 5:3 and that disbelief is a 'fasadin' [threat], thus a justification for killing of non-Muslims.

What is most critical and dangerous threat to humanity in the future will come from Islamic-based terrorism which is no-holds-barred.

Hysterical bollocks.

For Muslims the ultimate reward from God is martyrdom where the reward is ten fold from that of ordinary deeds.
Islam [per Quran] do not give preference to the Earthly world but their focus is eternal life in paradise.

I don't dig religion. If nutters want to give up their lives to this stupidity I am powerless to change that.

Thus if Muslims can exterminate all non-Muslims and then themselves, it is a win-win for them since whatever the outcome they are assured of eternal life in paradise, flooded with virgins.

More hysterical bollocks

WMDs [nuke and biological] are a fact and they are getting more and more powerful. It is also a fact, WMDs are getting cheaper and can be easily obtainable in the black market and this will be a reality in the future.

More hysterical bollocks. I understand Trump has access.

When operatives of Al-Qaeda were capture, investigators got access to manuals depicting their organizational structure. Within this organization structure one of the department was assigned as the nuclear-arms department.

ditto

The current super-power countries has nuclear arms but they are limited by MAD, [mutually agreed destruction] while it is no-holds-barred with Islamic-based-terrorists.

You are not concern with the above potential WMD threats by Islamic terrorists?

Why are you not concerned to understand why there is growing discontent amongst British Muslims?
You are part of the problem.

Your above 'bollocks' is due to your ignorance of what Islam really represent.

Note, the ethos of the ideology of Islam is anti-Non_Muslims merely because they disbelieve in Allah & Muhammad, thus the justification for them to be hated and killed.
This is the primary reason as shown above.
Under the threat of Hell, SOME Muslims will find all sorts of secondary reasons to fulfill the primary reason of the command of Allah to kill non-Muslims.

There are discontent amongst British Muslims and in fact Muslims everywhere whether they are in their own Muslim majority country or if they are a minority in another foreign country.

Why is that we do not hear much of discontents among Buddhist, Hindu, Taoist, Christians, and other non-Muslims to the extent they are as evil and violent as the discontented Muslims?

The main reason for the discontent of Muslims is driven by their exclusive, intolerant and hateful ideology that do not promote integration with the non-Muslims, worst, to kill non-Muslims [by default 'fasadin' - threat.] when given the opportunity.

The above is the reason why we must critique the ideology of Islam as severely as, for example, the ideology of Nazism.
Thus the critique of Islam cannot be based on a phobia, thus not Islamophobic.

[Immanuel Can]

However, as for Flew...what actual evidence do you have that his decision to be a Deist was created by neural deterioration? And how do you account for him having composed such a cogent and logical defence of his decision, supposing he were in a state of neural decline?

There is actual evidence the neurons in the brain begin natural accelerated atrophy during old age.[/quote]
No -- I mean do you have any evidence that Flew was suffering from neural deterioration, and that that accounts for his shift to Deism, rather than the cogent argument he produced in his book.

But I know the answer to that. You don't.

I have argued elsewhere the main reason why theists cling to a God is due to an existential dilemma and existential crisis.

Well, you may have "argued" it, but it's not a good argument. You'll find Theists have many different reasons for their decisions.

For example the "Fear and Trembling" re Keikegaard,

You have no idea what that book is about, obviously. I have it on my shelf right here...want to tell me about it?

Sorry to be blunt, VA, but you're 100% bluffing here. You've got nothing.

You'll find Flew was quite in possession of his mind, and the evidence is very clear in his book, if you would read it. Then maybe you can also read "Fear and Trembling," and you'll realize that it does not say what you think it does. It's actually a systematic philosophical treatment of the Biblical story of Abraham and Isaac, and how faith was understood from his story.

But please: if you want to argue about anything in either book, don't hesitate to get specific; I have read both, and have both handy.

[Veritas Aequitas]

However, as for Flew...what actual evidence do you have that his decision to be a Deist was created by neural deterioration? And how do you account for him having composed such a cogent and logical defence of his decision, supposing he were in a state of neural decline?

