Islam, is it a religion of peace or war?

[Orange_Crush]

So you're saying that other systems of morality don't endeavor to do this? Because I'm pretty sure that's exactly what they do.

I've never said they don't endeavor to do so.

Sure you can.

No. You can't. You establish competing opinions as opposed to definitions of and distinctions between good and evil. Morality becomes a way to get people to think the way you want others to think or act the way you want them to act. It's closer to sophestry and propaganda than philosophy and morality.

So start with first principles such as treating people as ends in themselves, rather than means to an end, and never acting except in such a way that one could also will that a maxim should become a universal law. This way what is right and wrong are accessible to reason. I see no need for an external source from this method.

You see no need because you're smuggling in those values. They don't flow from your worldview, and yet you treat them as first principles. Thank you for making my point while trying to argue against it.

And it's ironic that, with no absolute moral standard, your proposed morality is inherently immoral since it's using people as a means to an end--i.e. trying to convince people to work against their own personal self interest for the benefit of others in an effort to produce the society your personal opinion thinks is best. With only opinion and no standard to define genuine moral/evil, good/bad, you're no moalist. You're a propogandist treating people as means to your desired society by proposing a morality that commands against doing exactly that.

 

[Wafflestomper]

No. You can't. You establish competing opinions as opposed to definitions of and distinctions between good and evil.

No, you don't. It isn't based on opinions. It's based on these first principles, and right or wrong actions can be determined via reasoning. For instance, stealing is always wrong because it presupposes private property. If your actions should be universalized, i.e., you should always steal, then there is no private property. As such, your actions result in a contradiction.

Morality becomes a way to get people to think the way you want others to think or act the way you want them to act. It's closer to sophestry and propaganda than philosophy and morality.

Isn't that what God demands in your system of morality?

You see no need because you're smuggling in those values. They don't flow from your worldview, and yet you treat them as first principles. Thank you for making my point while trying to argue against it.

You and roust are like broken records talking about smuggling. No one is smuggling anything, and even if they were this isn't making any point against someone's proposed morality. You presuppose that values like "don't kill" originate with Christianity and then accuse others of stealing from your worldview. This is question begging.

And it's ironic that, with no absolute moral standard, your proposed morality is inherently immoral since it's using people as a means to an end--i.e. trying to convince people to work against their own personal self interest for the benefit of others in an effort to produce the society your personal opinion thinks is best. With only opinion and no standard to define genuine moral/evil, good/bad, you're no moalist. You're a propogandist treating people as means to your desired society by proposing a morality that commands against doing exactly that.

This is notably the opposite of what I said. According to this system people should never be used as means to an end, but treated as ends in themselves.

 

[Orange_Crush]

No, you don't. It isn't based on opinions. It's based on these first principles, and right or wrong actions can be determined via reasoning. For instance, stealing is always wrong because it presupposes private property. If your actions should be universalized, i.e., you should always steal, then there is no private property. As such, your actions result in a contradiction.



Isn't that what God demands in your system of morality?



You and roust are like broken records talking about smuggling. No one is smuggling anything, and even if they were this isn't making any point against someone's proposed morality. You presuppose that values like "don't kill" originate with Christianity and then accuse others of stealing from your worldview. This is question begging.



This is notably the opposite of what I said. According to this system people should never be used as means to an end, but treated as ends in themselves.

If you say so. You're wrong on pretty much every count, as by definiion the establishing of an opinion is not the establishment of morality, and you are using people as the means to your society when that is your stated moral...er...opinion. But I see no more need to argue with you.

ETA: Actually, I will continue for a couple of more posts just to make my point.

Your moral statement is wrong. I disagree. We evolved by the process of improvements by competition between individuals unto death, so Nazi morality was correct and should be implemented. Selflessness helps weakness and inhibits evolution, so selflessness is immoral.

Disprove me.

 

[Wafflestomper]

If you say so. You're wrong on pretty much every count, as by definiion the establishing of an opinion is not the establishment of morality, and you are using people as the means to your society when that is your stated moral...er...opinion. But I see no more need to argue with you.

By what definition? Your own? If you disagree with the first principles then you obviously won't agree with the rest. The thing is that most people would agree with them.

Your morality is of a similar structure, but it relies on the establishing a supernatural being's opinion as a first principle. It seems to me to be easier to doubt. And there are far fewer philosophers who are on board with this system.

 

[Orange_Crush]

By what definition? Your own? If you disagree with the first principles then you obviously won't agree with the rest. The thing is that most people would agree with them.

Your morality is of a similar structure, but it relies on the establishing a supernatural being's opinion as a first principle. It seems to me to be easier to doubt. And there are far fewer philosophers who are on board with this system.

See my edit, but it's now needless as you just proved my point. In disagreement, prove who is right and who is wrong. Prove which is moral and which is immoral.

You can't because there is no standard to judge by in disagreement, so you haven't actually established what is moral. You have established your opinion. I repeat, with morality as the definition of and distinction between good and evil, right and wrong, you just admitted you haven't defined or distinguished between them. You can't.

Thank you for proving the point you've been arguing against.

Whether you believe that Christian claims are true and God is the absolute standard, you just showed that the standard is a necessity, else there is no morality. That was my point.

Thank you.

And ps. You're done when you start referring to God's opinion, as you're continuing to ignore 2000 years of classic theology.

 

[Wafflestomper]

See my edit, but it's now needless as yu just proved my point. In disagreement, prove wo is right and who is wrong. Prove which is moral and which is immoral.

Presumably you appeal to reason. Like I said before.

You can't because there is no standard to judge by in disagreement, so you haven't actually established what is moral. You have established your opinion. I repeat, with morality as the definition of and distinction between good and evil, right and wrong, you just admitted you haven't defined or distinguished between them. You can't.

Have you not read anything that I've written? I already told you what the standard is. It gives you a method of distinguishing right from wrong. You can deny the first principles and say that the system is invalid, but don't tell me it doesn't give you a method to evaluate the morality of actions.

Thank you for proving the point you've been arguing against.

What point?

Whether you believe that Christian claims are true and God is the absolute standard, you just showed that the standard is a necessity, else there is no morality. That was my point.

But I can just as easily deny that what God says is the "right" standard of moral duties as the first principles of Kantian ethics. In fact, I've already done that in this thread.

And ps. You're done when you start referring to God's opinion, as you're continuing to ignore 2000 years of classic theology.

I haven't ignored it.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Presumably you appeal to reason. Like I said before.



Have you not read anything that I've written? I already told you what the standard is. It gives you a method of distinguishing right from wrong. You can deny the first principles and say that the system is invalid, but don't tell me it doesn't give you a method to evaluate the morality of actions.



What point?



But I can just as easily deny that what God says is the "right" standard of moral duties as the first principles of Kantian ethics. In fact, I've already done that in this thread.



I haven't ignored it.

Like I said, I disagree. Evolution has proven that improvement comes from culling the weak. Improvement comes via competition unto death, so your proposed morality is actually immoral.

Prove me wrong. Establish your morality.

You can't. You can propose it but never define it. You can never actually establish morality without an absolute standard to judge between opinions.

(I'm recovering from having my eyes dilated and can hardly read. Have a good day.)

 

[Kinglberry]

It's not a religion, anymore than Judaism, or Christianity is one. By that I mean, it isn't really different at the God level. YHWH, Allah, God. All the same. The Koran is much like the Bible. It has contradictory statements which depending on which ones you wish to adhere to can affect your actionable belief system. On one hand, God is merciful. Somewhere else he is vengeful. God is accepting. Somewhere else he isn't. Women are important, somewhere else they are below a slave in value. Picking all the peaceful verses and saying it is a peaceful belief ignores all the times where the infidels should be eliminated. Kill all the Philistines. Don't kill the Romans. With Christians, you rarely get the ones who read the more brutal passages and follow them, but it does happen. "God told me to kill the......". With Muslims, you don't have the checks and balances of society to counter those person's. Remember, Iran once had women walking around in fashionable attire. Now, they don't. Christianity was used as a reason to eliminate, subdue, convert many different cultures. Today, that stance has disappeared mostly. Islam hasn't made that transition completely, and is less likely to since their prophet is a militant vs the Christians prophet/son of God.

So, no. Islam isn't a belief of peace, until they as a whole reject the non peace stance of the Koran.

 

[Roustabout]

Hard to call it a failure when I wasn't attempting to do so.

Then quit asking those questions. Answered long ago.

 

[Roustabout]

Presumably you appeal to reason. Like I said before.



Have you not read anything that I've written? I already told you what the standard is. It gives you a method of distinguishing right from wrong. You can deny the first principles and say that the system is invalid, but don't tell me it doesn't give you a method to evaluate the morality of actions.



What point?



But I can just as easily deny that what God says is the "right" standard of moral duties as the first principles of Kantian ethics. In fact, I've already done that in this thread.



I haven't ignored it.

Viscuously circular.

God says? You really don’t get it. Kant woke up on third and thought he hit a single. Actually he didn’t but you did. He knew what he meant by reasoning and I don’t think you do. You pretty much ignored what i said several pages back and I can see why. Kant’s ideas on justice?

 

[rjd970]

Viscuously circular.

God says? You really don’t get it. Kant woke up on third and thought he hit a single. Actually he didn’t but you did. He knew what he meant by reasoning and I don’t think you do. You pretty much ignored what i said several pages back and I can see why. Kant’s ideas on justice?

What’s the difference between viciously circular and self-referential?

 

[Roustabout]

What’s the difference between viciously circular and self-referential?

Why would it matter to you? It’s just opinions.

 

[rjd970]

Why would it matter to you? It’s just opinions.

It’s an honest question. If you don’t want to answer then fine. I just don’t see the difference and wanted your take on it.

 

[vol445]

It's not a religion, anymore than Judaism, or Christianity is one. By that I mean, it isn't really different at the God level. YHWH, Allah, God. All the same. The Koran is much like the Bible. It has contradictory statements which depending on which ones you wish to adhere to can affect your actionable belief system. On one hand, God is merciful. Somewhere else he is vengeful. God is accepting. Somewhere else he isn't. Women are important, somewhere else they are below a slave in value. Picking all the peaceful verses and saying it is a peaceful belief ignores all the times where the infidels should be eliminated. Kill all the Philistines. Don't kill the Romans. With Christians, you rarely get the ones who read the more brutal passages and follow them, but it does happen. "God told me to kill the......". With Muslims, you don't have the checks and balances of society to counter those person's. Remember, Iran once had women walking around in fashionable attire. Now, they don't. Christianity was used as a reason to eliminate, subdue, convert many different cultures. Today, that stance has disappeared mostly. Islam hasn't made that transition completely, and is less likely to since their prophet is a militant vs the Christians prophet/son of God.

So, no. Islam isn't a belief of peace, until they as a whole reject the non peace stance of the Koran.

You must of been looking at an English bible.

 

[Kinglberry]

You must of been looking at an English bible.

Vs a Russian one or Zwahili

 

[Wafflestomper]

Like I said, I disagree. Evolution has proven that improvement comes from culling the weak. Improvement comes via competition unto death, so your proposed morality is actually immoral.

What does this have to do with evolution?

Prove me wrong. Establish your morality.

Well, as I said before, I'm not a moral realist so this isn't my morality.

You can't. You can propose it but never define it. You can never actually establish morality without an absolute standard to judge between opinions.

But this system does provide a standard to resolve differences in opinions. I think what you mean here is that the first principles are not axiomatic since one could disagree with them? But this is the same problem divine command theory runs into, so...

 

[Wafflestomper]

Viscuously circular.

God says? You really don’t get it. Kant woke up on third and thought he hit a single. Actually he didn’t but you did. He knew what he meant by reasoning and I don’t think you do. You pretty much ignored what i said several pages back and I can see why. Kant’s ideas on justice?

This is obviously a very watered-down version of Kantian ethics. OC can read Groundwork if he wants a better account of it.

I ignored what you said because you keep chiming in with vague objections (like you've done here again) and references to classical theology. If you want to make an argument based on classical theology then do it.

 

[Roustabout]

It’s an honest question. If you don’t want to answer then fine. I just don’t see the difference and wanted your take on it.

Ok, fair enough. The truth is that almost any position when you get down do it will be circular. That’s why I said visciosly circular. The classical view does not say, “ok, the Bible, God’s in the Bible, therefore morals.” Aquinas built on the Aristotelian thinking of natural theology. I think we can safely say that Aristotle was not starting with a Omni 3 god and working out from there. Nor, was he just making claims and then saying, “but god.”
We are talking about a robust natural theology that deals with God’s nature, aseity, immutability, etc., which is where our moral ontology is grounded.

There is simply no way to unpack all of that here. The issue is that Stomp is whistling past the graveyard, which is hypocritical since he was wanting us to do all the work regarding Kant. The difference is Kant knew the shoulders he was standing on. Stomp clearly doesn't. Kant would likely bslapnthe smugness off his fave given the chance and say “justice, you fool.”

 

[Roustabout]

This is obviously a very watered-down version of Kantian ethics. OC can read Groundwork if he wants a better account of it.

I ignored what you said because you keep chiming in with vague objections (like you've done here again) and references to classical theology. If you want to make an argument based on classical theology then do it.

As I said isn’t the ast post, you did the same thing with us regarding Kant. I figured since that is where your standard lies, you’d have no problem holding yourself to it. So, get busy or buzz off.

 

[Wafflestomper]

As I said isn’t the ast post, you did the same thing with us regarding Kant. I figured since that is where your standard lies, you’d have no problem holding yourself to it. So, get busy or buzz off.

You'll note that I've actually provided an argument against the "first principles" of divine command theory. You all seem to be rejecting the notion that a system of morals can even be structured in this way, which is ironic since the objection also undermines divine command theory.

 

[Wafflestomper]

Ok, fair enough. The truth is that almost any position when you get down do it will be circular. That’s why I said visciosly circular. The classical view does not say, “ok, the Bible, God’s in the Bible, therefore morals.” Aquinas built on the Aristotelian thinking of natural theology. I think we can safely say that Aristotle was not starting with a Omni 3 god and working out from there. Nor, was he just making claims and then saying, “but god.”
We are talking about a robust natural theology that deals with God’s nature, aseity, immutability, etc., which is where our moral ontology is grounded.

There is simply no way to unpack all of that here. The issue is that Stomp is whistling past the graveyard, which is hypocritical since he was wanting us to do all the work regarding Kant. The difference is Kant knew the shoulders he was standing on. Stomp clearly doesn't. Kant would likely bslapnthe smugness off his fave given the chance and say “justice, you fool.”

Your arguments always rest on "but 2000 years of religious philosophy!" while conveniently ignoring the fact that most philosophers (>80%) are no longer theists.

I dont have to accept everything Kant wrote as being true. Kant was heavily influenced by Hume but still disagreed with him in many areas. This is how philosophy works.

 

[Roustabout]

You'll note that I've actually provided an argument against the "first principles" of divine command theory. You all seem to be rejecting the notion that a system of morals can even be structured in this way, which is ironic since the objection also undermines divine command theory.

For the umpteenth time
I
Am
NOT
A
Divine
Command
Theorist

 

[Roustabout]

Your arguments always rest on "but 2000 years of religious philosophy!" while conveniently ignoring the fact that most philosophers (>80%) are no longer theists.

I dont have to accept everything Kant wrote as being true. Kant was heavily influenced by Hume but still disagreed with him in many areas. This is how philosophy works.

Ad populum.
Plus, I reject the stat.
So, I’m no different than you. I don’t accept everything Kant wrote.

 

[rjd970]

Ok, fair enough. The truth is that almost any position when you get down do it will be circular. That’s why I said visciosly circular. The classical view does not say, “ok, the Bible, God’s in the Bible, therefore morals.” Aquinas built on the Aristotelian thinking of natural theology. I think we can safely say that Aristotle was not starting with a Omni 3 god and working out from there. Nor, was he just making claims and then saying, “but god.”
We are talking about a robust natural theology that deals with God’s nature, aseity, immutability, etc., which is where our moral ontology is grounded.

There is simply no way to unpack all of that here. The issue is that Stomp is whistling past the graveyard, which is hypocritical since he was wanting us to do all the work regarding Kant. The difference is Kant knew the shoulders he was standing on. Stomp clearly doesn't. Kant would likely bslapnthe smugness off his fave given the chance and say “justice, you fool.”

So is the theist position that almost any argument is circular, but by theological definition Gods nature is immune from this criticism?

 

[Wafflestomper]

Ad populum.
Plus, I reject the stat.
So, I’m no different than you. I don’t accept everything Kant wrote.

Why is referencing expert opinion as evidence for a proposition a logical fallacy? Is it a logical fallacy for our justice system recognizing expert testimony as evidence?

Here is the link to the survey. 14.6% affirm theism.