Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[ThomasHobbes]

It is natural for the fundamentalist Muslim male to be a Terrorist, Terrorism, Machismo, is in his Blood.

The Muslim male is continually fighting the battle for the survival of the most fit.

The Fundamentalist Muslim Male rides upon a white Horse, going about the countryside Killing and to Kill.

Pure racism.

[Spectrum]

As I had stated a New Islam is not effective.
There has been many versions of New Islam and they have not been effective.
Note the peaceful Ahmadiyyah, Sufism, etc. where they are killed by the 'true' Muslims all over the world.

There have been successes like the Baha'i Faith (which contains Islam within it) that have scared the establishment into being brutal in their suppression of it - people can shift, and a hate-free version of Islam could be viable and powerful, particularly if it takes upon itself the task of ridding the world of Old Islam by systematically killing all the extremists.

If you can ban Islam [Muhammad Quran, Hadith & Sira] via Laws throughout the World and introduce a 'New Islam' [equivalent to Buddhism, Jainism] without any hate and evil elements. I can agree with that but preferably with a different name and no mentioned of the word 'Islam.'
However, realistically, I cannot see how banning Islam is feasible in the face of the OIC - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organisat ... ooperation.

If you can come up with a new-Version of Islam, I do not believe such a 'New Islam' is possible and practical to convert all existing Muslims to 'New Islam' given the existential and religious groundings inherent in humans.
Given the worldwide support for Islam as it it, it would be difficult for the authorities to change their minds and establish laws to ban original Islam.
In addition, I have stated 'Islam' is divinely immutable as commanded by Allah. Your view of 'testing' is purely a human view not supported by God's word in the Quran.

Re Bahai, it has very little to do with Islam in terms of doctrines.

Though originating from Islam, there are a considerable amount of differences between the two religions. Bahai is not considered a sub sect of Islam, but as a new religion itself.

http://www.differencebetween.net/miscel ... z5GfK3soxl

Your thesis will definitely have to take time, say 50-100 years or more.
For that time taken, my thesis would be more effective and optimal to wean off Islam [priority] and all religions within that time. My thesis involves dealing with the unavoidable proximate root causes on a neural basis and replacing net-negative religions with foolproof net-positive spiritual self-development practices.

[Karpel Tunnel]

It is natural for the fundamentalist Muslim male to be a Terrorist, Terrorism, Machismo, is in his Blood.

The Muslim male is continually fighting the battle for the survival of the most fit.

The Fundamentalist Muslim Male rides upon a white Horse, going about the countryside Killing and to Kill.

Pure racism.

He did use the word blood, but to judge Muslims is not to judge a race, it is the judge a group sharing an ideology. Ideologies are clearly connected to behavior and attitudes, whereas race is not.

[ThomasHobbes]

Pure racism.

He did use the word blood, but to judge Muslims is not to judge a race, it is the judge a group sharing an ideology. Ideologies are clearly connected to behavior and attitudes, whereas race is not.

Rubbish.
There are 1.5 billion muslims in the world. How many of them fit into this absurd caricature?
"Racism" is a word used to extend far beyond what is an arbitrary category "race". Due to the absurd nature of his prejudice such distinctions that you make are irrelevant.

I'm damn sure that somewhere in the Muslim world there is exist his analogue who says the same stuff about "Christians" with more justification, since "Christians" have killed far more Muslims that Muslims have killed Christians.

[David Cooper]

Rubbish.

Not really - it isn't about race, so don't label it as racism. Think up some other word to describe his prejudice without overstating the case. Most people who are prejudiced against Muslims have no such prejudice against Hindus who are of the same race as many Muslims, so racist is not the right description. The prejudice comes out of fear of the people who act on the vicious hate of Islam, and yes - many people go too far in their response to it by tarring all Muslims with the same brush and depicting them all as terrorists. Most of them merely give accidental support to terrorism by protecting the holy hate that drives it, but they simply don't understand that that's what they're doing and they are mystified as to why the lives of so many Muslims are so caught up in violence. There is no justification for hating these people who need to be helped and educated.

I'm damn sure that somewhere in the Muslim world there is exist his analogue who says the same stuff about "Christians" with more justification, since "Christians" have killed far more Muslims that Muslims have killed Christians.

