Extreme Muslims Should Be Stopped From Killing Infidels Because-

[David Sklansky]

A. God doesn't really demand they do those killings.

OR

B. Even if he does, they should be stopped (or they should stop themselves) anyway.

This question is of course for theists only.

[txag007]

A

[goodsamaritan]

I'm curious to see where you're going with this one

[Shadowrun]

B

[Lestat]

Why can't anyone take a shot at this?


A). can't be a good answer. If you were Muslim, and truly believed God required the killing of all infidels, it is perfectly logical to go about killing all infidels. Even if you believed in a different God that didn't demand those killings, it's your word of God against their's. So you couldn't logically make that case in a court of law.

I'm not sure B). makes sense either. To do so would be to go against your beliefs (if you are Muslim) and that's not logical. If you are not a Muslim, you have the same "your God's word against my God's word" problem.

Er, maybe you're right. The question should be for theists only.

[Carded]

A

And yes, If I was a muslim and I thought god wanted me to kill infidels, I would.

[Shadowrun]

[ QUOTE ]
Why can't anyone take a shot at this?


A). can't be a good answer. If you were Muslim, and truly believed God required the killing of all infidels, it is perfectly logical to go about killing all infidels. Even if you believed in a different God that didn't demand those killings, it's your word of God against their's. So you couldn't logically make that case in a court of law.

I'm not sure B). makes sense either. To do so would be to go against your beliefs (if you are Muslim) and that's not logical. If you are not a Muslim, you have the same "your God's word against my God's word" problem.

Er, maybe you're right. The question should be for theists only.

[/ QUOTE ]

It seemed to me that for B you had the option to stop him yourself, not necessarily that he had to do it by himself.

[Lestat]

Why A).? You have to show that extremist Muslim's beliefs are incorrect first.

[Lestat]

It wouldn't be logical for them to stop themselves, so the question is should YOU/WE stop them? Of course, I can quickly say the answer is a resounding "yes", because I don't think there are any such things as gods. I think it's all silly.

But what about other theists? Wouldn't they first have to show why their beliefs are correct and the Muslims aren't?

[goodsamaritan]

[ QUOTE ]

A). can't be a good answer. If you were Muslim, and truly believed God required the killing of all infidels, it is perfectly logical to go about killing all infidels. Even if you believed in a different God that didn't demand those killings, it's your word of God against their's. So you couldn't logically make that case in a court of law.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? Who said anything about a court of law?

[goodsamaritan]

[ QUOTE ]

But what about other theists? Wouldn't they first have to show why their beliefs are correct and the Muslims aren't?

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously they think their beliefs are correct even though they can't prove it logically like 2 + 2 = 4. Why do you think this would be difficult for them (in their minds)?

[MidGe]

Being an atheist, I will not answer the question. I would however like to refine it somewhat by asking if we should stop them by killing them as a preemptive measure based on possibly inaccurate intelligence?

[FortunaMaximus]

Interesting.

At what point does intent to stop override premediation? I don't think a court of law has defined that effectively, at least not in cases of self-defense.

So the means would be above the law. But is it above moral law? And should an individual really be making that determination?

[Lestat]

I was going to leave it at: "Can't logically make that case". I just thought court of law brought the point home better. The fact is, I don't see how the case can be logically made.

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

But what about other theists? Wouldn't they first have to show why their beliefs are correct and the Muslims aren't?

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously they think their beliefs are correct even though they can't prove it logically like 2 + 2 = 4. Why do you think this would be difficult for them (in their minds)?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because now they have to argue with people who are just as irrational as they are.

He has to not only explain why his God exists and is the right belief, but why the other person's God doesn't exist and why that person's idea of God is all wrong!

At least that's what should have to happen. You have two people who believe in a god. Who's to say one is right and the other is wrong?

My God says you should die. It says right here in the Koran. Prove me wrong.

[RJT]

A is True. Choose A.

For opinion on B, I’ll defer to Simone Weil (1909-1943), who was much smarter than I (a genius by most accounts) and had the Faith of a Saint, who in <u>Waiting For God</u> said:

[ QUOTE ]
If it were conceivable that in obeying God one should bring about one’s own damnation while in disobeying him one could be saved, I should still choose the way of obedience.

[/ QUOTE ]

Gotta go with one’s Faith. Thus, it becomes very important to understand what one’s Religion truly teaches. Fortunately, A is True and not B - in Christianity as well as in the Islamic Religions.


Here, the leaders of Islam are the real fanatics. Their silence is not condemning such acts and explaining to their followers that their Religion does not teach such garbage is more tragic than the suicide bombers killing innocents and themselves.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
Here, the leaders of Islam are the real fanatics. Their silence is not condemning such acts and explaining to their followers that their Religion does not teach such garbage is more tragic than the suicide bombers killing innocents and themselves.


