Philosophy Now Forum

Science Fan wrote: ↑Mon Jun 05, 2017 7:19 pm You didn't address my point: If Muslims have to tell other Muslims not to say a Muslim prayer for the Muslim terrorists, then doesn't this give us reason to believe that Muslims have been praying for Muslim terrorists in significant numbers and continue to do so? Why else would they have to deliver such a message?

Christians are supposed to pray for sinners, especially sinnners.

However, when it comes to the form of funeral rights, Christians, Jews and Muslims distinguish between those who died in the faith and those who died by suicide, or having abjured their faith. The Imams argue that the actions of the terrorists amounted to a renunciation of their religion.

Seleucus wrote: ↑Tue Jun 06, 2017 3:32 am Let me think this over, I expect it is one of the more important points. At the end of colonialism the freed states failed to rise to the challenge of freedom and responsibility. This I'd like to reply to you on with more consideration later.

When you have considered whether you are going to call him a 'faggot' or a 'niɠɠer' or both? (See pages 34 and 35)

Seleucus wrote: ↑Tue Jun 06, 2017 3:10 am

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Tue Jun 06, 2017 2:58 amIs it more cowardly to stab unarmed people knowing you're going to get shot in the end or drop drone strikes on them and the go home for a McDonalds?

Intentionally attacking random innocents for the purpose of advancing a world wide Islamic caliphate and tactical strikes against militants in service of the values of Western civilization are not even comparable.

Was that the reason given for the bombing? As far as I can tell there was no reason given. In fact, there is rarely any reason given. That seems quite strange. You would think that if you are going to blow yourself up then you would at least give a reason.

thedoc wrote:The Muslims that cheer a successful attack on the US or any other western nation.

Why do you think they'd do this?

Science Fan wrote:... After all, Muslims around the world were highly concerned with how Osama bin Laden was buried at sea. Why was that a concern if terrorists are automatically disowned by Muslims?

Because it's anathema to their religious practices, Muslims must be shrouded and buried. Presumably the US did it because they were scared of creating a martyr shrine of some sort but they couldn't have offered a clearer insult to the majority of Muslims than this.

Although I'm betting the conspiracy wonks think he's still in a black-site somewhere.

Seleucus wrote:Neither are internment camps in the sense they were used by British in Malaysia or Kenya. ...

And a lot of good it did us.

The British used prisons in exactly the same sense with the Irish.

The Israelis have been using internment camps since the beginning of the state of Israel.

Point taken, but unfortunately sometimes quarantine and internment are choices that get made when significant dangers present. There isn't a formula for when its justified, it's a risk and executive decision. ...

And we over here know from history that it's a bad risk and executive decision and does not solve the problem.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Tue Jun 06, 2017 10:07 am Was that the reason given for the bombing? As far as I can tell there was no reason given. In fact, there is rarely any reason given. That seems quite strange. You would think that if you are going to blow yourself up then you would at least give a reason.

They almost always do give a reason; they usually make a video, but it is interesting that these are no longer publicised. Perhaps they are suppressed because it is thought these might inspire others, or because they 'justify' terrorism.

The reasons given in the ones we know about (and from the interrogation of those caught alive) quote fairly conventional strategic objectives; e.g. to stop or retaliate for occupations or attacks by the west. Religion comes in more as a tool to get the terrorists into the state of mind where they are prepared to make that type of attack (and get themselves killed). Lots of interesting studies by:

https://cpost.uchicago.edu/

Science Fan wrote: ↑Tue Jun 06, 2017 1:41 am Belinda, your own post is some evidence that Muslims pray for terrorists. Why else would some Muslims have to issue an advisement for other Muslims not to pray for Islamic terrorists if Muslims never pray for such terrorists? The answer is that they wouldn't. There must be something they are condemning. Also, as Immanuel pointed out, it may not even be a real condemnation, but merely a publicity stunt. After all, how many communications do Muslims make to each other without making them public for outsiders? Was the message really meant for Muslims, or for non-Muslims? It's not that easy to say.

There is indeed something they are condemning. Whether what they condemn is in prospect or in retrospect is not relevant to what Muslims intend to do from now on about terrorists and mass murderers who claim to be Muslims. What matters is that the terrorists and mass murderers are condemned , and by Muslims.

