Muslims and terrorism, do they just accept it?

[WTFH]

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

Or a DM headline.




"Coffee gives you cancer".


...until you read the story and check out the evidence behind it.

[WTFH]

The outcome is the same, in a narrow sense.

We agree on something! It is possible to have faith and not be a terrorist sympathiser.

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.

That is only based on your interpretation. Morality (or anything) based on faith is not necessarily destructive. In fact in many situations, faith is understood before reason can explain it.




Here's an example:
Producing children with an immediate sibling is immoral according to many faiths.
Pure reason/logic would have said that is wrong, it is not a reason or logic based argument, and you could use breeding to produce children with particular characteristics.


DNA reason now shows that inbreeding leads to genetic mutations and can cause health problems in the offspring.


Reason has provided the evidence that shows the morality from faith was a good thing.


Faith and reason do not need to be mutually exclusive. "Blind faith" is a dangerous thing.
Question faith, like questioning reason is what leads to progress.

[DodgyAgent]

"Blind faith" is a dangerous thing.

And we know what causes blindness

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/...tching-*******

Boris Johnson has described men who go to fight with Islamic State as “literally wankers” who watch porn because they can’t meet women.

[darmstadt]

And we know what causes blindness

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/...tching-*******

Boris Johnson has described men who go to fight with Islamic State as “literally wankers” who watch porn because they can’t meet women.

Does that mean we'll be seeing an exodus from here soon?

[MicrosoftBob]

"Blind faith" is a dangerous thing.

Only if the police find you with an original album cover and a dodgy internet history

[Zero Liability]

And we know what causes blindness

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/...tching-*******

Boris Johnson has described men who go to fight with Islamic State as “literally wankers” who watch porn because they can’t meet women.

Oh come on, we all know it's your pen name.

[SpontaneousOrder]

Purely by your twisted definition

Now that's not really an argument, is it?

...misquote or take quotes out of context to suit your argument you are being, unreasonable.

So you argue against my assertion that one cannot be virtuous without the source of that virtue being reason, by calling me unreasonable?

Is this the twilight zone?

Again, that is twisting what is written in their book.

Am I?
I'm curious - by what standard to you make that judgement that I'm twisting it?

And, more to the point (which you seem to be desperately trying to avoid), what *if* 'their book' really *did* say that they should take slaves?

Purely by your twisted definition.

Again, you need to expand on this otherwise it's not an argument of any kind.

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.

Purely by your twisted definition.

[BrilloPad]

Does that mean we'll be seeing an exodus from here soon?

Judging from the inboxes of female posters on CUK - definitely!

[SpontaneousOrder]

We agree on something! It is possible to have faith and not be a terrorist sympathiser.

I doubt it.

That is only based on your interpretation.

Well... it's based on objective reality really.

Morality (or anything) based on faith is not necessarily destructive.

It is. I already showed you why and you don't seem to want to address it.

In fact in many situations, faith is understood before reason can explain it.

That doesn't even make sense. I assume you mean that sometimes people have faith and it eventually turns out they guessed right? So what? What about when they guess wrong?

Here's an example:
Producing children with an immediate sibling is immoral according to many faiths.
Pure reason/logic would have said that is wrong, it is not a reason or logic based argument, and you could use breeding to produce children with particular characteristics.


DNA reason now shows that inbreeding leads to genetic mutations and can cause health problems in the offspring.


Reason has provided the evidence that shows the morality from faith was a good thing.

That's battulip crazy, and plain dishonest.

People have long had a distaste for inbreeding because it's a natural evolutionary mechanism whereby the better genetic stock created from more diverse gene sets, which cause a distaste for inbreeding, has proved more successful in replicating itself.

Plus, in more recent years (last few thousand) it has been noted that inbreeding causes problems.

Unsurprisingly, whomever wrote the holy books thought it wise to include such a prohibition in their instructions.

Faith and reason do not need to be mutually exclusive.

Yes they do! faith is the antithesis of reason. And not by my twisted logic, but by definition! Reason is not believing things without a reason, and faith is believing things without reason. If it were reasonable it would't be called faith.

"Blind faith" is a dangerous thing.

So now you decode to agree with me There is no other kind of faith than blind faith. Reasoned faith is called either trust, or an educated guess.

Question faith, like questioning reason is what leads to progress.

So you're reasoning with me that its reasonable to question reason? That doesn't lead to progress - that leads to mental retardation.

[NotAllThere]

Nice to see that you're still regarding your definitions and understandings as the only correct ones. Even the rationalwiki states that not all faith is blind faith. Notwithstanding Bertrand Russel's contention that faith with evidence is no faith at all, which is really a matter of semantics.

Well... it's based on objective reality really.

No, it's based on your subjective view of what objective reality is. But it's not just you, everyone's view of what is objective is necessarily subjective.

So you're reasoning with me that its reasonable to question reason? That doesn't lead to progress - that leads to mental retardation.

"Heavier objects fall faster than lighter ones". "A force is required to maintain steady movement". "Everything revolves around the Earth". All reasoned views formulated first by Greek philosophers, and held as reasonable for hundreds (thousands?) of years. Until some bugger came along and questioned them.