There are many such people on both sides, and by going too far, they merely generate more hate and make the problem worse. Do you have numbers to back up how many of each side have been killed by the other though? I'm not suggesting you're wrong, but I haven't seen the evidence for it and I just want to be sure you aren't reading the wrong numbers from people who class Muslims killing Muslims in Iraq as Christians killing Muslims.

[David Cooper]

However, realistically, I cannot see how banning Islam is feasible in the face of the OIC - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organisat ... ooperation.

An outright ban on Islam would likely require genocide to be effective because people simply don't give up their religion that easily. There are powerful organisations working with that exact objective in mind though - they pose as friends of Muslims, but they actually aim to generate more and more hatred of Muslims until they have enough backing for a world-wide genocide. Their activities should be exposed to prevent that, but they are able to defend themselves against any such accusations by calling their attackers racists and Islamophobes, so it's practically impossible to warn anyone of what they're cooking up or how they're going about it.

I mentioned the Baha'i Faith because it has been particularly successful at converting people away from Islam, but it does that by not making them give up Islam completely - they can go on clinging to it if they wish and thereby don't lose any of the things they love about it. We should learn from that as it provides an easier way for people to move away from the hate when they don't have to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

For that time taken, my thesis would be more effective and optimal to wean off Islam [priority] and all religions within that time. My thesis involves dealing with the unavoidable proximate root causes on a neural basis and replacing net-negative religions with foolproof net-positive spiritual self-development practices.

Your approach and mine are both monumental tasks, but I see yours as harder because most people will remain magical thinkers who want the crutch that their religion gives them, even if they only want to do a lightweight version of their religion. Giving them benign, more rational versions of their religions to follow is much more likely to succeed, and all the primitive desires they have to kill evil people can be turned against the people who are actually evil; those being the ones who defend religious hate.

[Erribert]

Islam is an Abrahamaic religion. It differs little from Judaism and Christianity. It does differ from Christianity in that Islam does not carry a symbol of Mohammed onto the battlefield. Christians made a god out of Jesus and saw no problem carrying their God into battle.

I call Islam “the new Christianity”. Islam has not yet reached the level of terror that Christianity accumulated over its history. Islam became militarized about 200 years after Mohammed. Even then, it was tolerant of other religions. The Christianity that was finally confirmed in the Council of Nicea, was anti other Christian sects before that. They created the term heretic that was used against other believers in Christ. For example Christian Gnostics were slaughtered. Just take a look at the Cathars in France that the pope killed. Talk about terror! Or, look at thr Spanish Inquisition. Rule through terror.

Islam has still a ways to go before it can match Christian terrorism. Remember those crusades?

In my opinion.

Cheers

[ThomasHobbes]

Rubbish.

Not really - it isn't about race, so don't label it as racism. Think up some other word to describe his prejudice without overstating the case.

Racism does not require that the idea of "races" be valid. For my money the idea that humans can be conveniently separated by arbitrary characteristics is absurd and a scourge on humanity. Races have no basis. But that does not mean I cannot recognise racism when I see it.

[Spectrum]

However, realistically, I cannot see how banning Islam is feasible in the face of the OIC - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organisat ... ooperation.

An outright ban on Islam would likely require genocide to be effective because people simply don't give up their religion that easily. There are powerful organisations working with that exact objective in mind though - they pose as friends of Muslims, but they actually aim to generate more and more hatred of Muslims until they have enough backing for a world-wide genocide. Their activities should be exposed to prevent that, but they are able to defend themselves against any such accusations by calling their attackers racists and Islamophobes, so it's practically impossible to warn anyone of what they're cooking up or how they're going about it.

I mentioned the Baha'i Faith because it has been particularly successful at converting people away from Islam, but it does that by not making them give up Islam completely - they can go on clinging to it if they wish and thereby don't lose any of the things they love about it. We should learn from that as it provides an easier way for people to move away from the hate when they don't have to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

".... because people simply don't give up their religion that easily. "

That is my point. Religionists will easily kill those who threaten their religion. Worst if the religion itself [like Islam] sanction such killings within its holy texts.
Re 'people' we are talking 1.5 billion not one or two individuals.

