Conditions:
Party A believes in, and lives by, all the principles of [X].Questions:
Party B believes in some of, but not all, the principles of [X], and claims that major portions of [X] must evolve due to the cultural advancement of humans.
Which party deserves the title "Xist", who believes in "Xism"?Now refer to the prior article, just below. Then return for the rest here (or just read on, as you choose).
Which party deserves the title, "radical"? Or "apostate"? Or "heretic"?
If "peaceful Muslims" dishonor Islam, then why are they NOT the radicals, rather than the 100% faithful Islamists? Of course, they are, but in the parlance of the Leftist accommodationists, inversion of terminology is frequently necessary in order to further the cause, the Leftist Narrative.
A prime example of that is the new use of the term, "anti-Islamic", for actions of the actual adherents of the grounded rules of Islam. Only the passionate adherents of a Narrative, taken over truth and common sense, would do such a thing.
Plus, it is the Party B, above, which more closely matches the approach of the Left, in the practice of modifying rules and morals to match whichever way the culture goes. Or more specifically, how any person chooses to "reinterpret" or even reject rules at any given moment. In other words it is intellectual and moral anarchy.
Given the obvious worldview anarchy of those in Party B as well as the Left, they all should be called Atheist. They reject any grounded "revealed" and absolute values which they don't like at a particular moment. They place themselves and their own desires and authority higher than anyone else.
They are the Radicals.
56 comments:
On the other thread, where we agreed that some people who call themselves Muslims are not as Muslims as others, you concluded with:
"Yes. Next, how then is "Muslim" to be defined, and why are the heretics generically called Muslims, rather than non-Muslim? Is it because they call themselves a certain name, even though it is one they do not deserve? Are they not flying a false flag? "
So it seems that your own answer is what's here on this thread. And that answer is that any Muslim who is not following the religious texts word for word is a heretic, a radical and thus an Atheist...?
What I would answer is that someone who claims is 'Muslim' should be believed, by default, and it's only after we get to know more that we might realize that they are not really Muslim, and I am not sure where I would draw the line, as Muslims should decide that among themselves. But usually, people will say it themselves, when they are Muslims but not really following much of Islam. In such case, I would think they are not really Muslims. So yes, they are heretics, or non-Muslims, but they are certainly nor radicals nor Atheists though. Radicals are the ones who want to impose their religion to others, are willing to die/kill for it usually; and Atheists are the other extreme, those who don't believe in gods or care about religion usually. Some might still follow some godless religion though; but that's unusual. Personally, I am really interested in religion, respect the followers but not the beliefs, and try figuring out what's true grounded in principles as much as possible, but I don't believe in God anymore, so that make me an Atheist.
Interesting. You make two points.
First is that a person claiming to be Muslim should be believed.
What does that entail? Given that a true Muslim is infected with the necessity for Jihad against infidels, and the faux Muslim is apt to be an unwitting Trojan horse for true Muslims (empirically proven in the most recent slaughter), then one must exist on the edge of possible assassination for the principle of charity. Thus the principle of charity becomes the principle of suicidal charity.
Second, this:
”So yes, they are heretics, or non-Muslims, but they arecertainly nor radicals nor Atheists though. Radicals are the ones who want to impose their religion to others, are willing to die/kill for it usually; and Atheists are the other extreme, those who don't believe in gods or care about religion usually.”
Are you radical by your actions under your belief system? The modern use of the term radical has been corrupted to mean “departing from what I want”, and further, “departing from what matches our culture”. Here’s Webster-Merriam:
”• 2 : of or relating to the origin : fundamental
• 3 a : very different from the usual or traditional : extreme
b : favoring extreme changes in existing views, habits, conditions, or institutions”
This is contradictory and culturally dependent. Adhering to the fundamentals is radical? That would make engineering and empiricism radical, when performed correctly and logically.
On the other hand, rejecting and being different from the “traditional” (origin) is also radical.
So, from western perspective, the true Muslim is the radical, since he adheres to the fundamentals of Islam, and advocates extreme changes in western culture.
But from an Islamic view, it is the heretical Muslim who is the radical, because the heretical Muslim advocates against the fundamentals of Islam.
Further, the heretical Islamist places himself as the prime determiner of truth, above any concept of deity and the principles revealed by deity. By demoting the Islamic deity to less than human means that the heretical Muslim no longer believes in a superior being greater than himself. That being has been sacrificed on the altar of self. That is Atheism.
Also, your attempt to limit the definition of Atheism ignores the historical aggression of Atheists, which has resulted in millions upon millions of deaths due to principles which are unconstrained by absolute morality outside of the desires of the Atheist. The Atheist is free to reject or adopt any morality or lack of morality as he wishes, and he is free to change that on a moment’s notice. That is considered intellectual freedom, but in actuality it is intellectual anarchy.
Western culture is based on the absolutes of Modernism, which require that logic exist in absolute form and be based on the Aristotelian principles of thought and existence (First Principles: Tautology; Non-Contradiction; Excluded Middle). If these are not absolute, then western Modernism is false, science is false, mathematics is false, logic is false. If these are absolute, then there is a reason that they are absolute.
Atheism rejects the last statement just above. There is no reason that absolutes exist in this universe. There can be no absolute principle “giver”… just because.
And that is why today’s Atheist apologists claim that there (absolutely) is no (absolute) truth, because rejecting a truth-giver means also rejecting truth. The fallout includes a) rejecting the falseness of logic fallacies; b) using only science which fits a narrative; c) placing oneself into the elite “thinker” Category, which immediately becomes the elite Messiah Class, thereby engendering Class War.
Possibly this is too long for you to read and respond to quickly. We can take it slowly and itemized if you wish.
Last, you do not respect "beliefs". Yet you do not seem to have studied the sources of the beliefs. Please comment.
Scott Adams made an interesting analogy regarding suicidal charity. He asked, how many innocent lives/year (not your own life of course) are you willing to sacrifice in order to appear charitable to faux Islamists?
It's a fair question. I say only one - Scott's life. Then none after that.
You, on the other hand, do have a number, but it is not specific. If you don't claim zero innocent lives (and you cannot, given your principle of charity), then how many lives are you willing to sacrifice in order to keep the "integrity" of demonstrating your charity?
I liked the abstractions presented in this article, and welcome my newly re-categorized muslim atheist friends.
It seems a core theme in Islam that you are obligated to fight your enemy unbelievers. Either you are fighting unbelievers, or you are not. Overwhelmingly, they are not, but are rather using their own minds to decide which of those prescriptions belong in their shopping cart.
Most people, and possibly many churches, as determined by the contradiction between their day-to-day behavior and the core principles of their faith, would most accurately be categorized as atheists.
From William Craig: "one of the best ways to defend the legitimacy of the homosexual lifestyle is to become an atheist".
Some points which need clarification. Firstly, atheism is not a political ideology (not that I’m accusing you of suggesting it is, but some readers may fall for the confusion). There are atheist nihilists, anarchists, nationalists, conservatives, libertarians, marxists, etc. In fact, atheism can be traced back centuries before the term “political left” was even born. The term is actually quite boring and minimal; it is merely a response to the following question “is there a supernatural being? Yes/No”. In other words, it is of binary value. For some contrast, consider that many anti-leftist intellectuals were also atheist (Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman just to name a few). Evermore, there are many instances in which non-leftist atheist intellectuals are vilified by their leftwing peers particularly on these philosophical grounds.
Secondly, we should distinguish between classical liberalism and modern (progressive) liberalism. The former is more associated today with what we may call libertarianism. In fact, in Europe identifying as a liberal probably means that you support individual liberty, free markets, social freedom, and other humanist values. For some reason, in America the term has been corroded and hijacked by the political left. The great libertarian economists Frederich Hayek and Milton Friedman both defended classical liberalism in their works; the enlightenment philosophers were essentially liberals. Call me a nostalgic, but I believe the term should be reclaimed from its abusers. Progressives dont view society as a composition of individuals, but rather an indivisible collectivity. On the other hand liberalism, in its classical and historical context, is about defending freedom of the individual against the assault of tyranny (be it theocratic or otherwise).
From Certainly Doubtful
Atheism is, indeed, binary. It goes from absolute principles (1) to no principles at all (0). I call this state (0) the "Atheist VOID"; it is the initial condition from which Atheists start to create their own principles. In the Atheist VOID, the new Atheist is suddenly free and exhilaratingly so. Suddenly released from "onerous mores" (specifically sexual), the Atheist begins to disdain and then despise those who have not "freed" themselves as he has done. The Atheist becomes superior in his own mind. As an elitist, the Atheist finds the company of Leftists who are Messiahs and are Class Warriors to be congenial.
Not all Atheists take this path; but it is so common that it is more difficult to find those Atheists who are not Leftists than those who are. Even so, I used to refer to "AtheoLeftists" in order to target the conjunction of the sets. But more recently I have come to feel that all Leftists are, at their core, Atheist, regardless of their claims otherwise. And that is because they place themselves as superior to the humility which is required of Christians (unless they are attacked). So, while not all Atheists are Leftist, all Leftists are Atheist, if they are defined by this method.
Further, social conservatism usually requires a moral base which Atheists do not have and do not subscribe to. The ability to generate their own morals (usually for application to others rather than themselves) allows them to more easily to slide into the faux morality of Leftism. It is more appealing to be constantly morally outraged at others' failure to meet your expectations, i.e. addictive self-righteousness, than to be introspective and apply external principles to oneself for self-regulation and improvement of behaviors and attitudes.
Christianity undoubtedly contains undeclared Atheists who use Christianity as a path to fame and fortune, or try to. But many Christians do attempt to adhere to the principles - which are too difficult to meet - and thus they depend on the Principle of Grace. Because of the Atheist Christians both today and in the past, outsiders who wish to judge Christianity as a religion based on the actions of "Christians" have a lot to object to. But it is not a fair assessment of Christianity as a set of principles.
Here is Hemant Mehta, on Conservative/Liberal Atheists:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uq3ltkDt8OM
Stan
If I understand nastika correctly, it seems he's claiming his worldview is shaped by Classic Liberalism and he treats it like a philosophy, which he also thinks is responsible for revolutionizing modern human rights, women's rights, science, literature etc.
In other words the world (at least the West) would've been a terrible place filled with backward,illiterate,superstitious and immoral people if it were not for the Liberals.
Really? Were the Liberals THAT influential?
How I understand it:
Prior to classical liberalism the western world was a conglomeration of feudalism and the Papacy, and roving insurgents from the north and east. Liberalism in law evolved slowly at first with the early acceptance of the Magna Charta, and then liberalism could be seen in early scientists as well as the Reformation. These evolved slowly until the Enlightenment, and then Rights Law became codified in western law by the US Constitution, the French Revolution and its unfortunate outcome, and the French encyclopedists who helped define objective empiricism, using Aristotelian logic principles.
I think that Enlightenment Liberalism is a natural outcome of the prior conditions which spawned it (although it took a long time).
If the advent of human rights is the measurement standard for classical liberalism, then the two revolutions were indicators of the strength of liberalism over tyranny that finally existed in the late 18th century and early 19th century.
It's always more complicated than just these salient metrics, though, and there is no linearity to history, as it surges back and forth. The British could have won the Revolution and the French Monarchy could have won that Revolution; then where would we be? So our position now is somewhat dependent upon raw force and accidents of war, at least as much as philosophy.
That's just my take.
Stan
Okay, I'm also trying my best to understand you now. Liberalism seems to have contributed the most to the modern world. It seems Liberalism and Secular Humanism are nearly identical. Can you answer me this?
Is Liberalism a sound political philosophy that's built upon First Principles? Is there currently a better alternative that does not involve Atheistic philosophies?
Stan
Allow me to rephrase my question.
Is there a link between Classical Liberalism and Philosophical Materialism?
Philosophical Materialism is neither necessary nor sufficient for classical liberalism to have occurred. However, they are compatible to a limited degree.
For example, John Locke was a theist, John Stuart Mill was an Atheist. Both were classical liberals... as I understand the term.
The rub comes from the results of pursuing classical liberalism from each of the two worldviews. Approached from a theist point of view, the American Revolution produced grounded human rights. Approached from an Atheist point of view, the French Revolution produced a different sort of totalitarianism in the name of human rights.
Science can approached from either point of view, but the Atheist approach in Russia produced bad science in pursuit of a corrupt narrative. In the USA science was populated with theists and to some extent, still is except in the narrative areas: origin of life and origin of the universe (everything physical) where the Atheist view is virtually dictated in order to prevent input from the other worldview (i.e., controlled by an ideological narrative, not an objective finding based on "truth" or evidence.)
Truth, as defined by Aristotle, is increasingly denied by Atheists and Philosophical Materialists, who deny that there is truth other than the emotional diktat of the loudest/most powerful.
So classical liberalism has been abandoned by most of the Atheist/Philosophical Materialists in favor of self-created principles of existence and morality which are to be forced onto the other.
This is not a necessary outcome for Philosophical Materialism, but it seems too attractive to them, more attractive than honest search for truth through objective logic or even objective science.
Because Philosophical Materialism is completely ungrounded and untethered as well as unprovable, the fact that it has strayed from classical liberalism is no surprise. It is purely human-based, having no objective principles with which to contain human appetites and foibles. So of course, they are not contained.
And it is no surprise that they have dragged the term "liberal" out of its original meaning, and into their new totalitarian worldview and elitist narrative.
This is just my view; others are welcome to comment/correct.
I think you've cleared up a lot. Thanks
Hello Stan,
"Possibly this is too long for you to read and respond to quickly. We can take it slowly and itemized if you wish"
Never too long to read; I did that right away. But yes, finding time to respond quickly is almost impossible these days.
You said that I made 2 points:
"First is that a person claiming to be Muslim should be believed.
What does that entail? "
What it entails is that the person was either raised by Muslims parents, or decided to convert to Islam. Next, what does it further entail? Personally, I prefer not to assume anything actually. I.e. it tells me very little. It's not because I don't know what being Muslim 'generally' entails; we all know the obvious things like belief in God, that Mohammed is THE prophet, drinking alcohol is bad, decency is of the utmost importance for women, consumed meat should be Halal, etc, etc...
But there are so many other things that vary across the 1 Billion Muslims that, unless the individual mentions what they believe, we cannot conclude anything. One of many examples: I had friends of a friend come to my place once; I learned they were Muslims while we were drinking alcohol, and the woman was not wearing a hijab... So, what was I suppose to conclude? You said:
"Given that a true Muslim is infected with the necessity for Jihad against infidels, and the faux Muslim is apt to be an unwitting Trojan horse for true Muslims (empirically proven in the most recent slaughter), then one must exist on the edge of possible assassination for the principle of charity. Thus the principle of charity becomes the principle of suicidal charity"
This makes no sense. Why would I think that anyone is 'infected' like that? Why would I think that these fake Heretics Muslims who came to my house are Trojan horse for Jihadists? Is that supposed to be referring only to new immigrants or what?
Second point. You said it was:
"Are you radical by your actions under your belief system? The modern use of the term radical has been corrupted to mean “departing from what I want”, and further, “departing from what matches our culture”. Here’s Webster-Merriam:
”• 2 : of or relating to the origin : fundamental
• 3 a : very different from the usual or traditional : extreme
b : favoring extreme changes in existing views, habits, conditions, or institutions”"
I was thinking only about 3.b. when talking about radicals; the people who are extreme in their views and want to change societies to fit their views. Under that definition, I am certainly not a radical, no. And 'radical' does not mean 'departing from what I want' in that case.
"Adhering to the fundamentals is radical? That would make engineering and empiricism radical, when performed correctly and logically."
Being a radical, in the context of religious beliefs, has nothing to do with what someone 'adheres' to but rather what actions they take, or strongly encourage by their speech. Nothing to do with engineering.
Now, there was much more than just "my" two points; and I use quotes because these 2 things above did not really address my points, which I re-stated as answers above.
Point 3:
"Also, your attempt to limit the definition of Atheism ignores the historical aggression of Atheists, which has resulted in..."
I am not attempting anything; this is what Atheism is. It's a lack in belief in any god. It does not matter that Atheists did 'X'; I don't believe in gods so I am an Atheist. There is, of course, a lot more that can be said about Atheism, either on a personal level or as a group, but your assessment presented after these few words is not accurate. It's your opinion, but it's not facts.
By the way, that's 1 of the 2 big issues I have with this discussion with you Stan. You constantly mix together opinions and facts, and our opinions as to what are true facts, or not, are quite often different I think. But it's hard to know, because you mix them together and declare everything to be factual, as if your own opinions were facts.
The second big issue is this black-and-white mentality that you depict. There is very little nuance in what you write and that makes a lot of what you write either incomplete, or completely inaccurate. Yes, there are such things as absolutes, definite facts and principles, but they are nonetheless subject to human interpretation; your interpretation, or mine, or anyone else's. You clearly think that this is not the case: your interpretation of the absolutes is what's true, and nothing else, with blurring of opinions and facts, which was the first issue.
Unfortunately, I ran out of time and I cannot really go in more details than this now; even if there was a lot more to cover. But I had already written on the following 2 direct questions:
"Last, you do not respect "beliefs". Yet you do not seem to have studied the sources of the beliefs. Please comment."
You misunderstood what I meant by not 'respecting beliefs'; it means that if something is silly/stupid/absurd, I don't think it deserves respect and we can be blunt about it. But I do respect people; regardless of these silly beliefs. This has nothing to do with 'sources' of beliefs'; there are so many, vary over time/culture/people and need to be assess case by case.
"You, on the other hand, do have a number, but it is not specific. If you don't claim zero innocent lives (and you cannot, given your principle of charity), then how many lives are you willing to sacrifice in order to keep the "integrity" of demonstrating your charity?"
You attributed to me a 'principle of charity' that means absolutely nothing to me; yet another example of mind reading (I see a lot of these but I think that might actually be the first one I explicitly call out...) so I cannot answer that question the way you phrased it.
p.s. this has yet again completely diverged from a focused point/topic/idea/fact... I am not even sure what you care about to discuss here. The main thing was supposed to be the definition of Muslims. I still don't get why that would be 'the' most important thing you would discuss with an Atheist. Why don't you give 1 fact you thing I get wrong? Not an opinion; a fact.
”What it entails is that the person was either raised by Muslims parents, or decided to convert to Islam. Next, what does it further entail? Personally, I prefer not to assume anything actually. I.e. it tells me very little. It's not because I don't know what being Muslim 'generally' entails; we all know the obvious things like belief in God, that Mohammed is THE prophet, drinking alcohol is bad, decency is of the utmost importance for women, consumed meat should be Halal, etc, etc...
But there are so many other things that vary across the 1 Billion Muslims that, unless the individual mentions what they believe, we cannot conclude anything. One of many examples: I had friends of a friend come to my place once; I learned they were Muslims while we were drinking alcohol, and the woman was not wearing a hijab... So, what was I suppose to conclude? “
First, you have ignored Qur’anic Jihad as a fundamental of Islam. You have ignored the model of the life of the Prophet as a fundamental of Islam. You have ignored statements in the Hadiths requiring conquest. By ignoring just these three major tenets, you have hollowed out Islam to a false shell, a facade of only benign characteristics. You do that, not as an intellectual discernment or derivation, but as a personal preference.
Second, you use your single experience of “Islam” based on people who obviously do not adhere to the grounded tenets of Qur’anic and Hadith defined-Islam. In other words, heretical Muslims. More precisely defined: not actual grounded Muslims, or, Muslim in name only.
Third, I suspect that you would use instances of deviant (heretical) “Christians” to characterize Christianity, just as you have used deviant (heretical) “Muslims” to characterize Islam. On the other hand, I suspect that you would NOT accept the characterization of Atheism to be the actions of millions of Atheists in the despotic governments of the USSR, China, North Korea, Pol Pot’s Cambodia, Cuba, Myanmar, Venezuela, etc. etc.
Fourth, Islam is not “1 billion Muslims”. Islam is well defined for those who care to read the actual Qur’an and the Hadiths and the history of the life of the Prophet. You choose not to take that educational route, and rather claim that you cannot know what Islam really is at its core. Well of course you cannot. And below, you claim that my statements about the Qur’anic Islam are “opinion”. That claim is based on your own ignorance, since you have not read the Qur’an, Hadiths or the Life of the Prophet, yet you seem to think that you are qualified to characterize Islam (and my statements regarding Islam). That’s… Odd.
”This makes no sense. Why would I think that anyone is 'infected' like that? Why would I think that these fake Heretics Muslims who came to my house are Trojan horse for Jihadists? Is that supposed to be referring only to new immigrants or what?”
Surely you read about the introgression of the San Bernardino jihadi-assassins via the (“innocent”) local mosque? Surely you have read about the French mosques that have been found to be Jihadi hideouts, full of weapons, ammo, and jihad literature? Perhaps you are too busy to catch the news? The propositions here are empirically sustained, and are not controversial.
”Being a radical, in the context of religious beliefs, has nothing to do with what someone 'adheres' to but rather what actions they take, or strongly encourage by their speech. Nothing to do with engineering.”
