Re: The Concept of Eternal Damnation in Islam

"1MAN4ALL" <forahmad@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1150860999.069148.255800@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Tony Cox wrote:

Although not one myself,
I count many Atheists as my friends and I have never heard
anyone suggest that "science" provides some sort of yardstick
with which one can determine "right" from "wrong". What
can you possibly be thinking here?

I was using the term "right" and "wrong" in a very broad sense. For
example: atheistic philosophy based on scientific theories.

What broad sense might that be? Anyway, perhaps
an example here might be useful, because I've still no
idea what you are talking about.

Where you are on firmer ground is your assertion that
some "collective will" establishes what is "right" from what
is "wrong", but that argument can be made whether one
is an Atheist or not. For example, in Muslim societies,
morality is, unsurprisingly, aligned with Islamic teachings.
If the "collective will" wasn't closely aligned, the society
would not be Islamic in the first place.

A better way to put is to say that cherished values in Islamic
countries are ultimately based on Quran and Sunnah, whereas in the
West, it's essentially the Judeo-Christian tradition. Likewise, In
India, it's Hinduism. In some Far Eastern countries, it's Buddhism.

Not really. "Cherished values" aren't necessarily moral
imperatives, nor does correlation necessarily imply
causation. And the argument doesn't hinge on religious
belief. I could just as well have drawn an analogy with
a communist society. Somehow I think you've missed
the point I was making. Certainly, it was nothing to do
with asserting that all societies must base their values on
religion, much though I know you'd love to believe that!


I was simply making a subtle point that religion is almost a necessity
for the proper functioning of any state, no matter how secular, because
of two reasons:

1. Religion is the most efficient way in bringing large groups people
to a common set of ideals or moral values.
2. Religion keeps order when state institutions have failed or where
enforcement is no longer possible.

Its an interesting POV which I don't necessarily disagree
with. I was objecting to your absurd characterizations of
what you presume to be the Atheist position, that was all.

But now you bring it up, I think your assertion that "religion
is almost a necessity for the proper functioning of any state",
misses the mark. What is necessary is a common set of
values, be they religious or secular. Any set of shared values
is an efficient way to bring people together. Your second
point -- that Religion can substitute as a legal authority in
failed states -- would seem to be denied by simple observation
of what is going on in Iraq. In fact, religion is quite
obviously a catalyst for societal breakdown as the Sunni/Shia
split reemerges.


Many Atheists have no problem whatever in accepting what
(in the west) most would recognize as Christian teachings
as being a basis for morality. They would simply take issue that
the various strictures are divinely inspired.

My point was that even atheists need "Christian teachings" to
effectively govern. That's slightly different from what you are
suggesting.

Its completely different from what I am suggesting, and
obviously wrong. Hitler managed to effecitively govern
without "Christian teachings", didn't he? Tell me. Do you
ever test your assertions by comparing them to historical
events before you burp them out?


You frequently make
the mistake of thinking that just because most Westerners don't
profess much love for religion these days, that somehow we've
become a rudderless bunch of savages.

Nonsense. When did I ever say that Westerners are "savages?"

I exaggerated for effect, but you'll agree that it is a
common belief held by many Muslims. Without a
religious faith, humanity is rudderless in a sea of
temptation.


Far from it. The basic
teachings of Jesus are generally accepted by people who now
perhaps have little idea from whence they came.

I would say that they have accepted the teachings of Jesus, which, by
the way, included the clear instruction to give to Caesar what belongs
to him. "Caesar" has laid claim to everything, so when it suits them,
they follow Caesar.

It laid the basis for the separation of church and state.
You folks ought to try it some time.

The problem is that secularists themselves rely
on moral/religious principles of the majority to have a stable society.
For example, if a simple majority decides tomorrow that there is
nothing wrong with incest, what's stopping them? On what basis would
you prove them wrong?

Nothing is stopping them, and you can't prove it to be
"wrong" without an arbitrary appeal to authority in any case.

Now I know you'd assert that its "wrong" because Allah,
though Muhammad amanuensis, says it is wrong. Which,
I must say, leaves me very uneasy. Is it really the case that
the only reason you don't have sex with your children is your
belief that God would roast you in hell for eternity if you did?
Ought we to have the social services keep a watch on you
in case you fall off your doctrinal wagon? And if "fear of God"
is *not* the only reason why you don't sexually abuse your
children, what does it say about the basis for your own
personal morality?

LOL. I was using "incest" as an example; I could just as easily have
used homosexuality, euthanasia, polygamy, legalizing drugs etc.

That's fine. Lets stick with "incest" for now. It makes no
difference. Just something you might like to do but which
you hold back from because you believe it to be "wrong".

As
those are controversial, I didn't want to detract anybody. The reason
you are "uneasy" is because you know very well that unless a society
has some frame if reference against which moral issues can be tested,
just about any argument can be valid from a logical point of view.

Not at all. The reason I am "uneasy" is because of the basis
of your morality. Let me guide you though it, since you're again
having trouble following me. Its not a personal attack -- the
same point could be made against fundamentalist Christians
too.

You've asserted that morality comes from God and that
God has told you that incest is wrong. My "unease" comes
from the realization that -- if I am to take your words at
face value -- the only reason you're not off "buggering
your babes" is the certainty of an eternity having your
private parts mangled by demons. I fear I am talking to
a potential monster whose lust is only held in check by
faith, and were faith to vanish, your true character would
be revealed.

Now of course you might counter by claiming that you
couldn't possibly do such a thing, and believing you to be
a basically decent chap, I'd be quite prepared to accept
it. But that, of course, begs the question; "Why not?"
(assume for argument's sake you might be tempted by
incest, but it could just as well be fornication). With God
forsaken, where is your prohibition?

I'd argue that the prohibition comes from societal
conditioning that has nothing whatever to do with
religion. That's why people who loose their faith don't
rape and pillage. And, for that matter, that is why
atheists don't rape and pillage either!

So either you mean what you say, in which case I'm
uneasy and justifiably so, or morality doesn't really
come from God at all - what you might think is divinely
inspired (the 10 commandments, say), is actually
religion laying claim to pre-religious strictures for its
own purposes. Pick one, 1MAN.


Furthermore, how would you prevent a religious
majority from implementing its beliefs through democratic means, if
it's done without overt expressions of faith? In Turkey, they have a
military to decide and take care of that; here you have nothing.

Really. Have you not heard of the constitution?

According to Turkish constitution, the military decides when a
politician has crossed the boundary of "secularism." The military is
the guarantor of strict secularism.

"here you have nothing" with here (presumably) being the US.



In
other words, secularism and democracy, defined as rule of the majority,
may not always be compatible.

They aren't. Who suggested they were? I don't see it in
Warren's post.

You are claiming that democracy and secularism are NOT compatible?

I'm agreeing with you. They "may not always be compatible".


As for implementing religious beliefs, made "Kosha" by
elimination of the expression of faith, I suppose it depends
upon what those religious beliefs are. I can see Islamic
beliefs having quite a few hurdles to jump, at least in the US.

Well, if you mean Islamic laws (not "beliefs"), they have major hurdles
to jump even in Muslim countries!

Perhaps one reason is that no one can agree on what
they are. Whitness the 4 Sunni schools of jurisprudence.


We need to redefine "secularism," especially for the rest of the world;
it should not be absence of religion in politics but simply promoting
tolerance, recognizing that there is always another body of law that
exists in people's hearts, which cannot be taken away from them. Caesar
needs God and God appoints Caesar to have some order in society.

Like a Caliph, you mean? God appointing Bush, say? This is what
you want "secularism" to mean? Something completely opposite to
what it means right now? Really, 1MAN, your persistent attempts
the change the basis upon which intelligent discourse is based must
surely be an indication of some deep-seated psychosis!

LOL. By Caesar, I meant the government, not just the head of state.

I'm curious. Just how does God appoint a government?


Some time back I suggested you might be challenged were
you to read some of AJ Ayer's work. Really, if you have
time to read that old poser Kant, you should find time to
exercise your brain on something more relevant.

As I stated earlier, the problem with philosophy is the artificial web
of definitions in which you can get caught very easily and not find a
way. According to Ayer's philosophy, "The statement is literally
meaningful (it expresses a proposition) if and only if it is either
analytic or empirically verifiable." [I think that's similar to
1man4all Law No, 1 or 2... Ha, ha]. What that means is that everything
that you have stated is meaningless :-)

Well, I'm not necessarily agreeing with him, and what I
was trying to steer you towards was his reasoning on
morality and its basis. I think you'd find his position
quite a challenge.

Why are you so obsessed with claiming that all
morality comes from God in any case? Is it something
to do with the Qur'an being a complete roadmap for
human behaviour? (You might want to review my
recent exchange with "friend" before you answer).

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The Concept of Eternal Damnation in Islam
    ... I count many Atheists as my friends and I have never heard ... If the "collective will" wasn't closely aligned, the society ... I was simply making a subtle point that religion is almost a necessity ... the guarantor of strict secularism. ...
    (alt.religion.islam)
  • Re: A question to Stan
    ... swear to do their "duty to God" as a condition of playing in the ... Welcome to the world atheists live in, ... that's what people who want their religion to be dominant say. ... And what is YOUR opinion, ...
    (rec.scouting.issues)
  • Re: Channelled Scablands prove Biblical flood
    ... >> With God ... RELIGIOUS belief can cause damage to a society, ... The study counters the view of believers that religion is necessary to provide ... murder, suicide, sexual promiscuity and abortion. ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
  • Re: The Lord takes another ruinous heathen: D&D creator passes away
    ... You've said that God isn't real, ... shit, as atheists *always* are. ... admitting that you're just a troll, ... No major religion does so. ...
    (rec.games.frp.dnd)
  • Re: A question to Stan
    ... swear to do their "duty to God" as a condition of playing in the ... Welcome to the world atheists live in, ... that's what people who want their religion to be dominant say. ... atheists are suing for the government to be NEUTRAL ...
    (rec.scouting.issues)