Friday, January 16, 2015

A Reply to Dragon Fang

The conversation is too long to continue at the post where it started, so I will put my comments here.

Dragon Fang,
It is apparent to me that you do not understand the nature of freedom and how it works for a principled people. It is not, as you claim, based on anarchy. It does presuppose, however, that people will have adopted principles which include concepts of good and evil, concepts of good character and its development, and have a natural propensity for civil behavior. These types of peoples derive from a voluntarily accepted religious background, and have a common culture. The government is not tasked with forcing religious beliefs or culture upon these free people, it is tasked with protecting their freedoms. Deviant behaviors which invade other people's freedoms are punished as being uncivil, not for being heretical to any ideology (other than "freedom" if you consider that an ideology as you seem to).

Over time and cycles of prosperity, the unity of the cultural values both strengthened and now has weakened to a dangerous degree. This was understood from the beginning and free people have known that they must be vigilant and protect their freedoms from assault, both from within and without the culture and nation. Our freedoms are under internal assault directly by new forms of Marxism which have metastasized and spread into the system of governing and education.

Freedom is fragile when cultures and subcultures do not want other people to have freedom, they want to impose their own ideology on everyone without exception. This mentality comes from a form of presumptive personal superiority to other people, and the assumption of the "right" and "necessity" to run other people's lives. This is the basis of immorality found in totalitarian behaviors and ideology. It is bolstered by false moral principles, the violation of which is heresy, and this is as true of western Leftists as it is of Islam - which is why western Leftist love and fear Islam simultaneously. Both are overtly enemies of free people and their right to pursue truth without interference from elitist, dogmatists with false morals.

With that, let's proceed to the ongoing conversation:

Dragon Fang says,
”If we look at it from that perspective secularism is a religion, in which the leader makes rules based on an ideology stated in te constitution, and these rules are subjected on the citizens, and the officials are required to pledge their allegiance to that ideology.

It is as simple as that; your system is equally totalitarian if not more.”


And that is not the case, is it? The constitution guarantees freedoms; political leaders are sworn to uphold those freedoms. Laws are secondary to freedoms, in that if a law is unfair or contradictory to freedoms, it can be changed through civilized procedures.

Islamic law guarantees death or barbaric lashings etc. for disobedience and heretical thought, forcing the ideology onto everyone. As you have said before, freedom does not exist, because humans cannot be trusted to make correct decisions. This is top-down dictation of designated allowed behaviors and controlled thought and that, not freedom, is totalitarianism. There is no recourse for unfair, dictated laws of Allah received by revelation. You do not deny the totalitarian nature of Islam, you merely try to assert a false Tu Quoque as a defense; that's a logic fallacy.

You are corrupting the meaning of “totalitarian” by claiming that laws which apply to all people of a nation which must guarantee freedom are “totalitarian”. The “ideology” of individual freedom is the polar opposite from the ideology of “total concentration of power in governing by forced ideology”, i.e. totalitarianism, and you either are ignoring that or refusing to acknowledge it; either way it is false to claim otherwise.

Your concept that freedom is bad and must be quashed is what will lead to destructive war in the future; it is the same concept held by the Axis powers of WWII. It underlies the nations captive to Communism.

”"You might wish it to be a red herring, but it is not; [...]"

Ahh... Your point was that I am trying to enforce Islam in the US or something like that.
Your system is intolerant toward absolutes; the same thing you complain about. Again, your constitution is enforced on US citizens, therefore the US is a dictatorship? An Islamic nation could be a republic for all you know.”


You must think me to be quite ignorant; it actually is insulting to a degree. Of course Islamic countries can be republics, so long as the elected leaders bow to the will of the Imam du jour. That is why Iran is stable (insane, but stable) while Iraq is not stable: Iran’s top elected leaders obey their religious leaders; Iraq’s leaders are trying to be secular but cannot succeed due to the sectarian nature of their populace; Iraq has no specific religious leader to obey and who actually controls the Muslim factions.

”"Every totalitarian dictatorship does this. [...]"

Actually, that was more along the lines of: We don't have alcohol promoted and sold publicly, and then punish people for doing stupid stuff while drunk.”


Actually you punish women for driving while female, female being a genetic trait over which they had no control.

”"Yes, reins of terror do work that way. [...]"

Are the deterrents effective (save life, money, etc.)? Then we have given our sympathies to potential victims their due.
The lashes are more like symbolic taps, meant for humiliation not pain. I'd take them any day over water boarding, but I digress. Response below.”


Insertion Addendum:
The flogging of a Saudi critic of authority has been delayed in order to allow his wounds to heal more properly before the next round of 100. He is sentenced to 1,000 lashes, which assuredly are NOT "symbolic taps", and to call them that is an apparently purposeful untruth to cover for the insidious, barbaric reality.

I see. It is the effectiveness of a deterrent that matters. The most effective deterrent being beheading of course, since it is immediate, costs nothing, stops that offender permanently, terrifies others. It is interesting that you defend such punitive governmental barbarism and terror as the cure for Islamic behavior problems. That certainly is happening in North Africa, Syria, Iraq, etc., etc. It is an obvious trait of Islam.

I doubt that lashes are symbolic taps; that would be a stupid approach to “effective deterrents”, compared to death for being raped for example. I’ve seen photos of those who have been lashed; I suppose that would be symbolic exposed meat and blood?

”If the Quran is from God, and since God his orders are always manifestation of his perfection and maximum justice, mercy, wisdom, etc. they are objectively good.

However, since your morality is not objective, it is subjective (law of excluded middle). So here is the air-tight paradox-exposing, morality-destroying question: Is the morality of Islam equally valid due the subjective nature of your morality?”


I’m sorry if the following offends you, but it must be said: that is absurd. The term “objective” does not mean that revelation is automatically valid truth. People claim revelation all the time; their claims are internal to themselves, therefore, that sort of claim is purely and completely subjective without a shred of objective quality, and cannot be validated as truth. An Objective Truth is one that every reasoning person can see to be the case purely because it cannot be rationally be denied (it is incorrigibly the case and it is irrational to deny it); the opposite of such a truth would be an absurdity. Islam does not qualify as “objective truth”, nor does any religion.

Further, your claim that “excluded middle” is the western ideology is bizarre; excluded middle is the second of Aristotle’s First Principles of Thought, which the Islamists preserved throughout the early part of the first millennium AD. If Islam rejects that, it is news to me, especially considering that Islam is more black and white than any western religion or philosophy short of Marxism.

So your question has no meaning since it is based on false presuppositions in its premises. However, let’s take a look at the logical consequences you derive, anyway.

”1- Was your principled freedom righteous because the declaration said it is, or did the deceleration call them benevolent because they were benevolent before the declaration? Did the declaration give birth to the rights, or did it simply express them?”

