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

[Antone]

...any text of any sort cannot be interpreted as truly as it possibly can be unless the interpreter, i.e. you and me and everybody else, has knowledge of the times and places in which the texts were conceived.

I don't disagree with this statement--but I'm not sure what the point of it is either. Unless perhaps you are trying to imply that I am working in a vacuum of knowledge. ????

Moreover, we can say the same thing about [any speaker] talking to [any listener], even in today's world. You can't know exactly what I mean unless you know exactly how I define the terms I'm using--and that is an absolute impossibility. All of us define things slightly differently, but that's not justification for throwing up our hands in despair and just giving up on communication.

Additional disparity of meaning can be added between two speakers (for instance) by introducing [cultural space] or [temporal space]. Muhammad lived in a different culture and time--so obviously there are likely to be various definitional distinctions between the meaning of his words and modern use.

The same is true of the Bible:
For instance, Paul writes (in one of his epistles) that women should wear hats. And many have used this passage to imply that all Christian women should always wear hats. But Paul was writing his letter to the occupants of a city where only prostitutes didn't wear hats. The hat advice was specific to that city--and the message was essentially that women shouldn't dress like a prostitute.

Another example involves the translation of the word virgin (as in Virgin Mary). A recent translation of the bible revises "Virgin Mary" to "young woman" or "maiden." This is partially justified, because the word can mean either in the original text. However, in that society, a young woman was expected to be a virgin--which is exactly why the words are mutually translatable. And other indications make it very clear that the bible's intent was to imply that Mary WAS an actual virgin.

This, however, works both ways. We can't assume (for instance) that when the Islamic scriptures refer to Islam as a religion of peace that it means the same thing to us as it meant to them... because it doesn't. Terrorist doctrine is that eventually the world will be conquered my Islam and be governed by a one-world Caliphate. And at that time there will be peace... Since Islam is working for this day (by engaging in Jihad) they feel justified in calling Islam a religion of peace. But it is a peace built on violence, lies, intimidation, and bloodshed.

We cannot understand them properly and as they deserve to be understood unless we understand where they are coming from.

Everyone deserves a chance.
But that includes us non-Muslims who run the risk of being killed by terrorists. We deserve a chance too.

I don't advocate persecuting Muslims randomly, just because they're Muslims. I advocate have strict laws, which make it easier for decent Muslims to be decent--and harder for those Muslims who wish to engage in evil to engage in evil.

I don't think there is anything unreasonable about that. And the bottom line is it doesn't matter how accurately our interpretation is... if we do that, radical Islam will decline and/or be more contained.

Beyond that, (at least at a philosophical level) I don't need to know anything more about how closely my interpretation of the Koran fits with Mohammad's original intent.

There are, however, a great many clues that the educated and non-gullible can use to navigate the intent that Mohammad had. Just because we can't have a perfect understanding of something doesn't mean we shouldn't try... And just because what we find isn't flattering to those who we are studying is not a valid justification for saying "but we can't be sure our interpretation is correct, so we should [ignore the terrorist attacks], and the [words of modern day leaders] and ... and ... and ...

[Belinda]

Antone wrote in reply to Belinda

I don't disagree with this statement--but I'm not sure what the point of it is either. Unless perhaps you are trying to imply that I am working in a vacuum of knowledge. ????

True, interpreting the Bible usually differs from interpeting the Koran as you describe, the Bible is filtered: the Koran is the literal speech of God dictated to Muhammad. But we surely know better than that. We rise above such traditions and we can see that both the Bible and the Koran are often accepted as revelations from God to man, the Koran as being in its entireity literally what God dictated to Muhammad.I do not accept that there is any subject called 'God' who intervenes in history by making helpful revelations. I regard both Bible and Koran as not especially privileged but as I regard any other works of literature.

Any work of literature, any text, may be interpreted according to the tools of interpretation of the reader. These tools are for investigating the conditions under which the texts were written, and also how the texts are interpreted and perhaps used at the time of reading.Those are two different meanings.

If any book, be it Bible or Koran, is regarded as being timeless in its meaning,then that book is a religious object for the religious person. I am not a religious person but try to be open-minded.I was reared as a Protestant which has permitted me to question and analyse religious beliefs and attitudes more than if I has been indoctrinated into the one of the more authoritarian sects such as Islam or RCC.

