Yahzi is frightened by fairy tales

[FireGarden]

Yahzi said to Jal: Newsflash, dude: we don't take the Bible as anything but a bunch of badly told fairy tales, and we don't think any different of the Quran. All your holy books are the same: scary stories told by deceitful men to gain power and influence they don't deserve

Now, I'll admit that I don't know much religious history. But there is a difference between Christianity being adopted by Rome and Islam being adopted by the Arabs.

Mohammed was offered power by the rulers of Mecca.
They were worried (perhaps not only for themselves - they had a city to run) that if Islam got popular then Mecca would loose its status. You see, Mecca housed the Ka'ba, where about 300 gods where given room and board. (Or, at least, idols of them) Replacing 300 gods with one god seemed bad for business (who could have guessed the truth?). So they offered Mohammed power and money to change his story.

I don't know how powerful or popular Mohammed was at the time, but he refused them. The quote goes something like: "If they were to put the moon in my left hand and the sun in my right hand, I would not change a word of it" (Meaning that he can not be bribed)

Maybe he felt sure that he was onto a winner. Maybe not.



The other half of the argument is this:
How much better were the Arabs after Islam? And I'm not just talking about the sudden unity and the power that gave them to build an empire.

I don't know if this is true, after all it's a story told by the victors.
But before Islam, apparently, sons were so much more sought after that some daughters where killed at birth. Islam outlawed this, it seems that it wasn't a crime before that.

Alot of good came out of the creation of Islam. Whether or not that was the primary aim is another question. (Just like Gulf War II) But hindsight would seem to indicate that Mohammed deserved the power he got.


Finally,
Please don't pretend that I'm talking about modern preachers. That would be a strawman, and you'd easily win. I'm arguing against Yahzi's statement about the motives of those who wrote the holy books. (Jesus didn't write anything, but I suppose you could talk about him also - especially as Yahzi used the word "told" not "wrote")

[Yahzi]

How much better were the Arabs after Islam?
How much better were the Germans during Hitler?

He put people back to work. He stopped the runaway inflation, provided for all sorts of worker's reforms (remember, they were the SOCIALISTS), restored national pride, brought order to the once-violent streets. The list of positive things that Hitler achieved in the first five years or so is pretty long.

Does that in any way challenge the notion that Hitler was a deceitful man who used scary stories to obtain power he didn't deserve?

You seem to be making the argument that if any good resulted, we're not allowed to complain. This implies that there wouldn't have been any more under any other system, which is a very large assumption. The Roman empire was basically a secular one, and I think it provided the people of Italy with the benifits you outlined.

Now I'm not saying a polytheistic or even secular Arabic world would have done any better. Which is the point, really, isn't it? If the end result is going to be the same amount of bloodshed as you would have gotten from simple political machinations, then doesn't that imply that religions are indistinguishable from ordinary politics? And wasn't that pretty much what I said in the first place?

Maybe he felt sure that he was onto a winner. Maybe not.
Maybe he made the quote up afterwards. Maybe he agreed to share power, and then changed his mind later when he had the strength (aren't there some Satanic suras dealing with this?). Maybe he just made the whole offer up afterward, 'cause it made a nice story.

But hindsight would seem to indicate that Mohammed deserved the power he got.
So the ends justify the means? It's ok for me to lie to you, as long as it's for your own good?

Sorry, my morality isn't that flexible. Is yours?

[Thanz]

Yahzi - is it possible for you to make an argument about religion that does NOT involve Hitler or the Nazis in any way? :rolleyes:

Yahzi: Fastest Godwin's Law (http://info.astrian.net/jargon/terms/g/Godwin_s_Law.html) in the west.

[FireGarden]

Godwin's Law aside,

You seem to be making the argument that if any good resulted, we're not allowed to complain. This implies that there wouldn't have been any more under any other system, which is a very large assumption.
Many systems could have been beneficial. The point is, someone got off his ass and did something. No theory. No what ifs. No waiting around.

