Why would prophets/religious beliefs be off-limits to criticism?!

[Job]

Thanks for your explanation. I did not realize that so many "Orthodox Muslims" were OK with this insanity. Opens my eyes quite a bit. I just can't believe that people would be so naiive.

Unfortunately there are way too many. And not just "uneducated Muslims in the Muslim world". I was a Muslim myself and I'm from an Arab background. It is not a mere coincidence that many Muslim countries that are highly influenced by sharia law (Islamic law) have many laws that are totally akin to liberal values as freedom of conscience or lifestyle. The exceptions are Muslim countries that are (much) less influenced by Islamic law in their constitution and intend to be more secular. Modern values that we consider to be fundamental human rights such as freedom of conscience and having the right to choose your own religion are incompatible with the traditional definition (orthodox) of sharia law. The problem is that most - not all - Islamic institutions in the Muslim world still live and preach the traditional understanding of sharia law.

Its not "that Muhammed needs help and thats why blasphemy is punishable". The Muslim interpretation is that Muhammed according to the traditions said himself: "he who changes his religion kill him". So the question in Muslim thinking is; "who are we to oppose this command of our prophet?". And on top of that there are numerous historic examples and sayings of early Muslims and companions of the prophet that also punished apostates with the death penalty. In Muslim jurisprudential thinking of the "orthodox hardliners" this closes the case. Apostasy means the death penalty. Thats not to say that nowadays there are no "reformers" who doubt this saying attributed to Muhammed is authentic or interpret it as a "temporary political punishment that is the modern-day equivalent or treason in war". And therefore, they argue, apostasy is not perse punished by death.

 

[Etritonakin]

What is the difference between "disagreement" and "finding fault?" How can express disagreement without finding and expessing fault?

In a strictly technical sense, there is no difference.
However, "faultfinding" -at least where I'm from -carries the connotations of triviality, condescension, antagonism, etc.

 

[leibowde84]

In a strictly technical sense, there is no difference.
However, "faultfinding" -at least where I'm from -carries the connotations of triviality, condescension, antagonism, etc.

Oh. So, are you OK with "faultfinding" in the way that I described? I don't think that "triviality, condescension, antagonism, etc." are necessary for disagreements to be expressed. And, as long as they aren't, I think they are necessary for progress in thought. Let's say, hypothetically, that Islam is actually really bad for our global society. It would be necessary to express disagreement with the teachings/beliefs of the faith in order to fix the issues with it. Wouldn't you agreee?

 

[Etritonakin]

Oh. So, are you OK with "faultfinding" in the way that I described? I don't think that "triviality, condescension, antagonism, etc." are necessary for disagreements to be expressed. And, as long as they aren't, I think they are necessary for progress in thought. Let's say, hypothetically, that Islam is actually really bad for our global society. It would be necessary to express disagreement with the teachings/beliefs of the faith in order to fix the issues with it. Wouldn't you agreee?

I am OK with finding truth -Including identifying faults in ideas/concepts which may then lead to action -and modifying my thoughts and actions accordingly.

As we all inhabit the same reality, there can be only one overall "truth".
As we are all new, we travel to know that truth over time, are not all in agreement, and may not all accept all aspects of that truth immediately.

Therefore, we should seek to create an environment where all are free to seek the truth.

It is not my responsibility to "fix" Islam or any other belief system.
It is an individual's responsibility to fix themselves and allow others to do the same.

It is wise to listen to another and express things to another if they want to hear.
It is wise to make knowledge acceptable -to consider all things in order to express a truth while avoiding things which would cause the focus of another to be turned from that truth.

It is also wise to be silent on certain points at certain times -such as when another does not want to discuss the matter, knowledge is not likely to be accepted at the time, one would be over-stepping the bounds of their responsibility, if expressing knowledge would lead to more trouble than one is trying to "fix", etc.

It is when actions affect other individuals adversely that an issue needs to be "fix"ed, and an individual or group's business may become the business of another or all.

It is also very important to note that many instances of people being affected adversely are the result of others trying to "fix" them or their beliefs.

It should also be noted that many aren't interested in fixing anything.

Just lost a bunch of text -will post the rest later -iPad is frustrating

 

[leibowde84]

I am OK with finding truth -Including identifying faults in ideas/concepts which may then lead to action -and modifying my thoughts and actions accordingly.

As we all inhabit the same reality, there can be only one overall "truth".
As we are all new, we travel to know that truth over time, are not all in agreement, and may not all accept all aspects of that truth immediately.

Therefore, we should seek to create an environment where all are free to seek the truth.

It is not my responsibility to "fix" Islam or any other belief system.
It is an individual's responsibility to fix themselves and allow others to do the same.

It is wise to listen to another and express things to another if they want to hear.
It is wise to make knowledge acceptable -to consider all things in order to express a truth while avoiding things which would cause the focus of another to be turned from that truth.

It is also wise to be silent on certain points at certain times -such as when another does not want to discuss the matter, knowledge is not likely to be accepted at the time, one would be over-stepping the bounds of their responsibility, if expressing knowledge would lead to more trouble than one is trying to "fix", etc.

It is when actions affect other individuals adversely that an issue needs to be "fix"ed, and an individual or group's business may become the business of another or all.

It is also very important to note that many instances of people being affected adversely are the result of others trying to "fix" them or their beliefs.

It should also be noted that many aren't interested in fixing anything.

Just lost a bunch of text -will post the rest later -iPad is frustrating

If the populated world was all civilized, I would agree with you, but your assessment is unrealistic. People in extremely religious societies are not only hindered, but ultimately and actively prevented from discovering truth. Some are brainwashed at birth to believe that anyone who challenges their beliefs are "henchemen of Satan" or "the militaristic devout of the enemy," which, imho, we cannot allow to naturally dissolve. We have to erradicate these systems that not only ignore our fundamental need to find truth, but they actively teach non-truths that, if believed, prevent one from "learning" in any significant way. How can you reconcile your view with situations such as these?

 

[Etritonakin]

If the populated world was all civilized, I would agree with you, but your assessment is unrealistic. People in extremely religious societies are not only hindered, but ultimately and actively prevented from discovering truth. Some are brainwashed at birth to believe that anyone who challenges their beliefs are "henchemen of Satan" or "the militaristic devout of the enemy," which, imho, we cannot allow to naturally dissolve. We have to erradicate these systems that not only ignore our fundamental need to find truth, but they actively teach non-truths that, if believed, prevent one from "learning" in any significant way. How can you reconcile your view with situations such as these?

As I wrote, I was not able to fully explain, but I did say "It is when actions affect other individuals adversely that an issue needs to be "fix"ed, and an individual's business may become the business of another or all."

However, the reality is that it is difficult to to find an individual or group that is guiltless -and many use the faults of another -real, imagined, created or fabricated -as an excuse to effect others adversely and to shift focus from their own guilt.

I would say that almost all of any belief system -religious or otherwise -are brainwashed by others or themselves to believe that those who challenge their beliefs are henchmen of Satan or, in other words, adversaries of one's own beliefs.

I would say that every group has good points and faults to varying degrees, and that every group can rightly find fault with every other.

I believe that if everyone who feels as you do attempts to eradicate each other's belief systems altogether -lumping many individuals and subgroups under one label -they will find it impossible, and then get on the horn to the military.

Catholicism will not be eradicated. Christianity will not be eradicated. Protestantism will not be eradicated. Islam will not be eradicated, Buddhism will not be eradicated, etc., etc.....

Mankind will be decimated and potentially eradicated.

Would you care to outline a plan to eradicate such a group?
Is there a number of groups you'd like to eradicate?
Is targeting an entire group feasible?
Are you lumped in a group seen to be guilty of something?
Who is attempting to eradicate you while you are focused on all of these other groups?
Do some groups try to eradicate others simply because they want power and use faults to move large groups against them?
Is it effective to minimize the faults of one or one's own group in order to minimize the number of groups that want to eradicate one or one's group, and so leave more resources to focus or more immediate threats?

The faults of one or a group will be the primary hindrance to any attempt to effect positive change elsewhere, so fixing one's self or group should be the primary goal.
All individuals and groups have faults -but in order to effect positive change, they should not be hypocritical as a rule or policy. Such will not be respected and will certainly be hated.
It is also true that the way in which one or a group attempts to effect positive change elsewhere may be a fault -regardless of true intention (hopefully, the intention is sincere) -and may effect negative change.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

Disagreed.

There's a substantial difference between what you or I think should be and what is. On this matter, I do not see much use in fussing about what I think should be when the what is shall not be changing within generations of human lifetimes. If someone insults something another person cares about, well... they're going to tend to take it personally. It's the nature of the emotional, human animal. I think that is an entirely unreasonable and unrealistic expectation to suggest that people should quit taking things personally. I think we need to accept that people are going to take criticisms of things they value personally and develop our personal codes of conduct from there. I would recommend learning the art of active listening as well as conflict management skills. Ridiculing someone is not an example of good conflict management or active listening, but of conflict escalation and lack of listening.

So how do you suggest we tread in the situation where someone cares about being a pedophile? Maybe someone cares about killing all jews; you suggest we should be a bit ginger when 'ridiculing' this person because it's not good conflict management? And we are failing to actively listen...HOGWASH.

If you care about something either back it up with facts or quit whining when someone calls you on it. If you can't handle the heat get out of the kitchen. If you can't back up your facts...

what do you suggest we do when one party want' to kill those who don't believe in jesus an the other party want's to kill those that do believe in mo? I usually see better from you.

 

[Falvlun]

Probably because no one in their right mind would ever think that blasphemy should necessitate any physical penalty, let alone death. It is so inconcievable for anyone who doesn't believe in Shria Law and/or Islamic values that this would be the case, it is completely understandable that they wouldn't know. The death penalty as punnishment for words spoken = ridiculousness.

Imagine you are in a Christian nation that has the death penalty for blasphemy against Christianity. You are a good upstanding Muslim. You are overheard remarking that Jesus wasn't God. Do you think it is fair that you should be put to death for simply making a statement about your personal religious beliefs?

 

[Falvlun]

I'm rather surprised some of you are surprised to find out there's really not much line between moderate and radical Islam. Moderate islam is sort of an oxymoron, really.

Might be time to take a look at the child-marrying, rape approving, murder and violence commanding religion... finally? Hey, seizures and visions from a known epileptic who plagiarized the Jewish texts... divine inspiration, right?

No "moderate" muslim would deny 95% of what is attributed to radical Islam. There is no radical Islam. There's just Islam.

Christianity used to hold rather questionable beliefs in regards to blasphemy, the value of women, and the treatment of non-Christians. There are various Christian sects that still adhere to various "literal" interpretations, that quite frankly, are easily found in the Bible. To claim that Islam somehow can't overcome the... harsher... aspects of it is to ignore your own religion's history.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

Imagine you are in a Christian nation that has the death penalty for blasphemy against Christianity. You are a good upstanding Muslim. You are overheard remarking that Jesus wasn't God. Do you think it is fair that you should be put to death for simply making a statement about your personal religious beliefs?

FAIR? What do you mean with that term? Fair means in accordance with the rules. Is death fair? Is death justified? Is death ethical? These are different questions.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

Christianity used to hold rather questionable beliefs in regards to blasphemy, the value of women, and the treatment of non-Christians. There are various Christian sects that still adhere to various "literal" interpretations, that quite frankly, are easily found in the Bible. To claim that Islam somehow can't overcome the... harsher... aspects of it is to ignore your own religion's history.

Are to look at it a bit more realistically..to claim that Islam somehow can't overcome the harsher aspects of its scripture..si to admit your own failure as a religion to do so. Let's be honest. The only time xtianity ever looks the least bit acceptable is when it's compare to islam. Frankly it get's quite tiresome giving xtianity a pass because islam is worse.

 

[Falvlun]

FAIR? What do you mean with that term? Fair means in accordance with the rules. Is death fair? Is death justified? Is death ethical? These are different questions.

Those are all good distinctions. Feel free to provide your stance on any or all of them.

Though, I'm not really sure I would equate "fair" with "legality". It is more a concept of equanimity: treat all people the same. And, I also suppose, reciprocity: do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

Those are all good distinctions. Feel free to provide your stance on any or all of them.

Though, I'm not really sure I would equate "fair" with "legality". It is more a concept of equanimity: treat all people the same. And, I also suppose, reciprocity: do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Treat other people according to cultural/societal conventions! There is nothing unfair about hitting below the belt..if you did not agree to be in a fight and were attacked. There is something unfair about hitting below the belt if you are in a boxing ring. There is nothing unfair about one squirrel taking another squirrel's nuts; it's called competition. Only when humans make rules are your actions restricted by fairness; it's a convention that is meant to be mutually beneficial and part of the social contract.

Fair has nothing to do with it unless BOTH parties have agreed, explicitly or implicitly, on the rules of engagement. There are 'rules' of war, and breaking them is unfair. If someone robs you with a gun, they don't deserve to be shot dead, but (in Texas anyway) you are 100% justified in defending yourself; fair has nothing to do with it.

I don't think fair has to do with equanimity; if you fail to send in your check by April 15th, you will be fined and pay much more than a guy in similar circumstances that sent in a check one day sooner...There is nothing equitable about that, but it's fair because you failed to follow the rule.

If I cause an accident and run into you, and my car is totaled, and I'm hospitalized, and you have just a scrape and no injuries...just what is equitable about me paying for your little bit of damage on top of all my bills and damages? It's completely fair that I pay (because I'm the one that broke the rule) but there is nothing that equalizes my losses with yours.

If some guy from ISIS walks up to you and wants to chop off your head, would it be unfair to kick him in the ^((*&? I don't think so because i did not agree to play by his rules. Yet according to his rules you are FAIR game.

If I shoot a duck in season, I'm fair..How is that fair to the duck?

 

[Falvlun]

Treat other people according to cultural/societal conventions! There is nothing unfair about hitting below the belt..if you did not agree to be in a fight and were attacked. There is something unfair about hitting below the belt if you are in a boxing ring. There is nothing unfair about one squirrel taking another squirrel's nuts; it's called competition. Only when humans make rules are your actions restricted by fairness; it's a convention that is meant to be mutually beneficial and part of the social contract.

Except that humans are not alone in concepts of fairness: Capuchin Monkey Fairness Experiment.
I agree with the end of your statement above "it's a convention that is meant to be mutually beneficial and part of the social contract". Mutual benefits and social contracts are not necessarily or inherently about rules; I think it's a bit more organic than that.

I do acknowledge that different cultures can have differing concepts of fairness. However, in appealing to leibowde84's sense of fairness, I wanted to break through the rules and laws and technicalities he may be enmeshed in, and see how it spoke to his gut instinct: How would you feel if you were so severely censored for simply speaking your beliefs?

I don't think fair has to do with equanimity; if you fail to send in your check by April 15th, you will be fined and pay much more than a guy in similar circumstances that sent in a check one day sooner...There is nothing equitable about that, but it's fair because you failed to follow the rule.

But is it not egalitarian to not make exceptions for people, to have the rules equally applied to all? I don't think fairness is a hard and fast "rule", probably because it has its roots in our evolution of morality. It's more an instinct than an algorithm.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

Except that humans are not alone in concepts of fairness: Capuchin Monkey Fairness Experiment.
I agree with the end of your statement above "it's a convention that is meant to be mutually beneficial and part of the social contract". Mutual benefits and social contracts are not necessarily or inherently about rules; I think it's a bit more organic than that.

I'm going to ponder on this a bit.

I do acknowledge that different cultures can have differing concepts of fairness. However, in appealing to leibowde84's sense of fairness, I wanted to break through the rules and laws and technicalities he may be enmeshed in, and see how it spoke to his gut instinct: How would you feel if you were so severely censored for simply speaking your beliefs?


But is it not egalitarian to not make exceptions for people, to have the rules equally applied to all? I don't think fairness is a hard and fast "rule", probably because it has its roots in our evolution of morality. It's more an instinct than an algorithm.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

But is it not egalitarian to not make exceptions for people, to have the rules equally applied to all? I don't think fairness is a hard and fast "rule", probably because it has its roots in our evolution of morality. It's more an instinct than an algorithm.

Going to think on this a bit more...but is it not egalitarian to contrive exceptions to the rules for certain people, and then to codify these exceptions? I.e. greeks have rights...landowners have rights....freepersons have rights...men have rights...those who invest this way or that way have shelters...those who conduct business this way or that way have options...those who store there money in this bank or that bank are immune?

 

[Quintessence]

So how do you suggest we tread in the situation where someone cares about being a pedophile? Maybe someone cares about killing all jews; you suggest we should be a bit ginger when 'ridiculing' this person because it's not good conflict management? And we are failing to actively listen...HOGWASH.

If you care about something either back it up with facts or quit whining when someone calls you on it. If you can't handle the heat get out of the kitchen. If you can't back up your facts...

what do you suggest we do when one party want' to kill those who don't believe in jesus an the other party want's to kill those that do believe in mo? I usually see better from you.

You might want to read the second post I made in this thread (on that first page).

If you want to use your values as an excuse to be a complete jerk to people, go for it. Do what you want.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

You might want to read the second post I made in this thread (on that first page).

If you want to use your values as an excuse to be a complete jerk to people, go for it. Do what you want.

You might want to take a look at the second post you made in this thread and ask yourself if there was any point to it other than 'I meant to do that?' It was as inane as your first post and added nothing to justify the postion that ridiculous positions should not be ridiculed. Sorry for boiling it down.

 

[Falvlun]

Going to think on this a bit more...but is it not egalitarian to contrive exceptions to the rules for certain people, and then to codify these exceptions? I.e. greeks have rights...landowners have rights....freepersons have rights...men have rights...those who invest this way or that way have shelters...those who conduct business this way or that way have options...those who store there money in this bank or that bank are immune?

I think that would be the opposite of egalitarian (of, relating to, or believing in the principle that all people are equal and deserve equal rights and opportunities. Definition from Google).

I'll try to make this simpler. I think you came up with great examples as to the complexity involved in what we think is fair. The concept, as you have demonstrated, is not equally applied in all circumstances: some things are fair in situation X, while the same things are not fair in situation Y.

However, I do not think fairness is a completely artificial construction, codified by rules. I think there is an innate human element to it, our "gut instinct" that weighs in when we determine whether something is fair or not.

 

[Servant_of_the_One1]

So how do you suggest we tread in the situation where someone cares about being a pedophile? Maybe someone cares about killing all jews; you suggest we should be a bit ginger when 'ridiculing' this person because it's not good conflict management? And we are failing to actively listen...HOGWASH.

If you care about something either back it up with facts or quit whining when someone calls you on it. If you can't handle the heat get out of the kitchen. If you can't back up your facts...

what do you suggest we do when one party want' to kill those who don't believe in jesus an the other party want's to kill those that do believe in mo? I usually see better from you.

You can ridicule whatever and whoever u want, do that only in your own country.

As for atheists who insult the prophet PBUH in a muslim country where shariah is applied, whatever happens to them its because of what their tongue said. They should only blame their own tongue for the consequence.