An FYM Poll

[melon]

I've also talked to a friend at work about the Koran. He talks and acts in a modern way but when he proceeded to tell me in a very calm, and in an as matter of fact way, how we don't need Democracy because Islam is a holistic political and religious system and Sharia law is all we need I couldn't believe what he said. I mean if you don't like Democracy why immigrate to Canada? He's from Pakistan and it technically is supposed to be a democracy so I think he's disgusted with the democratic example he has seen and yearns for an end to it.

And that's the problem. Pakistan really isn't a democracy, as much as it is a corrupt plutocracy dominated by dynastic politics. One gets the sense that Musharraf took over Pakistan for just this reason in 1999, but, regardless of his intentions--good, bad, or otherwise, it is still as much of a dynastic plutocracy as before.

I think the biggest problem is that many people think that, as long as you hold elections, you're a "democracy" and all is well. Bush certainly fueled that notion with Iraq, most recently, which has probably left any number of Iraqis yearning for the "security" of dictatorship again, even though a true democracy would be better. The added problem I think many people have not considered is the fact that we're trying to transplant democracy, as a hallmark institution of Western Civilization, into Islamic Civilization, which has absolutely no tradition in democracy whatsoever and appeals to Platonic, Aristotelian, or Lockean ideals are likely an exercise in futility, at this point. Granted, there is Turkey, which is probably our only example of Western and Islamic Civilizations successfully meeting, but Turkey had made a conscious decision to be "Western" without prodding from the West, so I'm not sure that they count entirely.

Nonetheless, if the goal would be to educate those on the virtues of Western Civilization, I'd argue that we've failed in educating most "natives" of the West, let alone outside civilizations with completely different cultural and historical traditions. Our tendency to "dumb down" discourse to appeal to mass audiences, rather than aiming to educate, has reached a fairly troubling impasse presently.

 

[anitram]

Just a few questions though —�What's a good life? What's the standard? What if a higher power reached out to us and we don't take his hand —�would you really just want him to sort it out in the end?

I think we have a pretty decent guide within us for what a good life is.

I don't think that the answer to that depends on whether you go to Church on Sunday. Frankly the standard set by a lot of Christians is not one I'm interested in anyway.

If there is a God out there, I feel absolutely comfortable with him sorting us all out. I am happy and at peace with how I've lived my life, that is what is important to me in the end. I lived through a lot, I contributed a lot, I saw and did cool things. If it makes you feel better, you can assume that people who have lived good lives have accepted the "hand" in a different way than you have, perhaps subconsciously.

But truly, asking me these questions isn't going to change the way I feel. I think I have lived a better and fairer life since leaving organized religion. I have absolutely no intention of going back, and truly I can tell you, I am missing nothing. I remember seeing an episode of Real Time and some Christian told Bill Maher that they can't NOT preach because it's like seeing a hungry person by the side of the road, wouldn't you feed them? And his response was "why can't you understand that I'm not hungry?" I tried it both ways, and concluded that there is absolutely no extra or better morality derived from religious belief.

Regardless, every once in a while I get the "but don't you want to be saved?" question. I mostly chuckle.

 

[toscano]

I guess it all depends on if there's a God. If there is, it's not far-fetched to believe in miracles, resurrection, virgin birth, etc.

If I could believe in the existence of god, certainly it wouldn't be a stretch to believe the rest of the stuff, and that's where you just have to have faith, which I don't have.

I agree with actually walking out Jesus' message. I'm trying to do so. It's not easy, but it's been a good path for me to take.

it's a good blueprint for christians and non-christians alike.

where do you stand on old vs. new testament in terms of "did it happen" ?

Red Sea parting, manna from heaven, nebuchadnezzer and Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, Abraham giving up his son, etc.

Seems on the more contentious issues that it's old testament 'justification' that's used, certainly when I pop on KKLA or Rush Limbaugh to hear 'opposing' viewpoints that helping the poor is last on anyone's agenda.