Personal freedom to choose an ideology is an obviously righteous principle, except that it is not obvious to those who demand the contrary “right” to control others' very thoughts (totalitarian, dictators). This is the reason that your thinking and mine are polar opposites: you think that you have the right to control what I think and do, whereas I think that I have the right to control what I think and do, all by myself and without interference from you or anyone else. Further, what you think and do is of no concern to me, up until you assert your supposed “right” to control me and my thoughts and actions. I will defend myself from that, as would you defend yourself; self defense is a human right... except under totalitarianism. (Another difference between freedom and Islam/totalitarianism).

Also, your received opinion of your deity is that you are imbued with the righteous powers of superiority, and must control what I think and do. That makes you, under your own opinion, a self-righteous aggressor on me.

”2- Every person who is skeptical of some or all of the declarations have the intellectual right to be given evidence that they are declarations that he/she should believe in. If there are logical arguments to be made in favor of these declarations to convince a rational person, it wouldn't matter whether some people don't believe in them. However, for some elites or 'intellectual' state that people should believe in them because they are written in a piece of paper is irrational.”

You probably think you are describing the freedoms of the west; in fact this statement illuminates the problem inherent in Islam, to wit:

a) Skepticism is fine, even encouraged, in a free society; it is not fine in a totalitarian society such as Islam.

b) If the skeptic chooses not to “believe” in freedom for other people, that belief is fine until it becomes an action of totalitarian nature against other people. It is not the case that freedom to reject freedom (i.e., non-coherent thought) is also free to abuse other people’s freedom (non-coherent actions).

c) For some elites or Imams to state that people MUST believe in them because they are written on a piece of paper (Qur’an, Hadith) is irrational. No one in a free society is forced to believe in anything; they can pursue truth to find what is actually true; they may not force an ideology on anyone else as does Islam.

”3- Are these declarations exhaustive, in which you can't add or detract from it, or is it possible to change or modify them?
If that is the case, did humanity finally create perfection from human effort?”


Of course they can be changed, and they have been 27 times by national consensus in the form of constitutional amendments. The thrust of the changes was to expand personal freedoms and to restrict governmental freedoms. The problem in the USA is that the government has deviated from the constitutional restrictions on its powers, and the Leftist courts have support those deviations. The necessity for protecting the principles of freedom from corruption by totalitarian infiltration is obvious, and is currently an issue in the USA. That does not invalidate freedom as a moral principle, it illuminates the need to protect it from conquest by immoral totalitarians.

”4- Why do you want these principles to be made universal?”

I do not. You have not read what I have written and you are making bad assumptions. I want to preserve the freedoms which the USA has historically had as a free nation of free men. If you want to live under thought control, it’s up to you… except that you cannot assert that on people here. And there are many in the rest of the world who also do not want Islamic thought and act control, either. They will fight for their own freedom from your totalitarian demands.

Because the USA has more resources than some of those freedom-lovers who are attacked by Islam and its brutalities, I do think that when it is requested to help preserve the freedoms of other groups or nations, that the USA should do so, just as we did in WWII (freeing France, Spain, Italy and much of north Africa as well as much of the Pacific from totalitarian subjugation). This has and will aggravate the totalitarians who wish total control over others. Such aggravation cannot be avoided, except by the totalitarians leaving others alone.

Since you believe in your form of totalitarian subjugation, you will not find that to be favorable or even moral, according to your own ideology of total conquest in pursuit of the global caliphate. That is where we conflict, and you should expect it. You cannot argue freedom lovers into giving you control over them, unless they are insane.

”Please show me that the morality you are advocating is not enforced consequentialism.”

That is interesting coming from a totalitarian, where the consequence of heresy justifies any possible means whatsoever, from mere ravaging and destruction to mass murder.

However, it is possible to say that to survive the onslaught of totalitarian, barbarian, genocidal hordes, that the consequence, survival, pragmatically justifies the means to defend oneself, whatever that requires. And that is the definition of tactic, or consequentialism; consequentialism is not a moral position, it is the pragmatic decision to do what is necessary, for a given objective. The issue becomes that of the morality of both the consequence and the means. For Islam, the objective of total conquest of human thought and action is not moral unless one believes that the deity is too weak and the ideology too weak to be accepted voluntarily on the basis of its own truth, and therefore must be FORCED onto people, not by the diety but by violent people. That is a corrupt morality, from a weak deity and a weak ideology. Plus it is fully consequentialist in that it projects all possible actions regardless of brutality as being "moral" while it is being pursued. (jihad).

”You seem to be under the impression that: More freedom = Better. That is fallacious; so the best system is anarchy? On what basis do you limit freedom?”

Freedom to choose one’s own path and to accept the natural consequences is not fallacious. There is no logic fallacy involved. Nor is there anarchy, as you assume in your black and white thinking. A principled people do not live in anarchy. They do have rules for civil behavior which respects individual freedoms and fair treatment.

When people are allowed to search earnestly and honestly for actual truth they are much more likely to find it than to have "revealed dogma" jammed down their throats. You will not agree, probably, because jamming your brand of supposed “truth” down people’s throats is a fundamental premise of Islam. And yet how can one accept it as actual truth rather than the totalitarian narrative which must be accepted on pain of death? For Islamists, that doesn’t matter because the consequence – enforced worship no matter how dishonest out of fear – is deemed to justify the means: that is true consequentialism in the absence of moral means or objectives. Why would a deity settle for that?

Freedom is limited, to answer your question, by limiting the incursion of one person on another, and the state upon individuals, except for the state intervening, not to prevent the incursion of one person on another, but to react to such incursions. And the state is to defend the nation from incursion by totalitarian invasion in order to preserve individual freedoms.

”I guess we are in the same page:

Secularist constitution = No contradicting Islamic policies.
Islamic constitution = No contradicting Secular policies.”


I am unable to garner any meaning from this set of equivalencies.

”Also, what democracy? The thing never was never effective or fully applied, and will fail miserably with a larger population. The US is a republic. "Democracy" is a word used by demagogues to get people to vote for them.”

A republic is merely a democracy via representation. Nothing demagogic about it. The differentiation is purely trivial.

”I believe I was fully transparent about my intolerance toward falsehood. Second of all, I stated that tolerance is relative depending on the behavior under question.

So you are intolerant toward intolerance of dissent because of dissent? Less self-refuting statements please.”


The entire concept of “tolerance” as an absolute principle is bathed in contradiction. Total tolerance is not a western principle. It is a Marxist pseudo-principle. Any actual moral principle both discriminates against immorality as acceptable for personal consumption, and it does not tolerate it in the personal behavior of the adherent if that person is not attempting to correct his own behavior. Without personal discrimination and intolerance (in the sense given) there is no morality involved.

Which is why Islam invokes a false sense of morality: it is necessary to feign moral acceptance if one does not accept the moral premises. Thus dishonesty in morality is concealed by the necessity of not getting beheaded. This is not moral, either for the enforcers or the enforced.

”That is how things work: Someone who believes in absolutes will take over those who don't believe in absolutes (those who advocate homosexuality do believe in absolutes, even if their belief has no rational basis). So how exactly are you going to prevent them without being totalitarian yourself?”

