Asifism.com
A blog of Factual Opinions

i really like the way you put all this argument. well done.

First, your very last point is moot. By doing your research and posting this article you are acting as an intellectual.

Second, it seems you need a better understanding of Christianity in order to truly understand the disconnect here. Christians do, in fact, worship the Christ. To a Christian (literally: follower of the Christ), Jesus and God are the same person so there is nothing wrong with worshiping God in the form of Christ. The difference for Muslims of course is that Islam holds that Jesus was merely the second profit and that Muhammad came to present the final form of the one true faith. From that perspective, there would be a problem with worshiping either Jesus or Muhammad.
Finally, regardless of whether current depictions of Jesus are accurate or worthy and also disregarding the purpose behind Muslims not depicting religious figures; the real question here is: Should force (whether it be by threat, mass peer pressure, or actual physical violence) be tolerated as a means to impose your personal beliefs upon another?
Secondarily and from a Muslim perspective, does violence actually help spread the faith to the infidel?
The reason there was a world wide uproar over drawing Muhammad is that a small group of believers decided that threats of violence are a decent method for forcing their beliefs upon others.
When it comes down to it, I am no more harmed by a non-believer drawing Muhammad than I am harmed by the drawing of a dog or a cat. Even if Muhammad and Jesus were depicted in a countless number of ways on countless street corners, I still would not be making an idol out of those drawings. If I can’t manage to hold to my beliefs when others do not, how can the faith ever spread?
I am, however, harmed by individuals choosing to force their beliefs upon others. This sort of action hinders the faith and causes hate which in turn causes a violent response. So unless we all would rather just kill each other until no one who thinks differently is left alive, we must find a way to change the minds of others without the use of force.

Hi Anon, moot points are subjective. What’s moot to one is substance to another. My being intellectual is irrelevant – it’s the point I’m making that matters.

My understanding of Christianity is as good as it needs to be or as good as it will be. I am aware that Christians worship Christ, hence Christianity. The whole point of saying what was said was that perhaps that would not have been the case of he wasn’t idolized.

The whole argument here is depiction by drawing, so if you think that is worth disregarding, you totally misunderstood the point of the article.

Re your portrayal of Christians and Christianity as peaceful, let’s not make accusations, shall we? Muslims are intolerant because we’ve learnt to be that way from the Christians. The Spanish inquisition was not Muslim; the crusades were not instigated by the Muslims – these historical facts are simply reflective of the intolerant nature of the Christian world in general and a reminder of the violence and aggression of the ‘Church’ which allegedly promotes the message of Christ and God – or total rubbish, as any intelligent being would put it.

In answer to your second point, the goal of those who indulge in violence is not to spread the faith to infidels, it is to destroy them. That said, if you know a thing or 2 about Muslim history, neither Christians nor Jews are defined as infidels.

Now, what I dislike most is one person suggesting that they know the reason why somebody else caused uproar. Do you people ever think about what you say, or do you Church and religion promoting morons have such a low IQ and low opinion of your God and Christ that both of them give you the authority to pass judgement on the behaviour of others. The reason for the violence is not known to you or me. All we know is that drawing Muhammad is not acceptable to some, and some people just don’t like the idea of respecting others, so they do it anyway. Under law, it’s called slander and libel. In Europe, you get sued for that kind of stuff, but just because it’s Islamic, it won’t be admitted to a European court, so then it has to go to the people’s court. Cultured western societies don’t like that because justice is not part of this ‘modern’ culture.

What it ultimately comes down to is the respect you show somebody; the fact that you have compared Muhammad to a cat or dog shows that you were extremely hurt by my factual allegation of Christ actually being drawn as a terrorist if you church goers reported history the way it ought to be reported. This, precisely is the reason that you will always get a shaft from most of the Muslim world.

The question about faith spreading. You’ve got it all wrong, I think. Faith is individual. It means different things to different people and because your sole intention (especially if you are a Catholic) is to increase business subscribers by increasing the number of Christians, you want to spread faith rather then producing ‘better’ people. That’s what modern Christianity has done, quantity over substance. it’s a shame.

I am afraid, Anon, that in a world where you choose NOT to respect the opinions and beliefs of others, you will always being on the end that gets hit with the violence. The point here is not that they can’t hold their faith; it’s that you mock at them. You count the success of your religion by spreading faith – the other counts its success be reducing your numbers. I think God, Jesus and Muhammad would all look down upon you and them with shame.

We don’t have to find a way to change anyone’s mind. If you’re ‘good’ and ‘honest’, you should lead by example and not mock at others nor promote mocking at them. Then everyone will learn to live together in peace.

If the purpose of religion is supposed to yield positive experiences and uplifting life guidance, then in general it was poorly designed. Why??
How is it possible for so many without any expertise in it to talk and act as though they are experts? Because religion is a figment of the human mind….a belief system…..nothing more. In attempting to “rationalize” religion and have debate, it is difficult to prove or disprove religious dogma. But thoughtless and ignorant people who are dangerous on many levels do it anyway, and leads to columns such as Commie B’s.

