tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post7112121421724866075..comments2024-03-19T04:19:18.871-05:00Comments on Atheism Analyzed: A Reply to Dragon FangUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger17125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-82119401757751809562015-01-23T18:20:26.703-06:002015-01-23T18:20:26.703-06:00”You rejecting anarchy just proves my point; you d...<i>”You rejecting anarchy just proves my point; you don't have absolute freedom and absolute freedom does not work.<br /><br />So since you conceded that more freedom = better, what is the correct degree of freedom?”</i><br /><br />So now you connect with that which you denied above? Interesting.<br /><br />I will address your question as the last thing I will discuss today. <br /><br />First, your statement is incorrect: I never claimed that more freedom = better to the point of anarchy, and there is no concession involved. But your question, which I answered above and you ignored, is answered by defining the difference between laws for civil behavior, and thought control for a certain moral ideology. Islam and you, yourself, claim that there is no difference. In some places you seem to assert that humans are given a choice to believe in Islam. That is false on the face of it. They are given the choice of slaveries vs death. First they can be a slave to the mental shutdown of Islam; or they can be literal slaves of Islamists; or they can die at the hands of Islamists. This goes on around the world as we speak; it is obvious and to deny it is dishonest (except in the moral quirks of Islam, of course).<br /><br />Western concepts of freedom under democracy/republics is that laws for civil behaviors and interactions of persons must and do exist; however, ideologies and thoughts are not controlled for the following reason. To arrive at a truth, one must be free to examine all the possible choices in order to discriminate the true choice from the false. Only then can a sincere belief be grounded in truth, rather than being forced by the ideological bullies.<br /><br />Islam goes directly in line with the ideological bullying approach, and like all dictatorships, punishes contrary thoughts as well as contrary behaviors. Thus adherence to Islam is out of fear of retribution by the Islamic bullies rather than sincerely adhering to discerned true precepts.<br /><br />Islam is predicated on the premise that humans must be subjugated and enslaved by brutal force in order to be moral. The presupposition is that Islamists are morally obligated to do the subjugation and apply the brutal forcing – for the benefit of weak humans. Islam becomes the ideological excuse for barbaric top-down brutality to be visited upon weak humans, delivered in self-righteousness and smug self-satisfaction in the brutal treatment of humans. It is no different from any other form of dictatorship.<br /><br />That’s all for today, and I think it summarizes the issues which inhabit the discussion of Islam vs. freedom, and your defense of totalitarianism. Unless you have something to contribute other than what you have presented here (anti-freedom, pro-totalitarianism based in ideology), then there is no reason to go any further with this discussion.<br /><br />You might try to defend totalitarianism as the more intellectually open and correct process of rationality, but that would fail completely. It’s up to you.Stanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15754447145433452423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-23650994769262232262015-01-23T18:20:16.782-06:002015-01-23T18:20:16.782-06:00”Furthermore, you failed to respond to anything ac...<i>”Furthermore, you failed to respond to anything actually in that quote. Like you pretending that principled freedom is some sort of axiom, when it is not cross cultural, is learned and not through intuition, and is not a foundational belief that allows a coherent worldview.”</i><br /><br />You again are making statements as if you are dictating “Truth” without presenting any reasoning to support your claims. <br /><br />First. No one said freedom is axiomatic. Freedom must be won and protected from those who want to dictate and control others. It is an axiom that bullies will try to dictate their own principles for my behaviors; they must be fought to the ground to protect my own freedom. Freedom is fragile in the face of ideologists like yourself who cannot conceive of anyone not being forced to be under your particular brand of oppression. <br /><br />Freedom is not cross-cultural, as you say, because of ideological bullies who force oppression and captivity upon everyone they can get to capitulate. That does not negate the value of freedom, it negates any possible moral content of bully-ism, which includes Islam. You are in the position of defending your own bullying as being somehow moral; it is not. It is just bullying in the Nietzschean sense of Will To Power. So Islam closely resembles the AtheoLeftist bullying and amoral attempts to capture the entire world by force, and eliminate any freedom of thought and consciousness from humanity altogether.<br /><br />Your defense of thought control suffers from the same irrational non-coherence that denial of free will suffers: if your thoughts are merely the repetition of dogma and are without any free analysis on your part (as you say they must be to be moral), then they have no intellectual content. That in turn means that you have no mind of your own, it is purely an echo for dogma, an ideological automaton. So there is no use in having a discussion with you, when I could merely analyze the Qur’an of Uthman instead. <br /><br /><br />Stanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15754447145433452423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-90652085532525810482015-01-23T18:19:47.727-06:002015-01-23T18:19:47.727-06:00”Didn't understand what you meant with Marxist...