You think that the radical’s speech/actions do not reflect what that radical adheres to?? Why would that be the case? I can think of no reason to believe that to be valid. Further, your definition of “radical” is subjective in the sense that the character of the actions and speech are not defined and could be anything… subject to your personal definition.
Further, the obvious dichotomy between definitions was ignored: radical= fundamentalist, AND radical= favoring extreme changes. And even this is viewpoint dependent too. Your experience with the Muslim couple was with those who favored changing Islam to suit their taste: that’s radical. Jihadis favor changing the world to fundamentalist, Qur’anic, Muhammad-like, Islam: that’s radical. The term “radical” seems to be not useful as a designation of objective characteristics such as beliefs and actions, because what is “radical” is totally viewpoint dependent. Thus "radical" is merely a pejorative term.
Moving on.
”I am not attempting anything; this is what Atheism is. It's a lack in belief in any god. It does not matter that Atheists did 'X'; I don't believe in gods so I am an Atheist. There is, of course, a lot more that can be said about Atheism, either on a personal level or as a group, but your assessment presented after these few words is not accurate. It's your opinion, but it's not facts.
By the way, that's 1 of the 2 big issues I have with this discussion with you Stan. You constantly mix together opinions and facts, and our opinions as to what are true facts, or not, are quite often different I think. But it's hard to know, because you mix them together and declare everything to be factual, as if your own opinions were facts.”
So you apparently deny the factuality of the actions of Atheists, as is documented historically. This becomes “opinion” and not fact when it refers to your own personal persuasion. You apparently missed the recent Chinese government declaration that Atheism is absolutely essential to Communism, which could not persist without Atheism. That is a fact, not an opinion of mine.
Here's what actual communists have to say:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/asia/item/19567-china-s-communist-party-reaffirms-marxism-maoism-atheism
It does, in fact, matter what Atheism enables Atheists to do.
When you make open blanket accusations, you reduce your credibility. If you find something which is not factual, then point it out. Then we have something to discuss, other than merely your opinion of my statements.
For instance, do you deny that Atheism has no rules attached to it?
Do you deny that as far as morality is concerned, Atheism is a void – which I emphasize as the Atheist VOID?
Do you deny that most Atheists automatically are attracted to the “superiority” of the Left?
Do you deny that the Left is engaged in Marxist class war?
Do you deny that the Left favors “Islam” (as they define it) over Christianity?
Do you deny that grounded Qur'anic Islam, if allowed control of the west by the beliefs of the Qur’an, will automatically reduce women to chattel capable of being owned, bought and sold, kill all homosexuals, Atheists, Infidels, and ultimately all Jews and Christians (after taxing them into bankruptcy)?
These are all demonstrable facts, not opinions. If you deny that, then provide evidence to the contrary.
Moving on.
This is puzzling:
”The second big issue is this black-and-white mentality that you depict. There is very little nuance in what you write and that makes a lot of what you write either incomplete, or completely inaccurate. Yes, there are such things as absolutes, definite facts and principles, but they are nonetheless subject to human interpretation; your interpretation, or mine, or anyone else's. You clearly think that this is not the case: your interpretation of the absolutes is what's true, and nothing else, with blurring of opinions and facts, which was the first issue.”
Under Aristotelian logic in the pursuit of truth, truth contains no falseness. That means that a truth statement, when true, is a one (1), and any degree of falseness, from a single false premise to a totally false conception, is a zero (0). This is confirmed mathematically by George Boole, in his famous book, “An Investigation of The Laws of Thought”, where he also derived the First Principles as defined by Aristotle. There is no interpretation. Any "truth statement" is either True or False. Period.
If the Aristotelian process (still taught in colleges today) is followed, then a truth can be deduced which has a truth value of one (1). Calling such a truth “opinion” is merely an opinion, itself, a false opinion. Such a statement has no grounding and is made solely on the personal authority of the commenter, not on rational foundations.
”You clearly think that this is not the case: your interpretation of the absolutes is what's true, and nothing else, with blurring of opinions and facts, which was the first issue.”
So for you, any absolute is actually NOT an absolute because you want to “interpret” it. By doing so, you are able to claim general “opinion and facts” without actually pointing out any factual inaccuracies or logical fallacies with any grounding whatsoever.
"Last, you do not respect "beliefs". Yet you do not seem to have studied the sources of the beliefs. Please comment."
You misunderstood what I meant by not 'respecting beliefs'; it means that if something is silly/stupid/absurd, I don't think it deserves respect and we can be blunt about it. But I do respect people; regardless of these silly beliefs. This has nothing to do with 'sources' of beliefs'; there are so many, vary over time/culture/people and need to be assess case by case.”
Silly/stupid/absurd is both disrespectful and subjective. These are opinion words, except for “absurd” which is a logic term. So I want to know how you apply “absurd” as a logic principle to anything I have said.
” "You, on the other hand, do have a number, but it is not specific. If you don't claim zero innocent lives (and you cannot, given your principle of charity), then how many lives are you willing to sacrifice in order to keep the "integrity" of demonstrating your charity?"
You attributed to me a 'principle of charity' that means absolutely nothing to me; yet another example of mind reading (I see a lot of these but I think that might actually be the first one I explicitly call out...) so I cannot answer that question the way you phrased it.”
Good grief. You wish to tolerate the Good (heretical) Muslims: that is a principle of charity, extended to a group which is not yourself. Why is that not obvious? If you do not understand something, it is my fault? Again, Good Grief.
And you have attempted a Red Herring to avoid answering the question: how many people may be killed to justify your TOLERANCE which allows "Muslims" which you admit are of unknown beliefs to populate the west? Or even better, your neighborhood? What is your number? You cannot avoid answering this, because you do presume a number, even if subconsciously. And you know that the deaths do not include you, in all probability. So you are willing to sacrifice lives in order to be TOLERANT of Muslim incursions.
You are in the mode of attack, based on rejecting the FACTs which have been presented to you, as being NOT fact, but being opinions. This apparently is because you strongly wish to extend this mode of charity (tolerance) to the Heretical Muslims, meaning that you must attribute (the non-issue of “interpretation”) to all facts presented. You present no evidence which is counterfactual, however; just accusations.
This is a feature which is consistent with the Atheist VOID, which accepts no reality which contains actual absolutes (in fear of the logic of the necessity of an "absolute Giver"). Every proposition is subjected to the subjective valuation of the individual Atheist, and thus whatever is “true to the individual Atheist” is, well, true to the individual Atheist. This (absolutely) precludes there being any actual absolutes under Atheism; there are only interpretations, which can differ widely and diametrically, and as-required. Even Atheism is redefined as not responsible for the actions of Atheists.
”Why don't you give 1 fact you thing I get wrong? Not an opinion; a fact.”
Refer to the above. 1 billion Muslims do not define Islam. The Qur’an, Hadiths, and the Life of the Prophet define Islam, and are the only grounding for it. And others, as pointed out above.
Now, point out which statements I make that I can't back up as fact.
Is it absolutely TRUE that there are NO absolute truths?
If so, have you stopped beating your wife?
No?
So, you continue to beat your wife?
No?
So, have you stopped beating your wife just for the moment, but you will continue as soon as you get through reading this post?
Oh, you are not married?
So how did you stop beating your wife, who doesn't exist?
Oh, it is your non-belief in the existence of your wife that caused you to stop beating her. Does she know that you think she doesn't exist?
So, how did you beat her in the first place, if she doesn't exist?
Round and round it goes, never stopping for re-pose.
What was the question again? Oh yeah:
Is it absolutely TRUE that there are NO absolute truths?
I hear the sound of one hand clapping. . . or is that just crickets?
(It is the sound of beating the crap out of that non-existent wife!)
IS IT ABSOLUTELY TRUE THAT THERE ARE NO ABSOLUTE TRUTHS?
Relatively speaking, that's true AND false, but then, that's just my opinion, because there are only opinions, because . . . I want that to be absolutely true, relatively speaking. But then, I have this unsettled feeling, almost as if there is a great shift in the Force. . . I FEEL THE VOID (relatively speaking absolutely)!
Hi Stan,
First, I before your latest comment, I said the following:
'I still don't get why that would be 'the' most important thing you would discuss with an Atheist. Why don't you give 1 fact you thing I get wrong? Not an opinion; a fact.' I don't see a clear answer to that...
Second, you wrote "4" points, which are actually all the same:
"First, you have ignored Qur’anic Jihad as a fundamental of Islam. [...]
Second, you use your single experience of “Islam” based on people who obviously do not adhere to the grounded tenets of Qur’anic and Hadith defined-Islam.[...]
Third, I suspect that you would use instances of deviant (heretical) “Christians” to characterize Christianity, just as you have used deviant (heretical) “Muslims” to characterize Islam. [...]
Fourth, Islam is not “1 billion Muslims”. Islam is well defined for those who care to read the actual Qur’an and the Hadiths and the history of the life of the Prophet. You choose not to take that educational route, [...] yet you seem to think that you are qualified to characterize Islam (and my statements regarding Islam). That’s… Odd."
Yes, it's odd to you, because it's a misunderstanding on your part. On my side, what I find odd is that you would split something into 4 parts, write several sentences about it, yet make only 1 point: you think I make judgment on the religion as a whole, Islam or perhaps Christianity, despite my lack of interest in the fundamentals. That's it; one sentence to summarize your four points above.
But it's a misunderstanding because I am not characterizing Islam, or Christianity, as a whole. That's actually the opposite of the point I am making; so it's really odd you would think so. I am pointing out the fact that when someone says they are of religion 'X', we cannot know whether they follow all the fundamentals or not, regardless of what these fundamentals are.
More importantly, these 4 points did not answer what I am trying to understand: why do you care about that? On the one hand, you say that all these people who don't follow the fundamentals are heretics, not truly Muslims when referring to Islam, and on the other, you say that they are all Jihadist to their core, as if they were all the same. Are all self-identified Muslims crazy people we should be worried about because they could cause the next San Bernardino-type attack? Obviously not since, as you said, moderates Muslims are not even really Muslims, they are heretics, false followers, etc... and thus cannot know what they really follow. So that's why I gave 1 examples, just 1, of people I personally met and who were Muslims. You did not answer my question about such a case; and I don't know if you have your own example. But what do you do, or would do, with Muslims in your house? What conclusions do you draw when someone tells you their religion?
Third, regarding what 'radical' means, I am not sure whether we disagree on something here, because there are many usage for that word and I think we agree, so I will only clarify yet another misunderstanding. You said:
"You think that the radical’s speech/actions do not reflect what that radical adheres to?? Why would that be the case? I can think of no reason to believe that to be valid. Further, your definition of “radical” is subjective in the sense that the character of the actions and speech are not defined and could be anything… subject to your personal definition."