The frivolity of arguing and killing over a belief system… which is a figment of the human mind…. shows why so many intellectuals disdain the entire concept, and why religion and how it is practiced MUST be continually questioned until it is yields ONLY positive experiences.

Science…or in other words…the way the universe works…on the other hand, despite debate throughout the ages as the human mind grapples understanding it, does not create bloodshed, because science is evaluated with rigor, in rational terms, within a scientific community with a VALID pecking order, unlike religion.

I will posit that the scientific community has provided humanity far greater benefit than all religious concepts and past actions (positive or negative) put together.

While religion grew out of tribal differences during a period when humans weren’t capable of using science to explain much of our existence, today, however, religion is a much less valid way of living life, and using science is a much better way. Human diversity (tribal, national, etc) is needed in growing knowledge that benefits us all….because evolution has proven that.

While survival of the fittest likely means continuous “fighting” among us, religion as a concept needs to be refined so that perceived benefits are its only result. Morons and know nothings need not apply.

FUNNY HOW SOME PEOPLE (THIS WEBSITE) REFUSE TO POST WHAT THEY DON’T LIKE, RATHER THAN LETTING THE VIEWERS DECIDE. DID IT GO OVER YOUR HEAD?

If the purpose of religion is supposed to yield positive experiences and uplifting life guidance, then in general it was poorly designed. Why??
How is it possible for so many without any expertise in it to talk and act as though they are experts? Because religion is a figment of the human mind….a belief system…..nothing more. In attempting to “rationalize” religion and have debate, it is difficult to prove or disprove religious dogma. But thoughtless and ignorant people who are dangerous on many levels do it anyway, and leads to columns such as Commie B’s.

The frivolity of arguing and killing over a belief system… which is a figment of the human mind…. shows why so many intellectuals disdain the entire concept, and why religion and how it is practiced MUST be continually questioned until it is yields ONLY positive experiences.

Science…or in other words…the way the universe works…on the other hand, despite debate throughout the ages as the human mind grapples understanding it, does not create bloodshed, because science is evaluated with rigor, in rational terms, within a scientific community with a VALID pecking order, unlike religion.

I will posit that the scientific community has provided humanity far greater benefit than all religious concepts and past actions (positive or negative) put together.

While religion grew out of tribal differences during a period when humans weren’t capable of using science to explain much of our existence, today, however, religion is a much less valid way of living life, and using science is a much better way. Human diversity (tribal, national, etc) is needed in growing knowledge that benefits us all….because evolution has proven that.

While survival of the fittest likely means continuous “fighting” among us, religion as a concept needs to be refined so that perceived benefits are its only result. Morons and know nothings need not apply.

Anon,

Patience is a virtue and it will serve your scientific, philosophical and personal aspirations far better than trying to establish claim to intellectual superiority with statements such as ‘go over your head’. Perhaps you don’t, but I do have other things to do rather an approving and disapproving comments as soon as they get posted.

Now, in your arguments above you are doing what every modern intellectual does to try and formulate an argument. You have yourself defined the purpose of religion and then you yourself refute it too. Perhaps you are falling victim to the same fallacy as those who want to burn the Quran and those who want claim they have right of passage to build a health and family centre 2 blocks from what was formerly the World Trade Centre – there is no common goal but to justify your individual cause – which is fair enough, at least on this blog.

I will get to the purpose of religion and the authority or expertise of someone to talk about it a little later, but let us first deal with the claim that religion is a figment of the human mind in an attempt to rationalize. My friend, science does not serve a different purpose. The entire system of science, philosophy, physics, mathematics and whatever else you consider ‘science’ is a figment of the human mind that only works within the boundaries of the tautological world defined by human beings. Therefore, science serves the same purpose of rationalizing or explaining the human mind and what it perceives – therefore, this is hardly a difference between science and religion. In fact, one can argue that that in their purest forms both science and religion serve the same purpose.

Now, rationalizing religion itself is a concept that scientists and victims of modern philosophy have come up with. It is a goal motivated by total stupidity, as every attempt to rationalize something that is not based on reason is useless. Therefore, nobody who understands the concept of religion should try to rationalize it. Religion is not a belief system – it is rooted in faith, and faith is blind. Therefore, trying to rationalize it is a lost cause. For a scientist to attempt to prove or disprove what you call religious dogma is attempting to explain an infinite concept of a God with finite mathematics – the explanation lies beyond the tautological tools available to man (hence Descartes’ argument has gaping holes) and any attempt to use these tools to explain religious faith is nothing but amateurish – it comes from a constant state of denial about accepting that man is not all knowing.

This now leads me to the discussion around expertise in religion. In its purest form, whether you take Judaism, Christianity or Islam, religion is about your individual connection to God and what you do as a human being. Before the Catholics came up with confessions, you alone would have been answerable for your acts – you, therefore, are in theory, an expert on why you do the things you do or don’t do. Having religious experts stake claim for the view of an entire religion is blasphemous – it is in general how fanatics operate and is against what could be called the closest to original pillars of any of the divine religions. That said, it is people like you who promote discussion and arguments – provocation for the simple minded is the next obvious step. My ‘column’ as you refer to it comes as an opinion on the claim made by a set of boastful people who claimed to stand up for freedom of speech and expression. It works both ways – I made my claim. The opinion part can be disregarded, but the substance, however, cannot. That’s why you are here responding to it.

