Theology/Theologies. Are they all harmful by default?

[muhammad_isa]

If 95% of people think 5% should be killed because their religion considers them evil, they can't do that..

Why not .. because you say so?
That is not democracy.

And granting homosexuals their rights, leads to people killing people for no reason?

It is part of a bigger picture, yes.
I don't discuss homosexuality on internet forums. It is heavily moderated, as the vast majority in the west are in favour, and so it is politically correct. It is looked upon in the same way as is racism.

The issue of woman's rights is also looked upon similarly.
All these issues affect the society we live in. It is not until a few generations later that we will see the results of these policies.

People with sound religious knowledge, can predict what will happen. Men despising women, and women losing their femininity. Men wishing to be women, and women wishing to be men is a sign ..
**EDIT**

 

[Nakosis]

Thats a completely different thing. You were talking about reality, now it has become reliable information, and you are referring to scientific experimentation.

How would we possess any knowledge about reality without reliable information?

 

[firedragon]

How would we possess any knowledge about reality without reliable information?

It shifted to "reliable information". Evolution.

 

[Nakosis]

It shifted to "reliable information". Evolution.

Oh, ok...
Reality is the state of things as they actually exist.
Knowledge of this state should be based on reliable information.

 

[firedragon]

Oh, ok...
Reality is the state of things as they actually exist.
Knowledge of this state should be based on reliable information.

I agree that knowledge of anything should be based on reliable information. There is no question about it.

That is one of the reasons why when some atheists say that religions are by default harmful, its fallacious, because they is no "reliable information" for that.

One thing is, some people think that some kind of anecdotal fallacy is reliable information. Some even think their personal preference of TV shows, some websites, and maybe even a nice sounding pleasure to the senses YouTube video is "reliable information".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Can you prove that? I'm certain that you can't.

What's there to prove?

Do islamic societies that don't engage in usury not run on fossil fuels?
Are they carbon emission neutral?

The answer is "no".

You are not making any sense. Charing interest on money loans has nothing to do with the fact that fossil fuels are used to harness energy to do whatever work in whatever machine.

Global warming is an issue with technology. Not with money.
Stopping to charge interests is not going to magically change technology.

However, I can show you why it would change things.

The only thing you have shown so far, is an irrelevant article about how rich people fly and drive more.
My car runs on fossil fuel. No matter if my bank charges interest or not.

Why do you think that mankind have grouped together to uphold a global financial system?
In order to stabilise their economies .. right?

Which hasn't got anything to do with the tech by which countries power their cars and industries.

If usury was abolished the system would fail, and there would be a serious recession .. right?

And the world would still run on fossil fuel.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Why not .. because you say so?
That is not democracy.

I just told you. Because democracy doesn't just exist to give the majority what they want. It also, primarily even, exists to protect minorities from the majority. Exactly to prevent such things from happening.

It is part of a bigger picture, yes.

And you dare ask how these things are harmful to people.
Just look at the bigotry you exhibit here.

Yes, this mentality is quite harmful to gay people.
But it's clear that you don't think highly of them and don't see a problem with gay people being oppressed like that.

Oh well.

I don't discuss homosexuality on internet forums. It is heavily moderated, as the vast majority in the west are in favour, and so it is politically correct. It is looked upon in the same way as is racism.

Yes. It's a good thing.
It's called tolerance and freedom.

The issue of woman's rights is also looked upon similarly.
All these issues affect the society we live in.

Not a fan of women's rights either, ey?

People with sound religious knowledge, can predict what will happen. Men despising women, and women losing their femininity. Men wishing to be women, and women wishing to be men is a sign ..
**EDIT**

I think it's time to stop talking now.

 

[muhammad_isa]

And the world would still run on fossil fuel.

The world has run on fossil fuels since time memorial.
That is not the issue. The issue is the scale.
i.e. the amount we consume

Many people blame the problem on a rising population.
That is also not the main issue.
The main issue is all about energy per capita.

 

[Link]

Why not .. because you say so?
That is not democracy.



It is part of a bigger picture, yes.
I don't discuss homosexuality on internet forums. It is heavily moderated, as the vast majority in the west are in favour, and so it is politically correct. It is looked upon in the same way as is racism.

The issue of woman's rights is also looked upon similarly.
All these issues affect the society we live in. It is not until a few generations later that we will see the results of these policies.

People with sound religious knowledge, can predict what will happen. Men despising women, and women losing their femininity. Men wishing to be women, and women wishing to be men is a sign ..
**EDIT**

Yet if we don't forbid evil and command good, we are part of the cause of the corruption. In Islam it's never good enough to just avoid it yourself and not forbid it. Some worldly sacrifices are going to have to be made in this regard.

 

[wandering peacefully]

In Islam it's never good enough to just avoid it yourself and not forbid it.

How do you go about forbidding it?

 

[Link]

How do you go about forbidding it?

Depends on your capability in making arguments, your own truthfulness to acting upon what you forbid and command, and the environment you are in.

 

[wandering peacefully]

Depends on your capability in making arguments, your own truthfulness to acting upon what you forbid and command, and the environment you are in.

All of those involve your own person, your own actions and your own environment. You had stated you need to not only avoid behaviors you find go against your religion but also need to attempt to forbid those actions. I took that as you believe you need to somehow take some action to forbid other people from going against what your religion teaches. I was just curious how you thought you might accomplish that goal. But I guess I misunderstood your comment about forbidding. No problem.

 

[Link]

All of those involve your own person, your own actions and your own environment. You had stated you need to not only avoid behaviors you find go against your religion but also need to attempt to forbid those actions. I took that as you believe you need to somehow take some action to forbid other people from going against what your religion teaches. I was just curious how you thought you might accomplish that goal. But I guess I misunderstood your comment about forbidding. No problem.

By proving by stats, studies, psychology, social and political sciences, reasoning, Islamic laws make more sense in light of what we know and observe.

I don't believe you use Quran as an authority over non-Muslims. They don't believe it after all.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The world has run on fossil fuels since time memorial. That is not the issue.

Except that it is.

The issue is the scale.
i.e. the amount we consume

Which wouldn't change with stopping to charge interest on bank loans.
In fact, I'ld argue that we'ld consume even more as life would become cheaper.

Many people blame the problem on a rising population.

No, the problem CO2 in the atmosphere, caused by fossil fuels. Off course large populations don't help.

That is also not the main issue.
The main issue is all about energy per capita.

Which wouldn't change if banks would stop charging interest on loans.
We'ld still require heating, industry, transport, agriculture, ..............................

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

By proving by stats, studies, psychology, social and political sciences, reasoning, Islamic laws make more sense in light of what we know and observe.

Good luck with that.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Which wouldn't change with stopping to charge interest on bank loans.
In fact, I'ld argue that we'ld consume even more as life would become cheaper..

That is so ridiculous

..so you are saying that if the global financial system collapsed, there wouldn't be a serious recession?
How do you deduce that?

Remember, the financial system relies on usury. If you remove it [or it collapses] .. what would take its place?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That is so ridiculous

No.

If I wouldn't have to pay interest, I could afford a larger home.
That home would require more energy for heat.
It would have more appliances in need of electricity.

Overall, my carbon footprint would be higher.

..so you are saying that if the global financial system collapsed, there wouldn't be a serious recession?
How do you deduce that?

After a recession, economies bounce back.
The demand for energy would remain.
Industry would still have to produce goods and food.
Transport would still be required to get those goods, and people, to places.

Meanwhile, massive investment in clean energy and radical diminishing of use of fossil fuels would accomplish a carbon footprint neutral society - but without all the horrors of massive famine and poverty that a total collapse of global eco-systems of any kind would bring about.

Remember, the financial system relies on usury. If you remove it [or it collapses] .. what would take its place?

Something else. And society would still require energy. And that energy would still come from fossil fuels.
Changing financial systems will not magically also change energy harnessing technology.

You'ld have to actually change that technology to change that technology.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Something else. And society would still require energy. And that energy would still come from fossil fuels..

Right .. what, for example?
Will you lend me $5000 dollars? I will give it back to you in 5 years without interest .. do you agree?