Again, defense of freedom is not totalitarian. The Allies of WWII engaged the totalitarians with considerable uncomfortable counter violence; that did not make them totalitarian. Not in the least. The Allies returned the countries to the people who rightfully owned them. Those countries went on to peacefully become prosperous representative democracies. The remaining totalitarians remained in poverty as their people were subjugated and not motivated (Russia, China). Only as their people gained more freedom have they gained more prosperity.

When the internal fight against immorality is lost to peaceful means, the totalitarians within the USA will force the rest of us into a combat type war, a second civil war. Both sides stand to lose, because the opportunity for outside invasion will be great.

Wars of liberation are not totalitarian when actual liberation is the objective and not total control of thoughts and actions of the losers.

”There are dozens of non-morally neutral things humanbeings are not equal at, and they are definitely not materially equal. Treating everyone with absolute equality makes absolutely no sense. If some people are born with or develop wings, the only way to achieve equality is to either find some way to prevent wings from ever growing in future generations, or to clip them. Likewise, the beautiful needs to be scarred, the athlete needs to be crippled, the intelligent must be dumbed down, etc.”

Except for the fair treatment of people (repecting their free autonomy), in the rest of this we are in complete agreement. It seems to apply more to Islam than to free western culture.

”"That is again, completely false. Western culture is heavily based in Aristotelian logic, [...]"

Then please present a deductive argument, and explain how Western culture is: 1- not based on whims, 2- Believes in objective morality and can find it.
You might as well say that math is the source of morality; sure you can use math to help you not-steal, but you'll never get an equation that says "stealing is wrong", and even if you could there is no reason to follow it.”


It appears to me that you could never “follow” life in western culture because you believe that freedom to pursue truth without dogmatic hindrance from your particular Ideology is immoral and must be eradicated.

Islam’s forced obedience:
IF [Some random person claims to have received revealed morality ], THEN [ I must follow it ] AND [ others who refuse to follow as I do must be killed ]
Western religious freedom to accept truth:
IF [ truth exists ] AND [ it is the causal agent for natural existence ] THEN [ I can pursue it to its source ] AND [ meditate on and commune with the source of truth ] IFF [ I am free ]; ELSE [ I can wander freely and the deity, if any, will deal with me in its own time and manner ].
The reason that you didn’t anticipate that syllogism’s might actually exist is likely because you accept dogma without reasoning, to be Islamic truth. Plus you also likely don’t use or understand deductive syllogisms as any sort of path to even physical truths, much less metaphysical truth.

”"Yes. No one is allowed to think thoughts which are not approved by the nomenklatura. [...]"

Of course they are allowed; spying is forbidden after all. However, Muslims prevent public immorality, and hence the spread of ideologies. You prefer quantity, and I prefer quality.”


By restricting yourself to a specific subjective, received dogma and eliminating all other rational paths as heresy, you have no comparative referent for “quality”. So that claim cannot be the case. Only by discriminating examination of all truth claims in an intellectually honest, rationally measured fashion can a truth claim be known to actually be the case. The Islamic intellect is killed by the dogmatic coffin into which it is forced. It is reduced to rationalizing around a presupposed truth, not finding what is actually true.

”"Given the Hamas cartoon just this week of a mountain of Jewish skulls your claims are falsified by facts, [...]"

Again, more redherrings rather than addressing my statement. I am just wondering; if you don't want people to discuss your culture, then why are you discussing, say, Saudi culture?”


First, it was Palestinian, not Saudi. If your Islam is not the same as the Islam of Saudis or the Islam of Palestinians or the Islam of Iranians or the Islam of Boko Haram, or the Islam of the Afghanis, then what qualifies you to claim “objective” morality? You cannot make that claim without denying the legitimacy of all other Islamic claims, thereby designating them as heretical and worthy of beheading by you. Your claim of certainty in your knowledge of your deity’s intended meaning implies a special contact with Allah specifically for you, and not for other Islamics who don’t share your particular religious claims. How do you account for your special contact and communication with the deity, unless you are another prophet, sent to interpret for the inconsistencies of Muhammad?

Now then, here is exactly what you said:

””If you see the epitome of freedom is choosing what to buy from the grocery store then that is the epitome of a simplistic view (Free to choose your DNA, school, teachers, etc? Free to not follow the laws of your country which were decided by someone else outside of your control?).
I am sure you will applaud your family members being drawn and published publicly; I think I'll settle with a culture that is based on respect and cooperation.””


You actually settle for a culture which is based on fear and suppression, not respect; Islam demeans women, considers men too morally weak to resist rape, and slaughters even its own Islamists as well as heretics around the world. Islamic families slaughter women who have been the victim of rape. You cannot make that claim - "a culture based on respect" - without creating laughter. Because it is not true and it most obviously is not true, and obviously you know it is not true but you say it anyway.

A culture based on respect allows individuals the freedom to exercise their own paths to the deity or away from the deity and the consequence of that is exercised by the deity, which has no need for barbaric interference from humans. That, and not Islam, is respect for the deity and respect for humans.

”Again, more redherrings rather than addressing my statement. I am just wondering; if you don't want people to discuss your culture, then why are you discussing, say, Saudi culture?”

Another complete absurdity: people discuss American culture every day of every year; you are so far out of touch that you don’t know anything about a free culture, where all, ALL, culture possibilities may be discussed freely, including Islam. There is no offense taken at this free practice by anyone but Muslims (and Marxists), who want all non-dogmatic information suppressed, and dogma to be forced on the people whether they want it or not.

Must I remind you, that is totalitarianism?

”"Your use of “God” is false; Islam subjugates mankind into denial of free will, [...]"

Interesting that the Aramaic word for "God" is "Allah", and it was used by Christians and Jews hundreds of years before Islam. In fact, He is immensely more deserving of the Capital G than the god described in the bible.
Allah gave us a degree of free will; hence we can sin. What denial are you talking about?”


If you have free will, why do you force dogmatic behaviors which eliminate free will to choose to accept the deity, unless you as a human cannot allow people to exercise their free will and assume the responsibility for the consequences, consequences which a real deity would provide? The reason is obvious: Islam is not a voluntary ideology; it is forced by totalitarian dicates due to the perception that the deity is too weak to provide consequences and therefore needs Islamists to kill and maim for him/it.

”"This has to be the most rationally absurd statement possible to make, especially in the face of objective evidence. [...]"

I believe I was talking about Islamic societies, not bloody civil wars.
Perhaps you meant to address my last statement "only for the sake of stability..."?”


Either way, to claim that Islamic societies don’t force Islam onto minorities is absurd. And stability is not a moral reason, it is an excuse for doing so.

”"Ah. Reparations are necessary. [...]"

Reduction to absurdity; collective punishment based on guilt by association.
Of course, injustice toward certain blue-blooded whiteman classes are more worthy of attention than all other instances.”