Let me tell you a little secret about intellectuals. I am a formally educated intellectual with training in philosophy, and intellectuals are nobodies. If you think talking about a subject makes you an expert, you are completely void of substance. Perhaps you are already aware that talk is cheap – modern intellectuals take it to new levels as talk really is free. Intellectuals tend to not make up their own mind or their own decisions. Before the advent of modern intellectuals, the word used to describe their likes was ‘hypocrite’. An intellectual is, therefore, someone who thinks intelligence and wisdom lie in questioning everything and never having to commit to a cause or never having a purpose. The only purpose is arguing without killing – hardly something to aspire for. Perhaps you should do some reading on the musings of Kant and Hume, where the former (a respected intellectual) ran out of argumentative material to only call the latter a skeptic. So let us not presume that the opinion of an intellectual carries any more reasonable weight than that of a sack of rice. Things must only be questioned if the purpose of the questioning is to come to a conclusion or to get an answer. If there is no purpose or no goal, questions are merely noise and garbage. Which brings me to a question: to what end do you want to question religion and how do you define the yielding of positive experiences. Should experiences be positive at a global level for all of mankind (does all of mankind really deserve it – Kant would have agreed – that’s how he gained popularity) or is the success of a positive experience defined by the person directly experiencing. Your intellectual persona should know that perception of positive experiences is subjective and differs from person to person. You, therefore, are extremely dubious on the purpose behind questioning religion.

Science, you say, defines the way the universe works and has not caused any bloodshed? Perhaps you are mistaken – science has been an answer to religious faith for generations – and among others, it did cause the death of Galileo. Do you think nuclear weapons were motivated by religious aspirations? Science may not be evil, but it’s application certainly can be – and it’s the application of religion which makes you want to write against it. Whilst science certainly has its pros and is a great tool to helping us understand things we don’t have any idea about, the validity of the pecking order you refer to is limited in scope and completely tautological. The fact that Stephen Hawking is today making statements to equate science with religion again only proves the fact that science is trying to answer to religion. Unfortunately, the goals of science are motivated by intellectuals with no particular purpose in mind. You say science tries to explain how the universe works. The term universe has a limited definition, as does everything defined in scientific terms. It hardly aspires to or attempts to explain the motivations of faith or existence –it’s all theory. Hawking should know better than that. If a scientist has to stoop to the level of a religious preacher, I am afraid your science is every bit as trivial as anyone’s religion. Just because a bunch of scientists get together and agree that ‘that is the way it is supposed to be’, doesn’t mean that is the way it actually is. Consensus does not establish fact – therefore, a pecking order practically trivial and has to lead to institutes that issue certifications in every profession driven by physical or social sciences. Who are you kidding? Two dumb people don’t make for a smart combination. Two wrongs don’t make a right. An agreement between 2 or 2 million scientists, therefore, does not explain the creation of universe. It’s all speculation.

Again, your insistence that the scientific community has provided more to society is not premised by any examples. How has science provided for humankind? Do you think science would have existed had religion not told people to seek knowledge? Where do you think scientists found their motivation 1500 years ago? I think you’re giving science more credit than it deserves, again, all in theory and speculation. Read some Islamic history and learn about the science that was discovered when Europe was going through the dark ages. Much of your modern science is premised on principles that were developed by men motivated by a God’s order to ‘seek knowledge’, not merely by a scientist’s desire to know more.

You view of the origin or religion is just another view – so that is what we will leave it at. If you believe religion grew out of tribal differences because it helps you validate your ‘belief’ system, then that is what you shall believe. I have no desire to make you think otherwise, but science certainly is no way to go on living life. What are moral and ethical aspirations of science? For a belief system that finds it hard to determine whether global warming is becoming an issue or not is really, I fear science does not have much of a stance or ‘way of life’ to offer human beings. Science is great to admire the scale and grandeur of the surroundings we live in (what you call the universe) and to perhaps appreciate the creation on an Almighty (if that’s what you believe), but it doesn’t really ‘prove’ anything to me or to any other intellectual. Neither really, does religion, because this is an intellectual argument with no purpose. As for evolution proving the need for human diversity, what does that have to do with anything religious or scientific in this context? If anything, evolution proves the need for nothing because as the surroundings change, perhaps the needs change to and humans adapt. Hence, “EVOLVING.”

I’ll repeat what I said above again. Religion needs to be refined to what end? Science needs to be refined to what end? What is this end? What are the perceived benefits you are trying to attain? Have you ever been able to quantify them?

Lastly, you should know better than to blame religion for those who use the name of a religion to cause harm. Just because some Americans are racist and incite war, doesn’t mean America is a bad country or stands for bad values. The same applies to religion. If you’re discussing the subject matter, let’s stick to the subject matter, not to its current day teachers, preachers and fans. Let us try to interpret the subject matter and make our own decisions, rather than blaming someone else’s misconception or misuse of the subject matter to their advantage. Surely that is not the scientific way.