[Antone]

...the Koran is the literal speech of God dictated to Muhammad. But we surely know better than that.

Of course, I was simply saying that Muslim believe that the Koran is literally the words of God as dictated to Muhammad. That is the story line of the Koran.

In the Bible, by contrast, we occasionally 'hear the voice of God' emanating from the clouds or being written on the tablets of Moses, etc. Sometimes we are given quotes that are supposedly from Jesus, but even here, these words are placed in a larger framework that includes conversations between Jesus and other people--and storyline material that is obviously supposed to be the words of a 'human' narrator.

But (as I understand it) the Koran does not contain these other 'voices'... the whole Koran is supposed to be Muhammad taking notes on what God is saying to him personally.

I do not accept that there is any subject called 'God' who intervenes in history by making helpful revelations.

It doesn't matter one little bit what you believe... (or what the facts are for that matter). That has absolutely no bearing on my argument. It is not even remotely related to my point.

I regard both Bible and Koran as not especially privileged but as I regard any other works of literature.

The Bible and the Koran ARE privileged works of literature... not because of what they actually ARE, but rather because of what religious people hold them to be. When I read a novel, I don't believe that the story-line is true. No one else who is intelligent is likely to do so either.

But when people read the Bible or the Koran, they DO believe these things... and that makes these books different from other works of literature.

Any work of literature, any text, may be interpreted according to the tools of interpretation of the reader. These tools are for investigating the conditions under which the texts were written, and also how the texts are interpreted and perhaps used at the time of reading.Those are two different meanings.

I agree.
Studying the bible as Literature is quite interesting (at least I think). We can also apply a more scientific examination to these works... and that should be part of the interpretation.

By The Way... this is a bit off topic, but if you're interested in scientific studies of the Bible, here is a link to a work called NAZARENUS that I found rather fascinating:
http://www.nazarenus.com/
This work makes the argument that the four Gospels are based on an earlier (lost) play written by Seneca. It covers a lot of the 'glitches' in the gospel story-line, language, and Jewish laws and traditions, and so forth. It suggests that these difficulties can often be explained if we understand that the gospel authors had access to the Seneca play; and that these 'glitches' are really just 'traditional' conventions that were typically used in plays during that time.

[Belinda]

Antone wrote:

The Bible and the Koran ARE privileged works of literature... not because of what they actually ARE, but rather because of what religious people hold them to be. When I read a novel, I don't believe that the story-line is true. No one else who is intelligent is likely to do so either.

But when people read the Bible or the Koran, they DO believe these things... and that makes these books different from other works of literature.

But novels, poems, political speeches, everyday chitchat,reportage,film and stage plays, Twitter, manuals of instruction, and popular and academic scientific publications are also influential because of what people hold them to be.Story-lines are not the only components of novels etc. There are also themes, theories, rhetoric, dialogues,and various agendas of the authors.Even instruction manuals which is largely what the Koran and , more rarely, the Bible are for some people are theory based and constructed according to certain styles.

I call for readings of both Bible and Koran to be backed up by knowledge of the circumstances of the authorship, so that bits that are irrelevant to this day and age are seen to be so.The bits of the Koran that are ethically irrelevant, except for those Muslims who are violent jihadists, are the bits that Muhammad wrote with a view to jollying-up Muslim aggression against infidels.The fault is not in the Koran but in literal readings of it as ethical instruction manual.

Novels, poems etc. are similarly prone to becoming out of date in whole or in part.

Of course, I was simply saying that Muslim believe that the Koran is literally the words of God as dictated to Muhammad. That is the story line of the Koran.

In the Bible, by contrast, we occasionally 'hear the voice of God' emanating from the clouds or being written on the tablets of Moses, etc. Sometimes we are given quotes that are supposedly from Jesus, but even here, these words are placed in a larger framework that includes conversations between Jesus and other people--and storyline material that is obviously supposed to be the words of a 'human' narrator.

But (as I understand it) the Koran does not contain these other 'voices'... the whole Koran is supposed to be Muhammad taking notes on what God is saying to him personally.