Absolute BS. Your claim was this:

”I am OK with French telling French Muslims to get out of their land if France restores what colonism took from their grandparent's lands, and the streets built by their grandparents as cheap labor while living in ghettos are removed.”

You specifically demand a reparation for an historical offense. There is no second way to interpret your statement. I highlighted the hypocrisy involved with that. It was the belief in Islam that killed everyone in the WORLD TRADE towers INCLUDING MUSLIMS AND CITIZENS OF NATIONS AROUND THE WORLD. There is no logical absurdity involved as you claim; however: invoking whiteman is a racist slur. (and ill placed on your part, since you have no idea what race I am, what skin tone or ethnicity I might be). Under Islam, depending on the sect, I would be justified in producing any amount of violence to recompense for the slur. Under free speech there is no need and no impulse for that violence; it is understood for what it is and ignored; but the slur reflects on the source. That is a specific demonstration of the difference between Islam and the free ideologies of the west.

In fact, it is obviously more important to you to avenge historical offenses than to even recognize Islamic offenses. You have made that abundantly clear, by your deprecation of "whitemen". Your Islam is more righteous and therefore nothing else deserves consideration, only slurs.

This is why westerners realize full well the intolerance and self-righteous nature of Islam in any and all of its forms, regardless of whether IslamA kills IslamB and IslamC – all of Islam has the same self-righteous nature which is intolerant of even its own sub-Islams (probably especially them).

”"It seems contradictory; one sect claims one truth, [...]"

"There are multiple scientific and historical theories, and since they contradict each other then all of them are false!".
More incoherent statements.”


Of course I did not say that; you concluded yourself that from the evidence. And you obviously cannot address which of the obvious contradictions is, in fact, Truth as Muhammad received it. Further, you seem to acknowledge the stress of not knowing which is the case. This conundrum exists for you because there is no rational case within Islam that proves rationally that it and only it is True by virtue of its incorrigible validity (or else there would be no sectarian wars). So every sect claims sole possession of “truth” and the moral authority to declare all other sects to be heretical, and then to try to perform genocide on the heretics. It’s just the way Islam works.

ADDENDUM:
Btw, quoting Islamic dogma is a no-starter; I have no reason to read it, having read the Qur'an and rejected it in light of its totalitarian and violent hatred which is applied to humans such as myself. I think that perhaps a summary of differences between Islamic and western ideology can be seen in what they each defend:

Western ideology defends and preserves the freedom from dictator oppression, starting with the despotism of King George and extending to all totalitarian encroachments.

Islam defends and preserves the divine obligation to oppress heretics using barbaric methods which are justified as holy.



17 comments:

Phoenix said...

You seem to be under the impression that: More freedom = Better. That is fallacious; so the best system is anarchy? On what basis do you limit freedom?”

Yes,muslims fear freedom - they view it as anarchy.Freedom of thought,freedom of expression/freedom of religion and political freedom are terrifying concepts to a muslim.That's why Islam seeks to control every aspect of the adherent's life.How the person eats,drinks,sleeps,breaks wind,engage in coitus,dress,speaks,yawns,greets,whom to befriend and not,etc etc etc. are all mandated by Islamic scriptures,slight deviations are considered heresy and punishable.

We also have to bare in mind that muslims have a different benchmark to moral principles than us.Whatever Muhammad forbade and permits is their yardstick.For example,eating a ham sandwich while drinking a beer is evil but hating jews is good.

Dragon fang said...

@Phoenix

By definition, anarchy is absolute freedom. Therefore, you don't have absolute freedom as you claim.
As I previously said, Islam forbids spying therefore mentioning private behavior is either ignorant or dishonest; doing certain behaviors in public while expecting public approval for them and you might be in trouble.
There are slight deviations that are not considered heresy, but should be considered a personal preference rather than part of the religion, and there are deviations that violates tenets and are considered heresy.

A Muslim society has five necessities to preserve:

1- The ability to worship Allah
2- Life
3- The mind
4- Progeny
5- Property

Pretty much all punishments are meant to protect those.

The "hate Jews" claim is so tired. Do I really need to respond to that?


Before I finish composing a reply to Stan's long post, I'll clarify what is meant by freedom.

Common Western thought today resemble Atheistic thought; simply because it was a reaction to the church and then to Christianity (pst. cause Christian law is a total failure), thus it was an attempt to find some non-religious philosophical basis for scientific, political, economic and social thought. This doesn't mean that every detail in Western thought is false, but that it is based on flimsy foundation.

However, people often try to isolate this thought from its Atheistic environment, and pretend that it is a humanitarian thought that is valid for all time and place, and some theists even try to associate their religion with it, or at least claim that their religion doesn't contradict it. Of course, what I am talking about is the concept of "principled freedom" that is taken for granted around these parts, and woe for those who disagree with it.

Well, here is the thing: The one who has absolute freedom is the one who has no restriction on his behavior at all; the one who does whatever he wants. However, an action requires knowledge, will, and ability. The one who has absolute freedom must have complete knowledge, unparalleled ability and dominating will. And one cannot have the previously mentioned traits except if he was completely dispensed and self-sufficient, requiring nothing to learn, nor power to gain, since needing power or knowledge contradicts absolute freedom.

When "democracy" advocates state that a human being is not free if he obeys a law not of his own saying is true. However, they also admit that human beings must live in a group, and living in a group requires an authority that gives orders, prevents certain actions, and punishes. By the nature of laws, it can't be made by every single individual who forms a community, and even if individual contribution in a "democratic" system is more than in other forms of governments, the lawmaking remains the creation of a minority of individuals who are part of legislative councils. If the criteria of freedom is in law-making, then people are only slightly free, even in a "democracy". Even the ability to create laws doesn't guarantee freedom, even if the person can do as he wills. Why? Because the person becomes a slave to his desire, thus he can do whatever his whim orders; he can overeat, get hammered, get stoned, enter an orgy, etc. A Western isn't free; if he wasn't a slave to humans like him, then he is a slave to his desires. Thus, narcissistic self-worship is born.

So what is the exit off of this slavery?

Humans have no hope for the absolute freedom Western philosophies every so often mentions; everyone, including those who deny the self-evident truth of the existence of a Creator, admit that a human did not bring himself, nor sustains it, and that his knowledge is gained, and his knowledge is deficient, and that he depends on the continuation of his life on conditions he can't control. Light comes from the sun, water comes from the rain, vegetation comes from the earth, etc. How can he be free? How can he be independent on his position?

Dragon fang said...

Theists believes in the existence of a Creator, and they acknowledge that only Allah have complete knowledge, unparalleled ability, and fully self-sufficient; He alone is a doer of what He wills. However, humans are a creation, and since he is a creation he belongs to his creator, and who belongs to someone else is a slave. The truth about humans is that they are slaves, not free, but it is a slavery to the Creator rather than other creations. And slavery is represented in being judged by his actions, whether he wants it or not, by the will of his creator. True, humans have free will. And yes, he has ability. However, the Creator willed for us to have free will, and he allowed us to have ability; our will is not absolute, it is contingent on the will of our Creator.