No, that's not what I think, not what I said, not what I mean. Failed mind reading, again. Let me copy/paste and adjust my words: Being a radical relates to what actions they take, or strongly encourage by their speech, as definition 3.b. above states. Basically, I was just referring to radicalism as a degree of commitment to one's ideas. That's why 'what' the ideas are about does not matter. Someone could be a 'radical' about their favorite sports team and do crazy stuff about them, and want to force their city to change their flag to include the sport team logo. Everything else you said makes sense; it's just your interpretation of my words that was off.
Fourth, you discussed Atheism. Here, I am not even bothering to quote you because what you said is completely irrelevant to my own Atheism. I don't deny what other Atheists have done, just like Christians should not deny what other Christians have done. But I don't blame today's Christians for these past atrocities and I don't feel bad for atrocities committed by other Atheists. Again, I don't deny anything; it's just irrelevant. But it is your opinion that I should care; why? Atheism does not enable me to do anything, nor prevent me to do anything. It has no rules, but no free pass either. It does not inform anything. It means 1 thing and 1 thing alone: I don't believe in God, gods, or anything with some god/supernatural label attached to it. But you have been told that probably 100 times now, so I guess you just don't care.
Fifth, you asked questions that were supposed to be related to Atheism, but were not, so I am including that as another point:
"Do you deny that the Left is engaged in Marxist class war?"
Yes, I deny that. It's your opinion alone, and it actually means very little because there is no real 'Left' to talk about in your country. The American Left is not remotely close to Marxism or even Socialism, which is itself far from Communism. Remember I showed you the Political Compass site some time back? All you had to say is that the site seems biased because Democrats were on the right. Well no, that's reality; the USA is not the only country in the world... Your political views are self-centered. It's not necessarly wrong when talking about local politics, but if you're to make grand statements such as that above, then you need to realize what 'Marxism' actually means... Plus, to go back to the statement I am quoting, it cannot even possibly be a fact! Not only is it wrong, but it is also clearly stated as an opinion, as something you 'see' as a war. But it cannot literally be a war unless there is something like a civil war going on, where 1 class of people fights another. The USA is not in that situation, obviously...
"Do you deny that the Left favors “Islam” (as they define it) over Christianity? "
Yes, I deny that. Because most people on the Left are Christians, in the USA. That's it... And again, this is clearly nothing but your opinion on what others 'think'. You cannot even possibly prove this as 'fact'! The best you could do is show some survey indicating that some portion of the population favor Islam; do you have such survey? Of course not... would it come out the way you put it? Absolutely not because, again, most Americans are Christians.
"Do you deny that grounded Qur'anic Islam, if allowed control of the west by the beliefs of the Qur’an, will automatically reduce women to chattel capable of being owned, bought and sold, kill all homosexuals, Atheists, Infidels, and ultimately all Jews and Christians (after taxing them into bankruptcy)?"
No, I don't deny that but I don't support the view the way you put it either. I already told you I think Islam is the worst religion ever. How can I make this clearer? But again, this is also mostly an opinion you are showing; some fear of what 'could' be if true Muslims were in controls.
Sixth, you brought up logic and were puzzled by my comment because, AGAIN, you misunderstood what I was referring to.
Yes, as you said, if the Aristotelian process is followed, then a truth can be deduced which has a truth value, either true, or not-true.
What I was referring to is the general ideas you present, which are often black-and-white. Things like 'ALL' Muslims are Jihadists to their core, ALL Leftists are Marxist Communist Lazy bastard who want to steal your hard earned money, ALL Atheists are immoral assholes who cannot think logically, and on and on and on... There is never any nuance in what you write, never any sign of understanding of the complex reality we live in. Things are not as simple as you put them. It does not mean that there is no truth, no absolute values, no logical statements to be made; it means that to get to the truth, you need to take into account a lot more than just what you talk about. For opinions and knowledge to be grounded in truth, you need to know as much as possible, not jump to conclusions based on your gut feeling.
Seventh you got exasperated about the 'Charity Principle' thing I asked about. Well, I still don't get what you mean, so either you make it clearer or we get pass that... This question about how many lives I would sacrifice for... I don't know what, makes no sense. All you do is claim that it's because of my 'void' of Atheism. Well, if you want to understand that 'void', why don't you ask about things that I actually believe instead of hypothetical questions that make no sense to me? You don't have to obviously... but I thought that was your goal, to Analyze Atheisms, or some of it at least.
Finally, as I mentioned a few times now, I am not available for such long discussions anymore. I should not have taken so much time tonight actually and I got annoyed and did not write as politely as I wished, so I hope it was not too harsh for your blog's safe space. My apology if it were too much. I would really like you to focus on 1 of the above points if you want to continue. If not, no problem really, but I cannot continue like that I am afraid. Also, my apologies for any typos/errors/non-sense (yes, I admit I can write that sometimes) because I did not re-read anything, at all...
Btw, when I say that 'you' should focus on 1 thing, that's not accurate; you are free to reply to everything obviously, and I will read it for sure. I should have said: let me know which one you would like 'me' to focus on, if you are interested. Cheers.
”'I still don't get why that would be 'the' most important thing you would discuss with an Atheist. Why don't you give 1 fact you thing I get wrong? Not an opinion; a fact.' I don't see a clear answer to that...”
Then you didn’t read the whole thing, apparently:
”Why don't you give 1 fact you thing I get wrong? Not an opinion; a fact.”
Refer to the above. 1 billion Muslims do not define Islam. The Qur’an, Hadiths, and the Life of the Prophet define Islam, and are the only grounding for it. And others, as pointed out above.
I don’t know what more I can do. Do you want me to repeat, in itemized form? Well, apparently not, given the following.
”Yes, it's odd to you, because it's a misunderstanding on your part. On my side, what I find odd is that you would split something into 4 parts, write several sentences about it, yet make only 1 point: you think I make judgment on the religion as a whole, Islam or perhaps Christianity, despite my lack of interest in the fundamentals. That's it; one sentence to summarize your four points above.”
My word! How can I say this gently… No. No, they are not the same. You have chosen to interpret them. And that, right there, is the fundamental problem: you choose your interpretation over the intended meaning. Let’s review:
1. Ignoring Jihad. (fact 1)
2. Your friend’s friends. (fact 2)
3. characterization of X using heretical X. (fact 3)
4. Characterization of X using appeal to quantity. (fact 4)
These are not the same, even though they are with regard to the same subject matter, which is: your personal characterization techniques regarding X=Islam.
”But it's a misunderstanding because I am not characterizing Islam, or Christianity, as a whole.”
Here’s your characterization:
What it entails is that the person was either raised by Muslims parents, or decided to convert to Islam. Next, what does it further entail? Personally, I prefer not to assume anything actually. I.e. it tells me very little. It's not because I don't know what being Muslim 'generally' entails; we all know the obvious things like belief in God, that Mohammed is THE prophet, drinking alcohol is bad, decency is of the utmost importance for women, consumed meat should be Halal, etc, etc...
But there are so many other things that vary across the 1 Billion Muslims that, unless the individual mentions what they believe, we cannot conclude anything.””
In your own words, the characterization of the term “Muslim” is, “we cannot conclude anything”.
”But it's a misunderstanding because I am not characterizing Islam, or Christianity, as a whole. That's actually the opposite of the point I am making; so it's really odd you would think so. I am pointing out the fact that when someone says they are of religion 'X', we cannot know whether they follow all the fundamentals or not, regardless of what these fundamentals are.”
The point is not so much what they follow; it is what they believe, what their worldview is. That determines their actions, which include deception in the pursuit of jihad. (Takiyya; hudna; life of the Prophet). (Challenge this if you wish).
”what I am trying to understand: why do you care about that? On the one hand, you say that all these people who don't follow the fundamentals are heretics, not truly Muslims when referring to Islam, and on the other, you say that they are all Jihadist to their core…”
That is not what I have said. Yes, choosing your own path [!Q} which leads outside of the set [Q] is heretical with regard to [Q]. In the case of a grounded religion, which Qur’anic Islam is, that heresy becomes a-theist, having rejected the dictates of a deity in favor of personally-approved “superior” decisions. As will all things a-theist, there is no grounded principle set for morals. Each individual chooses his own set of morals. Those personally derived principles are based on personal proclivities and, to a certain extent, local laws. Further, they are volatile in nature and can be changed at a moment’s notice, as required. (Challenge this if you wish).
Fact: Jihadis who have come out of the west, gone over to ISIS, tend to be youngsters who have actually studied the Allah-revealed principles in the Quran and have adopted those fixed and durable principles over the variable, volatile, heretical and a-theist principles of their parents. (Challenge this if you wish).
.
”Are all self-identified Muslims crazy people we should be worried about because they could cause the next San Bernardino-type attack? Obviously not since, as you said, moderates Muslims are not even really Muslims, they are heretics, false followers, etc... and thus cannot know what they really follow.”
And that is NOT what I said. I said that heretical Muslims can become Trojan Horses for jihadis. That is what happened in San Bernardino. It is a non-controversial fact. Your interpretation is completely outside of what I have actually said.
”So that's why I gave 1 examples, just 1, of people I personally met and who were Muslims. You did not answer my question about such a case; and I don't know if you have your own example. But what do you do, or would do, with Muslims in your house? What conclusions do you draw when someone tells you their religion?”
I would arm myself with concealed-carry protection. For most religions, I would not be concerned. With Muslims, I might even ask them to leave, depending on whether I believe their behaviors to be sincere or not. So here’s another oddity: Atheists tend to call themselves “skeptics”; yet they also tend not to be skeptical of protected classes and their claims. There are many things that Atheists and Leftists are not skeptical of, but that’s a different conversation.
Radical:
Your words then, again,”Being a radical, in the context of religious beliefs, has nothing to do with what someone 'adheres' to but rather what actions they take, or strongly encourage by their speech. Nothing to do with engineering.”
Your words, now:”No, that's not what I think, not what I said, not what I mean. Failed mind reading, again. Let me copy/paste and adjust my words: Being a radical relates to what actions they take, or strongly encourage by their speech, as definition 3.b. above states. Basically, I was just referring to radicalism as a degree of commitment to one's ideas.”
Disregarding that the word “adhere” is your own, and not mind reading, your condensed definition is adequate, and we should use that if we use the term “radical” – which imo we should not do, because of the contradictory interpretations which are possible
The following is major denialism:
”Atheism does not enable me to do anything, nor prevent me to do anything. It has no rules, but no free pass either. It does not inform anything. It means 1 thing and 1 thing alone: I don't believe in God, gods, or anything with some god/supernatural label attached to it. But you have been told that probably 100 times now, so I guess you just don't care.”