True, however I view this as difference of degrees of honorific reverence not as difference of kind. We see honorific reverence towards non-religious texts such as Shakespeare plays and the rest of the canon of great literature, art and science.

[Antone]

I call for readings of both Bible and Koran to be backed up by knowledge of the circumstances of the authorship, so that bits that are irrelevant to this day and age are seen to be so. The bits of the Koran that are ethically irrelevant ... are the bits that Muhammad wrote with a view to jollying-up Muslim aggression against infidels.

Sorry, but I have to say that I think this is just a little silly--for several reasons.

For one thing, you are looking at this from the egocentric viewpoints of an atheist and a modernist.

If you believed the Koran was the WORD of GOD then obviously nothing which it says could be irrelevant to this day and age. Saying such a thing is blasphemy and the person who utters such a thing deserves to die! What is irrelevant is this DAY and AGE... where (horror of horrors) women not only walk around unescorted by a male, but they don't even cover their bodies--let alone their faces. Where women are allowed to drive and vote and divorce their husbands, instead of essentially being dutiful little sex slaves for their male masters--as God intended. Why else would heaven consist of 30 virgins for the Jihad martyrs to use and abused?

Obviously, I don't believe this. But the point is that they do. And they are not entirely unjustified in doing so--given the societies in which they are raised. A few Muslims have a "strong" enough personality to throw off the shackles--despite the constant threat to their physical well being (honor killings, apostasy death sentences, etc.)

It is unreasonable to expect the majority of Muslims to just spontaneously evolve into like minded "modern atheists" who can just pick and choose which of Gods Words they wish to ignore. If they can do that, what is the point of a "Holy Book"? Why not just believe whatever you want?

The fault is not in the Koran but in literal readings of it as ethical instruction manual.

Depends on what you mean by fault. It isn't a Bike Repair Manual's "fault" that bikes get repaired. It isn't the manual that uses people to repair bikes--it's the other way around. So the manual CAN'T be at fault.

But the manual serves as a guideline that shows people how to repair bikes. The author's intended usage was for bike repair. And just because we drive motorcycles or cars now (and so bicycle repair isn't a needed skill for you and I) doesn't mean that someone somewhere won't pick up the book and use it to repair a bike.

I view this as difference of degrees of honorific reverence not as difference of kind. We see honorific reverence towards non-religious texts such as Shakespeare plays and the rest of the canon of great literature, art and science.

It would be more accurate to say that the bible and Koran are different from a novel or poem in the same way that a [bike repair manual] is different from a [novel]. The novel is entertainment. The repair manual is "truth"... You don't have to believe what the manual says is true, but it is presented as truth. You may be a bike repair ATHEIST, feeling that it is foolish to have a bike because we live in a modern society with cars, and so bikes are outdated.

You may even believe that what the manual says is NOT true... what it says isn't the best way to fix a bike.

actually, a lot of "manuals" contain information that is false. Al Gore's movie, "An Inconvenient Lie" is an example of a work that is presented as a truth--but which probably fails to contain a single one. Yet people all around the world still claim to believe in the Global Warming Hoax.

But what you believe doesn't matter. What matters is what the person who uses the manual to repair his bike believes. Your saying that people shouldn't use the manual isn't going to do anything to stop them from using it. And (quite frankly) I think it is a bit irrational to expect that it should.

[Belinda]

For one thing, you are looking at this from the egocentric viewpoints of an atheist and a modernist.

Why is it an egocentric point of view?
I recommend that you look at The hierarchy of Fowler, as posted here by PaulNZ. According to this hierarchy those Muslims who are unable to believe otherwise than they are told to think are low on the hierarchy, ,i.e. unfree.I have been like them , once, when I was a child, and I can if I choose revert to that way of thinking.

And they are not entirely unjustified in doing so--given the societies in which they are raised.

Each individual is 'justified' in believing what he or she believes even if that individual is a mass murderer, according to cultural determinism, if mass murder is an ethic of that society.But some cultures are bad and some cultures are good.One must choose which cultures, or which ethics of those cultures are good and which bad.It's not possible to live all the time as a post modernist.There are plenty of excuses for the terrorised and repressed Muslim to toe the line, but no excuses for modern people to hold to bad ethics and bad culture.