There is a very strong implication, actually I think they made it explicit, that acts of terrorism and mass murder are haram. Maybe Muslims had special need to be instructed and advised. It's sorted now.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jun 06, 2017 12:53 am [

quote="Greatest I am" post_id=315528 time=1496700897 user_id=4303]
Atheists know that word (God) just as we all do. They just have doubts as to any Gods reality.

That makes them what Dawkins calls, "Firm Agnostics." It doesn't make them Atheists. Atheist deny that God exists. Agnostics say, with some or another degree of confidence, "I don't know if God exists."

I was asking about the Atheists. Would you deny them their (dis)belief as well, since it contradicts you?

Not at all. Atheists and agnostics, like myself, --- even thought I am not agnostic or atheist for the belief system I follow, I am quyite fundamental, --- reject accepting such a reality without proof. In fact, an atheist has more proof of God's non-existence than theists do. God is absent and absence of evidence is a proof of non-existence.

And I've read Freud. Lots of Freud. These days, even in his field, he's disowned as a bit of an eccentric. Worse than that, his "father figure" explanation -- by his own admission -- doesn't really prove anything. It wasn't the result of research, but of speculation; and of speculation that is every bit as functional in dismissing Atheism...or, for that matter Gnosticism...or else perhaps equally ineffective for all three.

True, but we definitely have an instinct and that instinct has to be in us somewhere. Most sages in ancient days dubbed what they thought was God as father. Even Jesus, so I just see the ancients as having found what the Father Complex points to. Call our seat of instincts what you will, but to ignore instincts is not a good idea. Gnosis is just a way of tapping into that instinct.

Read http://www.leaderu.com/truth/1truth12.html, and you'll get quite a different view of how that theory can be used. I don't think you'll end up liking it much.

[/quote]

I will have a look but you will know that as a generalist, I am loose with terms and do not get lost in semantics.

As an esoteric ecumenist, I have to as I sometimes have to deal with words that do not translate well into English.

For instance, the word consciousness. The West has perhaps 4 meanings while in the East, I hear there are about 8.

Regards
DL

P.S. You are correct that I did not like what I read since I have rejected the total Oedipus Complex, as most psychiatrists have, while I do not reject the Father Complex part of it.

Science Fan wrote: ↑Tue Jun 06, 2017 1:41 am Belinda, your own post is some evidence that Muslims pray for terrorists. Why else would some Muslims have to issue an advisement for other Muslims not to pray for Islamic terrorists if Muslims never pray for such terrorists? The answer is that they wouldn't. There must be something they are condemning. Also, as Immanuel pointed out, it may not even be a real condemnation, but merely a publicity stunt.

Most religions are based on belief systems that other religions think are basically built on lies.

They are mostly correct as most religions are myth that some of the adherents believe literally. Read that as stupidly.

That means that all that religions do are for publicity stunts, in a way and fooling the people is the mainstay of religions whose priests. preachers and imams all lie on a continuous basis about Gods that they themselves say are unknowable and unfathomable.

Regards
DL

Londoner wrote: ↑Tue Jun 06, 2017 10:56 am

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Tue Jun 06, 2017 10:07 am Was that the reason given for the bombing? As far as I can tell there was no reason given. In fact, there is rarely any reason given. That seems quite strange. You would think that if you are going to blow yourself up then you would at least give a reason.

They almost always do give a reason; they usually make a video, but it is interesting that these are no longer publicised. Perhaps they are suppressed because it is thought these might inspire others, or because they 'justify' terrorism.

The reasons given in the ones we know about (and from the interrogation of those caught alive) quote fairly conventional strategic objectives; e.g. to stop or retaliate for occupations or attacks by the west. Religion comes in more as a tool to get the terrorists into the state of mind where they are prepared to make that type of attack (and get themselves killed). Lots of interesting studies by:

https://cpost.uchicago.edu/

Not particularly logical, since every attack gives the 'West' more excuses to keep bombing the crap out of the ME. That can't possibly have gone unnoticed in the muslim world.