There is actual evidence the neurons in the brain begin natural accelerated atrophy during old age.

No -- I mean do you have any evidence that Flew was suffering from neural deterioration, and that that accounts for his shift to Deism, rather than the cogent argument he produced in his book.

But I know the answer to that. You don't.

I have argued elsewhere the main reason why theists cling to a God is due to an existential dilemma and existential crisis.

Well, you may have "argued" it, but it's not a good argument. You'll find Theists have many different reasons for their decisions.

For example the "Fear and Trembling" re Keikegaard,

You have no idea what that book is about, obviously. I have it on my shelf right here...want to tell me about it?

Sorry to be blunt, VA, but you're 100% bluffing here. You've got nothing.

You'll find Flew was quite in possession of his mind, and the evidence is very clear in his book, if you would read it. Then maybe you can also read "Fear and Trembling," and you'll realize that it does not say what you think it does. It's actually a systematic philosophical treatment of the Biblical story of Abraham and Isaac, and how faith was understood from his story.

But please: if you want to argue about anything in either book, don't hesitate to get specific; I have read both, and have both handy.
[/quote]
What I stated are researched evidence, i.e.

1. The atrophy of neurons with age.
2. The belief in God is stronger with old age
3. The belief in God [faith] part of the brain is independent of the higher reasoning faculty.
4. The existence of Angst in humans

Show me where I am wrong in the above.

I have shown the combination of the above enable the emergence of Flew's conversion from [a]theist to deism.

Keikegaard wrote anonymously thus one need to understand the existential psychology beyond what is literal in "Fear and Trembling."
Btw, Keikegaard is regarded as one of the founder of existential psychology.

What I have present is a very rough argument due to space and time constraints.
I understand your very defensive position in closing all the doors to advancing knowledge, but if had the ability to research more on the element 1-4 above, you will likely accept to some degree to what I had presented.

[Immanuel Can]

What I stated are researched evidence, i.e.
1. The atrophy of neurons with age.

You mean like Ben Franklin or Albert Einstein? Yeah, that old age thing's a real problem.

If your studies are any good, then they show that things like information management, general comprehension, mathematical skills and logic peak at around 50, and vocabulary at 60. While skills like visual searching and object assembly peak well before 30, (think of teens and video game skills) the very skills needed for philosophy are at their peak much later in life, as you can see.

But all of that is merely average. What you need to prove is that Flew was senile. For that, you have not one stroke of evidence. Moreover, you won't even read his book because you're so afraid you'll find the truth -- that you are completely wrong about his mental condition.

Interestingly, Flew said he became an Atheist at age 15. If I remember correctly, Richard Dawkins made the same decision at the ripe old age of 17. Just how intelligent and mature are you going to suppose these decisions were? How cerebral can a 15 year old be? But are we to conclude that the reason people become Atheists is that they are immature? We have no proof that Flew's decision to be a Deist was a product of dementia; but we have definite evidence that his decision to be an Atheist was childish.

Flew himself said, and I quote: "“My discovery of the Divine has been a pilgrimage of reason and not of faith.”

He also wrote, "“Science spotlights three dimensions of nature that point to God. The first is the fact that nature obeys laws. The second is the dimension of life, of intelligently organized and purpose-driven beings, which arose from matter. The third is the very existence of nature. But it is not science alone that guided me. I have also been helped by a renewed study of the classical philosophical arguments.”

Are you going to tell me that these are the blatherings of a senile mind? Seriously? Does it look like that to you?

Read the book... you'll know you're wrong.

Show me where I am wrong in the above.

Just did.

Keikegaard wrote anonymously thus one need to understand the existential psychology beyond what is literal in "Fear and Trembling."

You need to read the book in order to talk about it. I have.

Btw, Keikegaard is regarded as one of the founder of existential psychology.

No. Existential philosophy...and theology. He was not a psychologist.

My advice is that you don't bluff...especially when you're arguing with somebody who has the books on hand, and has read them.