[/ QUOTE ]

RJT,

It is only a phase in the revealed religion development. You could say they are exactly as to where christianity was when it had the same age. And in 2000 years, christianity will hopefully be where judaism is now! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Shadowrun]

[ QUOTE ]
A is True. Choose A.

For opinion on B, I’ll defer to Simone Weil (1909-1943), who was much smarter than I (a genius by most accounts) and had the Faith of a Saint, who in <u>Waiting For God</u> said:

[ QUOTE ]
If it were conceivable that in obeying God one should bring about one’s own damnation while in disobeying him one could be saved, I should still choose the way of obedience.

[/ QUOTE ]

Gotta go with one’s Faith. Thus, it becomes very important to understand what one’s Religion truly teaches. Fortunately, A is True and not B - in Christianity as well as in the Islamic Religions.


Here, the leaders of Islam are the real fanatics. Their silence is not condemning such acts and explaining to their followers that their Religion does not teach such garbage is more tragic than the suicide bombers killing innocents and themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]

If A was the true and thus only answer there would be no point of even asking the questions.
I don't ask if 2+2=4.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
A is True. Choose A.

For opinion on B, I’ll defer to Simone Weil (1909-1943), who was much smarter than I (a genius by most accounts) and had the Faith of a Saint, who in <u>Waiting For God</u> said:

[ QUOTE ]
If it were conceivable that in obeying God one should bring about one’s own damnation while in disobeying him one could be saved, I should still choose the way of obedience.

[/ QUOTE ]

Gotta go with one’s Faith. Thus, it becomes very important to understand what one’s Religion truly teaches. Fortunately, A is True and not B - in Christianity as well as in the Islamic Religions.


Here, the leaders of Islam are the real fanatics. Their silence is not condemning such acts and explaining to their followers that their Religion does not teach such garbage is more tragic than the suicide bombers killing innocents and themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not to mention that even if we accept your BOLD claim that A is true even in all interpretations (including the 'correct' one!) of Islam, surely you can imagine a religion where A is NOT true?

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
A. God doesn't really demand they do those killings.

OR

B. Even if he does, they should be stopped (or they should stop themselves) anyway.

This question is of course for theists only.

[/ QUOTE ]
B - I dont think religion is about ethics. I should act "the right way" irrespective of if god exists or not, and irrespective of whether he agrees with me.

(As an aside, I also think A is true of course, but it doesnt factor into my decision to try and stop them).

[moneyfaucet]

[ QUOTE ]
A. God doesn't really demand they do those killings.

OR

B. Even if he does, they should be stopped (or they should stop themselves) anyway.

This question is of course for theists only.

[/ QUOTE ]

It don't give a fk if you're a Muslim, a mully, a poker-playing Hebrew or a cck smoker, if you kill someone for a reason other than self-defense you should be punished.

[goodsamaritan]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

But what about other theists? Wouldn't they first have to show why their beliefs are correct and the Muslims aren't?

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously they think their beliefs are correct even though they can't prove it logically like 2 + 2 = 4. Why do you think this would be difficult for them (in their minds)?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because now they have to argue with people who are just as irrational as they are.

He has to not only explain why his God exists and is the right belief, but why the other person's God doesn't exist and why that person's idea of God is all wrong!

At least that's what should have to happen. You have two people who believe in a god. Who's to say one is right and the other is wrong?

My God says you should die. It says right here in the Koran. Prove me wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you're reading something into the question that isn't there. DS never asked how a non-Muslim theist would go about proving to a Muslim that he is wrong. He merely asked why those theists believe that stopping Muslims from killing indfidels is the right thing to do.

And to stop Muslims from killing infidels, you don't need to convince them they are wrong; you can kill them or imprison them.

[RJT]

TO VHAWK AND SHADOWRUN:

Oh, I am sorry. I thought the OP was asking for opinions from theists. I was giving mine.


Let me rephrase my answer then:

A: I don’t know.
B: I don’t know.

Thanks for correcting me to what the OP probably had in mind when he posed the questions.

RJT

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
TO VHAWK AND SHADOWRUN:

Oh, I am sorry. I thought the OP was asking for opinions from theists. I was giving mine.


Let me rephrase my answer then:

A: I don’t know.
B: I don’t know.

Thanks for correcting me to what the OP probably had in mind when he posed the questions.

RJT

[/ QUOTE ]

Was this sarcastic? It matters to my reply.

[Lestat]

But how do you know this RJT, unless you are thoroughly knowledgeable about the Koran? Christian teachings can be interpreted in many different ways as well. What you find to be a loose analogy, others might take quite literally.

Can you at least undersatnd why I think it would be so much better if people didn't believe in things they can't see or discern for themselves in any fashion?