Greatest I am wrote: ↑Tue Jun 06, 2017 2:11 pm

Science Fan wrote: ↑Tue Jun 06, 2017 1:41 am Belinda, your own post is some evidence that Muslims pray for terrorists. Why else would some Muslims have to issue an advisement for other Muslims not to pray for Islamic terrorists if Muslims never pray for such terrorists? The answer is that they wouldn't. There must be something they are condemning. Also, as Immanuel pointed out, it may not even be a real condemnation, but merely a publicity stunt.

Most religions are based on belief systems that other religions think are basically built on lies.

They are mostly correct as most religions are myth that some of the adherents believe literally. Read that as stupidly.

That means that all that religions do are for publicity stunts, in a way and fooling the people is the mainstay of religions whose priests. preachers and imams all lie on a continuous basis about Gods that they themselves say are unknowable and unfathomable.

Regards
DL

Greatest I Am, I dislike all religions. I especially dislike the more superstitious and the more authoritarian religions. However there was a time when religions filled a useful function of social control and this time is now past, except for oppressive theocracies.

Belinda wrote: ↑Tue Jun 06, 2017 3:11 pm

Greatest I am wrote: ↑Tue Jun 06, 2017 2:11 pm

Science Fan wrote: ↑Tue Jun 06, 2017 1:41 am Belinda, your own post is some evidence that Muslims pray for terrorists. Why else would some Muslims have to issue an advisement for other Muslims not to pray for Islamic terrorists if Muslims never pray for such terrorists? The answer is that they wouldn't. There must be something they are condemning. Also, as Immanuel pointed out, it may not even be a real condemnation, but merely a publicity stunt.

Most religions are based on belief systems that other religions think are basically built on lies.

They are mostly correct as most religions are myth that some of the adherents believe literally. Read that as stupidly.

That means that all that religions do are for publicity stunts, in a way and fooling the people is the mainstay of religions whose priests. preachers and imams all lie on a continuous basis about Gods that they themselves say are unknowable and unfathomable.

Regards
DL

Greatest I Am, I dislike all religions. I especially dislike the more superstitious and the more authoritarian religions. However there was a time when religions filled a useful function of social control and this time is now past, except for oppressive theocracies.

Ditto.

I dislike all the idol worshiping cults with Christianity and Islam leading that dislike.

I do not mind the religions like my own Gnostic Christianity, Karaite Jewry and Buddhism as they are pushing the seeking of knowledge and wisdom instead of some guy in the sky. Those religions put man above God which is the right thing to do unless one wants to become an idol worshiper of the man made Gods.

Regards
DL

Religions serve a wide-variety of functions, and although I am not religious myself, the fact that religious groups have succeeded over time, does show that religions most likely have some useful purpose, besides merely, promoting lies. Many religious people do not even make literalist claims about their religious beliefs, and stick to the use of metaphors and allegory to make moral claims, which cannot be proven false. Religions also give people a sense of identity, a sense of community, they are used as mating strategies and assist in forming various marriage markets, in short, it's impossible to take a realistic look at religion and reduce it to one over-riding purpose. Some religion is most definitely destructive, and others, not at all, from what I can see, while others have pluses and minuses going for them.

Science Fan wrote: ↑Tue Jun 06, 2017 4:20 pm Religions serve a wide-variety of functions, and although I am not religious myself, the fact that religious groups have succeeded over time, does show that religions most likely have some useful purpose, besides merely, promoting lies. Many religious people do not even make literalist claims about their religious beliefs, and stick to the use of metaphors and allegory to make moral claims, which cannot be proven false. Religions also give people a sense of identity, a sense of community, they are used as mating strategies and assist in forming various marriage markets, in short, it's impossible to take a realistic look at religion and reduce it to one over-riding purpose. Some religion is most definitely destructive, and others, not at all, from what I can see, while others have pluses and minuses going for them.

If worthy of us, the mainstream religions would not have had top grow by the sword instead of good deeds.

The benefits you describe are better met by secular law.

I disagree with your, --- "Many religious people do not even make literalist claims about their religious beliefs, and stick to the use of metaphors and allegory to make moral claims, which cannot be proven false."

I think most religious moral tenants can be proven to be immoral and have had many religious run from moral discussion or hide the truth behind their faith shields and respond with, ---- God can do as he likes even if immoral. Do as he says, not as he does.

Both Christianity and Islam follow immoral Gods.

If you have particular tenants in mind, show then.

Regards
DL