Since only the Creator wills what He wants, a human can want what is not, and be what he does not want. Just like the Creator made obligatory laws of the universe humans can't choose to violate, he made juridical laws that allows happiness in life and the hereafter, however they are optional in which the person can choose to follow or violate them. If a person does indeed follow them, he becomes a willing slave to the Creator, just like he is obligatorily one. If he doesn't, he becomes a slave to either his whims or the whims of other humans. Thus, the only way for "democracy" apologists to get rid of slavery from humans isn't by having everyone make up their own laws, but rather by devoting all slavery to Allah by follow all what He legislated.

Hence, there is no way to get rid of being a slave to humans, except by being a slave to the creator of humans. Humans don't choose between being free or a slave; they have the choice between two slaveries. This is the reason Secular societies are associated with Atheism and Atheists being dominant; Secularism is inherently a rebellion to God, it is a call for some people to declare themselves as gods.


Those who follow their whims say:


They said, "O Shu'ayb, does your prayer command you that we should leave what our fathers worship or not do with our wealth what we please? Indeed, you are the forbearing, the discerning!" (Quran 11:87)


O my people, sovereignty is yours today, [your being] dominant in the land. But who would protect us from the punishment of Allah if it came to us?" Pharaoh said, "I do not show you except what I see, and I do not guide you except to the way of right conduct." (Quran 40:29)


However, the Quran says:

And they did not appraise Allah with true appraisal when they said, " Allah did not reveal to a human being anything."[...] (Quran 6:91)


Does man think that he will be left neglected? (Quran 75:36)


Say, "Have you seen what Allah has sent down to you of provision of which you have made [some] lawful and [some] unlawful?" Say, "Has Allah permitted you [to do so], or do you invent [something] about Allah ?" (Quran 10:59)

Dragon fang said...

Nonetheless, humans have free will and ability even if they were limited and bounded, and they may lose a portion of this freedom when they are enslaved, bought, and sold, and yet they can be freed in the sense that they have the original freedom Allah gave them. Someone who is imprisoned or kidnapped can be freed in the same sense. A nation can colonize an other nation, and once the offending nation is gone they can be freed in the same sense. A despotism, such as an oligarchy (hm. sounds like good ol' US of A), can make whimsical rules toward its citizens, say legalize homosexuality because pseudo-freedom, and they can also be freed in the same sense.


But, the worst type of slavery is when someone willingly chooses to be a slave to a creation like him, where he prays for him, depends on him, appeals to him, must follow all his commands, etc. Even if you were the legislator, you wouldn't be free as you would be a slave to your whims.

Have you seen the one who takes as his god his own desire? Then would you be responsible for him? (Quran 25:43)

There is no middle ground; you are either a slave to God, or a slave to whims.


But if they do not respond to you - then know that they only follow their [own] desires. And who is more astray than one who follows his desire without guidance from Allah ? Indeed, Allah does not guide the wrongdoing people. (Quran 28:50)

Therefore, the only way to get rid of slavery by humans, is to dedicate slavery to the creator of humans.
The Western understanding of freedom is something logically incoherent, contradicts facts that are in plain sight, and violates Theism.


“I was not born to be free---I was born to adore and obey.” ― C.S. Lewis

Stan said...

The "hate Jews" claim is so tired. Do I really need to respond to that?

Why not? Is it that you cannot?

The following paragraph makes no sense, except in light of a corrupted ideology:

” Common Western thought today resemble Atheistic thought; simply because it was a reaction to the church and then to Christianity (pst. cause Christian law is a total failure), thus it was an attempt to find some non-religious philosophical basis for scientific, political, economic and social thought. This doesn't mean that every detail in Western thought is false, but that it is based on flimsy foundation.”

Exactly which “western thought” are you referring to? You seem not to comprehend that there is not a single “western thought” like the single Islamic thought that Islam dictates. And your assertion that “Christian law is a failure” is a bizarre statement – explain and support it. Perhaps you mean that Christian law failed to be a dictatorship in the sense of Marxism/Islam?

Perhaps you are referring to the difference between Philosophical Materialism and functional materialism used for science?

” However, people often try to isolate this thought from its Atheistic environment, and pretend that it is a humanitarian thought that is valid for all time and place, and some theists even try to associate their religion with it, or at least claim that their religion doesn't contradict it. Of course, what I am talking about is the concept of "principled freedom" that is taken for granted around these parts, and woe for those who disagree with it.”

Now we are getting somewhere. Black and white reasoning (False Dichotomy Fallacy). Freedom is anarchy and nothing else but anarchy. Therefore freedom is evil, and thus totalitarian dictatorship is the only moral Good. QED.

Further, “woe” to those who want to suppress the entirety of humanity under the moral Good of their totalitarian dictatorship. The poor dears are not allowed to suppress everyone else, purely due to evil freedom.

Got it; we understand. Of course no one here has ever, ever advocated anarchy. Ever.

” Well, here is the thing: The one who has absolute freedom is the one who has no restriction on his behavior at all; the one who does whatever he wants. However, an action requires knowledge, will, and ability. The one who has absolute freedom must have complete knowledge, unparalleled ability and dominating will. And one cannot have the previously mentioned traits except if he was completely dispensed and self-sufficient, requiring nothing to learn, nor power to gain, since needing power or knowledge contradicts absolute freedom.”

More false thinking based on freedom = anarchy. Repeat: no one here has ever advocated anarchy. So arguing against anarchy is a non-starter, a logical deviation from the conversation, a bona fide Red Herring Fallacy (unlike the non-fallacies you have used for avoidance).

Stan said...

” When "democracy" advocates state that a human being is not free if he obeys a law not of his own saying is true. However, they also admit that human beings must live in a group, and living in a group requires an authority that gives orders, prevents certain actions, and punishes. By the nature of laws, it can't be made by every single individual who forms a community, and even if individual contribution in a "democratic" system is more than in other forms of governments, the lawmaking remains the creation of a minority of individuals who are part of legislative councils.”

Still arguing against anarchy at this point. That makes for trivial paragraphs.

” If the criteria of freedom is in law-making, then people are only slightly free, even in a "democracy". Even the ability to create laws doesn't guarantee freedom, even if the person can do as he wills. Why? Because the person becomes a slave to his desire, thus he can do whatever his whim orders; he can overeat, get hammered, get stoned, enter an orgy, etc. A Western isn't free; if he wasn't a slave to humans like him, then he is a slave to his desires. Thus, narcissistic self-worship is born.”

This is more on point, yet it is still a False Dichotomy Fallacy. For you, there is no possibility of a person being moral outside of your enforcement. That makes you the deity. The arrogance of knowing what sort of principled behavior is impossible in others is what the moral dictatorship is all about. And that arrogance much more closely describes narcissistic self-worship than does principled free agency and personal autonomy. In fact it is your own claim to moral supremacy that allows you to corrupt logic in order to bend reality into the fantasy you desire to enforce.