[Mickey Brausch]

"A" is plainly wrong (see Lestat's posts for more) but, for the Christians who'll try to take refuge in "B", I have one word for you:

Isaac.

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
Can you at least undersatnd why I think it would be so much better if people didn't believe in things they can't see or discern for themselves in any fashion?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, under a wholly benevolent regime, this would work, as there would be oversight and allowance for freedom of thought and expression. The human element does not translate well to macroshifts in fundamental outlooks, so the principle is almost Utopian.

Mickey, only in a wholly homogenous system would such a progress work. The Laws would need to be encoded directly to DNA. Unless you mean something else.

[Lestat]

<font color="blue"> B - I dont think religion is about ethics. I should act "the right way" irrespective of if god exists or not, and irrespective of whether he agrees with me.
</font>

I don't understand. Aren't you acting "the right way" by doing what your god tells you to do? If you are a theist, what else could be more important?

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
TO VHAWK AND SHADOWRUN:

Oh, I am sorry. I thought the OP was asking for opinions from theists. I was giving mine.


Let me rephrase my answer then:

A: I don’t know.
B: I don’t know.

Thanks for correcting me to what the OP probably had in mind when he posed the questions.

RJT

[/ QUOTE ]

Was this sarcastic? It matters to my reply.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes.

[Shadowrun]

[ QUOTE ]
TO VHAWK AND SHADOWRUN:

Oh, I am sorry. I thought the OP was asking for opinions from theists. I was giving mine.


Let me rephrase my answer then:

A: I don’t know.
B: I don’t know.

Thanks for correcting me to what the OP probably had in mind when he posed the questions.

RJT

[/ QUOTE ]

Opinions are fine but i dont see how "A is True. Choose A." is much better than "I don't know."
What you wrote about option B was much more intresting.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A. God doesn't really demand they do those killings.

OR

B. Even if he does, they should be stopped (or they should stop themselves) anyway.

This question is of course for theists only.

[/ QUOTE ]
B - I dont think religion is about ethics. I should act "the right way" irrespective of if god exists or not, and irrespective of whether he agrees with me.

(As an aside, I also think A is true of course, but it doesnt factor into my decision to try and stop them).

[/ QUOTE ]

Here again you suggest that you don't believe God is the Ultimate. You also suggested in the other thread (must have been a typo) that you were only 5% certain of God's existence.

Are you sure you're a theist?

In terms of this, if God isn't the source of goodness, what is? Wouldn't that "thing," even if it is only a set of fundamental laws, be greater than God? And therefore wouldn't God, no matter how good he is, be demiurgic?

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
TO VHAWK AND SHADOWRUN:

Oh, I am sorry. I thought the OP was asking for opinions from theists. I was giving mine.


Let me rephrase my answer then:

A: I don’t know.
B: I don’t know.

Thanks for correcting me to what the OP probably had in mind when he posed the questions.

RJT

[/ QUOTE ]

Opinions are fine but i dont see how "A is True. Choose A." is much better than "I don't know."
What you wrote about option B was much more intresting.

[/ QUOTE ]


Shadow,

Ok, let’s start over. The OP asks a question to theists. He wants to know what we think (believe) about x or if x is not true, then what do we think of y. He isn’t asking us what is the correct answer. He knows if there actually is a correct answer (that if there is indeed a God and that said God wants something), that no one knows that answer for sure.

One can have a belief about what the correct answer is - or perhaps more accurately stated - one can have a belief in how one understands one’s own Faith. In my post I was using Faith (to the theists) and Opinion (to the atheist) synonymously.

Getting back to my answer -

My understanding of my own Faith is that A is true. I wrote that as: A is True. Choose A. I could have said, I understand my Faith to be (that my Religions teaches and/or I read my Religion as saying) that A is True. Choose A.

If I think A is true, then B becomes moot.

I did answer B anyway since I think the OP is looking to see how folk of Faith view both sides of the equation.

Btw, MickeyBrausch’s post is correct regarding B for Christians (and Jews, too). The OP’s decision regarding B is referenced in the Bible (the Old Testament) in the story of Abraham and Isaac. Abraham did in fact choose to obey God - he was going to sacrifice his own son, Isaac , per God’s command.

In talking about B, I chose to quote Simone Weil instead of referencing Abraham. Same idea.

Regarding A (or B for that matter) and “I don’t know”. Of course, the correct and only correct answer to both is “I don’t know”. Obviously, the OP knows that and isn’t looking for the correct answer, but is looking for what theists think (opinions - or beliefs) .

Hope my post make more sense to you now.


RJT


p.s. To Stat, I will get back to you on your question to me (about what I think Islam says or doesn't say) when I get caught up with my life. I pulled an “all-nighter” last night in our home game.

[KUJustin]

Why is no one choosing both?