 

[purpleoscar]

Nonetheless, if the goal would be to educate those on the virtues of Western Civilization, I'd argue that we've failed in educating most "natives" of the West, let alone outside civilizations with completely different cultural and historical traditions. Our tendency to "dumb down" discourse to appeal to mass audiences, rather than aiming to educate, has reached a fairly troubling impasse presently.

Well remember that Bush was trying to compare the U.S. experience with Japan to the one with Iraq. I think he's given up that stance when he got Petraeus in but he still thinks all humans want freedom and wants time to justify him. That's why there is a push to get the handover in Iraq ASAP so they can put more forces into Afghanistan to finish the job. Obama appears intelligent enough to continue the war to finish it off so the reforms aren't all half-baked and a self-fullfilled prophecy is created by leaving too soon.

Certainly tribalism is harder to deal with than Nationalism in regards to change so I do see what you're saying. Having women learn to read and write is a help and it may be messy and awkward for the future of both countries but there is hope that the institutions will be something they want to fight for. A hope not certainty. There once was a time a LONG time ago where some Muslims flirted with science, economics and Greek philosophy but that looks like it needs to be reintroduced again.

I have an Afghani co-worker and he's split between Bush and Ahmadinejad (what a set of opposites). He likes Ahmadinejad more now because of his perceived strength and since he's Islamic he's okay with Iran's idea of democracy which is basically Sharia law and no opposition parties that aren't Muslim. Of course my co-worker doesn't move to Iran, he lives in Canada.

He complained that the U.S. didn't invest enough money in Afghanistan during the Soviet invasion. Now that there's more money being put in there, schools built, constitution, and aid it will be interesting to see if they just keep complaining no matter what the U.S. does. If at worst Afghanistan and Iraq remove democracy and push for dictatorship you will see the U.S. just dropping bombs from afar or invading countries to remove dictators but jumping ship ASAP to avoid longer commitments. The pro-democracy types in those two countries better start defending their rights because the U.S. will be cynical and not help anymore just like after Somalia and the lack of intervention in Rwanda and Darfur. The U.S. mostly has an isolationist streak and can easily go back to that when disappointed with the rest of the world.

My co-worker also likes The Kite Runner which is more modernistic so I see action not matching words and a self divided between following the "great leader" mentality vs. the hunger for modern freedom. When people get freedom they realize that things aren't handed to them anymore and some people start pining again for a leader to save them. My family originated in South America and we know the eternal cycle of Chavez types that keep making false promises and the cynicism of the people who know that they hate the top dog but when given the chance to join the top dog they can be as corrupt as those they hate.

I just want the Bush experiment to be completed so we can see the results. There has been progress since the surge and I want to see a completion of the mission before I get totally cynical. Not all the insitutions have passed yet into law like private property rights so there is still more the government has to modernize to achieve good results.

 

[melon]

There once was a time a LONG time ago where some Muslims flirted with science, economics and Greek philosophy but that looks like it needs to be reintroduced again.

And that may be an insurmountable goal. For one, these Muslims, mostly the Mu'tazili, although Averroës was part of the Maliki school (which still exists today), were effectively "Westerners," if we are to categorize by civilization. Nonetheless, the Mu'tazili, who rediscovered ancient Greek philosophy, integrated it with Islam, and transmitted it to Christian Europe through Islamic Spain to St. Thomas Aquinas, are wholly reviled in Islam today, and any attempts to "Westernize" Islam is likely going to evoke comparisons to them. Even Averroës, considered by many to be the founding father of secularism, struggled and lost against Algazel, the Persian Islamic philosopher who is probably the philosophical founding father of the Islamic Civilization and its revulsion against the modern world that we see today.

In other words, even if earlier Muslims were inclined towards those hallmarks of Western Civilization, the fact that they are effectively part of a different civilization than present-day Islamic Civilization makes it much more difficult to affect change. They are basically as much "outsiders" as the rest of us are to them.