Even with mass conversion, the most likely is to convince 10 or up to 20% to Bahai or an equivalent but there are still 80% i.e. 1.2 billion. If 50% converted to Bahai we still have 750 million. Note a lone wolf Muslim can do lots of damage and it only took 18++ to do a 911.
It will not take many people to nuke or poison the Earth when WMDs are easily and cheaply available. Note how North Korea with a population of 25 million could built nukes so easily despite the sanctions and prevention. Israel with 8+ million nuclear arms long time ago.

My indepth analysis convince me it is impossible to convert Muslims to a benign pseudo-Islam effectively.

For that time taken, my thesis would be more effective and optimal to wean off Islam [priority] and all religions within that time. My thesis involves dealing with the unavoidable proximate root causes on a neural basis and replacing net-negative religions with foolproof net-positive spiritual self-development practices.

Your approach and mine are both monumental tasks, but I see yours as harder because most people will remain magical thinkers who want the crutch that their religion gives them, even if they only want to do a lightweight version of their religion. Giving them benign, more rational versions of their religions to follow is much more likely to succeed, and all the primitive desires they have to kill evil people can be turned against the people who are actually evil; those being the ones who defend religious hate.

Your limitation is your approach is merely "firefighting" and not addressing the proximate or ultimate root causes.
The default principle in problem solving is one must always address the problem from the level of the root causes and not the superficial symptoms.

I agree my proposal is monumental but not impossible given the current trend of an exponential expansion of knowledge and technology and I foresee it can only come to fruition within the next 50, 75 or 100 years.
The solution involves tracing to its very roots, i.e. to every neuron or sets of neurons that are driving the religious impulse within the brain. From there we deal [note! FOOLPROOF strategy] with these sets of neuron to deflect that primal impulse to net-positive impulses.

At present we have very crude [like sledgehammer to do surgery] in dealing with headache [brain pain] which is as simple as taking an aspirin [or opioid] in numbing the pain neurons.
In the future [50, 75 or 100 years or >] we will be able to have solutions [note! FOOLPROOF strategy] targeted to specific sets of neurons in the brain.

[Spectrum]

Islam is an Abrahamaic religion. It differs little from Judaism and Christianity. It does differ from Christianity in that Islam does not carry a symbol of Mohammed onto the battlefield. Christians made a god out of Jesus and saw no problem carrying their God into battle.

You are simply ignorant with the above views.
The core of the Abrahamic religions are represented by the core holy texts, i.e. Torah =Judaism, Bible [NT] = Christianity, Quran =Islam.
I have asked many times, where in the NT [not the abrogated OT] did Jesus command Christians to kill non-Christians in the name of God or Jesus?

On the other hand, it is very explicit within the Quran where God sanction the killing of non-Muslims on the basis that they not believe in Allah and his latest Messenger.

The Torah [OT] has tons of evil and violent verses but somehow has not driven Jews to commit as much terror, evil and violence as the Islamists who were inspire by their Quran to kill non-Muslims as a divine duty to please Allah so they can get an assured passage to Paradise filled with virgins.

I call Islam “the new Christianity”. Islam has not yet reached the level of terror that Christianity accumulated over its history. Islam became militarized about 200 years after Mohammed. Even then, it was tolerant of other religions. The Christianity that was finally confirmed in the Council of Nicea, was anti other Christian sects before that. They created the term heretic that was used against other believers in Christ. For example Christian Gnostics were slaughtered. Just take a look at the Cathars in France that the pope killed. Talk about terror! Or, look at thr Spanish Inquisition. Rule through terror.

Islam has still a ways to go before it can match Christian terrorism. Remember those crusades?

In my opinion.

Cheers

I have explained the above many times.
The best justifications the crusaders could squeezed out was 'Its God's Will' from their own invention and will in desperation to counter attacks by Muslims. There are no commands in the NT which command Christians to kill non-Christians. Rather Jesus laid down a pacifist maxim, i.e. Love Your Enemies.

Again you seem to be ignorant of the real numbers of killing from Christians [by ownselves not Christianity] and Muslims [sanction by Islam itself].
I have read of many stats comparing those killed by Muslims and Christianity.
Here is a quick point - details can be obtained from elsewhere in the internet.

The enormity of the slaughters of the "religion of peace" are so far beyond comprehension that even honest historians overlook the scale. When one looks beyond our myopic focus, Islam is the greatest killing machine in the history of mankind, bar none.
Conservative estimates place the number at 80 million dead Indians.