They should be stopped because God isn't telling them to do that, and if he were they should still be stopped.

If God told me to kill someone I'd expect people to try to stop me, because how are they to know that he really told me to do that? I'd also expect to be punished, so what?

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
But how do you know this RJT, unless you are thoroughly knowledgeable about the Koran? Christian teachings can be interpreted in many different ways as well. What you find to be a loose analogy, others might take quite literally.

Can you at least undersatnd why I think it would be so much better if people didn't believe in things they can't see or discern for themselves in any fashion?

[/ QUOTE ]

Stat,

[ QUOTE ]
Can you at least understand why I think it would be so much better if people didn't believe in things they can't see or discern for themselves in any fashion?

[/ QUOTE ]

“…it would be better…” for whom, for what, or better than what? If there is no God or at least something going on after we “die” (as science currently understands death of the human body), then there is no “better”. It’s all dribble. Nothing really “matters”. (To me at least - [censored] it all). If this is as good as it gets, then who cares? (I ask that rhetorically. Others obviously care. But, I don’t.) Believe what you want, don’t believe anything - -there is no “better”.

But to answer your question, yes, I understand that you think that way; and I respect that opinion of yours.

Regarding the discerning for themselves part: Those of us who choose a life of Faith or choose to walk down the path in search for a life of Faith all have to discern for ourselves. But, there are levels of understanding one’s Religion, just like there are levels of understanding math. Some stop at simple arithmetic. The more one advances in Mathematics, the more complicated things become. It is my understanding that there is stuff going on in mathematics/physics (string theory, for example? ) that is just developing. No one really actually knows what they are on the verge of; but, they know they are on some uncharted territory. (If my example is wrong, then ignore the example and just go with the idea I am saying.) Like Science, Religion is not static.

What I am getting at is that there are levels of understanding Religions. This is no different than any field of study. One can try to discern things for themselves. But, to understand things more fully, people need to study/learn with others. This includes the Bible and the Koran.

The fanatics we are talking about must have a very primitive understanding of the Koran. Do I know this for sure you ask? No. In fact, I know very little about Islam. But, lets think about it.

If this is what the Koran actually teaches - -that all infidels should be killed, then why aren’t a lot more Muslim leaders talking this talk? I have yet to hear any Muslim Cleric who has an iota of intelligence say, "The Koran says to kill the infidels". It is a handful of zealous Muslims who think this and they don’t seem to be the brightest bulbs on the tree. (Although, I have always said that, tragically, 9/11 was quite ingenious. - Many criminals are quite ingenious, too. Doesn’t make them geniuses or right to do what they did, though.)

Now, let’s, for the sake of discussion, assume that the Koran does indeed say that all infidels should be killed. Then every Muslim should go around killing every Christian, Jew, Atheists, etc. No Muslim should ever be without some type of weapon to kill at any opportunity. A Muslim should walk up behind any infidel on any street and simply kill that person. What’s with all the covert, planned out, suicide bombing nonsense? Just get it on Muslims. Let’s go diamond dogs - let’s see some actual genocide.

Muslims want to rock their religion? Let’s get it on. I am game (as a Catholic as well as a plain ol’ infidel.) Why aren’t the clerics calling for all-out genocide of all infidels? Because either 1)they got no real faith, 2)they got no balls, or 3)the Koran doesn’t say to kill the infidels.

Numbers 1 &amp; 2 ring false to me. #3 Seems to be the most logical answer. But, I like I said, I really don't know much about Islam.

RJT

[Lestat]

<font color="blue"> “…it would be better…” for whom, for what, or better than what? If there is no God or at least something going on after we “die” (as science currently understands death of the human body), then there is no “better”. It’s all dribble. Nothing really “matters”. (To me at least - [censored] it all). If this is as good as it gets, then who cares? (I ask that rhetorically. Others obviously care. But, I don’t.) Believe what you want, don’t believe anything - -there is no “better”.</font>

C'mon RJT. This shocks me, especially coming from you. Surely your belief in God is forged on a much stronger foundation than the simple fact that you find "this is all there is", to be an intolerable reality for you!!?? If you believe in God, fine. But do it for evidentiary reasons other than admitting you are too weak to accept any other reality. Things are what they are. You don't form world view beliefs around wishes, hopes, and insecurities. I respect your opinions too, which is why I can't even believe you'd admit to this. But it's telling. I'm sure you're not the only one who finds this to be a most compelling reason for belief in gods and religion.

<font color="blue"> Regarding the discerning for themselves part: Those of us who choose a life of Faith or choose to walk down the path in search for a life of Faith all have to discern for ourselves. But, there are levels of understanding one’s Religion, just like there are levels of understanding math. Some stop at simple arithmetic. The more one advances in Mathematics, the more complicated things become. It is my understanding that there is stuff going on in mathematics/physics (string theory, for example? ) that is just developing. No one really actually knows what they are on the verge of; but, they know they are on some uncharted territory. (If my example is wrong, then ignore the example and just go with the idea I am saying.) Like Science, Religion is not static.

What I am getting at is that there are levels of understanding Religions. This is no different than any field of study. One can try to discern things for themselves. But, to understand things more fully, people need to study/learn with others. This includes the Bible and the Koran.

The fanatics we are talking about must have a very primitive understanding of the Koran. Do I know this for sure you ask? No. In fact, I know very little about Islam. But, lets think about it. </font>

Why would a god (if one exists), WANT you guys to be studying, delving, and prying to learn more and more about religion and god? Hasn't he already given you all you need to know? If he wants you to know more, he'll TELL you more! He'll give you signs, omens, etc., like he did in the good old days of Moses. For now, it seems to me that if there's a god, he's given you all the info he wants you to have. Further delving into understanding of God and religion I would think is an intrusion and would be considered an insult and offense to god. Doesn't it say in a holy book somewhere that God has already given you all you need? This should include knowledge about him and religion.

<font color="blue"> Muslims want to rock their religion? Let’s get it on. I am game (as a Catholic as well as a plain ol’ infidel.) Why aren’t the clerics calling for all-out genocide of all infidels? Because either 1)they got no real faith, 2)they got no balls, or 3)the Koran doesn’t say to kill the infidels. </font>

There is also a 4th possibility... For now, they have to live in the world. They need cooperation from non-Muslims. Also, such a plan would not work. If they went "diamond dog" as you say, they would be wiped out in very short order. There would be NO Muslims left! So it's possible they are biding their time.

I don't want to get too far into politics, but I find it very curious to say the least, that more Muslims clerics are not denouncing these radicals. Oh sure, they're paying lip service here and there, but only when they have to. If it really weren't in the Koran to kill all infidels, then these Muslims should be in uproar over what their brothers are doing in the name of their religion! It should be a disgrace! But I don't see them caring all that much. Do you?

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
C'mon RJT. This shocks me, especially coming from you. Surely your belief in God is forged on a much stronger foundation than the simple fact that you find "this is all there is", to be an intolerable reality for you!!?? If you believe in God, fine. But do it for evidencial reasons other than admitting you are too weak to accept any other reality. Things are what they are. You don't form world view beliefs around wishes, hopes, and insecurities. I respect your opinions too, which is why I can't even believe you'd admit to this. But it's telling. I'm sure you're not the only one who finds this to be a most compelling reason for belief in their religion.

[/ QUOTE ]


Well, it worked for Kierkegaard. (angst, despair, leap of faith).

But, anyway:

My starting point is this: I cannot imagine the Universe not having a beginning. If it had a beginning we get to the prime mover thing. I start from there. Or

There is some other type of life we can’t comprehend at this point in time. I’ll use the analogy of the body and the mind. We can touch and feel the body. The mind - well , wtf? The mind is really “other worldly”. (Not sure if this paragraphs makes sense. I might have to explain it differently.) There is something more out there - I think, I believe. I start from there.


And if I am totally off on my thinking - my starting points - that this is all there is, then I am saying, “Ok, fine”. But, there is no “better”. Better for whom or what. What is your metric? Whatever it is, I am sure that even if I agreed with it (doubtful) some one else won’t. Who decides?

[ QUOTE ]
Why would a god (if one exists), WANT you guys to be studying, delving, and prying to learn more and more about religion and god? Hasn't he already given you all you need to know? If he wants you to know more, he'll TELL you more! He'll give you signs, omens, etc., like he did in the good old days of Moses. For now, it seems to me that if there's a god, he's given you all the info he wants you to have. Further delving into understanding of God and religion I would think is an intrusion and would be considered an insult and offense to god. Doesn't it say in a holy book somewhere that God has already given you all you need? This should include knowledge about him and religion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, Religion can be as simple as arithmetic or as complex as quantum physics. My Religion (as you know, Catholicism) can be very simple: Do two things: Love God and Love your Neighbor. That’s it. Do it and poof, you get to Heaven. Really that’s all one has to do.


Or one can get a Masters or Ph. D. in some branch of Theology. One can spend a lifetime trying to decipher the whole Bible. I like to learn. I am not even close to being a scholar (took one master level course in Christology). But, I am curious.

I want to know how Jesus “…[on]the third day rose again according to the Scriptures. And ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of the Father, and shall come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, of whose Kingdom there shall be no end. …” . I want to know what that means in the context of what we know about science today. It cannot be thought by today’s mind the same as the mind of folk 2000 years ago. Yet, I believe it is true and that it is not a metaphor.


[ QUOTE ]
There is also a 4th possibility... For now, they have to live in the world. They need cooperation from non-Muslims. Also, such a plan would not work. If they went "diamond dog" as you say, they would be wiped out in very short order. There would be NO Muslims left! So it's possible they are biding their time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then they are simply hypocrites. Unless the Koran says, to bide your time, cooperate with the infidels until you can wipe them out. (I find this highly unlikely.) What difference does it make if there are NO Muslims left? If they all died as Martyrs what difference does that make? Unless their task is to convert the infidels. But, I thought the assumption here is that the Koran says to kill the infidels.


[ QUOTE ]
I don't want to get too far into politics, but I find it very curious to say the least, that more Muslims clerics are not denouncing these radicals. Oh sure, they're paying lip service here and there, but only when they have to. If it really weren't in the Koran to kill all infidels, then these Muslims should be in uproar over what their brothers are doing in the name of their religion! It should be a disgrace! But I don't see them caring all that much. Do you?

[/ QUOTE ]

That was my point. This sin of omission (that David S. loathes - as do I)is worse than the acts themselves. That is what I said - the Clerics who say nothing are the real fanatics. They know the Koran does not say these things. Their hatred for us infidels must outweigh their love for their fellow Muslims. So, the leaders remain silent and let them go off and kill themselves with suicide bombs.

[StregaChess]

This is a very slippery question.

If “A” the sovereign will of God can be known.
If “B” God’s will is irrelevant to man’s desires.

Neither of these are a happy place for theists.

This reminds me of the old question “Can God Make a Rock So Big He Can't Move It?” deemed to be nonsensical and thus rejected by theologians.

So if I can’t choose “A” or “B” that leaves a yet to be determined “C” which often takes the form of:

C. Extreme Muslims should be put to death by God fearing Christians

Works for me…..

[Lestat]

<font color="blue">I cannot imagine the Universe not having a beginning. </font>

You're certainly not alone here. Neither can I. Nor can I imagine a time of nothingness before the universe. So why aren't YOU an atheist? I'm kidding, but you see my point. Plugging in a god does nothing to solve these types of problems. In fact, it complicates and ADDS to the them! If you can't imagine a universe without a beginning, how can you imagine a god without a beginning? Now you have to account for where god came from, and who made that which made god, and that, which made that, which made god, and so on.

So we're more alike than you think. We only split at the point where you're willing to pluck something out of thin air and plug that in as the answer to something which you cannot know.

<font color="blue"> The mind is really “other worldly”. </font>

Again, what perplexes you so is that which you don't understand. I'm sure I've recommended, "How the Mind Works", by Steven Pinker. An excellent book and very interesting read. But again, just because we don't understand something doesn't mean we just pick an answer out of a magic hat and call it a day. I'm perplexed by the mind as well. Even neuro-surgeons don't fully understand how our minds work. They can't yet explain exactly why we seem to have a sense of self. But that's ok. They're working on it and hopefully one day they will have an answer. In the meantime, the human brain is the most complicated thing we know of in the entire universe! Give 'em a break and give yourself a break for not understanding the human mind yet.

<font color="blue"> Love God and Love your Neighbor. That’s it. Do it and poof, you get to Heaven. </font>

Whoa. Are you forgetting I was raised Catholic? From what I recall there was much more to it than that. You have to genuinely believe that Jesus was the Son of God and was born to a virgin. You have to genuinely believe He performed miracles. You have to genuinely believe He arose from the dead after 3 days. And that's just the tip of the iceberg! There are many other things the bible asks you to believe in order to get into the kingdom of Heaven. Am I wrong on this?

<font color="blue"> I want to know how Jesus “…[on]the third day rose again according to the Scriptures. And ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of the Father, and shall come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, of whose Kingdom there shall be no end. …” . I want to know what that means in the context of what we know about science today. It cannot be thought by today’s mind the same as the mind of folk 2000 years ago. Yet, I believe it is true and that it is not a metaphor. </font>

Well, if you are intelligent and want to keep your faith, all I can tell you is, be careful... The more man learns from science, the less he needs gods and religions to explain things. I still say there was a time when it was perfectly logical for man to believe in the supernatual. He knew so little about the world he lived in. Volcanoes, earthquakes, tsunami's, even thunder and lightning at one point were huge wonders and poweful mysteries! When you consider that as little as just 600 years ago man thought the world was flat! It's no wonder he sought out gods to explain what was happening in his world!

What I'm saying is that the more you delve into legitimate science for you answers (while remaining unbiased), the more you realize there is no intervening god making the world go round. All you'll be left with is the existential first couple of question posed at the beginning of your post... "I cannot imagine the universe having a beginning", and we've (I?) have already explained why god isn't a good answer for this.