 

[purpleoscar]

And that may be an insurmountable goal. For one, these Muslims, mostly the Mu'tazili, although Averroës was part of the Maliki school (which still exists today), were effectively "Westerners," if we are to categorize by civilization. Nonetheless, the Mu'tazili, who rediscovered ancient Greek philosophy, integrated it with Islam, and transmitted it to Christian Europe through Islamic Spain to St. Thomas Aquinas, are wholly reviled in Islam today, and any attempts to "Westernize" Islam is likely going to evoke comparisons to them. Even Averroës, considered by many to be the founding father of secularism, struggled and lost against Algazel, the Persian Islamic philosopher who is probably the philosophical founding father of the Islamic Civilization and its revulsion against the modern world that we see today.

In other words, even if earlier Muslims were inclined towards those hallmarks of Western Civilization, the fact that they are effectively part of a different civilization than present-day Islamic Civilization makes it much more difficult to affect change. They are basically as much "outsiders" as the rest of us are to them.

We will have to see as events unfold but you could be right. That will be a sad day when people throw out freedom because I'm sure there are some who are embracing it that will be caught and watch it fall apart with the expected violence that will ensue. That won't be pretty seeing the Taliban rise again or some Shia dominated dictator arise. If dictators would leave us alone and stay in their borders that would be ideal for us but history hasn't shown that to be the case. Dictators love forcing others to their views and threatening the west. There isn't any magic wand to make bullying disappear. Bullying has to be fought.

 

[A_Wanderer]

And you're totally entitled to your opinion. I'd just urge you to look into the argument of the other side. There's more substance to it than one would think.

Consider the facts that following the death of Christ: his disciples died for their faith and what they experienced, there were radical changes in Jewish social structures that had been in place for centuries (a sharp decline in animal sacrifices, etc.), you have a sudden rise in the celebrations of baptism and Communion (practices that wouldn't entirely make sense without a resurrection, especially Christian baptism), and you have the rapid growth of a faith that eventually overwhelms the Roman empire and continues to flourish today.

Would all this have happened if he simply died?

This doesn't justify any supernatural claims, one might as well establish a Church of Coca Cola on the basis of how rapidly that particular soft drink was able to build an empire and reshape society.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Of course, those who aren't Godless, but aren't Christian don't really count either in the poll, or the discussion.

An allusion doesn't mean I think people who voted for options 2 - 3 are Godless.

 

[Zoomerang96]

A_W appearing humble or genuinely inquisitive towards FYM's unwashed masses is rarer than a snowflake in Death Valley.

quoted for the fucking truth.

i pretty much only come here to read about the economy, but every now and again i go into these kind threads where the left is enlightened and the right is right and it makes me vomit.

i should exercise more restraint, i suppose. i couldn't help but quote this however, as it's quite amusing to see the most pretentious poster on this board be put to task. good times, guys.

 

[Zoomerang96]

What passes for left wing thought on the forum is sometimes worryingly close to 'ohmigod, Obama rocks, and if you don't agree, you're a beastly right wing c***, and you're probably a closet racist too', what passes for right wing thought seems to be some agenda to bash gays that I'm not interested in, or alternatively Strongbow's rubbishy propaganda.

oh yes.

 

[A_Wanderer]

quoted for the fucking truth.

i pretty much only come here to read about the economy, but every now and again i go into these kind threads where the left is enlightened and the right is right and it makes me vomit.

i should exercise more restraint, i suppose. i couldn't help but quote this however, as it's quite amusing to see the most pretentious poster on this board be put to task. good times, guys.

Posts like this make it all worthwhile.

 

[Zoomerang96]

you're preaching to the choir on this. over the years at this board, few have been more immature, irrational, condescending and ill-informed than me.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Mixed up personal pronouns?

 

[Zoomerang96]

no, i was talking about me. i was agreeing that personal attacks often make it more interesting and keep me coming back. you know?

 

[the iron horse]

Yes he did

 

[coemgen]

This doesn't justify any supernatural claims, one might as well establish a Church of Coca Cola on the basis of how rapidly that particular soft drink was able to build an empire and reshape society.

Yeah, because people die for Coca-Cola and give up centuries-old traditions for it, etc.

Right.

Think about it, A_Wanderer. Those who followed Christ saw him crucified on a cross among criminals. They saw him nearly beaten to death before that. They saw him give up his last breath. They saw their hope buried. They felt defeated.