<i>”Didn't understand what you meant with Marxist/Islamic dictatorship.”</i> <br /><br />Then you are in denial.<br /><br /><i>”Nothing in my quote/introduction shows black & white, perhaps you want me to strawman my own argument for you?<br />Furthermore, you failed to respond to anything actually in that quote. Like you pretending that principled freedom is some sort of axiom, when it is not cross cultural, is learned and not through intuition, and is not a foundational belief that allows a coherent worldview”</i><br /><br />Your denials of the obvious are becoming more obtuse, and I am becoming less willing to put up with that lapse of rational behavior. Here’s what I said:<br /><i>“Now we are getting somewhere. Black and white reasoning (False Dichotomy Fallacy). Freedom is anarchy and nothing else but anarchy. Therefore freedom is evil, and thus totalitarian dictatorship is the only moral Good. QED.<br /><br />Further, “woe” to those who want to suppress the entirety of humanity under the moral Good of their totalitarian dictatorship. The poor dears are not allowed to suppress everyone else, purely due to evil freedom.<br /><br />Got it; we understand. Of course no one here has ever, ever advocated anarchy. Ever. “</i><br /><br />That is a summary of your entire concept. It is completely black and white, anarchy vs. totalitarian, with nothing in between. It’s an argument against a position that no one has taken, and is therefore trivial, logically.<br /><br />Stanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15754447145433452423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-6378701203930027712015-01-23T18:19:07.877-06:002015-01-23T18:19:07.877-06:00Dragon Fang says,
” Why not? Is it that you cannot...Dragon Fang says,<br /><i>” Why not? Is it that you cannot?<br /><br />Already mentioned the reasons; it is trite. Not to mention baseless. If you declare that you support the claim, then I shall refute it.”</i><br /><br />The claim exists; you merely puff at it without any logic backup. If you can refute it, then do so.<br /><br /><i>Dragon Fang:<br />” Common Western thought today resemble Atheistic thought; simply because it was a reaction to the church and then to Christianity (pst. cause Christian law is a total failure), thus it was an attempt to find some non-religious philosophical basis for scientific, political, economic and social thought. This doesn't mean that every detail in Western thought is false, but that it is based on flimsy foundation.”<br /><br />Stan:<br />Exactly which “western thought” are you referring to? You seem not to comprehend that there is not a single “western thought” like the single Islamic thought that Islam dictates. And your assertion that “Christian law is a failure” is a bizarre statement – explain and support it. Perhaps you mean that Christian law failed to be a dictatorship in the sense of Marxism/Islam?<br /><br />DF:<br />You seem not to use reading comprehension. I mentioned the word "Common", hence your objection that there is no single Western thought makes no sense. </i><br /><br />Stan:<br />That is absurd. I have to repeat, I guess. Which western thought process do you mean when you say “common”? Progressivism? Liberalism? Conservatism? Libertarianism? Socialism? Marxism? Multiculturalism? Political Correctness? You cannot legitimately fault my comprehension when you have not made a clear statement.<br /><br /><i>”Christianity never worked without the bible being hidden from the public or some one claiming to be receiving divine revelation. Otherwise, post protestant revolution, it is so vague it might as well be consequentialism.”</i><br /><br />Your conception of both Christianity and Consequentialism are flawed. The bible has been available to the public for roughly half a millennium. And no version of Christianity has ever claimed that the end justifies the means (Consequentialism). That is a tenet of Islamic jihad, which allows lying, deception, torture, slavery and murder to purify the world for the honor of the prophet and Allah. You are making things up, in order to support your position: that is Consequentialism in action. Further, you seem to believe the false comments you make, which indicates a propensity for self-deception. Self-deception appears to be necessary for Islam to be an acceptable substitute for morality.<br /><br />Stanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15754447145433452423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-59114674984387823292015-01-23T12:16:07.285-06:002015-01-23T12:16:07.285-06:00@Phoenix
The anarchy thing has been replied with ...@Phoenix<br /><br />The anarchy thing has been replied with Stan.<br /><br />As for your questions, yes. Historically, your rights would be guaranteed. Women, children, old people, the poor, and those unable to work due to illness or otherwise) are exempted from paying the Jizya. So assuming you are a sane and able man, then you can agree to pay a fixed amount (unlike 2.5% of saving in Zakat) decided by the ruler once a year, although they can be distingushin between the amount the rich and the average pay. There shouldn't be any mob charging you, but if an Islamic society can't protect you for any reason, then your Jizya is returned. Blasphemy, or publicly declaring your hostility toward the constitution the majority of your fellow citizens believe in and you agreed to respect (hmm... I wonder why it isn't tolerated) requires credible witnesses (Islam established the presumption of innocence).ShadowWhoWalkshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10867251370894921001noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-59535072310247477862015-01-23T12:14:52.420-06:002015-01-23T12:14:52.420-06:00The incorporation of partial truths does not lead ...