And he convinced others to do the same. Success breeds success. In almost no time at all, there was an empire.
then doesn't that imply that religions are indistinguishable from ordinary politics? And wasn't that pretty much what I said in the first place?
I see now.
EVERYBODY who gets into power does not deserve it.

Most politicians won't mess with the status quo. They'll feed off what's already there in the public (like they do now, in Britain, with the fear of asylum seekers - check out the BNP in the recent local elections and how the main stream parties want to get on the bandwagon while at the same time denounce it)

How many people get into power by telling people "You're wrong. You've been wrong your whole life. Your parents and grandparents were wrong"?

Not many politicians that I can think of.

(There were others in the region that had given up polytheism and idolatry, so there was something to build on. But the vast majority needed convincing)
Maybe he made the quote up afterwards. Maybe he agreed to share power, and then changed his mind later when he had the strength (aren't there some Satanic suras dealing with this?).
I think that the Satanic verses were a different occassion, but I don't recall entirely. I don't think that he ever co-operated with the rulers of Mecca.

So the ends justify the means?
You can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs. That said, where was the lie? ;)

Mohammed told a diverse group of polytheists that they'd be much better off if they all prayed to the same god in the same way. And when they did so, they were better off. Must have been a miracle ;)

Of course, in an ideal world he would have told them about embryology and that solar eclipses were independent of events on the Earth. But maybe that would have been harder to sell, maybe no one would have bought it and the Arabs would have had to spend another hundred years fighting amongst themselves and burying very young daughters.

He did actually refer to a lot of the best science of the time in the Koran. Maybe it did occur to him to try for a completely secular, scientific revolution. But the masses don't follow science with too much excitement today and they probably wouldn't have followed it then either. (Especially with so many of them being illiterate)

So, according to your strict, rigid morality.
What do you do when things need to be changed but there's no totally honest way to change them?

[Yahzi]

Thanz
Yahzi - is it possible for you to make an argument about religion that does NOT involve Hitler or the Nazis in any way?
Whenever somebody starts saying, "You can't make a thousand year Reich without breaking a few eggs," then I think the Nazis are an appropriate topic.

This argument isn't about religion so much as it is about Good Propaganda's endorsement of the pious lie.

(Bonus points for identifying the source of that quote)

Good Propaganda
Ignoring the straw men you constructed, the simple fact is that you really do feel the ends justify the means.

If life hasn't taught why that cannot be true, then I certainly can't.

[FireGarden]

I never thought of Yahzi as an idealist before this ....

Uniting warring tribes is good, and using religion for this end is acceptable.
Making yourself richer is good, but using religion for this end is not acceptable.

Don't reduce my argument to "the ends justify the means" Making an omelette is good, breaking eggs for the hell of it is not.

I would like help in seeing which parts of your argument I reduced. I noticed the part where I accused you of saying: "EVERYBODY who gets into power doesn't deserve it" But I thought that the sarcasm was evident. I'm sure you have exceptions. At least that wasn't the entirety of my argument.

Strawmen indeed :rolleyes:
Ignoring your ignoring ... :rolleyes:
Sometimes life isn't ideal. If life hasn't taught you that, then I certainly can't

[Yahzi]

Sometimes life isn't ideal.
Acknowledging that life often fails to live up to our moral standards is a bit different than lowering our standards to meet what life serves out.

First off, you are assuming that being united into a single giant empire was better for the smaller tribes. This is an assumption. While I am a federalist, and thus generally tend to agree that larger orderly states are better, I don't think that principle is so iron-clad that we can assume it applies in all situations. The tribes of the 300 gods might have been quite well-off; doesn't it sound rather democratic to have a god for everyone? As the Romans showed, polytheism is not incompatible with empire or order.

The only reason you can offer to justify the claim that the large Islamic empire was better is because it won out over the smaller states. But the reason you justify the larger state taking over the smaller states is because it is better. Do you see the problem?