But I really do enjoy going back and forth with you RJT. You seem like a really nice down to earth guy. I bet we'd get along well over a drink. The fact is, if your beliefs make you comfortable and give you a better sense of meaning then I'm happy for you. I want you to be happy. I'm just more concerned about the truth. I don't mean that as an insult, just that I am happier facing the truth however harsh it may be. Some people don't want to know how bad it's going to be before the dentist starts working on them. I want to know! Give it to me straight and don't lie to me. I might not like it, but I'm more comfortable knowing what's really happening. Take care.

[Stu Pidasso]

A. seems the logical answer for a thiests who is not also an Islamist.

Stu

[The Dude]

They reason the rest of the world should stop them is obvious. We doubt they really were commanded to kill.

As a Christian, I would kill someone if I were truly 99.99% sure God had commanded me to. I'd be much, much, much more inclined to think I was going crazy than to think God actually made that command, though. And there is no one else on this earth that could convince me God had commanded them to kill someone. I'd have them locked up in a mental institute to stop them, no matter how much prior respect I had for them.

note: this is obviously a different context than a just war scenario.

[David Sklansky]

"As a Christian, I would kill someone if I were truly 99.99% sure God had commanded me to. I'd be much, much, much more inclined to think I was going crazy than to think God actually made that command, though."

Thus you couldn't ever be 99.9% sure.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
"As a Christian, I would kill someone if I were truly 99.99% sure God had commanded me to. I'd be much, much, much more inclined to think I was going crazy than to think God actually made that command, though."

Thus you couldn't ever be 99.9% sure.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hopefully so, but unfortunately, not historically!

[carlo]

[ QUOTE ]
"As a Christian, I would kill someone if I were truly 99.99% sure God had commanded me to. I'd be much, much, much more inclined to think I was going crazy than to think God actually made that command, though."

Thus you couldn't ever be 99.9% sure.



[/ QUOTE ]

The first two chapters of the Bhagavad Gita speak to this very thing. Arjuna doesn't appear to be commanded but he and Krishna have a discussion of matters concerning a war in which he would be expected to fight his friends and family.

http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/ANCINDIA/GITA.HTM

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A. God doesn't really demand they do those killings.

OR

B. Even if he does, they should be stopped (or they should stop themselves) anyway.

This question is of course for theists only.

[/ QUOTE ]
B - I dont think religion is about ethics. I should act "the right way" irrespective of if god exists or not, and irrespective of whether he agrees with me.

(As an aside, I also think A is true of course, but it doesnt factor into my decision to try and stop them).

[/ QUOTE ]

Here again you suggest that you don't believe God is the Ultimate. You also suggested in the other thread (must have been a typo) that you were only 5% certain of God's existence.

Are you sure you're a theist?

In terms of this, if God isn't the source of goodness, what is? Wouldn't that "thing," even if it is only a set of fundamental laws, be greater than God? And therefore wouldn't God, no matter how good he is, be demiurgic?

[/ QUOTE ]

bingo!

[Mickey Brausch]

[ QUOTE ]
As a Christian, I would kill someone if I were truly 99.99% sure God had commanded me to. I'd be much, much, much more inclined to think I was going crazy than to think God actually made that command, though. And there is no one else on this earth that could convince me God had commanded them to kill someone.

[/ QUOTE ]
I already gave you the secret word. Perhaps you need it in pictures:

http://www.rembrandtpainting.net/complete_catalogue/storia/images/abraham_and_son.jpg

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
…If you can't imagine a universe without a beginning, how can you imagine a god without a beginning?…

[/ QUOTE ]

I can’t. I choose (accept) it as my starting point. My Alpha.

Regarding my “mind and other worldly” thing. I had a feeling I was not expressing myself clearly. I was just saying that when I think of thinking, dreaming, subconscious, things of that sort, I think that there is more to our world than meets the eye.

I think that if you are correct - that science will one day be able to explain how the mind works - then we will find one of two things. That it works because of a starting point called God. (Here the starting point can go back to the beginning of time or whenever.) Or that it works some other way. Whatever that some other way is, then once man figures it out he should be able to re-create it. That is to say that man, at that point, should be able to create. This is the Omega. I don’t think that man will ever be able to create.

[ QUOTE ]
Love God and Love your Neighbor. That’s it. Do it and poof, you get to Heaven.

Whoa. Are you forgetting I was raised Catholic? From what I recall there was much more to it than that. You have to genuinely believe that Jesus was the Son of God and was born to a virgin. You have to genuinely believe He performed miracles. You have to genuinely believe He arose from the dead after 3 days. And that's just the tip of the iceberg! There are many other things the bible asks you to believe in order to get into the kingdom of Heaven. Am I wrong on this?