• According to some calculations, the Indian (subcontinent) population decreased by 80 million between 1000 (conquest of Afghanistan) and 1525 (end of Delhi Sultanate). -- Koenrad Elst as quoted on Daniel Pipes site

80 Million?! The conquistadors' crimes pale into insignificance at that number. No wonder Hitler admired Islam as a fighting religion. He stood in awe of Islam, whose butchery even he did not surpass.

Over 110 Million Blacks were killed by Islam.

• ... a minumum of 28 Million African were enslaved in the Muslim Middle East. Since, at least, 80 percent of those captured by Muslim slave traders were calculated to have died before reaching the slave market, it is believed that the death toll from 1400 years of Arab and Muslim slave raids into Africa could have been as high as 112 Millions. When added to the number of those sold in the slave markets, the total number of African victims of the trans-Saharan and East African slave trade could be significantly higher than 140 Million people. -- John Allembillah Azumah, author of The Legacy of Arab-Islam in Africa: A Quest for Inter-religious Dialogue

Add just those two numbers alone together, and Islam has surpassed the victims of 20th-century totalitarianism. However, it does not end there. Add the millions who died at the hand of Muslims in the Sudan in our lifetime.
https://www.quora.com/Which-religion-is ... re-history

I am not a Christian nor pro Christianity. Killing one human is bad enough.
The point here is we must research and understand the root causes which are driving the killing.
The Christians who killed were evil and bad people, just like evil Buddhists who killed but such killings by certain followers has nothing to do with a inherently pacifist religion.
On the other hand the killing by Muslims are inspired and sanction by Islam itself which inspired the already evil Muslims to kill non-Muslims.

[Spectrum]

Not really - it isn't about race, so don't label it as racism. Think up some other word to describe his prejudice without overstating the case.

Racism does not require that the idea of "races" be valid. For my money the idea that humans can be conveniently separated by arbitrary characteristics is absurd and a scourge on humanity. Races have no basis. But that does not mean I cannot recognise racism when I see it.

Note this is a Philosophy Forum, not a fishmarket nor a place for political propaganda / rhetorics.

In Philosophy we need high precision with concepts and ideas.
It is more so especially with regard to concepts that has very sensitive and significant moral and ethical impacts.
The term 'race' is a very sensitive term and is associated with very strong psychological states to the extent we have Laws on Racism and dealt at the highest level within the UN.

It is true there is no such thing as 'race' in absolute terms. From a DNA analysis all humans at present has mixed genetics from various place is various degrees traceable to tribes in Africa. However from DNA analysis there are also significant / major difference between major groups of people. It is so obvious who is 'black' is distinctively different from who is 'white' and has caused terrible social problems.

Religion is a very loose term and thus require very specific definitions when dealing with the relevant contexts.

In Philosophy, the respect and conformation to logic is very critical.
The mainstay of logic is the Law of Identity, i.e. A = A.

Now when you conflate 'Islam' which is specifically a Religion with 'Race' you are committing a very serious error, i.e. the fallacy of equivocation or conflation.
If you insist in doing that, you are insulting your own intelligence.

[Wayne92587]

The Koran, Sharia, Islamic Law, moral Righteousness is written by fight by false prophets !!

Mohammad never put Islam into written form.

Islamic Law, sharia, is the musing of false Prophets.

Thomas Hobbs; I really do not care to discuss the subject with you.

[Wayne92587]

ThomasHobbes you may feel free to say that I am a hypocrite without me bad mouthing you; but you are not.

You can not yell fire in a crowded forum and not suffer any consequences.

[David Cooper]

".... because people simply don't give up their religion that easily. "

That is my point. Religionists will easily kill those who threaten their religion. Worst if the religion itself [like Islam] sanction such killings within its holy texts.

If you switch to a new religion and think of it being the same religion because the two are practically identical apart from the removal of all the hate, you have not given up anything that you care about. I think most people will feel liberated by having this option to junk the vile things that contaminate their faith while they retain everything else, and the only talk of killing that remains will be directed at the people who cling to the hate. The majority will follow New Islam and the rest will rapidly be wiped out, as will all trace of the original hate. Islam needs a jihad against hate. To encourage them with this, all other religions should do the same, ruthlessly hunting down all the evil people that are attracted to holy hate.

My indepth analysis convince me it is impossible to convert Muslims to a benign pseudo-Islam effectively.

Is it not even more impossible to convert them away from Islam to atheism? Neither thing is impossible, but one will likely take a lot more oppression to achieve it than the other. The biggest motivation for religious belief is the promise of eternal life and reunion with all the people you care about in a better place - that's the thing that really sucks them in, and it isn't kind to try to tear that hope away from them. Let them keep their crutch, but detoxify it.

Your limitation is your approach is merely "firefighting" and not addressing the proximate or ultimate root causes.
The default principle in problem solving is one must always address the problem from the level of the root causes and not the superficial symptoms.

What are the root causes? The attraction of religion is the promise of a happy, eternal ending. The curse of religion is the hate that it propagates which generates violence. We want to get rid of the latter, and it simply isn't necessary to get rid of the former to achieve that. By trying to get rid of both, you will make people more resistant to what you're trying to achieve and will lead them to cling to the hate more strongly too, with the result that the "cure" will likely require a lot of brutal suppression. I think there's a gentler route which doesn't carry extra risk.

I agree my proposal is monumental but not impossible given the current trend of an exponential expansion of knowledge and technology and I foresee it can only come to fruition within the next 50, 75 or 100 years.

That's a long time to wait, during which people will be cooking up genetic weapons and robotic devices that can kill more effectively than nuclear weapons - it's highly likely that Russia or China will have resolved the issue long before then through the use of genocidal AI. Our job is to try to find a kind solution that can be implemented before that so that the deaths can be minimised the and ideally be restricted just to the people who love violence.

The solution involves tracing to its very roots, i.e. to every neuron or sets of neurons that are driving the religious impulse within the brain. From there we deal [note! FOOLPROOF strategy] with these sets of neuron to deflect that primal impulse to net-positive impulses.

There is no guarantee that there is a genetic religious impulse. It's more likely that there's a tendency to believe the ideas that get into the brain first and then to reject better ideas that are encountered later on the basis that they conflict with the ideas that are already installed. That fits with the way non-religious ideologies take people's minds over too, and badly-thought-out scientific beliefs which become set in stone, such as Einstein's relativity (which generates contradictions where Lorentz's version does not). Religious thinking is very much the norm, but the cure for it is to bring people up to question everything and not trust authorities. It might also take a thousand years to decode how the brain works well enough to tinker with it in any useful way. Religious and ideological hate is a bomb that needs to be defused, but it is a bomb that is unwittingly carried by good people who have been hoodwinked into carrying it around with them, and it repeatedly triggers genocide. We can defuse that bomb more quickly by providing education and by putting in place easy paths which people can follow that allow them to jettison the bomb without throwing away the ideas they actually care about. We have to get them to understand the mechanism by which the holy hate tied up in their religion drives the violence that blights their lives, because then they will be open to rejecting that hate. The first step is to show them the hate by mapping it all out for them so that they have no choice other than to confront it and admit to what they've unwittingly endorsed.

[ThomasHobbes]

Racism does not require that the idea of "races" be valid. For my money the idea that humans can be conveniently separated by arbitrary characteristics is absurd and a scourge on humanity. Races have no basis. But that does not mean I cannot recognise racism when I see it.

Note this is a Philosophy Forum, not a fishmarket nor a place for political propaganda / rhetorics.

In Philosophy we need high precision with concepts and ideas.
It is more so especially with regard to concepts that has very sensitive and significant moral and ethical impacts.
The term 'race' is a very sensitive term and is associated with very strong psychological states to the extent we have Laws on Racism and dealt at the highest level within the UN.

It is true there is no such thing as 'race' in absolute terms. From a DNA analysis all humans at present has mixed genetics from various place is various degrees traceable to tribes in Africa. However from DNA analysis there are also significant / major difference between major groups of people. It is so obvious who is 'black' is distinctively different from who is 'white' and has caused terrible social problems.

Religion is a very loose term and thus require very specific definitions when dealing with the relevant contexts.

In Philosophy, the respect and conformation to logic is very critical.
The mainstay of logic is the Law of Identity, i.e. A = A.

Now when you conflate 'Islam' which is specifically a Religion with 'Race' you are committing a very serious error, i.e. the fallacy of equivocation or conflation.
If you insist in doing that, you are insulting your own intelligence.

I did not know we had a resident racist on the Forum. I'll let you know if I have any questions about it.