You obviously wish this to be the case; it is not the case. Lacking objective rules leads to all sorts of misbehaviors, as I have said before. To deny that the lack of objective rules is an open door to any behavior whatsoever is irrational, as anyone with children can attest. The most common result of lacking objective rules is the institution of one’s own proclivities as the most important of all possible objectives (Lord of the Flies; Marxism; totalitarianism – even at a local level; narcissim).
Further, the lack of all rules enables the Atheist to re-interpret all the claims of external rules for his own benefit. Re-interpretation of the US Constitution is one example. The First Amendment is currently undergoing re-interpretation by the AtheoLeft to include sanctions against unwanted and inconvenient speech as the AtheoLeftists choose to define it. It will be defined as Hate Speech. The UN’s document on protecting religion is actually a definition of speech against Islam as being Hate Speech and to be banned and punished world-wide. In other words, totalitarian limitation of speech which is inconvenient to Islam and Islamists. It is so interesting that the AtheoLeft always lines up with Islam, despite Islam’s caveat to kill all Atheists.
Regarding the class war: the American Left speaks in terms of “war” all the time. The War on Poverty is one of the first examples, and it was considered the “moral equivalent of war”. Now there are “wars” on racism, male privilege, economic privilege, etc. All with the “moral equivalent of war”. Every US President since LBJ has felt the need to declare a “war”, with Obama just this month declaring “war” on cancer.
Further, the American Left uses the Hegelian Principle of thesis, antithesis, synthesis to continually drag the USA ever Leftward. (The Republicans are hopelessly ineffective at stopping it). This is the covert war on the USA, its people, and its principles. The individual autonomy which my grandfather enjoyed is no longer possible, as government controls ever more of individual lives.
Marxism is class war. American Marxism uses different classes than the original classes defined by Marx. But the principles are the same: three classes – the oppressed, the oppressors, the saviors. The biggest threat to this is the US Constitution, which has been declared useless by the Left as they continually ignore and violate it.
”"Do you deny that the Left favors “Islam” (as they define it) over Christianity? "
Yes, I deny that. Because most people on the Left are Christians, in the USA.”
First, It is both logically false and arithmetically false to claim that because most X is Y, therefore this Xn is Y.
Furthermore, I challenge this claim. What data can you produce to show that adherents of the principles of the New Testament, specifically the red print, are predominant in the American Left? I don’t think you can, and when you research it you will find that the American Left (let’s restrict it to socialists and class warriors) are disgusted by Christianity in no uncertain terms. Christianity, for example, requires humility. And remember that heretical Christians are not actually Christians, they are a-theists.
So go ahead and defend your claim with empirical data.
Here are some facts to overcome:
1. The Left has formed pro-Hamas groups, and anti-Israel (anti-Semitic) organizations which include many campuses, corporations and politicians demanding divestment of Israeli investments, and more.
2. The Congressional Leftists approve of Obama’s attacks on Christians, such as the Little Sisters of Mercy (Nuns), and Hobby Lobby (and others like it), and the DHS definition of Christian Evangelicals as terrorists (now retracted under extreme pressure, iirc. The IRS was admittedly used as a weapon against evangelicals, and other conservatives.
3. The Leftist Senate has tried to repeal the First Amendment in a bill that even the ACLU rejects. If successful, limited access to rights under the First Amendment would be at the whim of Congressional Leftists.
4. The Left consistently denies that Islam contains any properties which promote Jihadi violence. They wish to promote the heretical, a-theist, non-Qur’anic Muslims as the “Real” Muslims, and the Qur’anic-grounded Muslims as false Muslims. The inverse is true. This Leftist lie is protected as more and more Muslims are imported, and Middle East Christians under persecution and genocide are not.
There is much more, if one cares to look objectively at what is actually happening.
I have to go, even though I am not through here. I will post this and continue with the rest later.
OK. At this point I haven't read beyond the above in your comments, but I fear that this has turned ugly. As a return to civility, let's recap what we agree on, as I remember it. We agree that Islam is not a beneficial addition to the world's worldviews. And that Atheism is a lack of belief in a giver of absolute principles. Hm. That's about it, I guess. Correct this as necessary.
…the Political Compass site some time back? All you had to say is that the site seems biased because Democrats were on the right. Well no, that's reality; the USA is not the only country in the world... Your political views are self-centered.
If they were talking about Democrats, then they are placing American political units onto the map, possibly with other countries around the world. And yes, the politics within an entity is entity-centered, of necessity. Further, American politics takes a different trajectory than any other nation's. So your attempt at correction falls off the edge of reality.
”It's not necessarly wrong when talking about local politics, but if you're to make grand statements such as that above, then you need to realize what 'Marxism' actually means... “
Perhaps you need to understand the history of Marxism and its adherents in the USA – what they used to espouse and what they now espouse. I recommend the following history books… never mind, you wouldn’t read them… but here they are anyway:
Julien Benda: The Treason of the Intellectuals;
Paul Berman: The Flight of the Intellectuals;
Paul Johnson: Intellectuals; From Marx and Tolstoy to Sartre and Chomsky;
F.A.Hayek; The Fatal Conceit;
Allan Bloom; The Closing of the American Mind;
Thomas Sowell; Intellectuals and Society;
F.A.Hayek; The Road To Serfdom;
Thomas Sowell; The Vision of the Anointed.
Moving on.
”Plus, to go back to the statement I am quoting, it cannot even possibly be a fact! Not only is it wrong, but it is also clearly stated as an opinion, as something you 'see' as a war. But it cannot literally be a war unless there is something like a civil war going on, where 1 class of people fights another. The USA is not in that situation, obviously...”
The Messiah Class (or “the anointed” in Sowell’s lexicon) is actively engaged in legislation attempts meant to obviate all contrary thought and even in some remote cases to imprison contrary thinkers. This is especially true of the critics of the Victimhood Classes, specifically abortion of one’s progeny, homosexual behavior normalization and moral equality, Leftist racism and historical Democrat racism. The attacks on the First, Second, and Tenth Amendments are all results of leftist hegemony over the past 100 years, including stacked Supreme Courts. It is not a shooting war; it is a stealth war of theft of human rights by legislation, judiciary legislation, constant condemnation, attempted moral shaming, and lies. As I said before, the American Left wages the "moral equivalent of war". In fact, the Democrats initiated the horrific American Civil War, in order to protect slavery, and to reject the election of a Republican, Abraham Lincoln, as president.
"Do you deny that grounded Qur'anic Islam, if allowed control of the west by the beliefs of the Qur’an, will automatically reduce women to chattel capable of being owned, bought and sold, kill all homosexuals, Atheists, Infidels, and ultimately all Jews and Christians (after taxing them into bankruptcy)?"
No, I don't deny that but I don't support the view the way you put it either. I already told you I think Islam is the worst religion ever. How can I make this clearer? But again, this is also mostly an opinion you are showing; some fear of what 'could' be if true Muslims were in controls.”
Then you have not paid sufficient attention to ISIS, Boko Haram, the Saudis, the Iranians, the Taliban, and many other, lesser, Qur’anic Islamists who are, in fact engaging in those Qur'anic practices currently. Or you prefer a different narrative of some sort?
”What I was referring to is the general ideas you present, which are often black-and-white. Things like 'ALL' Muslims are Jihadists to their core, ALL Leftists are Marxist Communist Lazy bastard who want to steal your hard earned money, ALL Atheists are immoral assholes who cannot think logically, and on and on and on... There is never any nuance in what you write, never any sign of understanding of the complex reality we live in. Things are not as simple as you put them. It does not mean that there is no truth, no absolute values, no logical statements to be made; it means that to get to the truth, you need to take into account a lot more than just what you talk about. For opinions and knowledge to be grounded in truth, you need to know as much as possible, not jump to conclusions based on your gut feeling.”
This is a serious accusation, based only in vague statements like “complexity” and “nuance”. Either outline the details of the “complexity” and the delicate shadings of “nuance”, or admit that what has been outlined is, in fact, accurate and is being played out for all to see today.
As I have said before, I did NOT say the things you attribute to me, above; you have re-interpreted them in your own black and white fashion, and you often complain of not understanding the things that I have written – too much nuance? Or what?
Even when I quote your own words, you complain about being misunderstood. Why is that? Is it that you don’t understand what I am saying, even regarding your own words?
”Seventh you got exasperated about the 'Charity Principle' thing I asked about. Well, I still don't get what you mean, so either you make it clearer or we get pass that... This question about how many lives I would sacrifice for... I don't know what, makes no sense. All you do is claim that it's because of my 'void' of Atheism. Well, if you want to understand that 'void', why don't you ask about things that I actually believe instead of hypothetical questions that make no sense to me? You don't have to obviously... but I thought that was your goal, to Analyze Atheisms, or some of it at least.”
This statement is a perfect example of my previous position. You cannot make sense of what seems perfectly obvious, even when explained a second time.
As for your own personal Atheist VOIDist belief set, I don’t really care. That is blunt, I know. But the case is this: the VOID is nothingness. Out of that nothingness, anything can proceed. Anything whatsoever. I have witnessed so many variations of “reality” which exit from the nothingness of the Atheist VOID, that I understand that any and all of them are boring, personal proclivities which – as is the characteristic of the VOID – are grounded in nothing and therefore are changeable on a moment’s notice, at the whim of the Atheist Voidist.
There is nothing there. It is all grounded in the VOID: nothingness. So whatever you tell me it is at the moment, it doesn’t matter, because a) it’s grounded in the nothingness of the VOID, and b) it will be different, changed as required.
Now many Atheists will claim to have “thought it through” which is straight up bullshit. It is all opinion and emotion, and it is not… NOT… based in any Philosophical Materialist reality or empirical, experimental data (which is the only reality available to Atheists, unless they are new agers off on their trips). Nor is there any disciplined Aristotelian deduction involved. So: neither evidence nor logic is involved.
If you really want just one thing to discuss, then explain why you do not understand Scott Adams' principle.
If you know that allowing Muslims into the country involves a small percentage of terrorists too, then that involves accepting a number of people (not yourself) who the terrorists will kill. How many deaths are you comfortable with in order to justify your tolerance of Islamic migration to your country? I.e.: What number of innocent people can be allowed to die in order to sustain "religious tolerance of Islam"?
If you still do not comprehend this, then I will try to find Adams' article for you. But if you don't understand this, I doubt you'll understand what he wrote either.
This is the source of the statement regarding the principle of charity: it is morally charitable to do X. X=tolerate Q.