Uniting warring tribes is good, and using religion for this end is acceptable.
Even if the warring tribes then go on to wage war against all their neighbors? Sure, being united is good for them, since it means they will win more, but what makes you assume that merely uniting them will lower the amount of violence perpetuated?

And the idea that lying to people, and creating a inflexible body of tradition that even law can't modify, is justifiable for the sake of public order, strikes me as using a hammer to kill a flea. While I recognize that compromises must be made, the iron-bound rule of imaginary sky-beings seems perhaps more than necessary. The Romans did not require slavish devotion to a god to create or maintain their empire.

Making yourself richer is good, but using religion for this end is not acceptable.
I have to take issue with this claim of yours. Making yourself richer by enslaving others, or stealing from them, or killing them, is not good. I do agree that making yourself richer by lying to other people is also not good, though.

[FireGarden]

Actually, I'm finding little evidence of that much fighting and bloodshed beforehand. Burying newborn daughters is mentioned a few times and feuding tribes and such. I'm not sure how bad things were at the time.

There is an interesting account of how Al-Nadr Bin Al-Harith secured his place in Islamic history. It seems that he was the Yahzi of that century. He was also afraid of fairy tales!

http://answering-islam.org.uk/Muhammad/Enemies/nadr.html
After being challenged to produce equally artful literature, Al-Nadr said: "Muhammad is not a better story-teller than I am, and his discourse is nothing but the 'Tales of the Ancients' (25:5-6; 68:15); he has composed [his] just as I have composed [mine]"

Koran 83:13 (Trans: NJ Dawood)
None denies it except the evil transgressor who, when Our revelations are recited to him, cries "Fables of the ancients!"
Verse 8:31 is similar. So are others, apparently.


The page also tells of how the rulers of Mecca failed to buy Mohammed's co-operation, and how Mohammed took revenge upon Al-Nadr buy not allowing him to be ransomed after he was captured at the battle of Badr.

[Dancing David]

Well I guess it's really not Mohamed fault that his followers stone witches or mutilate little girls.
Where is the evidence that life was bad before the angel spoke to him?


Peace

[FireGarden]

I have to take issue with this claim of yours. [list of get rich quick ideas]
You're just being silly. My example was there to illustrate that the ends don't automatically justify the means. Giving a longer list of "means" serves nothing.


On the rest of your post,
I justify empires because they are more productive and more stable, which gives their citizens more opportunity and better lives. You can plan for the future as part of spmething which is likely to last.

Of course, bigger ships take longer to change direction.
But then, as you agree, nothing is ideal. (What would be the ideal ratio of stability and change?)

The bad part of a religious empire is that the religion outlives the empire. There is not so much compulsion to continue every facet of something like the Roman empire, and that allows the people that follow to choose what they want to keep. I suppose it's like the fallout after a really big bomb - like Hiroshima. Perhaps religion is a "hammer to kill a flea"


Somebody used to have this as their signature (possibly on a different forum :))
The common people believe that religion is true.
The wise know it is false
The powerful realise it is useful

Religion is a tool to be used. It still seems to be a very useful tool today, given how widely it is used.
BTW, I don't agree with the notion that religions start wars. Political leaders start wars, religion is just the tool they sometimes use to get the public behind them.

[FireGarden]

Originally posted by Dancing David
Well I guess it's really not Mohamed fault that his followers stone witches or mutilate little girls.
Where is the evidence that life was bad before the angel spoke to him?


Peace

On a slow thread, we've suddenly had very rapid posts.

As I said just before you posted, I've not been able to find anything which suggests constant warfare on a huge scale.

Some do mention the part about daughters killed at birth.

[Dancing David]

I always thought the cool part about Mohamed's teaching were that he allowed for other Prophets than himself.

Sociologicaly I think he tried to temper the prevailing culture the same as most great teachers(IE Moshesh,Yeshua,Gautama).

Peace