Atheists usually hold to universalistic ethics which apply to all people of whatever ethnic background.Any religious culture with the ethic that infidels must die is not universalistic, but tribal. My faith is that the world is going in the universalistic direction.

So the manual CAN'T be at fault.

That's what I was saying. Certainly I don't expect under-educated people, Muslims or other, to educate themselves into modernity. I am hoping that modernity itself will force education for all the citizens under backword and repressive regimes.

But the manual serves as a guideline that shows people how to repair bikes.

An educated person is enabled to choose which manuals are out of date or downright bad.

the Global Warming Hoax.

If you believe it is a hoax you are less credible on other topics too.

[Dewey]

After reading and in some cases rereading most of the posts in this lengthy thread, I drafted a response to the arguments of Antone and others that our moral and cultural development is dictated by our religious beliefs. I liked my response and was about to submit it,but then I read something by Belinda in another thread. It was about the importance of informing our beliefs with facts. That led me to wonder why, when I had lots of hard facts to draw on, I was arguing chicken-and-egg theory. So I have drafted this response with, I hope, some facts that will convince my readers we are overly fearful of Islamic Jihad, and as a result are not dealing with it appropriately. These facts are from reliable, mostly non-partisan, sources.

1. Over 1.6 billion, nearly 1 in every 4, people in this world are Islamic Muslims. They number at least a million in 72 different countries. Isn't it pretty silly of us to be worrying now about having been "infiltrated"? It seems to me that, more nearly,it's co-infiltration. These numbers make me wonder, not why there' so much terrorism going on, but why there's so little.

2. There are 320 million Muslims in North Africa and the Near East. Those are the areas in which the young Muslims of 7 nations are rebelling because of being denied their natural rights. That doesn't smack of Islam, does it? It appears to me more like the start of a new wave of global democratization.

3. The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life made an exhaustive study (55,000 interviews) in 2007 of the American Muslims. They found that there are over 2 million of these people now and they expect an increase to 6 million, 2% of the total population, by 2030. The survey shows that although many Muslims are relative newcomers to the U.S., they are highly assimilated into
American society. On balance, these Muslims believe that additional Muslims coming to the U.S. should try and adopt American customs, rather than trying to remain distinct from the larger society. And by nearly two-to-one (63%-32%) Muslim Americans do not see a conflict between being a
devout Muslim and living in a modern society.

Pew found little support for terrorism among Muslim Americans. They regarded the few Muslims who choose to engage in terrorism as a threat needing to be taken seriously. But they also noted that the relative position of these few terrorists on the fringe of the community yields an important insight as to how this should be undertaken: America’s Muslim community is an obstacle to participation in al-Qaeda’s jihad, not a gateway. As Pew put it, the logical conclusion is that we must embrace this community in the fight against terrorism rather than undermine it through fear-mongering.

* * * * *

I'm tempted to go on and point out how our fear of
terrorism has blinded us into thinking that killing us is the end result being pursued by al-Quaeda. We have forgotten, if we ever knew, that the violence was instituted as the means to their political end. Not only that, there's all kinds of evidence surfacing now showing that theleaders of those movements are realizing their means are not working. They're talking among
themselves about bringing the violence to a halt.

I'm tempted -- but I won't.

[Antone]

1. Over 1.6 billion, nearly 1 in every 4, people in this world are Islamic Muslims. They number at least a million in 72 different countries. Isn't it pretty silly of us to be worrying now about having been "infiltrated"? It seems to me that, more nearly,it's co-infiltration. These numbers make me wonder, not why there' so much terrorism going on, but why there's so little.

When Hitler was striving to come to power, there were a lot of Nazis in Germany. Was it too late for Germans (and particularly Jewish Germans) to worry about being infiltrated by Nazis?

The only time it's too late to worry about being 'infiltrated' by the 'enemy' (i.e. someone who wants to destroy you) is when you've been completely over taken.

And radical Islam clearly has an agenda that says, "First the Saturday people and then the Sunday people!" In other words, they want to conquer (or annihilate) the Jews and then they want to conquer(or annihilate) the Christians.

Here's a link that presents a small window on the problem. If you watch it, pay particular attention to the first few minutes where Bridgette lists a small number of the so called leading moderates who have later been found guilty of being (or collaborating) with known terrorist--to the extent that they were found 'criminally' guilty.
http://www.youtube.com/user/act4america ... 0Va8--y_T8
And there are many Known terrorists and terrorists sympathizers who have not been prosecuted. For example, the Imam who was trying to get the Super mosque built at Ground Zero in NYC the site of the 9/11 where over 3,000 people were killed by Muslim terrorists... has direct ties to known terrorists. And he received a significant portion of his funding from terrorist groups. Similarly, CAIR has been repeatedly portrayed as a moderate group, but again it was founded by known terrorists.

Similarly, countries like Saudi Arabia have been funding American colleges with millions of dollars for decades. In return, those with radical ideologies have been appointed to key positions that include appointing the professors and other administrators, selecting the curriculum, campus policies, and so forth.

2. There are 320 million Muslims in North Africa and the Near East. Those are the areas in which the young Muslims of 7 nations are rebelling because of being denied their natural rights. That doesn't smack of Islam, does it? It appears to me more like the start of a new wave of global democratization.

Not really.

These Muslims have been oppressed for many years by Muslim dictators--often of a different Islamic sect, which is why they've been persecuted. And so it is understandable that they would want to throw off these evil dictators. But what do they want to replace those dictators with? Many want to replace the old oppressive regime with a new oppressive regime. And even if you suppose that the majority really do want something that looks vaguely like the freedom of American "democracy", what are the chances that the movement will actually produce such a thing?

Iran rebelled against the Shaw, claiming to want democracy. And what was the result? The Ayatollah Khomeini, who renewed the Islamic tradition of terrorism and jihad.

Similarly, in Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood--a radical Jihadist group--seems to be one of the key players trying to take advantage of the fall of the old government. And the so-called rebels that President ObamaNation is now funding in (Libia?) are al-Qaeda members--the very same people that America was fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.

You also have to realize that what many of those protesting want to to be able to worship their radical Islam beliefs--which require violent jihad to continue.

3. ... by nearly two-to-one (63%-32%) Muslim Americans do not see a conflict between being a devout Muslim and living in a modern society.

lol...lol...lol...lol...
That means that 32% do see a conflict. That's hundreds of thousands of Muslims who are likely working feverishly to undermine America. Perhaps waiting for their opportunity to kill, as Sgt. Nadal Hassan did. Or perhaps they will choose less overt methods--such as the Muslim woman who was busted lying about a cop who stopped her. She made a lot of claims to stir up anger against the cop--but his actions were caught on video, which proved she was lying about everything.

The fact is, historically it doesn't take a very large percentage of the population to be Muslim to create severe problems. When the percentages are low, the difficulties that they create are relatively small--and Muslims 'pretend' to want to integrate and blend in. But as the numbers increase, to around 5-10% of the population you begin to get more severe problems associated with the Muslim communities.

This is a serious problem because Muslims tend to have a lot of children while other religions have stopped doing that. For instance, Osama bin Laddin has 23 children and is one of 52 children. (approx. numbers) At this rate, it doesn't take too many generations for a Muslim population to start tipping the percentages in their favor. Once the Muslims in a country gain a majority, they begin subjugating and killing non-Muslims.

Brigette Gabriel grew up in Lebanon back when it was mostly a Christian nation. It was then known as the "Paris of the middle East" because it was a jewel of economic activity and multicultural openness. Christians and Muslims seemed to get along, and both worked hard to get more and more rights for Muslims. Then, when the Muslim population became dominant, the Muslims began to pass laws that turned Lebanon into a war-torn hell-hole. Mrs. Gabriel talks about her life as a child, living in these conditions. Before the "take over" one of her best friends was a Muslim Student. They shared everything and went everywhere together. After the take over, her friend could no longer be seen with her, because if she was seen she would risk being KILLED for associating with a Christian.

Her father lost his business and she ended up living in a bomb shelter for years. When she was older and would travel to work, there were frequent road stops where Muslims would stop cars to check for who was Jewish or Chirstian--they were pulled from the cars and shot.

People she knew were tortured. One mother was driven insane because her hands were tied to a chair with a knife, and then she was forced to stab her own child... etc.

America’s Muslim community is an obstacle to participation in al-Qaeda’s jihad, not a gateway. As Pew put it, the logical conclusion is that we must embrace this community in the fight against terrorism rather than undermine it through fear-mongering.

While it is true that many American Muslims came to America to escape this sort of thing--it is also true that there is FAR TOO MUCH radical activity going on in America already.

There are hundreds of Mosques (and madrases) that have been funded by money from terrorists groups--and with imams that are highly radical. Many Muslims are poorly educated and cannot read the Koran--and so they rely on what their imam says to inform their beliefs. Other radical imams are allowed to preach (i.e. recruit) in our prisons. And dozens of radical Muslim groups have been discovered usually posing as charity organizations, or as Muslim-American cooperation groups. Radical Jihadist hate-speech (promoting killing and such) has been found in the lectures of American Professors. And colleges encourage speaking guests of this sort while trying hard to suppress those who speak out against radical Islam. We have Sharia financing, which covertly funnels millions of dollars to terrorist groups.

Etc. etc. etc.

We need to make it easier for those decent Muslims who wish to do so to assimilate--and we can do this by loosing the PC insanity and treating evil like evil--instead of like a religion with special privileges.

We can't say a Christian prayer in schools (or have a cross out in the middle of nowhere in a desert), but a school's curriculum can (in the name of Islamic tolerance) teach the child (whitewashed) Islamic principles, and have them participate in prayers, pretend to be Islamic for a day and so forth.

In so many ways... Islam is infiltrating American society... and in many cases it isn't making any attempt to melt into the pot.

[PaulNZ]

Relegion can do it and can build bridges between cultures.

Religion doesn't build bridges between cultures; it creates unnecessary conflict between them. How many wars have been fought in the name of religion? Centuries of warfare, some of which is still going on today.

Religion is a terrible thing.

I think you might be confusing religion with politics; mainly the power and control of wealth and resources, simply because religion has been used as a vehicle to achieve those goals by those in power. Religion is still ultimately about people and therefore is subject to human traits, good and bad.

Religion itself, when pure, is a force for good.

[Spectrum]

Religion doesn't build bridges between cultures; it creates unnecessary conflict between them. How many wars have been fought in the name of religion? Centuries of warfare, some of which is still going on today.

Religion is a terrible thing.

I think you might be confusing religion with politics; mainly the power and control of wealth and resources, simply because religion has been used as a vehicle to achieve those goals by those in power. Religion is still ultimately about people and therefore is subject to human traits, good and bad.

I think one should not rely on the hasty or faulty generalization fallacy to decide on whether religion is overwhelmingly good or evil.

The effective approach to deal with the issue of religion is to understand the 'why' and 'how' religions arose in the first place.
Religion is truly the 'opium' of the people (majority). Religions were created as an effective 'balm' to soothe the terrific psychological angts arising from the primordial fear of inevitable death.
Religion is at best a temporary measure in the evolution timeline.
The problems arising from religion are due to the followers' ignorance of the root causes of why they need and were seduced by religion.
This ignorance enable others (some not all) to exploit the masses for various gains via evil means.

Religion itself, when pure, is a force for good.

There are various (7 to 10) compulsory elements that constitute what a religion is.
Two essential elements are the founders and doctrines in
the main religious text.
Based on this two elements, Islam as a religion is inherently evil.
Thus one cannot assert that religion per-se, by itself, when pure, is a force for good.
On the contrary, Islam when impure has some positives.

[PaulNZ]

I didn't form a hasty opinion but I did make a generalization yes. I agree that these religions were formed as coping mechanisms for dealing with our own mortality but they were also to help us deal with the hardships in life, the apparent pain and indiscriminate suffering inflicted on people by nature in a time when these forces were not understood.

That aside, the themes within the main Abrahamic Faiths are similar in one way, that being compassionate to your fellow followers, the Christian Faith going a little further in saying that you should love your enemy.

If the only religion that existed were followed by all, be it that of Christianity, Judaism or Islam, whatever, would that not be a force for good? Do they not therefore start from an intention to do good?