Thank you for the 10 comments; lots of good points but lots of unresolved disagreement of course. I read everything but can only reply to some bits, as indicated. And it's really just a question of time...
"If you really want just one thing to discuss, then explain why you do not understand Scott Adams' principle.
[...]
This is the source of the statement regarding the principle of charity: it is morally charitable to do X. X=tolerate Q."
Is the conversation here a good example?
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2015/12/a-dialogue-with-scott-adams.html
What I don't understand is why we should give a number of people 'killed'. That number should be '0', regardless of the source of immigration. Scott Adams' question on 'what's your number?' makes no sense.
So what's the point exactly? That we should prevent all Muslims immigrants, heretics and fundamentalists, because statistically there is more chance they will span terrorists? But then we should not welcome men at all; since a lot lot more commit crimes than women, statistically. We should also only welcome children I suppose; that might be a good idea. Since they don't commit as much violent crimes either.
" As for your own personal Atheist VOIDist belief set, I don’t really care. That is blunt, I know. "
I don't care if it's blunt; I don't think it is anyway. But it's contradictory in 2 ways:
(1) It means that you don't care, yet you asked me to come back after the Christmas break to comment. You don't care, and you do, at the same time.
(2) You think that my beliefs are based on a VOID, on NOTHIHG, but that makes no sense since, even if you disagree with my beliefs, you have to acknowledge that they are, at the very least, based on my own selfish desires. And that's what you imply when you say that they change; they change for a reason, not nothing.
I asked: "But what do you do, or would do, with Muslims in your house? What conclusions do you draw when someone tells you their religion?"
" I would arm myself with concealed-carry protection."
Ok, so you are a literal Islamophobe; you are scared of Muslims. First time I see that laid out so clearly, by anyone...
Is the conversation here a good example?
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2015/12/a-dialogue-with-scott-adams.html
The preamble to that post contains the question which Scott Adams poses: the “dilemma” choice between a) unquestionable Religious Tolerance as a dogmatic principle; and b) the amount of loss of innocent human life that a) will cause.
”What I don't understand is why we should give a number of people 'killed'. That number should be '0', regardless of the source of immigration. Scott Adams' question on 'what's your number?' makes no sense.”
Ok, you have answered the question.
So what's the point exactly? That we should prevent all Muslims immigrants, heretics and fundamentalists, because statistically there is more chance they will span terrorists?
If you choose zero, and you did, then there is only one way to accomplish that: stop importing Muslims.
But then we should not welcome men at all; since a lot lot more commit crimes than women, statistically. We should also only welcome children I suppose; that might be a good idea. Since they don't commit as much violent crimes either.
It’s not clear which men you are discussing, but let’s assume that you are referring to non-Muslim men. That is outside the scope of the question, and serves as a classic Red Herring. The issue is A vs. not A; answering G or F or Y is not an option.
" As for your own personal Atheist VOIDist belief set, I don’t really care. That is blunt, I know. "
I don't care if it's blunt; I don't think it is anyway. But it's contradictory in 2 ways:
(1) It means that you don't care, yet you asked me to come back after the Christmas break to comment. You don't care, and you do, at the same time.
(2) You think that my beliefs are based on a VOID, on NOTHIHG, but that makes no sense since, even if you disagree with my beliefs, you have to acknowledge that they are, at the very least, based on my own selfish desires. And that's what you imply when you say that they change; they change for a reason, not nothing.
I did mislead you on this one, because I did not say what I do care about, and how that is different. What I care about is grounded true beliefs. The Atheist VOID cannot produce grounded true beliefs. I do care about that fact, but I don’t care about whatever the actual beliefs are that the VOIDist produces for himself (given that they cannot be grounded and thus not true).
So I care about the metanarrative, not the narrative in this case. I care about the process, not the product. (Although I do generally discuss the product with the intent of demonstrating its falseness, both empirically and deductively).
I asked: "But what do you do, or would do, with Muslims in your house? What conclusions do you draw when someone tells you their religion?"
" I would arm myself with concealed-carry protection."
Ok, so you are a literal Islamophobe; you are scared of Muslims. First time I see that laid out so clearly, by anyone...
Nope, quite to the contrary: that is why I am NOT an Islamophobe: the Islamists would need to FEAR ME, because I do NOT fear them and I am fully prepared for their intransigence when it surfaces (again: as it did in San Bernardino, where no one – NO ONE – was armed and prepared, and thus they ALL died at the hands of “peaceful immigrants”). I recognize that the term, Islamophobe is a pejorative for application to anyone who understands that importing Muslims will, in fact, result in innocent lives destroyed and who has the temerity to say so. The Muslim importers cannot stand having rational light shone upon their insidious actions. Of course, like Scott Adams, they know full well what will happen. But one may not mention it without the pejorative being flung, like monkeys flinging their own shit. And that is the way of the Left. I am not intimidated by either the Left, or their imported barbarians; however, most Americans are unprepared and will suffer at the barbarian’s hands.
The deviousness of the Muslim importers is being played out publicly in the EU right now, before the eyes of the world. The brutishness of the Muslim immigrants has been held in secrecy, despite the obvious hazard to EU women and children. That is obscene, dastardly, unconscionable, and demonstrates the complete moral evil which these Leftists will accept in order to protect the Leftist Narrative.
The result will be massive violence as the native EU residents strive to protect their western-style civil rights from the barbarous interlopers who acknowledge no western rights at all. It cannot be stopped.
An aside on concealed carry: a few days ago I went to a weekday Star Wars matinee. Everyone in the audience was armed. Actually, I was the only one there...
Great. What I care about is also grounded true beliefs. None of my beliefs come from a 'void', or an 'atheist void'; beliefs, anyone's beliefs, have reasons and evidence behind them. Sometimes good, sometimes bad.
1) We agreed that 0 terrorist action should be tolerated from group 'A'. Now the next step is to ban all immigration from group 'A'. Why? Because they are men; men are statistically far more likely than women to commit terrorist acts.
#1 is not my true belief, because we shouldn't discriminate on gender alone, for immigration purposes. But it's also not my belief if 'A' is Muslims, or heretics Muslim.
What's the correct true belief for you?
2) I thought you were clearly afraid of Muslims; you said you would make sure you have your concealed carry. But no, that's not out of fear you say.
So why is it that you feel the need to mention your gun when talking about random self-identified Muslim people?
My belief was proven false; it's not fear. So what is it? You mentioned you brought your gun to the movies; why? The joke was funny btw, but that just tells me you always/often carry your gun. So when I asked you what you would do differently in the presence of a Muslim couple, your answer was to do nothing different?
I’m not sure that you know what the term, “grounded”, entails. Here’s why. Your first set of beliefs is internally contradictory. That fails the Aristotelian First Principle #2: Noncontradiction. It also fails the test of Reductio Ad Absurdum, which is the final test for logical absurdity, which is another way of saying testing for contradiction (paradox).
You answered the Scott Adams question with the number, zero. Yet you refuse to accept the blocking of the carriers of the disease. These are the grounding issues. But there are more issues, as well.
Further, you persist in bringing an outside variable into the set which is not part of the question, which is limited to a single variable: Islam. And finally, in the past you have asserted immigration into a foreign country to be similar to a human right, a position to which you seem to adhere dogmatically.
”2) I thought you were clearly afraid of Muslims; you said you would make sure you have your concealed carry. But no, that's not out of fear you say.
So why is it that you feel the need to mention your gun when talking about random self-identified Muslim people?”
Because it is random self-identified Muslims who turn out to be killers of innocent non-Muslims. So why is that not clear? Surely you do not feel immortal? Immune to a hail of their gunfire? Or possibly you just play the odds that they won’t shoot you, specifically, so you, specifically are OK? Because that is the point of Adams’ dilemma: he who allows Muslim entry into his domain (country/home) is actually OK with other people being killed and he knows that statistically it won’t be himself. And that is because he values a dogmatic principle of false charity (religious tolerance) toward Muslims at the expense of the lives of his own countrymen (not his own life, of course).
It is a test of dogmatic attachment to a principle which outweighs the murder of innocents. That's why Adams presented it as a dilemma.
The question is a true dilemma, because you cannot have both zero lives lost to Muslims, AND Muslim immigration. You cannot rationally have both horns of the dilemma, as you have chosen… or at least appear to have.
”So when I asked you what you would do differently in the presence of a Muslim couple, your answer was to do nothing different?”
As San Bernardino proved conclusively, they are incredibly persuasive in their lies. There is a necessity to be wary of them at all times. If you choose not to be, that is your issue, not mine. But there is sufficient empirical evidence now that they warrant watching closely. And being prepared for possible intransigence.
I have Atheist friends who I trust implicitly, because I know them well and I have no expectation that they are either lying or have any death wish for me. That can never be the case with Muslims. Any given Muslim can decide to actually learn the grounding of his faith, which is grounded only in the revealed word of Allah, via “his prophet” and the words of the prophet in the Qur’an and Hadiths. When that happens, "radicalization" is frequently the result. So a previously “friendly/peaceful” Muslim converts, becomes hostile as is dictated, and turns on his infidel friends, coworkers, etc. That has happened on military bases and other places.
Zero deaths cannot be the case if Muslims are not watched with skepticism and preparation. San Bernardino could have been mitigated, had that been done. But it goes contra the trope of "religious freedom" for even the basest of hegemonic killer religions.
Here's another way of stating the dilemma:
There are two unalienable human rights:
a) Right to life;
b) Right to immigrate.
Human rights cannot rationally contradict each other, or cancel each other out.
So which is the actual human right, and which is not?
Hi,
Regarding actual logical points:
"You answered the Scott Adams question with the number, zero. Yet you refuse to accept the blocking of the carriers of the disease. These are the grounding issues. But there are more issues, as well."
We don't agree on the logical pathway between 'Group X harbor terrorists, hence we should be worried about all members Group X', when Group X refers to 'Muslims', without further details. That's why I bring up the example of 'men'; it's not a distraction. It's an example as to why we cannot generalize that sentence; it's not a rule that applies to everything. There are lots of reasons to be worried of some group, but my point is that religion, alone, is not one of these reasons.
This applies to many things, 2 of which we are discussing here: immigration and this need of begin armed. In neither case do I see 'Muslims' as a whole as a threat; you think otherwise because they are more likely to be dangerous. But that's what I find to be some irrational fear, or unsupported worries if you don't want to call it fear. Why judge people 'only' because of their religion?
