Muslims and terrorism, do they just accept it?

[SpontaneousOrder]

Here's the thing, moral realism would say that killing someone is bad. S.O. would possibly agree with that because it is a true statement.

How do you know that it's a true statement to say that it's bad? You're making an absolute moral judgement while at the same time you just said 'morality is a concept' (of course), while implying that it's not absolute and will change depending on one's experiences.

But if a book suggests that killing someone is bad, then S.O. has stated that it is wrong.

No. I never said nor implied any such thing. Herein lies your problem.

How can someone claim to accept the concept of objective reality, but deny books that support it and wish to persecute anyone who learns from those books?

Read what I wrote again, because you're completely misrepresenting me.

[SpontaneousOrder]

What objective reality would that be?

One that is observable and isn't built on inconsistent, or contradictory premises.

[MrMarkyMark]

Since there are Christian sects who take the Bible literally your argument is mute.

In every religion there are people who take things literally.

Luckily with Christianity being older the fanatics who use it as an instrument to do what they want and kill loads of people are mostly consigned to history.

They are called fanatics and that is what ISIS are.
Every religion has them.

As far as ISIS being a "pure form of Islam", that is a statement way off the mark of reality.

[WTFH]

No. I never said nor implied any such thing. Herein lies your problem.

Read what I wrote again, because you're completely misrepresenting me.

OK, sorry for reading what you wrote and understanding the words.

I think we should be less tolerant of religion, full stop. Not violent about it, but it should be considered shameful to be religious.

Or, more specifically, I'm talking about people who get their morality from a book - if your religious views don't mean that then that kind of religion is a lesser transgression.

Here's the main reason:

If you get your morality from ideas of revelation, probably in a book, then regardless of whether you cuddle puppies, or chop off heads, by what standard are the two interpretations different?

I.e. if you don't think the bible tells you to blow people up, whereas some do, then by what standard is your moral code any better than theirs?

If you reject the reality that morality is the product of reason, rather than faith, then by what standard do you judge that your interpretation is correct and theirs is wrong? You sanction the idea that the interpretation of a book is what matters and not reason.

If you get your morality from revelation, then you're as guilty of what happened in Paris as the men who pulled the triggers.

...from now on, I shall read your words and realise you mean the opposite.

[SpontaneousOrder]

OK, sorry for reading what you wrote and understanding the words.







...from now on, I shall read your words and realise you mean the opposite.

You realise nothing that you highlighted there supports any of your claims? That claim being that I suggested that if a book says something is immoral, then it is necessarily false.

In fact you highlighted some conclusions, which don't in any way support your claim, and ignored all of the explanations from which those conclusions (which don't support your claim) were derived.

I can do a repost with big colourful pictures, if it will help.

[WTFH]

You realise nothing that you highlighted there supports any of your claims? That claim being that I suggested that if a book says something is immoral, then it is necessarily false.

In fact you highlighted some conclusions, which don't in any way support your claim, and ignored all of the explanations from which those conclusions (which don't support your claim) were derived.

I can do a repost with big colourful pictures, if it will help.

duplicate post, see below where I included the quote of what I said.

[WTFH]

Regarding the quote of SO which I highlighted sections of above...

How can someone claim to accept the concept of objective reality, but deny books that support it and wish to persecute anyone who learns from those books?

You realise nothing that you highlighted there supports any of your claims? That claim being that I suggested that if a book says something is immoral, then it is necessarily false.

In fact you highlighted some conclusions, which don't in any way support your claim, and ignored all of the explanations from which those conclusions (which don't support your claim) were derived.

I can do a repost with big colourful pictures, if it will help.

You implied that if someone bases their morality on a book, they are guilty of the Paris terror attacks, did you not?

[SpontaneousOrder]

Regarding the quote of SO which I highlighted sections of above...







You implied that if someone bases their morality on a book, they are guilty of the Paris terror attacks, did you not?

Know the difference between correlation and causation (or in this case revelation!)?

Refraining from stealing your colleague's laptop because there's a CCTV camera pointing at you is not the same as not stealing it out of principle.

And not stealing it out of a properly derived principle is not the same as accepting, without question, someone else's opinion that such a principle is indeed a valid one.

The outcome is the same, in a narrow sense. In the wider sense the one obtained in faith is destructive because it attempts to make redundant the one obtained through reason & observation of reality.

By your standard, if you still disagree, Muslims for example, could justly claim that taking slaves is a virtuous thing to do - and you can't argue against them because their book told them so and that's valid. If you attempt to reason a more moderate code out of the raw text, then you're contradicting your own position that reason has no priority over dogma.

Every time you suppose that the reason not to steal is because God said "thou shalt not steal.", you are censuring the reality that one shouldn't steal because it's irrational. And every time you do that you contribute to damaging people's ability to think, and reason, and therefore be virtuous.

As I said, if reason is the source of morality, then a deliberate choice to abandon reason (as faith is, by definition) is a deliberate choice to abandon morality. Ergo, faith is evil.

[WTFH]

The outcome is the same, in a narrow sense. In the wider sense the one obtained in faith is destructive because it attempts to make redundant the one obtained through reason & observation of reality.

Purely by your twisted definition.

By your standard, if you still disagree, Muslims for example, could justly claim that taking slaves is a virtuous thing to do - and you can't argue against them because their book told them so and that's valid.

Again, that is twisting what is written in their book. If YOU choose to misquote or take quotes out of context to suit your argument you are being, unreasonable. You are refuting reason and logic to suit your argument.

As I said, if reason is the source of morality, then a deliberate choice to abandon reason (as faith is, by definition) is a deliberate choice to abandon morality. Ergo, faith is evil.

Purely by your twisted definition.


You are the one who has thrown reason and logic out the window to declare things evil and say that anyone who reads a book and makes decisions based on what they have read is responsible for the Paris terrorist attacks.

[d000hg]

And your evidence is where?

Presumably he read the Koran. Or at least a leaflet.