[Spectrum]

I didn't form a hasty opinion but I did make a generalization yes. I agree that these religions were formed as coping mechanisms for dealing with our own mortality but they were also to help us deal with the hardships in life, the apparent pain and indiscriminate suffering inflicted on people by nature in a time when these forces were not understood.

That aside, the themes within the main Abrahamic Faiths are similar in one way, that being compassionate to your fellow followers, the Christian Faith going a little further in saying that you should love your enemy.

If the only religion that existed were followed by all, be it that of Christianity, Judaism or Islam, whatever, would that not be a force for good? Do they not therefore start from an intention to do good?

Note the Problem of Universals, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_universals.
This problem restraints the discussion of 'if the only religion that existed..." for the subject of religion in this case.
Religions cannot be standardized.

Most religions are based on the doctrines propounded by
a main founder, i.e. Jesus, Moses, Buddha, Krishna, Lao Tzu, Muhammad, and the likes.
Most religions are also basically cult-liked in the beginning, they only become a religion because of its large numbers of followers.

Because religions were based on their founders, religions
do not necessary start with good intentions but rather
based on the psychological drives of the founder.

Reverend Jim Jones founded a cult and if he had done that
2000 years ago, his cult could have been a religion by now. Jones (a psychopath) may have 'good' intentions but the psychological drives that initiated his cult was mentally unstable and inherently evil.

Muhammed initialization of Islam was the same as Jim Jones'
situation. But Muhammed's (pyschopath, mentally ill) demented teachings managed to escape the cult image due to the ignorance of the masses 1500+ years ago.
To make fair judgments on Muhammed's Islam one should read the following.
Understanding Muhammad, A Psychobiography
http://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Muh ... 0980994802
The majority of Muslims definitely has intentions to be
good, but they are not aware of the 'hell' awaiting them
when accepting Islam as their religion.

Taking the above into account, it is fact that religions
cannot be interpreted on a universal basis as not all
religion are fundamentally good from the perpective
of the founders psychological background.

[Keith Russell]

Every now and then, when someone learns of my atheism, the reaction is to question my morality.

The response usually goes like this:

"You're an atheist? Than, if you don't believe that "God" is watching over you, then there's nothing to stop you from stealing, raping, and murdering all the time?"

Whilw I (usually) don't respond this way, my thought is usually that if certain religious persons would happily rape, steal, and murder--except for the fact that they believe "God" is keeping tabs on them--then I don't want to do anything to disabuse them of their belief in "Him"!

[PaulNZ]

I agree with some of what you say Spectrum but not all and I do not care for your tone. I am not an academic but simply an observer who reads a bit of this and that. My beliefs and opinions are based on my reading and my own experience, both spiritually speaking and logically speaking.

The two realms do not fit well together but nevertheless, metaphorically speaking there are places that logic and reason cannot go, and those places are ignored at the individuals expense.

I understand your points but as I say cannot agree with your dissection. You yourself appear to be making some assumptions and twisting my generalizations to change the meaning a little.

The Abrahamic Faiths and others do have general themes, some of which are no longer relevant, others which remain very much relevant. If unity was my goal I would be focussing on positive themes common to those religions to bring people of faith together. I don't find your particular dislike for Islam very objective or helpful in that regard, but of course that is your right, to exercise your opinion as you see fit.

Personally, I choose to focus on unity rather than disharmony. I know we could both give any number of examples of atrocities carried out by people, supposedly in the name of their faith, but in all honesty, regardless of what those people did and said, they were clearly misguided and not people of faith and that is demonstrated by their actions. We are after all defined by our actions.

If the golden rule is in there, whatever the religion, then I'm sure we can work toward unity.

[Spectrum]

PaulNZ, I appreciate you are ignoring the tone factor.
English is not my first language thus the tone may be
a bit awkward and lack grace on the more intense issues.

I am not an acdemician nor I am inclined towards that.
Philosophically, I am truth-driven and thus have the
tendency to break everything into its smallest piece
of knowledge, leave no stone unturned and explore from there.

As for Islam, I admit I am a bit bias, but that is
based on facts. Being truth-driven, I have studied Islam very thoroughly.
Note 17,035 Islam-related very violent attacks since 911.
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
Muslims are better off without Islam, they should choose
another non-violent religion, be agnostic or non-theist.