Christianity could not have happened if this was the end.

Then, as the Gospel accounts tell us, they saw him again — alive. They saw him with his wounds. They saw him eat broiled fish (Nice detail included there.) He called on them to go to the ends of the Earth to share what God had done.

Given everything that happened — his followers were slaughtered for their faith, numerous Jewish people set aside their centuries-old traditions — even in the face of eternal damnation — and replaced them with Christian practices of baptism and communion, and overwhelmed a brutal empire — something life-changing had to happen to move from total devastation to a passion for something that endured death. Maybe the return of a life itself.

But, yeah, it's like Coke.

 

[toscano]

Yeah, because people die for Coca-Cola and give up centuries-old traditions for it, etc.

Right.

Think about it, A_Wanderer. Those who followed Christ saw him crucified on a cross among criminals. They saw him nearly beaten to death before that. They saw him give up his last breath. They saw their hope buried. They felt defeated.

Christianity could not have happened if this was the end.

Then, as the Gospel accounts tell us, they saw him again — alive. They saw him with his wounds. They saw him eat broiled fish (Nice detail included there.) He called on them to go to the ends of the Earth to share what God had done.

Given everything that happened — his followers were slaughtered for their faith, numerous Jewish people set aside their centuries-old traditions — even in the face of eternal damnation — and replaced them with Christian practices of baptism and communion, and overwhelmed a brutal empire — something life-changing had to happen to move from total devastation to a passion for something that endured death. Maybe the return of a life itself.

But, yeah, it's like Coke.

Assuming you buy the source as credible, this would be a compelling case.

Too many fingers have been in the bible pie....

 

[Irvine511]

 

[A_Wanderer]

Yeah, because people die for Coca-Cola and give up centuries-old traditions for it, etc.

Right.

Think about it, A_Wanderer. Those who followed Christ saw him crucified on a cross among criminals. They saw him nearly beaten to death before that. They saw him give up his last breath. They saw their hope buried. They felt defeated.

Christianity could not have happened if this was the end.

Then, as the Gospel accounts tell us, they saw him again — alive. They saw him with his wounds. They saw him eat broiled fish (Nice detail included there.) He called on them to go to the ends of the Earth to share what God had done.

Given everything that happened — his followers were slaughtered for their faith, numerous Jewish people set aside their centuries-old traditions — even in the face of eternal damnation — and replaced them with Christian practices of baptism and communion, and overwhelmed a brutal empire — something life-changing had to happen to move from total devastation to a passion for something that endured death. Maybe the return of a life itself.

But, yeah, it's like Coke.

There are a lot of historically conditional cultural features which seem unlikely when we look back. The good fortunes of particular multinational corporations illustrates that, Coke wasn't predestined to become such a universal beverage, it is only one of the ones that survived and thrived (consider how improbable it is we are typing in English or even evolved in the first place - these are the result of unguided selection acting upon luck). Christianity is a belief system which won the lottery and benefitted from state patronage through the ages.

Contrast it to Islam, a more recent religion, it has converted large swathes of the globe and altered those societies and it makes divine claims. People have died for that faith, killed for that faith and are often persecuted for holding onto their faith. Any argument for God built on the survival of Christianity applies just as equally to Islam (one could argue that Islam does one better by justifying the continued existence of other 'people of the book').

What makes Christianity the truth but this later supposed revelation invalid?

Why is it that most people belong to the religious tradition of their community?

What invalidates the more ancient polytheism's of our ancestors?

Religions are a big part of human civilization, we see them being created in front of our very eyes. Take Mormonism for instance, you are pretty skeptical towards the claims of Joseph Smith, but why shouldn't his claims be entertained? Believing a claim of revelation is not the same as having a revelation (and even that is more likely to be a psychotic episode, by the numbers).

If we believe one claim of revelation why shouldn't we be as open to others?

 

[Irvine511]

i can't think of anything more persuasive (or ripe for abuse) than the promise of life after death.