<i>The incorporation of partial truths does not lead to an overall truth.</i><br /><br />I believe I mentioned this point, so you added nothing new. Other types of slavery can be removed, however our inherit slavery to the Creator is permanent. I am still waiting for you to point something false.<br /><br />Hatred is ought to be inconsequential when making Islamic policies:<br /><br /><br /><i>O you who have believed, be persistently standing firm for Allah , witnesses in justice, and do not let the hatred of a people prevent you from being just. Be just; that is nearer to righteousness. And fear Allah ; indeed, Allah is Acquainted with what you do.</i> <b>(Quran 5:8)</b><br /><br />Paraphrase: justice>hatred.<br /><br />Aside for you committing a blatant genetic fallacy, I've never heard of a guy named "Guthman". Can you offer a citation talking about the process how a mass conspiracy was made by thousands of people living thousands of miles from each other? What was added and what was removed?<br /><br /><br />Hatred is ought to be inconsequential when making Islamic policies:<br /><br /><br /><i>O you who have believed, be persistently standing firm for Allah , witnesses in justice, and do not let the hatred of a people prevent you from being just. Be just; that is nearer to righteousness. And fear Allah ; indeed, Allah is Acquainted with what you do.</i> <b>(Quran 5:8)</b><br /><br />Paraphrase: justice>hatred.<br /><br /><br />Where did I justify slavery by man?<br />I fail to make sense of your guilt by association to totalitarianism. Not sure if your fallacy is that weak or you are joking. Who is the dictator? Is there a military/police state? Are there intelligence organizations dedicated to spy on people's private lives?<br /><br /><br /><i>This paragraph directly contradicts the previous assertions.</i><br /><br />Do you really find it necessary to strawman arguments and use equivocation fallacies to find fallacies? If so, then perhaps reconsidering your position is in order.<br /><br />You omitted the quote "The original freedom given by Allah", which is obviously talking about the specific freedom from man, which takes many forms such as slavers, imperial nation, law enforcement, etc. You attempt to turn my statement into an absolutist statement, when I made it clear that slavery by man and slavery by God are different objects.<br /><br />The distinction between "dedication to an ideology" and "slavery to humans": When someone is dedicated to an ideology, which is probably emotional and has no logical basis, and wants to base a nation on it, he requires to enslave people, who may or may not believe in the ideology, under a set of laws and punish them for breaking them.<br /><br /><br /><i>O People! I have been put in authority over you and I am not the best of you. So if I do the right thing then help me and if I do wrong then put me straight. Truthfulness is a sacred trust and lying is a betrayal. The weak amongst you is strong in my sight. I will surely try to remove his pain and suffering. And the strong amongst you is weak to me I will – Allah willing – realise the right from him fully. When obscene things spread among any nation, calamities generally continued to descend upon them. As long as I obey Allah and His messenger, you should obey me, and if I do not obey Allah and His messenger, then obedience to me is not incumbent upon you.</i> -Abu Bakr<br /><br /><i>Allah shall raise for this Ummah at the head of every century a man who shall renew (or revive) for it its religion.</i> —Sunan Abu Dawood, Book 38, Hadith 4278<br /><br />Why can't Islam recover?<br /><br />How do you plan to make consequentialism recover?<br /><br /><br /><i>So here you contradict your contradiction, just above. Which is it?</i><br /><br />This implies that I stated that we are not slaves to God or under his command, which is not the case.<br /><br />Ignoring statements is your own problem. None the less, I added paraphrases :) .ShadowWhoWalkshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10867251370894921001noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-82680015374634636102015-01-23T12:14:09.084-06:002015-01-23T12:14:09.084-06:00I apologize for the late reply, but my week's ...I apologize for the late reply, but my week's have been a bit busy.<br />So... The reply to the long post:<br />http://justpaste.it/izas<br /><br /><br /><i>Why not? Is it that you cannot?</i><br /><br /><br />Already mentioned the reasons; it is trite. Not to mention baseless. If you declare that you support the claim, then I shall refute it.<br /><br /><br /><i>The following paragraph makes no sense, except in light of a corrupted ideology:</i><br /><br />You seem not to use reading comprehension. I mentioned the word "Common", hence your objection that there is no single Western thought makes no sense.<br /><br /><br />Christianity never worked without the bible being hidden from the public or some one claiming to be receiving divine revelation. Otherwise, post protestant revolution, it is so vague it might as well be consequentialism.<br /><br /><br />Didn't understand what you meant with Marxist/Islamic dictatorship.<br /><br /><br />The church based its scientific views on Aristotelian physics.<br /><br /><br /><i>Now we are getting somewhere. Black and white reasoning (False Dichotomy Fallacy).</i><br /><br />Nothing in my quote/introduction shows black & white, perhaps you want me to strawman my own argument for you?