This statement is particularly a rational disorder:

” A Western isn't free; if he wasn't a slave to humans like him, then he is a slave to his desires. Thus, narcissistic self-worship is born.”

This statement leads to the conclusion that in order to prevent a person from being a “slave to his desires”, he must be enslaved. Otherwise narcissistic self-worship.

That is a perfect statement of a narcissistic person from a perspective of his own perfection. (DSM5, pg 645).

Narcissistic Personality Disorder: a pattern of grandiosity, need for admiration, and lack of empathy.

Islamists make perfect dictators. Their dictatorship is based not on empathy, but on their own grandiose mission. They will kill a person in order to preserve their grandiose honor. Their honor must be admired. They cannot be viewed as “Wrong”, ever.

” Humans have no hope for the absolute freedom Western philosophies every so often mentions; everyone, including those who deny the self-evident truth of the existence of a Creator, admit that a human did not bring himself, nor sustains it, and that his knowledge is gained, and his knowledge is deficient, and that he depends on the continuation of his life on conditions he can't control. Light comes from the sun, water comes from the rain, vegetation comes from the earth, etc. How can he be free? How can he be independent on his position?”

Again, the False Dichotomy – arguing a non-assertion – asserting aimlessly into the wind

Stan said...

”True, humans have free will. And yes, he has ability. However, the Creator willed for us to have free will, and he allowed us to have ability; our will is not absolute, it is contingent on the will of our Creator.

If a person does indeed follow them, he becomes a willing slave to the Creator, just like he is obligatorily one.

If he doesn't, he becomes a slave to either his whims or the whims of other humans. Thus, the only way for "democracy" apologists to get rid of slavery from humans isn't by having everyone make up their own laws, but rather by devoting all slavery to Allah by follow all what He legislated.”


But this is not Islam. Islam does not allow the “willing” acceptance of Islam. Claiming that it does is actually an assertion of our stupidity which you are attempting to exploit.

Slavery is not to any deity, it is to humans who enforce their ideology upon everyone, willing or unwilling. What you claim is just not true.

You are corrupting the meaning of “slavery”. This is another attempt to sway the conversation by using illegitmate definitions of common words. Slavery, especially under Islam, is never voluntary. It is involuntary capture and total control of other human beings. Such as Islamists do in Africa every day.

Being based on corrupted meanings, then your logic is also corrupt and therefore so is your conclusion:

” Hence, there is no way to get rid of being a slave to humans, except by being a slave to the creator of humans. Humans don't choose between being free or a slave; they have the choice between two slaveries. This is the reason Secular societies are associated with Atheism and Atheists being dominant; Secularism is inherently a rebellion to God, it is a call for some people to declare themselves as gods.”

The incorporation of partial truths does not lead to an overall truth. Slavery to an ideal or ideology is not equivalent to capture and total control by another person or group. Actual slavery is not an inevitable state, it is rectifiable.

Try to remember that what the Qur’an says is of no consequence to me, since it is a product of Guthman and his henchmen, and because it spreads hatred in the name of peace and is noncoherent logically. It produces irrational arguments like your justification of slavery, above, in the attempt to justify totalitarian actions by the Islamic religion.




Stan said...

”Nonetheless, humans have free will and ability even if they were limited and bounded, and they may lose a portion of this freedom when they are enslaved, bought, and sold, and yet they can be freed in the sense that they have the original freedom Allah gave them. Someone who is imprisoned or kidnapped can be freed in the same sense. A nation can colonize an other nation, and once the offending nation is gone they can be freed in the same sense. A despotism, such as an oligarchy (hm. sounds like good ol' US of A), can make whimsical rules toward its citizens, say legalize homosexuality because pseudo-freedom, and they can also be freed in the same sense.”

This paragraph directly contradicts the previous assertions. Previously “slavery to Allah” was promoted. Now it is “freedom given by Allah”. Which is it? You are finding it necessary here to contradict your prior statements in order now to make the distinction which you previously denied – that there is a difference between slavery to humans and the dedication to an ideology. So which is it?

As for a “despotism by oligarchy”, the USA can recover from that; Islam will never recover from their despotism by oligarchy. It is the organizing principle of Islam. Without it, Islam ceases to be Islam.

”But, the worst type of slavery is when someone willingly chooses to be a slave to a creation like him, where he prays for him, depends on him, appeals to him, must follow all his commands, etc. Even if you were the legislator, you wouldn't be free as you would be a slave to your whims.”

This is hard to interpret; what does it even mean?

”There is no middle ground; you are either a slave to God, or a slave to whims.”

So here you contradict your contradiction, just above. Which is it?

Third reminder: I do not even read quotes from the Qur’an. They are without force for the reasons given above..

”Therefore, the only way to get rid of slavery by humans, is to dedicate slavery to the creator of humans.”

This has to be a joke!! Islam is fully involved in enslaving anyone they think they can get. To make the assertion you just made is outrageous in its presumption that we do not know what Islam is doing and is all about. Slavery and Islam go hand in hand. And quoting the Christian C. S. Lewis to make your case for slavery is beyond irony.

Your opinion of us as ignorant and stupid is offensive. But understandable, considering the ideology from which it emanates.

Phoenix said...

By definition, anarchy is absolute freedom. Therefore, you don't have absolute freedom as you claim.
As I previously said, Islam forbids spying therefore mentioning private behavior is either ignorant or dishonest; doing certain behaviors in public while expecting public approval for them and you might be in trouble
.

No!By definition,freedom is the condition of not being enslaved,whether by an individual or political power.

Anarchy by definition is social disorder.

Now,your contention is that freedom neccessarily leads to anarchy.This is a non-sequitir and needs to be substantiated.
Our democratic governments are chosen by the people through free and fair elections.Our rule of law is specifically designed to ensure that all citizens' rights are guaranteed and no one,including lawmakers are exempt from being accountable under the law.

Contrast that with anarchy,where no ones rights are protected,there are no laws and no enforcers.

Now you might see a loop hole here and claim that Islamic jurisprudence share similar concepts.But do they really?
Are my rights as a non-muslim guaranteed under sharia.And what price(jizyah)do I have to pay for being protected from muslim mobs who can charge me with blasphemy ad libitum?

Phoenix said...

There is no middle ground; you are either a slave to God, or a slave to whims.”

False dillemma and as Stan pointed out,contradictory.Under your philosophy,which reeks of Occasionalism,Allah causes all and humans have no choice over the effects they experience.Hence,you are either a slave to Allah or to your impulses,which are also caused by Allah.

Dragon fang said...

I apologize for the late reply, but my week's have been a bit busy.
So... The reply to the long post:
http://justpaste.it/izas


Why not? Is it that you cannot?