 

[coemgen]

There are a lot of historically conditional cultural features which seem unlikely when we look back. The good fortunes of particular multinational corporations illustrates that, Coke wasn't predestined to become such a universal beverage, it is only one of the ones that survived and thrived (consider how improbable it is we are typing in English or even evolved in the first place - these are the result of unguided selection acting upon luck).

With all due respect, you really think the Coke comparison is a good one?

Christianity is a belief system which won the lottery and benefitted from state patronage through the ages.

We're talking some pretty good odds here!

Contrast it to Islam, a more recent religion, it has converted large swathes of the globe and altered those societies and it makes divine claims. People have died for that faith, killed for that faith and are often persecuted for holding onto their faith. Any argument for God built on the survival of Christianity applies just as equally to Islam (one could argue that Islam does one better by justifying the continued existence of other 'people of the book').

Yeah, look at those countries where Islam is the rule of the land. You're killed if you believe otherwise. It's controlled by fear. Of course it's "flourishing."

What makes Christianity the truth but this later supposed revelation invalid?

The fact that Christ is referred to directly or indirectly three times as many more times in the Koran is an interesting place to start. There's something that sets him apart. You also have the large number of detailed prophecies made in the OT that are fulfilled in the NT —?some of which weren't up to Christ or his followers to fulfill (his bones not being broken in his legs — the traditional practice of the day if they weren't dead by the Sabbath.). Again, there's something that sets him apart.

Why is it that most people belong to the religious tradition of their community?

A lot of it is community controlled. There's also many stories of people going against their community/faith tradition and encountering Christ. This is an issue that needs to looked at more in depth.

Religions are a big part of human civilization, we see them being created in front of our very eyes. Take Mormonism for instance, you are pretty skeptical towards the claims of Joseph Smith, but why shouldn't his claims be entertained? Believing a claim of revelation is not the same as having a revelation (and even that is more likely to be a psychotic episode, by the numbers).

If we believe one claim of revelation why shouldn't we be as open to others?

Because the Book of Mormon has been proven to be plagiarized — phrases were lifted directly out of the King James Version of the Bible, and many of the names are simply OT names with letters switched. The original text was written at or below an eighth-grade reading level and later changed, none of the cities mentioned in the book have been found, the Smithsonian and I believe National Geographic won't recognize it as a historical text, etc., etc., etc.

 

[coemgen]

i can't think of anything more persuasive (or ripe for abuse) than the promise of life after death.

I agree, but even then, I don't think the sudden 360 degree change in Christianity — the complete devastation following Christ's death experienced among his followers, to the total rise of the faith — was based on the promise of life after death alone. Something else, something more, happened. There was an encounter. If he just died on the cross and that was it, the faith would've died too. Why die for a guy who said he was going to rise again and then doesn't?

 

[Vincent Vega]

Yeah, look at those countries where Islam is the rule of the land. You're killed if you believe otherwise. It's controlled by fear. Of course it's "flourishing."

Oh yeah, totally unknown to Christianity.

 

[coemgen]

Oh yeah, totally unknown to Christianity.

Where is that going on today?

 

[intedomine]

.

Then, as the Gospel accounts tell us, they saw him again — alive. They saw him with his wounds. They saw him eat broiled fish (Nice detail included there.) .

Maybe it was just someone who looked like him, and who thought he might play along as a little joke....

If people had a sense of humour back in those days, this possibility shouldn't be discounted in my very honest opinion.

 

[Vincent Vega]

Where is that going on today?

Which countries today kill everyone who believes in another religion? Some Islamic countries are much more intolerant when it comes to other religions, but there is no state-legislated killing of the infidels. Those are fundamentalist fractions within the religion that use instable situations. The overall religion does not.
The silence of the moderate is a whole different topic.

Christianity came to Europe much with force. Charlemagne showed the Saxons what it means to love each other by slaughtering everyone who didn't want to convert. The perverted Catholic church of that time ruled with the sword and fire for centuries. And you put your life at risk if you tried to bring Christianity back to its message.

I don't see Christianity inherently better, or Islam inherently worse. Both are, unfortunately, subject to the way they get preached by some influential figureheads.

 

[A_Wanderer]

With all due respect, you really think the Coke comparison is a good one?

I think it is valid in this context, it is has been adopted around the world from very humble beginnings and when we look back the odds seem astronomically small.

We're talking some pretty good odds here!

No greater than the other major religions, dominant languages and cultural products. You are an atheist to most Gods that have ever existed, those religions were justified at the time.

Yeah, look at those countries where Islam is the rule of the land. You're killed if you believe otherwise. It's controlled by fear. Of course it's "flourishing."

The same can be said of Christendom, that its violence has been diminished by the rise of secularism but it isn't entirely erased. Islam would be unsustainable if it was simply an imposed belief that people want to shed at a moments notice. I have no obligation to defend Islam but I don't doubt that plenty of believers adhere to its tenets because they find it personally rewarding.

The fact that Christ is referred to directly or indirectly three times as many more times in the Koran is an interesting place to start. There's something that sets him apart.

Jesus is considered a prophet, that a religion plagiarises is nothing new but I don't see how that justifies any claims to the divine.

You also have the large number of detailed prophecies made in the OT that are fulfilled in the NT —�some of which weren't up to Christ or his followers to fulfill (his bones not being broken in his legs — the traditional practice of the day if they weren't dead by the Sabbath.). Again, there's something that sets him apart.

And here is a problem, you uncritically take the stories as fact when the texts were written with an agenda after the events had taken place. You are not reading a single historical document but the distilled product of numerous authors who both plagarised and fabricated elements of the tale. It is simple to shape a story to fit prophesy when you are deliberately selecting and editing many years after the fact.

A lot of it is community controlled. There's also many stories of people going against their community/faith tradition and encountering Christ. This is an issue that needs to looked at more in depth.

The causes of conversion do need study, but it isn't exclusively to Christianity. That there is a flow of people to different faiths doesn't validate any one belief system in particular, if there was a bias I would look towards what people find rewarding about their new faith rather than assume it is divine will.

Because the Book of Mormon has been proven to be plagiarized — phrases were lifted directly out of the King James Version of the Bible, and many of the names are simply OT names with letters switched. The original text was written at or below an eighth-grade reading level and later changed, none of the cities mentioned in the book have been found, the Smithsonian and I believe National Geographic won't recognize it as a historical text, etc., etc., etc.

You obviously aren't incapable of critical thinking, do you feel there is a blank spot at where you direct it?

 

[A_Wanderer]

Which countries today kill everyone who believes in another religion? Some Islamic countries are much more intolerant when it comes to other religions, but there is no state-legislated killing of the infidels.

I wouldn't count on an Islamic theocracy being tolerant of atheists if it followed the word of God.

 

[LemonMelon]

I believe God is the final judge and only He will decide who goes to Heaven or not. I think we will all be surprised who gets in or not. I believe no one has the right to question who goes to Heaven, because like I said, God is the final judge.

Pretty solid answer IMO. I think it's good that we're all informed of the spiritual beliefs of others (or lack thereof), as it gives us a small excerpt of what makes them tick. Because of this, I like to let others in on that side of me when I can, but when I do, I never claim that A. It has been factually proven as the One True Faith and B. Assuming that I have chosen the correct path, that I know precisely how the afterlife will be sorted out. I've had to accept this, and I attempt to convey this to others when it comes up. Only the most smug, myopic individual would state that there is absolutely no chance that their belief system could have a flaw. This includes atheists. I'm sorry, but none of us really know. I'm comfortable with my choice, and I'm glad you're comfortable with yours. Keeps this discussion from coming up all the fucking time.

And voting options 2 and 3 in the poll does not make you Godless (I also see that there are more voters of options 1 and 2 than anticipated). That's absurd. I thought it was rather obvious that A_W was being ironic, but I see that some fell for it.

 

[Vincent Vega]

I wouldn't count on an Islamic theocracy being tolerant of atheists if it followed the word of God.

The reactions I got from Christians weren't more encouraging. Being an atheist/agnostic seems to be another kind of problem for quite a few religious people, altogether.