<br />Furthermore, you failed to respond to anything actually in that quote. Like you pretending that principled freedom is some sort of axiom, when it is not cross cultural, is learned and not through intuition, and is not a foundational belief that allows a coherent worldview.<br /><br /><br /><i>“Allah has sent us to liberate whoever wishes, from the worship of His servants to the worship of Allah, from the restriction of this world to its vastness and from the tyranny of other religions to the justice of Islam”.</i> -Rabi’ ibn Amer<br /><br /><br /><br /><i>More false thinking based on freedom = anarchy.</i><br /><br />You rejecting anarchy just proves my point; you don't have absolute freedom and absolute freedom does not work.<br /><br />So since you conceded that more freedom = better, what is the correct degree of freedom?<br /><br /><br /><i>Still arguing against anarchy at this point.</i><br /><br />I am not the guy who argued that since Islam puts limitations on freedom, ergo it is bad. Please explain the basis freedom should/is limited.<br /><br /><br /><i>This is more on point, yet it is still a False Dichotomy Fallacy.</i><br /><br />If it was a false dichotomy as you claim then you should've been able to provide an example of a middle ground no? Otherwise, my statement stands.<br /><br />A person is moral when he follows the obligations set upon him by God, hence it is based on his enforcement, not an individual man.<br /><br />So you call up standing up to what is moral and right a dictatorship, so a country that punishes murder is a dictatorship? Defending falsehood evicts you from supporting truth; the two cannot coexist.<br /><br /><br /><i>This statement is particularly a rational disorder:</i><br /><br />Your use of equivocation fallacy to conjure a strawman is quite amusing. By "enslaved" you imply chains and the sort, however what is meant is acknowledging the you are obligated to follow the command of God.<br /><br />Second of all, what determines "principled behavior"?<br />And yes, moral behavior can be made unlikely in certain environments, an Islamic society works to ensures the best environment, which includes education and high standards of living.<br /><br /><br />Interesting that Jews & Christians who viewed Islam as wrong lived with Muslims who cannot tolerate being viewed as wrong.<br />If you believe Islam is wrong, then simply back it up.<br /><br /><br /><i>But this is not Islam. Islam does not allow the “willing” acceptance of Islam.</i><br /><br />So most people in a Muslim society are not Muslims?<br />That's new.<br /><br /><br />Your statement about slavery and deities is non-coherent.<br /><br /><i>Slavery is not to any deity, it is to humans who enforce their ideology upon everyone, willing or unwilling. What you claim is just not true.</i><br /><br />So a deity cannot enforce its will and its will is overcome by others? Then it is not a deity.<br /><br /><br />You argument about semantics is especially hilarious considering that "worship" has the same root meaning as "slave" in Arabic. But perhaps the word "servant" may fulfill the meaning better in English.ShadowWhoWalkshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10867251370894921001noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-14823760684841183832015-01-19T02:00:42.135-06:002015-01-19T02:00:42.135-06:00There is no middle ground; you are either a slave ...<i>There is no middle ground; you are either a slave to God, or a slave to whims</i>.”<br /><br />False dillemma and as Stan pointed out,contradictory.Under your philosophy,which reeks of Occasionalism,Allah causes all and humans have no choice over the effects they experience.Hence,you are either a slave to Allah or to your impulses,which are also caused by Allah.Phoenixhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02173422646774264502noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-48675901967348927442015-01-19T01:50:34.585-06:002015-01-19T01:50:34.585-06:00By definition, anarchy is absolute freedom. Theref...<i>By definition, anarchy is absolute freedom. Therefore, you don't have absolute freedom as you claim.<br />As I previously said, Islam forbids spying therefore mentioning private behavior is either ignorant or dishonest; doing certain behaviors in public while expecting public approval for them and you might be in trouble</i>.<br /><br />No!By definition,freedom is the condition of not being enslaved,whether by an individual or political power.<br /><br />Anarchy by definition is social disorder.<br /><br />Now,your contention is that freedom neccessarily leads to anarchy.This is a non-sequitir and needs to be substantiated.<br />Our democratic governments are chosen by the people through free and fair elections.Our rule of law is specifically designed to ensure that all citizens' rights are guaranteed and no one,including lawmakers are exempt from being accountable under the law.<br /><br />Contrast that with anarchy,where no ones rights are protected,there are no laws and no enforcers.<br /><br />Now you might see a loop hole here and claim that Islamic jurisprudence share similar concepts.But do they really?<br />Are my rights as a non-muslim guaranteed under sharia.And what price(jizyah)do I have to pay for being protected from muslim mobs who can charge me with blasphemy ad libitum?Phoenixhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02173422646774264502noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-83593200349246915512015-01-18T10:49:37.704-06:002015-01-18T10:49:37.704-06:00”Nonetheless, humans have free will and ability ev...