Even if I agree with you that Islam harbors more terrorist, on average, the vast majority of Muslims are not crazier than the average America n Christian, Jew, Hindu, Atheist, be it the more religious ones or not. And again, how can you not call this 'fear' of Muslims... You say it's just about being prepared, that you are not afraid of them and they should be be afraid of you; but isn't this the very definition of fear? You are not afraid you say, but worried, and suspicious of their actions; you cannot trust them as a group, you cannot bear being unarmed in their presence, just because they are Muslims. As I said, it's the first time I ever hear someone be so clear about that. I gave you 1 example of people who came to my house and your reaction was to mention your gun... how on Earth is that not a fear-based reaction? These people were super sweat, two smart medical students, nothing about their religion was mentioned; I got to know they were Muslims only because we discussed their wedding and compared some details to ours, in India, which was a Hindu wedding.
More as a side note (not nearly as important as the comment above), you mentioned before:
"Silly/stupid/absurd is both disrespectful and subjective. These are opinion words, except for “absurd” which is a logic term. So I want to know how you apply “absurd” as a logic principle to anything I have said."
And that was correct; we cannot just throw random words like that. But here, I believe there is such an example. You said:
"a) Right to life;
b) Right to immigrate.
So which is the actual human right, and which is not?"
Pardon the language, but this is an example of something stupid... it's a stupid question because 'Right to life' obviously comes first, before anything else I would say. What's the point of even asking such a thing? To be clear, it does not make anything else you say stupid; and I certainly write stupid things sometimes too... but that is nothing but stupid, really.
Next, another detour:
"I’m not sure that you know what the term, “grounded”, entails. Here’s why. Your first set of beliefs is internally contradictory. That fails the Aristotelian First Principle #2: Noncontradiction. It also fails the test of Reductio Ad Absurdum, which is the final test for logical absurdity, which is another way of saying testing for contradiction (paradox)."
Claiming that the person you are engaging does not understand logic does not make you logical. You regularly make such assertion and I just ignore them, but sometimes it's interesting to note that...
However, since we agreed that 'grounded true beliefs' matter the most; I will agree with you that what I wrote above was not the best way to express any of mine. These 2 examples relating to Islam are actually more responses to your explanation and only partially reveal my own beliefs. But I am still not sure which part you care about so I will leave it at that for now, as the topics where I would share some of my core beliefs, which I really do care about, don't have much to do with Islam, I think. But you told me it was super important for you so I am still interested in focusing on that for a little while.
"a) Right to life;
b) Right to immigrate.
So which is the actual human right, and which is not?"
Pardon the language, but this is an example of something stupid... it's a stupid question because 'Right to life' obviously comes first, before anything else I would say. What's the point of even asking such a thing? To be clear, it does not make anything else you say stupid; and I certainly write stupid things sometimes too... but that is nothing but stupid, really.
Of course it is stupid; yet it is precisely the debate that is presented by the Leftist insistence on allowing Muslim immigration to continue unabated and specifically with obviously defective screening. The Democrats in the US Senate just in the past week have defeated a bill which would increase the screening on those immigrants professing Islam. So the official choice of the nation is b) the Right to Immigrate, which supersedes Americans’ Right to Life. People will die. But the Left has virtue-signaled its TOLERANCE. What is signaled as "religious tolerance" is actually tolerance of an unspecified number of dead innocent Americans. All at the expense of the Left's "virtue".
So it’s not a stupid question, it is a stupid issue. And yet it is THE issue facing the nation, if we wish to preserve the security of innocent lives. It is the exact issue that Scott Adams was trying to address in his dilemma. I merely restated it more plainly by itemizing the choices for clarity.
”"I’m not sure that you know what the term, “grounded”, entails. Here’s why. Your first set of beliefs is internally contradictory. That fails the Aristotelian First Principle #2: Noncontradiction. It also fails the test of Reductio Ad Absurdum, which is the final test for logical absurdity, which is another way of saying testing for contradiction (paradox)."
Claiming that the person you are engaging does not understand logic does not make you logical. You regularly make such assertion and I just ignore them, but sometimes it's interesting to note that...”
Here’s the problem. When you claim “grounding” and then violate it, it makes you seem not to understand the meaning of the term, "grounding". Your complaint does nothing to alleviate that observation. The logic course I taught is still listed on the right hand column, should you question the source of my observations. We can discuss the principles and sources of disciplined logic in detail if you wish.
”as the topics where I would share some of my core beliefs, which I really do care about, don't have much to do with Islam, I think. But you told me it was super important for you so I am still interested in focusing on that for a little while.”
Islam, and its Leftist protection, is the most dangerous issue of the day. However, surely you notice that I post on Atheism and Materialism as those issues arise. I have probably many hundreds of posts on these subjects which you could peruse, or, you could just list your grounding principles and we could discuss their relationship to Aristotelian grounding. Or not, as you wish, it’s up to you, of course.
If you have studied logic, I’d be interested to know which text book(s) you used. I collect logic textbooks, and I would like to use the terminology of the author you studied.
"You answered the Scott Adams question with the number, zero. Yet you refuse to accept the blocking of the carriers of the disease. These are the grounding issues. But there are more issues, as well."
We don't agree on the logical pathway between 'Group X harbor terrorists, hence we should be worried about all members Group X', when Group X refers to 'Muslims', without further details. That's why I bring up the example of 'men';
I base my claim on the empirical facts presented in France and the USA: Mosques harboring terrorists who subsequently kill innocent people. On what basis do you make your claim that this is not true?
And your claim of men is incomplete. There is a separation issue: Islamic men [and women] who mass-murder innocent Americans are sane; non-Islamic men who mass-murder innocent Americans are not sane. So there is a categorical division separating Islamic male mass-murderers from other male mass-murderers. The Islamics are driven by ideology; the others are driven by mental derangement.
Why do you feel compelled to protect Islamists, even the heretical Islamists?
”This applies to many things, 2 of which we are discussing here: immigration and this need of begin armed. In neither case do I see 'Muslims' as a whole as a threat; you think otherwise because they are more likely to be dangerous. But that's what I find to be some irrational fear, or unsupported worries if you don't want to call it fear. Why judge people 'only' because of their religion?”
Islam is not a “religion” in the same sense as Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity and others are. Islam is a self-contained, closed-system, government oriented and controlled system which is grounded in its supremacy by the revelations from Allah. It is intolerant of infidels, heretics, and apostates. It is instituted in the principles of arab barbarism which existed in the time of Muhammad, 1,700 years ago. Islam is not voluntary, like other religions. Islam is hegemonic and violent. The avowed objective of Islam is the world-wide caliphate. Those who resist are to be killed.
Islam accepts the principle of lying during Jihad. The life of the prophet shows that in no uncertain terms.
You do not accept these characteristics of Islam. That is up to you. Had you studied the principles and history of Islam, that might be different. You have no desire to do that. So be it. But at least keep your eyes on Europe, where Jihad is happening more and more frequently. Women and Jews will be the most desirable targets.
”Even if I agree with you that Islam harbors more terrorist, on average, the vast majority of Muslims are not crazier than the average America n Christian, Jew, Hindu, Atheist, be it the more religious ones or not. And again, how can you not call this 'fear' of Muslims... You say it's just about being prepared, that you are not afraid of them and they should be be afraid of you; but isn't this the very definition of fear?”
It is more in the sense of outrage. The fact that Islamic apologists make the argument which you have just made makes it likely that random people (and Jews and women) will be targeted somewhere in the USA in the near future. It will happen in some entirely unexpected venue, and very likely not near you or me. But if everyone is armed and proficient, as many American sheriffs are now recommending, then the toll can be minimized. And in fact I recommend a reverse terrorism: dip the tip of your bullets in bacon grease. Yes, this will be declared unfair, immoral, or whatever. But it would help to stop the Islamists from what is now a guaranteed Jihad series of suicide assaults on innocent lives.
”You are not afraid you say, but worried, and suspicious of their actions; you cannot trust them as a group, you cannot bear being unarmed in their presence, just because they are Muslims. As I said, it's the first time I ever hear someone be so clear about that. I gave you 1 example of people who came to my house and your reaction was to mention your gun... how on Earth is that not a fear-based reaction?”
Why fear something which you can control? Your persistence in trying to pin a phobia on me is futile.
”These people were super sweat, two smart medical students, nothing about their religion was mentioned; I got to know they were Muslims only because we discussed their wedding and compared some details to ours, in India, which was a Hindu wedding.”
Interesting. Two observations: first, the recent killers in San Bernardino fit the description you give perfectly. Second, India has suffered at the hands of Islamists even worse than the USA has (so far). Yet you appear to think being prepared is irrational: it is purely fear and can be nothing else. Your concern that I have “fear” is likely attached to a virtue-signal that no one should/must be wary of random Islamists – as a moral tenet. But if that is the case, then under what system of morality is that a moral “Truth”? If that is not the case, then why are you trying to pin a phobia on me? What is your motivation?
What percentage of Muslim population must be killers before you would change your mind? 10%? 40%? 80%? There must be a number, because it is apparent that your concern for yourself/family must rise higher than any concern for unknown innocents who WILL be killed.
And again, you chose zero deaths. But you also choose not to consider the dangers of true Islam, and the guarantee of some percentage of True Islamists in any group of Islamists. This is the dichotomy/dilemma being discussed, because it is the mutually exclusive dichotomy which faces all western nations right now.
Hi Stan,
You asked:
"If you have studied logic, I’d be interested to know which text book(s) you used."
I couldn’t name logic text books specifically, but here are some facts that might help answer the question:
- In CEGEP (the school we have between High School and College, in Quebec), we had philosophy classes for 3 semesters, which focused not only on the history and evolution of philosophical, but also on critical reasoning, debating skills and how logical statements are constructed.
- I studied computer engineering in college. (I recall you were an engineer too, right?) In the context of computers/electronics, where we needed to understand how to implement boolean logic with circuits and software.
- A little over four years ago, I studied for the GMAT, with books from Kaplan. Most of the GMAT requires a good grasp of logic: the Verbal section has 3 sub-sections; critical reasoning, reading comprehension and sentence correction. They all require the application of logic and, obviously, the critical reasoning section had the most direct usage by asking to find assumptions, conclusions, implicit facts, etc... I scored a 710, placing me in the top 9%, with my verbal section, specifically, being in the top 2%.
- Last summer, I re-took the GMAT because I wanted to improve my Quant score, which was not as good as the Verbal section. This time, I studied with books by Manhattan that go deeper into each topic; so I revised yet again principles of logic and critical reasoning. This time, I scored a 750, placing me in the top 2%, with my verbal section in the top 1%.
- For the past 4 years, I have been working as a Product Manager. I don't study logic of course, but it might be relevant because I have to constantly question my own decisions, and the information I get, in order to make the next decision. Unlike my previous job where I was told what to do, I now tell engineers what to do, and often 'how' to do it. This requires assessing the value of data I get in order to draw the right conclusion, logically.
Does that answer the question?
Back to Islam...
"I base my claim on the empirical facts presented in France and the USA: Mosques harboring terrorists who subsequently kill innocent people. On what basis do you make your claim that this is not true?"
I do think it's true, but I am not more worried about that than crazy people with guns because, statistically, both groups are still not very likely to commit atrocities. Cars, to name just that 1 example, kill by far more people; yet we all drive around and not feel like we should do everything we can to avoid driving. So I prefer to focus on the big picture and try to figure out what works best, as a whole, to reduce violence. It's complicated to figure that out, but I don't see how putting all Muslims on my personal list of 'threatening people' helps.
"And your claim of men is incomplete. There is a separation issue: Islamic men [and women] who mass-murder innocent Americans are sane; non-Islamic men who mass-murder innocent Americans are not sane. So there is a categorical division separating Islamic male mass-murderers from other male mass-murderers. The Islamics are driven by ideology; the others are driven by mental derangement."
Again, I know it's incomplete; the point is that religion, alone, is not a good indicator in my opinion. Just like mental health alone is not the whole story. And I still don't get why you insist that 'Muslim' is a good indicator, alone. I don't understand your logical deduction that we should be worried about 'any' Muslim, instead of looking at many other character traits. For immigration purposes, for instance, you do understand that it's not anybody who comes to the border who can be accepted as a refugee, right?
Also, no, I don't believe that "Islamic men [and women] mass-murder innocent Americans". First, there is no such mass murder that I am aware of; there were isolated examples since 2001, none we should tolerate nor ignore, but nothing even close to 'mass' murder.
Second, no, you cannot include "[and women]" because it's simply false; women are way underrepresented among jihadists. I.e. women are not even close to 50% of terrorists even if they make up for ~50% of Muslims.
Third, it's really unfair to say that sanity is found on one side but not the other. I am not sure how black-and-white you think it is though... Surely, you agree that some Islamists are in fact mentally ill, and encouraged/manipulated by religious leaders to do harm; they exploit their mental illness. And the same is true for non-Islamist terrorists; some of them are definitely sane people who have some other ideology they fight for. It can be hatred for some group of people.
"Why do you feel compelled to protect Islamists, even the heretical Islamists?"
I am not protecting them; I am explaining why I am not worried of 'all' Muslims because of the existence of 'some' jihadists among Muslims. By the definitions we discussed here, I am actually compelled to protect the 'heretical' Muslims who are also trying to prevent violence within the Muslim community, by explaining their reason to reject jihad. They might be 'fake' Muslims, so not Islamists I guess, but I wish Islam turns into their non-literal version. Labelling them all as fake Muslims who cannot be trusted because they still use the label 'Muslim' does not help anything.
" Islam is not a “religion” in the same sense as Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity and others are. Islam is a self-contained, closed-system, government oriented and controlled system "
False; it is exactly like all the others; otherwise there would be no Heretics... So the ones who follow the principles word-by-word might be under that system, and you explained well what it is. But the Heretics, who wrongly called themselves Muslims according to you, are not part of a self-contained, closed-system, government oriented and controlled system. Basically, you cannot have it both ways; you cannot say that Islam, as a whole, including fundamentalists and heretics, is a closed system since the heretics are, by definition, rejecting that closed system.
" But if everyone is armed and proficient, as many American sheriffs are now recommending, then the toll can be minimized. And in fact I recommend a reverse terrorism: dip the tip of your bullets in bacon grease. Yes, this will be declared unfair, immoral, or whatever. But it would help to stop the Islamists from what is now a guaranteed Jihad series of suicide assaults on innocent lives. "
The risk of having more and more weapons, especially in highly populated areas, is not worth the chance. Per capita, the US already has so much more shootings, gun-related deaths and accidents than other countries... I don't see how more guns help us make safer, even if we assume people could defend themselves from terrorists. There were so few attacks on American soil; nothing has ever come close to 9/11, which would not have been different if everyone was armed obviously... However, more guns necessarily lead, at the very least, to more accidents. Why should we tolerate accidental deaths?
Also, what about examples like that one?
http://www.sunherald.com/news/local/crime/article56352075.html
That's the kind of crazy thing that only happens when people have guns, and suddenly get some crazy impulsive ideas. I am sure none of these people were mentally ill, yet some stupid fight over $25 escalated to the point of gun fight, with 2 left dead. If they did not have guns, if it were not in a gun shop, the odds of escalation to the point of death are so much smaller... it could still be violent, with any other weapon, but most likely not as lethal.
" Why fear something which you can control? Your persistence in trying to pin a phobia on me is futile. "
I am not trying to 'pin' a phobia, nor insult you by the way. But can't you try to see it from my point of view for a minute? I asked you to think of an hypothetical scenario, which was a real situation for me, where I had people, already in my house, and learned they were Muslim. Your reaction: think about your concealed carry... Is it really that weird to conclude that you are scared of Muslims then? Or if I should not use the word 'fear', is it really that weird to conclude that you have a strong impulse to think you should be prepared for the worst? That kind of reaction, this instant worry for your own life, and need for protection; how is that not fueled by fear?
"The recent killers in San Bernardino fit the description you give perfectly. "
Sure; but it would also fit non-Muslims attackers who often look innocent, normal and healthy... until they are not. Because, as you said, there are also mental illnesses as the cause, or just dumb escalation like that 1 example above. And since we cannot really prevent all the mentally ill to carry guns, nor who they are actually, I guess we should all, always, carry guns. So it has nothing to do with Muslims after all... which is my point.
Basically, we have no more reason to be worried about Muslims, for that reason alone, than so many other factors. It's much more complicated than that. The label 'Muslim' is too broad, too vague, and applies to all the spectrum of Muslims, from the Islamist Jihadists to the peaceful non-religious heretic Muslims, who are Muslim only by name, most likely because of their upbringing, and have nothing to do with Jihadists.
" Second, India has suffered at the hands of Islamists even worse than the USA has (so far). Yet you appear to think being prepared is irrational: it is purely fear and can be nothing else. "
Well now that's interesting, because I kept thinking about that precise fact: India suffered a lot more at the hands of Islamists. It's one of the many things I never had time to get to... I probably know more than you about that. I went to Kolkata 6 times so far; my wife grew up there. We had her family over, for a few weeks in December-January, and I discussed that topic with her Dad and Brother.
In their home city, the situation is particularly bad because they are neighbors to the poorer Muslim Bangladesh. They share the same language, Bengali, so a lot of poor uneducated Muslims try their luck in Kolkata. A lot moved there over the years and have their own neighborhoods. They actually have Mosque play the prayers on loud speakers, men try to have many wives, even if it's illegal, and the rules of India even apply differently based on religion.
But here's the thing though: they don't have a lot more violence from Muslims. They don't fear jihadists more than here; maybe less, because the Muslims are super stressed about being targeted. It's actually the peaceful Muslims that have had a rough time in many places, especially since Modi's government took over, because he is a strong Hindu nationalist, and many of his party members are. They, for example, wanted to ban beef in many parts of the country, if not as a whole, essentially imposing their own Hindu beliefs on others. And some Muslims are victim of violence, and discrimination from the cops, who don't care when they report crimes.
" What percentage of Muslim population must be killers before you would change your mind? 10%? 40%? 80%? There must be a number, because it is apparent that your concern for yourself/family must rise higher than any concern for unknown innocents who WILL be killed.
And again, you chose zero deaths. But you also choose not to consider the dangers of true Islam, and the guarantee of some percentage of True Islamists in any group of Islamists. This is the dichotomy/dilemma being discussed, because it is the mutually exclusive dichotomy which faces all western nations right now. "
I am worried about the dangers of true Islam and especially how it can affect young desperate minds; that's what I keep insisting on. We should rather work toward promoting our values, our liberties, our advantages as free people, along with increasing the well-being of everyone, anywhere, as much as possible. Because it's not just religion, at all, it's a lot about socio-economic context, coupled with horrible religious messages. So I don't think that blaming 'all' Muslims, or being suspicious of them, is helping anything. I don't see nearly 10% of them as killers; so that's why the number does not matter much to me. If we could prove that just 1% are actual killers, motivated by nothing but religion along and showed no prior sign of it, I might be worried. Unless I am super naïve, I don't see that there are actually 10 million Muslims actively killing non-Muslims right now... But that's not the reality we live in, don't we?
http://securitydata.newamerica.net/
Finally, I think this will be my last post on that topic. Even if it was really long, I could really summarize the facts and opinions we agree/disagree on as this:
- Statistically, Islam harbors more terrorists than any other religion today.
- Because of its history, fundamental tenets, and life of its 1 main prophet, we agree that it's the religion that causes the most harm right now.
- However, we disagree on the attitude we should have toward Islam as a whole. I see most of the ones living in Western countries, so above 50%, as moderates who condemn atrocities rather than condone them. (There were some interesting surveys we discussed on another thread...) Even in some countries with lots of Muslims, such as India and Indonesia, I think the fundamentalists who want to impose their religion on others are a minority, but I am not sure honestly.
- Therefore, I prefer to promote a more inclusive approach where the moderates, the heretics, who we share lots of common values with, are included in the discussions as to how we can prevent terror, here and in other countries.
So, from my end, I think it's clear where we agree and disagree; it was interesting to discuss the specifics. Since you also said:
" However, surely you notice that I post on Atheism and Materialism as those issues arise. I have probably many hundreds of posts on these subjects which you could peruse, or, you could just list your grounding principles and we could discuss their relationship to Aristotelian grounding. Or not, as you wish, it’s up to you, of course. "
I will thus let you have the last word on that thread's topic and show up on another thread, with another topic, whenever it seems interesting to discuss. I think that's a good way to discuss grounding principles.
I hope you also enjoyed the exchange!
Just checking... did you see the last posts and have nothing to add here either?
I was curious to know why you asked about my 'logic background' and whether I answered your question.
Well, you had moved on. No point.
If you care to discuss grounding of true beliefs, then you might consider going to one of the First Principles articles, and commenting there.
http://atheism-analyzed.blogspot.com/2009/06/principles-of-first-principles.html
http://atheism-analyzed.blogspot.com/2008/07/first-principles-bedrock-of-logic-and.html
http://atheism-analyzed.blogspot.com/2009/06/details-of-first-principles-of-logic.html
http://atheism-analyzed.blogspot.com/2009/11/mathematics-of-reason-first-principles.html
http://atheism-analyzed.blogspot.com/2008/07/principles-of-evidence.html
Post a Comment