[/ QUOTE ]

Jesus said there are 2 commandments: Love God and Love your neighbor. If there are only two commandments, then Christianity, stripped down, is just what I said. It gets complicated with all the other stuff because, for example, how can you love God without knowing what Christianity says God is? But, if one wants to just love God without trying to think it all out - it can be fairly simple.

[ QUOTE ]
I want to know how Jesus “…[on]the third day rose again according to the Scriptures. And ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of the Father, and shall come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, of whose Kingdom there shall be no end. …” . I want to know what that means in the context of what we know about science today. It cannot be thought by today’s mind the same as the mind of folk 2000 years ago. Yet, I believe it is true and that it is not a metaphor.

Well, if you are intelligent and want to keep your faith, all I can tell you is, be careful... The more man learns from science, the less he needs gods and religions to explain things…

[/ QUOTE ]

And I say to you Stat, be careful too. I posted a long time ago - what is it that you (not you personally) think you know? Science has a lot to say. Just don’t assume it says more than it does. I just think that, now more then ever, Science seems pretty cocky.

[ QUOTE ]
…But I really do enjoy going back and forth with you RJT. You seem like a really nice down to earth guy. I bet we'd get along well over a drink….

[/ QUOTE ]

This will happen sometime down the road. I don’t know where or when. But, it will (and perhaps you can teach me how to make $$$ playing hold ‘em. I am an idiot there, too, as well as here on SMP.)

RJT

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
B - I dont think religion is about ethics. I should act "the right way" irrespective of if god exists or not, and irrespective of whether he agrees with me.

(As an aside, I also think A is true of course, but it doesnt factor into my decision to try and stop them).

[/ QUOTE ]

Here again you suggest that you don't believe God is the Ultimate.

[/ QUOTE ]
I suggest that God isnt the ultimate source of morality - I think he is bound by these in the same way I think he is bound by logic. I "define" god as the creator of the universe, able to do everything it is possible to do and able to know everything it is possible to know (suggesting his knowledge and power are limited by logic). I also believe he is benevolent and I dont see how I can assign this label to him without assuming (as I do) that the concept of morality exists independantly of him.

[ QUOTE ]
You also suggested in the other thread (must have been a typo) that you were only 5% certain of God's existence.

[/ QUOTE ]
It wasnt a typo - I believe he exists but when I evaluate my level of certainty I acknowledge that I have zero objective evidence and some fairly flimsy subjective evidence. It seems quite likely to me I am mistaken which is the motivation behind my reading and asking atheists to criticise my position. Although this seems contradictory, I dont think it is if you think about it...

[ QUOTE ]
Are you sure you're a theist?

[/ QUOTE ]
Again, I am quite sure I am a theist (in that I believe certain things) I am very unsure that I am correct. Although strange, I dont think this is nonsensical, though I'm willing to hear otherwise.

[ QUOTE ]
In terms of this, if God isn't the source of goodness, what is?

[/ QUOTE ]
I dont know, same as I dont know the "source" of modus ponens.

[ QUOTE ]
Wouldn't that "thing," even if it is only a set of fundamental laws, be greater than God?

[/ QUOTE ]
I dont see existence as a hierarchy. If your statement follows then I have always been claiming logic is "greater" than god. I really dont though, I just think logic applies to god - not that there is a scale of everything, with logic at the top and god underneath.

[siegfriedandroy]

[ QUOTE ]
A. God doesn't really demand they do those killings.

OR

B. Even if he does, they should be stopped (or they should stop themselves) anyway.

This question is of course for theists only.

[/ QUOTE ]

i agree wholeheartedly with A - God indeed does not desire, yet justly despises, such killings. as for B, that they should be stopped despite God's approval, this assumes that
God was incorrect in approving the killing, and that we SHOULD (not sure why we should) act contrary to the wicked (at least what i believe in reality is truly wicked) god's command.

I believe A. B makes no sense to me, since there is nothing we SHOULD do contrary to God's will - God will never command something that is not 'ultimately GOOD'- God is goodness

[madnak]

I guess that makes sense, but it's really a very unusual way of looking at things. I'm not quite sure what to make of it.

Regarding logic, if it applies to God then it must restrict him, no? Describe boundaries within which he must operate?

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
I guess that makes sense, but it's really a very unusual way of looking at things. I'm not quite sure what to make of it.

Regarding logic, if it applies to God then it must restrict him, no? Describe boundaries within which he must operate?

[/ QUOTE ]
I think so, yes. I dont think god can draw a square circle, make something both true and false or anything similar. I think this is implied within most theologians views of omni-whatever, although they may feel uncomfortable explicitly acknowledging there is a limit to what god can do.

[madnak]

Well, I had always seen it differently.

At any rate, the arguments for God based on his "ultimate ultimateness" can't apply in that case.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, I had always seen it differently.

At any rate, the arguments for God based on his "ultimate ultimateness" can't apply in that case.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree.