The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > I Won't Read the Koran

I Won't Read the Koran

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 19
  7. 20
  8. 21
  9. Page 22
  10. 23
  11. 24
  12. 25
  13. ...
  14. 37
  15. 38
  16. 39
  17. All
...Continued

Again, I know you’ve said that this stuff is subjective by nature and outside the bounds of rationality, but when you enter a conversation effectively shouting, “Wait! Stop the presses! You’ve all got it wrong!”, you bear a burden of proof. You can’t just state something as fact, in an attempt to invalidate everything others have been saying, and then - when asked to justify your claims - run off and flip everyone the bird by claiming that you don’t have to because religion is a subjective thing.

It is dishonest to state as fact that which you cannot demonstrate.

As I’ve said several times before in the past, you can get around this by simply adding qualifiers to your claims such as, “I believe…”, “In my opinion...”, “The way I see it…” But you refuse to do this and so you bear a burden of proof.

<<Second, there IS a good reason: for many people, belief is a good and effective technique for coming closer to God (regardless whether the content of that belief is correct, incorrect or inaccurate).>>

This is not a good reason to belief in a God or follow a religion until this concept of 'coming closer to a God' can be demonstrated to be a valid concept.

<<All examples you or anyone else in this forum ever brought, were about some bad effects of schmeligions, not of religion.>>

You’re doing it all here again. You need to justify this claim.
Posted by AJ Philips, Monday, 27 October 2014 10:01:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear AJ Philips,

<<Islamic extremists believe that strapping explosives...What's to say they're not right?>>

OK, earlier I mentioned Jesus' words, but let me now address this from a different angle:

As there is nothing but God, the main obstacle that sets us apart from God is our ego, or selfishness: that faculty that produces the false experience and conviction that we are separate from others and otherness, having distinct and often opposing goals instead. We should therefore expect those more religiously-accomplished to have less (if any) of an ego.

Given that the guys you mentioned desire to enjoy the pleasures of heaven and the virgins therein, especially when evidenced by the fact that they run away when confronted by women-fighters, I can conclude in most likelihood that their motives are egoistic rather than religious.

<<shouting, “Wait! Stop the presses! You’ve all got it wrong!”, you bear a burden of proof.>>

I do not agree that the onus is on me to prove anything when I scream: "Stop hitting me, I'm innocent, it hurts!".

However, while there is no way anyone could produce a truly-objective proof, instead of being theologically nitpicky, let me produce a corollary, a practical definition which is 99.999% accurate, but good enough I think, to satisfy both yourself and most religious people:

** RELIGION is the war on [one's own] selfishness **

Accordingly, while this isn't a complete objective proof, it's a strong evidence to say for example: "If you agree that their motive is selfish, then you should agree that this priest who molests children isn't religious".

<<This is not a good reason to belief in a God or follow a religion until this concept of 'coming closer to a God' can be demonstrated to be a valid concept.>>

But if you accept that overcoming selfishness is a valid concept, then it can be shown that in most people, belief in God, as well as other techniques commonly employed by religion, are likely to result in reducing selfishness.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Monday, 27 October 2014 1:14:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Yuyutsu,

Regarding your alternate explanation as to why your method of coming closer to God is the right one (and not the jihadist’s), it relies upon some (as of yet) unsupported assertions. It assumes that there is nothing but God (when no justification for this additional and unnecessary layer (i.e. God) to everything has been provided); it assumes that the main obstacle that sets us apart from this God is our ego or selfishness; it assumes that ego produces a false experience and conviction that we are separate from others and otherness.

You haven't yet demonstrated that this God exists (or in your case, "doesn't exist"), so to making such claims is a bit premature as you have not yet supported the premise.

Your entire theology just seems like one big exercise in humility with unnecessary pantheistic supernatural elements for padding.

<<I do not agree that the onus is on me to prove anything when I scream: "Stop hitting me, I'm innocent, it hurts!".>>

When your method of screaming such things involves a positive claim, you absolutely have the burden of proof.

<<Accordingly, while this isn't a complete objective proof, it's a strong evidence to say for example: "If you agree that their motive is selfish, then you should agree that this priest who molests children isn't religious".>>

Yes, but only if you could demonstrate that religion is indeed “the war on [one's own] selfishness”. Religion is a lot of different things to a lot of different people. So, again, why should I accept your idea of what constitutes true religion over the jihadist's?

You can't answer an assertion with more assertions.
Posted by AJ Philips, Tuesday, 28 October 2014 8:25:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Before you say it, Yuyutsu, I know you don't think God is an additional layer to everything, but that he is indeed everything. My point is that you have added a concept that serves no purpose and are adding an unnecessary label.
Posted by AJ Philips, Tuesday, 28 October 2014 8:34:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear AJ Philips,

Actually, God isn't a layer; everything; a concept; or a label.

Never mind, by providing the corollary (or near-corollary, which is good enough for practical purposes), I already absolved you of the need to discuss God.

I still mention God, mainly because that's the language that me and my friends are used to speak among ourselves and inspires us to rise above the mundane and I write to them as well and to many others who may be reading this thread, but I'll try not to bother you with it. If I make a positive claim, then it's because it's so and I hope that it rings a bell in other readers, not because I expect you to believe in it.

Whatever me and my friends are doing, there is no need for you to understand, agree or believe, but as you ask "Hey guys, what are you doing there?", I gave you the alternate explanation which doesn't involve any terms you don't like: "We are working on getting rid our selfishness".

Now if you are open enough to put aside what religious people say or the symbolism they use and instead look at what they actually practice, you will find that it all comes to that - trying to get rid of selfishness - sometimes successfully, sometimes not as much, but the intention to do so runs as a clear thread in the teachings of all religions.

You would be right to claim that we are not being rational, including in our wish to rid ourselves of selfishness, but as I explained earlier, neither are you, nor anyone else: we all make axiomatic assumptions which can never be proved.

What is left is about living together with respect.

My starting point was, that using the word 'religion' which is dear to us because we used it for 1000's of years to describe what we strive to achieve in life, to describe the vices of dysfunctional organisations (albeit ones that were initially created for the furtherance of our goal to rid ourselves of our selfishness), is disrespectful.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Wednesday, 29 October 2014 12:52:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
For anybody interested in the topic of this thread, here's an interesting verse, probably a very early one:

109: The Disbelievers

109:1 Say: O disbelievers!
109:2 I worship not that which ye worship;
109:3 Nor worship ye that which I worship.
109:4 And I shall not worship that which ye worship.
109:5 Nor will ye worship that which I worship.
109:6 Unto you your religion, and unto me my religion.

Later verses may be more exciting, more to the point.

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Wednesday, 29 October 2014 7:54:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 19
  7. 20
  8. 21
  9. Page 22
  10. 23
  11. 24
  12. 25
  13. ...
  14. 37
  15. 38
  16. 39
  17. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy