Does God Exist?

Who has the authority to define what is a "true" Muslim, or what is a "true" Christian? Ultimately, it's a matter of individual conscience. When you talk about Sharia, what are you talking about? Hanbali, Hanifi, Maliki? Shafi'i? You mention polls. To my knowldege, the most extensive poll of Muslim attitudes toward Sharia, involving 38,000 people in 39 Muslim countries, was the Pew Survey in 2008-2012, reported in 2013.. Although a majority favored adoption of Sharia, what they meant by that was mostly using it in private affairs to settle disputes over property or family matters, not amputations for theft or executions for apostasy--and the percentages vary from 99% in Afghanistan to 8% in Azerbaijan. A majority favored freedom of religion and did not want to impose Sharia on non-Muslims. About half expressed concerns about religious extremism. And a strong majority opposed honor killings. Obviously, non-Muslims are not in favor of Sharia. It's a Muslim thing. So what? Your claim to authority as a "student of philosophy and religions" is a bit pretentious. The same could be said of lots of quacks. "Good" is in the eyes of the beholder. Islam offers believers meaning, and if you were really a "friend" to Muslims and knew them well, you must have seen how it operates to give them a sense of belonging to a community in which all are equal before Allah. I don't believe in many of the particulars of islam, but I've learned from it--especially the importance of submission to God, and the teaching that the greatest jihad is within. I find value in the Muslim prayer: "God give me the power to conquer myself."

 

God, of course there is a God. Evolution did not create the eyeball, whats the chances? 1 in quadrillion zillion.

 

I think the chances are much better than that. Of course, it didn't happen directly. The eyeball began as a light sensitive area, the photo-receptor cell, and evolved during the Cambrian as groups of receptors called "eyespots" became selected to provide better vision. For a detailed description, see http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/evolution-of-the-eye/

 

In my opinion, it's a question of limits, and the more you detract from the sacred teachings you claim to follow, the less you are able to call yourself a follower of those teachings; at the limit is the person who doesn't follow a single precept of islam yet calls themselves muslims. We all know many christians like this.

I understand that the majority are against the darkest parts of islam. I have never said otherwise. The issue is that in most of the case, the minorities we are talking about are not 0.1% or 1%, they are 20%, 30%, 40%. Huge swaths of population.

That's wonderful, the part that worries me personally is the other half. I can't for the life of my understand why you feel the need to avoid discussing them, and constantly deflect the conversation to the sanctity of unjustified beliefs which produce bad behaviors.

To a limit. I think if you had to live under the rule of Charles Manson you might take another look at your position of moral relativism. There are objective ways of determining whether behaviors and beliefs exist to maximize human flourishing and minimize human suffering, which is the only game in town.

Yes, all MUSLIMS are equal before Allah (unless you're a woman, then it's a bit complicated), there's a different story for christians and jews, and a very, very different story for polytheists and atheists.

Islam does not have a monopoly on sense of belonging to a community. The entire non-muslim world also feels this sense, including that part of the world which is secular, so this is a total non-sequitor. You might as well say "flat earth theorists get a sense of belonging from their beliefs, so who are you to question them or their beliefs? If you were a true "friend" to flat earth theorists you would know how important it is to them and their communities".

Let's please keep in mind that we are living in the year 2015 and we have at our disposal the entire aegis of human thought, technology, and wisdom from the most ancient antiquity to the most breakthrough empirical discoveries in psychology today. To choose Islam today is to choose poorly.

 

The growth of religious violence is a cultural process whose meanings are context driven and is primarily the province of the violent actor. There is violence associated with every fundamental socially stimulating ideology in existence because to prosecute violently is a choice people make as being just for whatever reason. So it is a matter of upholding statutes as they are interpreted. This is the problem of institutionally countenanced inhumane treatment and is not limited to religion. It is called rule of law, and it is the same perverse interloper against human dignity whether the rule be considered secular or religious. The argument over specific terms misses the identity of the real offender here. Whether you think god endorses it or you think it is the best system for humanity on a humanist basis doesn't matter. It is the statutory imposition that violates humanity. Cut off your hand for stealing or put you in prison for it. Kill you if you steal state secrets and all the while the violence seems righteous.

Statutes are good for building codes, not good for building character.

 

And what builds good character?

Submitting to primitive superstitious oppressive ignorant beliefs?
Or addressing issues logically, reasonably, and empirically?

https://youtu.be/zv071a3Nq1g

-

The Myth: Islam Means ‘Peace’

Lesser educated Muslims sometimes claim that the root word of Islam is “al-Salaam,” which is “peace” in Arabic.

The Truth:

An Arabic word only has one root. The root word for Islam is “al-Silm,” which means “submission” or “surrender.” There is no disagreement about this among Islamic scholars. al-Silm (submission) does not mean the same thing as al-Salaam (peace), otherwise they would be the same word.

Submission and peace can be very different concepts, even if a form of peace is often brought about through forcing others into submission. As the modern-day Islamic scholar, Ibrahim Sulaiman, puts it, "Jihad is not inhumane, despite its necessary violence and bloodshed, its ultimate desire is peace which is protected and enhanced by the rule of law."

In truth, the Quran not only calls Muslims to submit to Allah, it also commands them to subdue people of other religions until they are in a full state of submission to Islamic rule. This has inspired the aggressive history of Islam and its success in conquering other cultures.

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/Myths-of-Islam.htm

 

Relationship.

 

^
Excellent. Short and clear

 

What are the teachings of Christianity? To me those are the teachings of Jesus--the teachings of peace, love and understanding--which have nothing to do with pregnant virgins, talking snakes, six-day creations, and the walking dead. I call myself Christian because I believe in an ultimate meaning that is the Ground of Being (aka God) and because I believe in Jesus as my role model. What else should I call myself? I used to say "Christian agnostic", which is okay, but doesn't describe the depth of my passion and commitment. I've spent a considerable part of my life studying the development of world religions, and am acutely aware of both the positive and negative aspects. I've been influenced by the perennialism of Aldous Huxley, Houston Smith and Karen Armstrong, who see beauty and good in all reIigions (and in my case, in atheism as well). All religions represent the human quest for ultimate meaning and are part of "the distilled wisdom of the human race." (H.Smith) But at the same time, we must acknowledge the historic evils in all religion (and in atheism, as well), or more accurately, the evil that they can become when their truths are distorted by the human ego. I 'm taking a course right now on Classic Christian Writings in which we read the literature that shaped Christian thought since Jesus. I think Christianity took a wrong turn when Paul took it on the road with his emphasis on Jesus as sacrificial lamb, and it went majorly off the rails when the bishops got into bed with Constantine, who transformed the Prince of Peace into General Jesus. The creeds which were taken as the hallmark of a good Christian were the product of a lot of politics and strong-willed articulate individuals like Irenaeus, Augustine and Athanasius pushing their views effectively. To me, those are not "the sacred teachings I claim to follow". They are folly that detract from the real meaning of Jesus.

With Islam, there's the problem that the Prophet Mohammed was both a religious leader and a military commander. The peaceful passages of the Qur'an tend to be the earliest, and the theological doctrine of naskh (abrogation) tends to give the later, more warlike, Medina passages precedence over the earlier, more peaceful Mecca passages. But to me real religions aren't the doctrines of the theologians but the beliefs and values which guide people in their daily lives. Fortunately, most of us are what you might call "bad" Christians and Muslims and have found ways to get along despite the theologians' best efforts. As a practical matter, there are over 2 billion Muslims and over 2 billion Christians in the world today and we face the challenge of what to do about it. We can take the Fox News approach and fan the flames of culture war, or can take a more nuanced approach and work with the positive elements while being aware of the negative.

 

Mohammed was a military commander while he was writing the Qur'an, and did not go on to live a peaceful life thereafter because he died following his conquest of the Jewish settlement of Khaibar. Unlike Ashoka, there are no remorseful utterances by the Prophet Mohammed. As for Jesus, since I take a metaphorical approach to Scripture, I have no difficulty thinking of the source of ultimate meaning for me, Jesus Christ, as divine. In How Jesus became God, Bart Erhman makes what I think is a convincing case that the earliest Christians didn't believe Jesus was God and saw Him as Son of God either in an honorary or adoptive sense. Jehovah's Witnesses don't believe that Jesus is divine. They think He was an Archangel. Next you'll be telling me I'm an atheist because I don't believe in an afterlife, the supernatural, or a Dude in the Sky who answers prayers.

 

In case you missed a word there, I did ask what builds GOOD character?
ANY relationship then?
Relationships that encourage and reinforce illogical superstitions?
Relationships that encourage and reward dishonesty?
Relationships that glorify destructive behavior?
Relationships that brain wash you to apply ignorant spiritual band-aids over all your problems and a fantasy being will someday save you?

 

The Chalcedonian compromise is a good example of Christian dogma being shaped by politics and intolerance. These bizarre disputes over the fine points of Jesus' nature are an example of missing the point. Jesus gave us a test for identifying false prophets. The hair splitting herisiologists gave us the "bitter fruit" of book burnings, heretic burnings and centuries of religious warfare that are the hallmark of false beliefs. The Nestorian Christians who defied Chalcedon weren't like that. They showed considerable intelligence in dealing with Islam and the Mongols and spreading the faith across Asia until the rise of the Mongol Timur (Tamerlane) in the 14th century. The Miaphysites likewise held on for centuries in Armenia and Ethiopia without drama. So I don't think religion is inherently contentious.

 

I believe in God, but not necessarily an "Abrahamic" one, with its Judaic baggage. I think it is logical to use the term "Christian" to describe a position of special devotion to the teachings and example of "Jesus', who is "divine" in manifesting "Christ consciousness"in its most perfect form, and I've found communities of believers who think pretty much the same way. The earliest followers of Jesus were known as Nazerenes or Followers of the Way. Some Progressive Christians I know say they aren't Christians but are "followers of Jesus". I'm indifferent as to whether or not atheists or superstitious traditional Christians consider my beliefs Christian. I think it's the most familiar label that best fits what I'm about.

 

What is good character? Relationship is responsible for everything that appears. Character is the mental and moral qualities distinctive to an individual. Good or bad is a determination made by the individual in comparison to a limited and subjective standard and that is the problem with measuring phenomena with a sliding scale. The definitions of good and bad are arbitrary not standard. Again the substance of your argument is called moralizing. Moralizing is commenting on issues of right and wrong, typically with an unfounded air of superiority as you set yourself up as arbitrator of what is good and what is not.

 

Yes, it makes sense, but the problem is with the assumption. You assume that "God" is an external anthropomorphic Cosmic Killjoy telling us what we shalt not do, or else. That may have been how God was originally conceptualized by the diversity of authors who wrote the Bible to suit their various agendas. Not everyone in the "Abrahamic" tradition has conceptualized God that way, some who do are speaking metaphorically, and of course there are other traditions, notably Hinduism, who have a different concept altogether. Luke tells us that the Kingdom of Heaven is "in our Midst" or "within you". the "Gnostic" Gospel of Thomas says that "the Kingdom of the Father is spread out everywhere upon the earth and people do not see it.". The question is not how the Jews, Christians and Muslims of yore thought of God, but how we should think of God today. Is a belief in a deity tenable, in light of our present-day understandings. If God is defined as you have, I'd say "No". It's of course a matter of judgment, and I concede that pink unicorns might exist, but I don't believe that they or the Entity you define as God exists. Some thinkers find it useful to use "God" as a metaphor for utlimate meaning and mystery, The Ground of Being, the summation of human idealism, a working hypothesis accounting for the laws of physics and the integrated complexity of the universe, an archetype of our collective unconscious or as the felt presence of a Higher Power or Something Big Out There--all admittedly vague, but there has been an historic consensus that God is ineffable. Some may find this to be a cheesy, intellectually dishonest solution. Freud scoffed at philosophers who "give the name of 'God' to some vague abstraction wich they have created for themselves; having done so , they can pose before all the world as deists, as believers in God, and they can even boast that they have recognized a higher, purer concept of God, notwithstanding that their God is now nothing more than an insubstantial shadow and no longer the mighty personality of religious doctrines." There does seem to be a "Yes, Virginia, there is a God" quality to these efforts. Yet I think the remake of God has produced an intellectually tenable concept that can focus altruistic impulses, express our awe at the mystery of human existence, and add moral gravitas to our quest for meaning. Of course we still have the fundamentalists--Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu--whose more literal, primitive concepts are still alive, causing trouble and must be reckoned with. I'm betting on rationality to carry the day.

 

Rationality doesn't seem to be what's taking over Europe these days.

This is Islam
https://youtu.be/lxdoztoBEuc

Burnley UK street interview attacked by sharia muslims
https://youtu.be/sxefcCwgKNU

No Go Areas for Non-Muslims in England
https://youtu.be/4RaKpf4Mhg4

Muslim Gangs Take Control of 55 Zones in Sweden
https://youtu.be/thXCb1VUBDg

Welcome To Belgistan
https://youtu.be/ZDKk15KcqNk

Top comment,
"There are radical muslims and moderate muslims: A radical muslim wants to behead you, a moderate muslim wants a radical muslim to behead you"