Already mentioned the reasons; it is trite. Not to mention baseless. If you declare that you support the claim, then I shall refute it.


The following paragraph makes no sense, except in light of a corrupted ideology:

You seem not to use reading comprehension. I mentioned the word "Common", hence your objection that there is no single Western thought makes no sense.


Christianity never worked without the bible being hidden from the public or some one claiming to be receiving divine revelation. Otherwise, post protestant revolution, it is so vague it might as well be consequentialism.


Didn't understand what you meant with Marxist/Islamic dictatorship.


The church based its scientific views on Aristotelian physics.


Now we are getting somewhere. Black and white reasoning (False Dichotomy Fallacy).

Nothing in my quote/introduction shows black & white, perhaps you want me to strawman my own argument for you?
Furthermore, you failed to respond to anything actually in that quote. Like you pretending that principled freedom is some sort of axiom, when it is not cross cultural, is learned and not through intuition, and is not a foundational belief that allows a coherent worldview.


“Allah has sent us to liberate whoever wishes, from the worship of His servants to the worship of Allah, from the restriction of this world to its vastness and from the tyranny of other religions to the justice of Islam”. -Rabi’ ibn Amer



More false thinking based on freedom = anarchy.

You rejecting anarchy just proves my point; you don't have absolute freedom and absolute freedom does not work.

So since you conceded that more freedom = better, what is the correct degree of freedom?


Still arguing against anarchy at this point.

I am not the guy who argued that since Islam puts limitations on freedom, ergo it is bad. Please explain the basis freedom should/is limited.


This is more on point, yet it is still a False Dichotomy Fallacy.

If it was a false dichotomy as you claim then you should've been able to provide an example of a middle ground no? Otherwise, my statement stands.

A person is moral when he follows the obligations set upon him by God, hence it is based on his enforcement, not an individual man.

So you call up standing up to what is moral and right a dictatorship, so a country that punishes murder is a dictatorship? Defending falsehood evicts you from supporting truth; the two cannot coexist.


This statement is particularly a rational disorder:

Your use of equivocation fallacy to conjure a strawman is quite amusing. By "enslaved" you imply chains and the sort, however what is meant is acknowledging the you are obligated to follow the command of God.

Second of all, what determines "principled behavior"?
And yes, moral behavior can be made unlikely in certain environments, an Islamic society works to ensures the best environment, which includes education and high standards of living.


Interesting that Jews & Christians who viewed Islam as wrong lived with Muslims who cannot tolerate being viewed as wrong.
If you believe Islam is wrong, then simply back it up.


But this is not Islam. Islam does not allow the “willing” acceptance of Islam.

So most people in a Muslim society are not Muslims?
That's new.


Your statement about slavery and deities is non-coherent.

Slavery is not to any deity, it is to humans who enforce their ideology upon everyone, willing or unwilling. What you claim is just not true.

So a deity cannot enforce its will and its will is overcome by others? Then it is not a deity.


You argument about semantics is especially hilarious considering that "worship" has the same root meaning as "slave" in Arabic. But perhaps the word "servant" may fulfill the meaning better in English.

Dragon fang said...

The incorporation of partial truths does not lead to an overall truth.

I believe I mentioned this point, so you added nothing new. Other types of slavery can be removed, however our inherit slavery to the Creator is permanent. I am still waiting for you to point something false.

Hatred is ought to be inconsequential when making Islamic policies:


O you who have believed, be persistently standing firm for Allah , witnesses in justice, and do not let the hatred of a people prevent you from being just. Be just; that is nearer to righteousness. And fear Allah ; indeed, Allah is Acquainted with what you do. (Quran 5:8)

Paraphrase: justice>hatred.

Aside for you committing a blatant genetic fallacy, I've never heard of a guy named "Guthman". Can you offer a citation talking about the process how a mass conspiracy was made by thousands of people living thousands of miles from each other? What was added and what was removed?


Hatred is ought to be inconsequential when making Islamic policies:


O you who have believed, be persistently standing firm for Allah , witnesses in justice, and do not let the hatred of a people prevent you from being just. Be just; that is nearer to righteousness. And fear Allah ; indeed, Allah is Acquainted with what you do. (Quran 5:8)

Paraphrase: justice>hatred.


Where did I justify slavery by man?
I fail to make sense of your guilt by association to totalitarianism. Not sure if your fallacy is that weak or you are joking. Who is the dictator? Is there a military/police state? Are there intelligence organizations dedicated to spy on people's private lives?


This paragraph directly contradicts the previous assertions.

Do you really find it necessary to strawman arguments and use equivocation fallacies to find fallacies? If so, then perhaps reconsidering your position is in order.

You omitted the quote "The original freedom given by Allah", which is obviously talking about the specific freedom from man, which takes many forms such as slavers, imperial nation, law enforcement, etc. You attempt to turn my statement into an absolutist statement, when I made it clear that slavery by man and slavery by God are different objects.

The distinction between "dedication to an ideology" and "slavery to humans": When someone is dedicated to an ideology, which is probably emotional and has no logical basis, and wants to base a nation on it, he requires to enslave people, who may or may not believe in the ideology, under a set of laws and punish them for breaking them.


O People! I have been put in authority over you and I am not the best of you. So if I do the right thing then help me and if I do wrong then put me straight. Truthfulness is a sacred trust and lying is a betrayal. The weak amongst you is strong in my sight. I will surely try to remove his pain and suffering. And the strong amongst you is weak to me I will – Allah willing – realise the right from him fully. When obscene things spread among any nation, calamities generally continued to descend upon them. As long as I obey Allah and His messenger, you should obey me, and if I do not obey Allah and His messenger, then obedience to me is not incumbent upon you. -Abu Bakr

Allah shall raise for this Ummah at the head of every century a man who shall renew (or revive) for it its religion. —Sunan Abu Dawood, Book 38, Hadith 4278

Why can't Islam recover?

How do you plan to make consequentialism recover?


So here you contradict your contradiction, just above. Which is it?

This implies that I stated that we are not slaves to God or under his command, which is not the case.

Ignoring statements is your own problem. None the less, I added paraphrases :) .

Dragon fang said...

@Phoenix

The anarchy thing has been replied with Stan.

As for your questions, yes. Historically, your rights would be guaranteed. Women, children, old people, the poor, and those unable to work due to illness or otherwise) are exempted from paying the Jizya. So assuming you are a sane and able man, then you can agree to pay a fixed amount (unlike 2.5% of saving in Zakat) decided by the ruler once a year, although they can be distingushin between the amount the rich and the average pay. There shouldn't be any mob charging you, but if an Islamic society can't protect you for any reason, then your Jizya is returned. Blasphemy, or publicly declaring your hostility toward the constitution the majority of your fellow citizens believe in and you agreed to respect (hmm... I wonder why it isn't tolerated) requires credible witnesses (Islam established the presumption of innocence).

Stan said...

Dragon Fang says,
” Why not? Is it that you cannot?

Already mentioned the reasons; it is trite. Not to mention baseless. If you declare that you support the claim, then I shall refute it.”


The claim exists; you merely puff at it without any logic backup. If you can refute it, then do so.

Dragon Fang:
” Common Western thought today resemble Atheistic thought; simply because it was a reaction to the church and then to Christianity (pst. cause Christian law is a total failure), thus it was an attempt to find some non-religious philosophical basis for scientific, political, economic and social thought. This doesn't mean that every detail in Western thought is false, but that it is based on flimsy foundation.”

Stan:
Exactly which “western thought” are you referring to? You seem not to comprehend that there is not a single “western thought” like the single Islamic thought that Islam dictates. And your assertion that “Christian law is a failure” is a bizarre statement – explain and support it. Perhaps you mean that Christian law failed to be a dictatorship in the sense of Marxism/Islam?

DF:
You seem not to use reading comprehension. I mentioned the word "Common", hence your objection that there is no single Western thought makes no sense.


Stan:
That is absurd. I have to repeat, I guess. Which western thought process do you mean when you say “common”? Progressivism? Liberalism? Conservatism? Libertarianism? Socialism? Marxism? Multiculturalism? Political Correctness? You cannot legitimately fault my comprehension when you have not made a clear statement.

”Christianity never worked without the bible being hidden from the public or some one claiming to be receiving divine revelation. Otherwise, post protestant revolution, it is so vague it might as well be consequentialism.”

Your conception of both Christianity and Consequentialism are flawed. The bible has been available to the public for roughly half a millennium. And no version of Christianity has ever claimed that the end justifies the means (Consequentialism). That is a tenet of Islamic jihad, which allows lying, deception, torture, slavery and murder to purify the world for the honor of the prophet and Allah. You are making things up, in order to support your position: that is Consequentialism in action. Further, you seem to believe the false comments you make, which indicates a propensity for self-deception. Self-deception appears to be necessary for Islam to be an acceptable substitute for morality.

Stan said...

”Didn't understand what you meant with Marxist/Islamic dictatorship.”

Then you are in denial.

”Nothing in my quote/introduction shows black & white, perhaps you want me to strawman my own argument for you?
Furthermore, you failed to respond to anything actually in that quote. Like you pretending that principled freedom is some sort of axiom, when it is not cross cultural, is learned and not through intuition, and is not a foundational belief that allows a coherent worldview”


Your denials of the obvious are becoming more obtuse, and I am becoming less willing to put up with that lapse of rational behavior. Here’s what I said:
“Now we are getting somewhere. Black and white reasoning (False Dichotomy Fallacy). Freedom is anarchy and nothing else but anarchy. Therefore freedom is evil, and thus totalitarian dictatorship is the only moral Good. QED.

Further, “woe” to those who want to suppress the entirety of humanity under the moral Good of their totalitarian dictatorship. The poor dears are not allowed to suppress everyone else, purely due to evil freedom.

Got it; we understand. Of course no one here has ever, ever advocated anarchy. Ever. “


That is a summary of your entire concept. It is completely black and white, anarchy vs. totalitarian, with nothing in between. It’s an argument against a position that no one has taken, and is therefore trivial, logically.

Stan said...

”Furthermore, you failed to respond to anything actually in that quote. Like you pretending that principled freedom is some sort of axiom, when it is not cross cultural, is learned and not through intuition, and is not a foundational belief that allows a coherent worldview.”

You again are making statements as if you are dictating “Truth” without presenting any reasoning to support your claims.

First. No one said freedom is axiomatic. Freedom must be won and protected from those who want to dictate and control others. It is an axiom that bullies will try to dictate their own principles for my behaviors; they must be fought to the ground to protect my own freedom. Freedom is fragile in the face of ideologists like yourself who cannot conceive of anyone not being forced to be under your particular brand of oppression.

Freedom is not cross-cultural, as you say, because of ideological bullies who force oppression and captivity upon everyone they can get to capitulate. That does not negate the value of freedom, it negates any possible moral content of bully-ism, which includes Islam. You are in the position of defending your own bullying as being somehow moral; it is not. It is just bullying in the Nietzschean sense of Will To Power. So Islam closely resembles the AtheoLeftist bullying and amoral attempts to capture the entire world by force, and eliminate any freedom of thought and consciousness from humanity altogether.

Your defense of thought control suffers from the same irrational non-coherence that denial of free will suffers: if your thoughts are merely the repetition of dogma and are without any free analysis on your part (as you say they must be to be moral), then they have no intellectual content. That in turn means that you have no mind of your own, it is purely an echo for dogma, an ideological automaton. So there is no use in having a discussion with you, when I could merely analyze the Qur’an of Uthman instead.


Stan said...

”You rejecting anarchy just proves my point; you don't have absolute freedom and absolute freedom does not work.

So since you conceded that more freedom = better, what is the correct degree of freedom?”


So now you connect with that which you denied above? Interesting.

I will address your question as the last thing I will discuss today.

First, your statement is incorrect: I never claimed that more freedom = better to the point of anarchy, and there is no concession involved. But your question, which I answered above and you ignored, is answered by defining the difference between laws for civil behavior, and thought control for a certain moral ideology. Islam and you, yourself, claim that there is no difference. In some places you seem to assert that humans are given a choice to believe in Islam. That is false on the face of it. They are given the choice of slaveries vs death. First they can be a slave to the mental shutdown of Islam; or they can be literal slaves of Islamists; or they can die at the hands of Islamists. This goes on around the world as we speak; it is obvious and to deny it is dishonest (except in the moral quirks of Islam, of course).

Western concepts of freedom under democracy/republics is that laws for civil behaviors and interactions of persons must and do exist; however, ideologies and thoughts are not controlled for the following reason. To arrive at a truth, one must be free to examine all the possible choices in order to discriminate the true choice from the false. Only then can a sincere belief be grounded in truth, rather than being forced by the ideological bullies.

Islam goes directly in line with the ideological bullying approach, and like all dictatorships, punishes contrary thoughts as well as contrary behaviors. Thus adherence to Islam is out of fear of retribution by the Islamic bullies rather than sincerely adhering to discerned true precepts.

Islam is predicated on the premise that humans must be subjugated and enslaved by brutal force in order to be moral. The presupposition is that Islamists are morally obligated to do the subjugation and apply the brutal forcing – for the benefit of weak humans. Islam becomes the ideological excuse for barbaric top-down brutality to be visited upon weak humans, delivered in self-righteousness and smug self-satisfaction in the brutal treatment of humans. It is no different from any other form of dictatorship.

That’s all for today, and I think it summarizes the issues which inhabit the discussion of Islam vs. freedom, and your defense of totalitarianism. Unless you have something to contribute other than what you have presented here (anti-freedom, pro-totalitarianism based in ideology), then there is no reason to go any further with this discussion.

You might try to defend totalitarianism as the more intellectually open and correct process of rationality, but that would fail completely. It’s up to you.