<i>”Nonetheless, humans have free will and ability even if they were limited and bounded, and they may lose a portion of this freedom when they are enslaved, bought, and sold, and yet they can be freed in the sense that they have the original freedom Allah gave them. Someone who is imprisoned or kidnapped can be freed in the same sense. A nation can colonize an other nation, and once the offending nation is gone they can be freed in the same sense. A despotism, such as an oligarchy (hm. sounds like good ol' US of A), can make whimsical rules toward its citizens, say legalize homosexuality because pseudo-freedom, and they can also be freed in the same sense.”</i><br /><br />This paragraph directly contradicts the previous assertions. Previously “slavery to Allah” was promoted. Now it is “freedom given by Allah”. Which is it? You are finding it necessary here to contradict your prior statements in order now to make the distinction which you previously denied – that there is a difference between slavery to humans and the dedication to an ideology. So which is it?<br /><br />As for a “despotism by oligarchy”, the USA can recover from that; Islam will never recover from their despotism by oligarchy. It is the organizing principle of Islam. Without it, Islam ceases to be Islam.<br /><br /><i>”But, the worst type of slavery is when someone willingly chooses to be a slave to a creation like him, where he prays for him, depends on him, appeals to him, must follow all his commands, etc. Even if you were the legislator, you wouldn't be free as you would be a slave to your whims.”</i><br /><br />This is hard to interpret; what does it even mean?<br /><br /><i>”There is no middle ground; you are either a slave to God, or a slave to whims.”</i><br /><br />So here you contradict your contradiction, just above. Which is it?<br /><br />Third reminder: I do not even read quotes from the Qur’an. They are without force for the reasons given above..<br /><br /><i>”Therefore, the only way to get rid of slavery by humans, is to dedicate slavery to the creator of humans.”</i><br /><br />This has to be a joke!! Islam is fully involved in enslaving anyone they think they can get. To make the assertion you just made is outrageous in its presumption that we do not know what Islam is doing and is all about. Slavery and Islam go hand in hand. And quoting the Christian C. S. Lewis to make your case for slavery is beyond irony.<br /><br />Your opinion of us as ignorant and stupid is offensive. But understandable, considering the ideology from which it emanates. Stanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15754447145433452423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-19207562995821251542015-01-18T10:29:21.234-06:002015-01-18T10:29:21.234-06:00”True, humans have free will. And yes, he has abil...<i>”True, humans have free will. And yes, he has ability. However, the Creator willed for us to have free will, and he allowed us to have ability; our will is not absolute, it is contingent on the will of our Creator.<br /><br />If a person does indeed follow them, he becomes a willing slave to the Creator, just like he is obligatorily one.<br /><br />If he doesn't, he becomes a slave to either his whims or the whims of other humans. Thus, the only way for "democracy" apologists to get rid of slavery from humans isn't by having everyone make up their own laws, but rather by devoting all slavery to Allah by follow all what He legislated.”</i><br /><br />But this is not Islam. Islam does not allow the “willing” acceptance of Islam. Claiming that it does is actually an assertion of our stupidity which you are attempting to exploit. <br /><br />Slavery is not to any deity, it is to humans who enforce their ideology upon everyone, willing or unwilling. What you claim is just not true.<br /><br />You are corrupting the meaning of “slavery”. This is another attempt to sway the conversation by using illegitmate definitions of common words. Slavery, especially under Islam, is never voluntary. It is involuntary capture and total control of other human beings. Such as Islamists do in Africa every day.<br /><br />Being based on corrupted meanings, then your logic is also corrupt and therefore so is your conclusion:<br /><br /><i>” Hence, there is no way to get rid of being a slave to humans, except by being a slave to the creator of humans. Humans don't choose between being free or a slave; they have the choice between two slaveries. This is the reason Secular societies are associated with Atheism and Atheists being dominant; Secularism is inherently a rebellion to God, it is a call for some people to declare themselves as gods.”</i><br /><br />The incorporation of partial truths does not lead to an overall truth. Slavery to an ideal or ideology is not equivalent to capture and total control by another person or group. Actual slavery is not an inevitable state, it is rectifiable.<br /><br />Try to remember that what the Qur’an says is of no consequence to me, since it is a product of Guthman and his henchmen, and because it spreads hatred in the name of peace and is noncoherent logically. It produces irrational arguments like your justification of slavery, above, in the attempt to justify totalitarian actions by the Islamic religion.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Stanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15754447145433452423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-77145667830344617212015-01-18T10:12:00.370-06:002015-01-18T10:12:00.370-06:00” When "democracy" advocates state that ...<i>” When "democracy" advocates state that a human being is not free if he obeys a law not of his own saying is true. However, they also admit that human beings must live in a group, and living in a group requires an authority that gives orders, prevents certain actions, and punishes. By the nature of laws, it can't be made by every single individual who forms a community, and even if individual contribution in a "democratic" system is more than in other forms of governments, the lawmaking remains the creation of a minority of individuals who are part of legislative councils.”</i><br /><br />Still arguing against anarchy at this point. That makes for trivial paragraphs.<br /><br /><i>” If the criteria of freedom is in law-making, then people are only slightly free, even in a "democracy". Even the ability to create laws doesn't guarantee freedom, even if the person can do as he wills. Why? Because the person becomes a slave to his desire, thus he can do whatever his whim orders; he can overeat, get hammered, get stoned, enter an orgy, etc. A Western isn't free; if he wasn't a slave to humans like him, then he is a slave to his desires. Thus, narcissistic self-worship is born.”</i><br /><br />This is more on point, yet it is still a False Dichotomy Fallacy. For you, there is no possibility of a person being moral outside of your enforcement. That makes you the deity. The arrogance of knowing what sort of principled behavior is impossible in others is what the moral dictatorship is all about. And that arrogance much more closely describes narcissistic self-worship than does principled free agency and personal autonomy. In fact it is your own claim to moral supremacy that allows you to corrupt logic in order to bend reality into the fantasy you desire to enforce.<br /><br />This statement is particularly a rational disorder:<br /><br /><i>” A Western isn't free; if he wasn't a slave to humans like him, then he is a slave to his desires. Thus, narcissistic self-worship is born.”</i><br /><br />This statement leads to the conclusion that in order to prevent a person from being a “slave to his desires”, he must be enslaved. Otherwise narcissistic self-worship.<br /><br />That is a perfect statement of a narcissistic person from a perspective of his own perfection. (DSM5, pg 645).<br /><br />Narcissistic Personality Disorder: a pattern of grandiosity, need for admiration, and lack of empathy.<br /><br />Islamists make perfect dictators. Their dictatorship is based not on empathy, but on their own grandiose mission. They will kill a person in order to preserve their grandiose honor. Their honor must be admired. They cannot be viewed as “Wrong”, ever.<br /><br /><i>” Humans have no hope for the absolute freedom Western philosophies every so often mentions; everyone, including those who deny the self-evident truth of the existence of a Creator, admit that a human did not bring himself, nor sustains it, and that his knowledge is gained, and his knowledge is deficient, and that he depends on the continuation of his life on conditions he can't control. Light comes from the sun, water comes from the rain, vegetation comes from the earth, etc. How can he be free? How can he be independent on his position?”</i><br /><br />Again, the False Dichotomy – arguing a non-assertion – asserting aimlessly into the windStanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15754447145433452423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-91426412456609323172015-01-18T10:11:50.842-06:002015-01-18T10:11:50.842-06:00The "hate Jews" claim is so tired. Do I ...The "hate Jews" claim is so tired. Do I really need to respond to that?<br /><br />Why not? Is it that you cannot?<br /><br />The following paragraph makes no sense, except in light of a corrupted ideology:<br /><br /><i>” Common Western thought today resemble Atheistic thought; simply because it was a reaction to the church and then to Christianity (pst. cause Christian law is a total failure), thus it was an attempt to find some non-religious philosophical basis for scientific, political, economic and social thought. This doesn't mean that every detail in Western thought is false, but that it is based on flimsy foundation.”</i><br /><br />Exactly which “western thought” are you referring to? You seem not to comprehend that there is not a single “western thought” like the single Islamic thought that Islam dictates. And your assertion that “Christian law is a failure” is a bizarre statement – explain and support it. Perhaps you mean that Christian law failed to be a dictatorship in the sense of Marxism/Islam?<br /><br />Perhaps you are referring to the difference between Philosophical Materialism and functional materialism used for science? <br /><br /><i>” However, people often try to isolate this thought from its Atheistic environment, and pretend that it is a humanitarian thought that is valid for all time and place, and some theists even try to associate their religion with it, or at least claim that their religion doesn't contradict it. Of course, what I am talking about is the concept of "principled freedom" that is taken for granted around these parts, and woe for those who disagree with it.”</i><br /><br />Now we are getting somewhere. Black and white reasoning (False Dichotomy Fallacy). Freedom is anarchy and nothing else but anarchy. Therefore freedom is evil, and thus totalitarian dictatorship is the only moral Good. QED.<br /><br />Further, “woe” to those who want to suppress the entirety of humanity under the moral Good of their totalitarian dictatorship. The poor dears are not allowed to suppress everyone else, purely due to evil freedom.<br /><br />Got it; we understand. Of course no one here has ever, ever advocated anarchy. Ever.<br /><br /><i>” Well, here is the thing: The one who has absolute freedom is the one who has no restriction on his behavior at all; the one who does whatever he wants. However, an action requires knowledge, will, and ability. The one who has absolute freedom must have complete knowledge, unparalleled ability and dominating will. And one cannot have the previously mentioned traits except if he was completely dispensed and self-sufficient, requiring nothing to learn, nor power to gain, since needing power or knowledge contradicts absolute freedom.”</i><br /><br />More false thinking based on freedom = anarchy. Repeat: no one here has ever advocated anarchy. So arguing against anarchy is a non-starter, a logical deviation from the conversation, a bona fide Red Herring Fallacy (unlike the non-fallacies you have used for avoidance).Stanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15754447145433452423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-30886859684019071952015-01-18T08:06:41.362-06:002015-01-18T08:06:41.362-06:00Nonetheless, humans have free will and ability eve...Nonetheless, humans have free will and ability even if they were limited and bounded, and they may lose a portion of this freedom when they are enslaved, bought, and sold, and yet they can be freed in the sense that they have the original freedom Allah gave them. Someone who is imprisoned or kidnapped can be freed in the same sense. A nation can colonize an other nation, and once the offending nation is gone they can be freed in the same sense. A despotism, such as an oligarchy (hm. sounds like good ol' US of A), can make whimsical rules toward its citizens, say legalize homosexuality because pseudo-freedom, and they can also be freed in the same sense.<br /><br /><br />But, the worst type of slavery is when someone willingly chooses to be a slave to a creation like him, where he prays for him, depends on him, appeals to him, must follow all his commands, etc. Even if you were the legislator, you wouldn't be free as you would be a slave to your whims.<br /><br /><i>Have you seen the one who takes as his god his own desire? Then would you be responsible for him?</i> <b>(Quran 25:43)</b><br /><br />There is no middle ground; you are either a slave to God, or a slave to whims.<br /><br /><br /><i>But if they do not respond to you - then know that they only follow their [own] desires. And who is more astray than one who follows his desire without guidance from Allah ? Indeed, Allah does not guide the wrongdoing people.</i> <b>(Quran 28:50)</b><br /><br />Therefore, the only way to get rid of slavery by humans, is to dedicate slavery to the creator of humans.<br />The Western understanding of freedom is something logically incoherent, contradicts facts that are in plain sight, and violates Theism.<br /><br /><br />“I was not born to be free---I was born to adore and obey.” ― C.S. LewisShadowWhoWalkshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10867251370894921001noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-45227867960579412422015-01-18T08:06:21.382-06:002015-01-18T08:06:21.382-06:00Theists believes in the existence of a Creator, an...Theists believes in the existence of a Creator, and they acknowledge that only Allah have complete knowledge, unparalleled ability, and fully self-sufficient; He alone is a doer of what He wills. However, humans are a creation, and since he is a creation he belongs to his creator, and who belongs to someone else is a slave. The truth about humans is that they are slaves, not free, but it is a slavery to the Creator rather than other creations. And slavery is represented in being judged by his actions, whether he wants it or not, by the will of his creator. True, humans have free will. And yes, he has ability. However, the Creator willed for us to have free will, and he allowed us to have ability; our will is not absolute, it is contingent on the will of our Creator.<br /><br />Since only the Creator wills what He wants, a human can want what is not, and be what he does not want. Just like the Creator made obligatory laws of the universe humans can't choose to violate, he made juridical laws that allows happiness in life and the hereafter, however they are optional in which the person can choose to follow or violate them. If a person does indeed follow them, he becomes a willing slave to the Creator, just like he is obligatorily one. If he doesn't, he becomes a slave to either his whims or the whims of other humans. Thus, the only way for "democracy" apologists to get rid of slavery from humans isn't by having everyone make up their own laws, but rather by devoting all slavery to Allah by follow all what He legislated.<br /><br />Hence, there is no way to get rid of being a slave to humans, except by being a slave to the creator of humans. Humans don't choose between being free or a slave; they have the choice between two slaveries. This is the reason Secular societies are associated with Atheism and Atheists being dominant; Secularism is inherently a rebellion to God, it is a call for some people to declare themselves as gods.<br /><br /><br />Those who follow their whims say:<br /><br /><br /><i>They said, "O Shu'ayb, does your prayer command you that we should leave what our fathers worship or not do with our wealth what we please? Indeed, you are the forbearing, the discerning!"</i> <b>(Quran 11:87)</b><br /><br /><br /><i>O my people, sovereignty is yours today, [your being] dominant in the land. But who would protect us from the punishment of Allah if it came to us?" Pharaoh said, "I do not show you except what I see, and I do not guide you except to the way of right conduct."</i> <b>(Quran 40:29)</b><br /><br /><br />However, the Quran says:<br /><br /><i>And they did not appraise Allah with true appraisal when they said, " Allah did not reveal to a human being anything."[...]</i> <b>(Quran 6:91)</b><br /><br /><br /><i>Does man think that he will be left neglected?</i> (Quran 75:36)<br /><br /><br /><i> Say, "Have you seen what Allah has sent down to you of provision of which you have made [some] lawful and [some] unlawful?" Say, "Has Allah permitted you [to do so], or do you invent [something] about Allah ?"</i> <b>(Quran 10:59)</b>ShadowWhoWalkshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10867251370894921001noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-77753127203576694932015-01-18T08:04:37.220-06:002015-01-18T08:04:37.220-06:00@Phoenix
By definition, anarchy is absolute freed...@Phoenix<br /><br />By definition, anarchy is absolute freedom. Therefore, you don't have absolute freedom as you claim.<br />As I previously said, Islam forbids spying therefore mentioning private behavior is either ignorant or dishonest; doing certain behaviors in public while expecting public approval for them and you might be in trouble.<br />There are slight deviations that are not considered heresy, but should be considered a personal preference rather than part of the religion, and there are deviations that violates tenets and are considered heresy.<br /><br />A Muslim society has five necessities to preserve:<br /><br />1- The ability to worship Allah<br />2- Life<br />3- The mind<br />4- Progeny<br />5- Property<br /><br />Pretty much all punishments are meant to protect those.<br /><br />The "hate Jews" claim is so tired. Do I really need to respond to that?<br /><br /><br />Before I finish composing a reply to Stan's long post, I'll clarify what is meant by freedom.<br /><br />Common Western thought today resemble Atheistic thought; simply because it was a reaction to the church and then to Christianity (pst. cause Christian law is a total failure), thus it was an attempt to find some non-religious philosophical basis for scientific, political, economic and social thought. This doesn't mean that every detail in Western thought is false, but that it is based on flimsy foundation.<br /><br />However, people often try to isolate this thought from its Atheistic environment, and pretend that it is a humanitarian thought that is valid for all time and place, and some theists even try to associate their religion with it, or at least claim that their religion doesn't contradict it. Of course, what I am talking about is the concept of "principled freedom" that is taken for granted around these parts, and woe for those who disagree with it.<br /><br />Well, here is the thing: The one who has absolute freedom is the one who has no restriction on his behavior at all; the one who does whatever he wants. However, an action requires knowledge, will, and ability. The one who has absolute freedom must have complete knowledge, unparalleled ability and dominating will. And one cannot have the previously mentioned traits except if he was completely dispensed and self-sufficient, requiring nothing to learn, nor power to gain, since needing power or knowledge contradicts absolute freedom.<br /><br />When "democracy" advocates state that a human being is not free if he obeys a law not of his own saying is true. However, they also admit that human beings must live in a group, and living in a group requires an authority that gives orders, prevents certain actions, and punishes. By the nature of laws, it can't be made by every single individual who forms a community, and even if individual contribution in a "democratic" system is more than in other forms of governments, the lawmaking remains the creation of a minority of individuals who are part of legislative councils. If the criteria of freedom is in law-making, then people are only slightly free, even in a "democracy". Even the ability to create laws doesn't guarantee freedom, even if the person can do as he wills. Why? Because the person becomes a slave to his desire, thus he can do whatever his whim orders; he can overeat, get hammered, get stoned, enter an orgy, etc. A Western isn't free; if he wasn't a slave to humans like him, then he is a slave to his desires. Thus, narcissistic self-worship is born.<br /><br />So what is the exit off of this slavery?<br /><br />Humans have no hope for the absolute freedom Western philosophies every so often mentions; everyone, including those who deny the self-evident truth of the existence of a Creator, admit that a human did not bring himself, nor sustains it, and that his knowledge is gained, and his knowledge is deficient, and that he depends on the continuation of his life on conditions he can't control. Light comes from the sun, water comes from the rain, vegetation comes from the earth, etc. How can he be free? How can he be independent on his position?ShadowWhoWalkshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10867251370894921001noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-19507325828016757622015-01-17T05:27:37.414-06:002015-01-17T05:27:37.414-06:00”You seem to be under the impression that: More fr...”<i>You seem to be under the impression that: More freedom = Better. That is fallacious; so the best system is anarchy? On what basis do you limit freedom</i>?”<br /><br />Yes,muslims fear freedom - they view it as anarchy.Freedom of thought,freedom of expression/freedom of religion and political freedom are terrifying concepts to a muslim.That's why Islam seeks to control every aspect of the adherent's life.How the person eats,drinks,sleeps,breaks wind,engage in coitus,dress,speaks,yawns,greets,whom to befriend and not,etc etc etc. are all mandated by Islamic scriptures,slight deviations are considered heresy and punishable.<br /><br />We also have to bare in mind that muslims have a different benchmark to moral principles than us.Whatever Muhammad forbade and permits is their yardstick.For example,eating a ham sandwich while drinking a beer is evil but hating jews is good.Phoenixhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02173422646774264502noreply@blogger.com