If you 'feel' God, does this make it safe for the extremists?

[Undesired Walrus]

For this debate, you have to bring into context how the Quaran can, and has been interpreted. The main part that is quoted a lot is "And kill them wherever you find them, and draw them out from their homes and slay them". However, this part of the Quaran ends with "But do not attack them first, for God loves not the transgressors". Now, in the current world, it has a more practical nature then "turn the other cheek". But, the trouble with the Islamists is that they see the word 'innocent' as anyone who is a true Muslim. You must attack those who have transgressed, i.e, those who are commiting treason by not following Islam. After all, you can see how they think like this when you compare that part to what comes later in the Quaran, "There is only the Islamic religion which is right." Then contrast that with "And fight against them until there is no oppression and the religion is wholly for God." (I'm paraphrasing) It could mean a spiritual struggle of course, but you see how it could mean something for certain people.

Many freely admit their comfort is illogical and unbased in evidence, which is to be commended if the feeling is so strong, but are they not making the ground safe for the extremists? After all, they have the same 'calling', 'feeling' and 'inspiration' from within, and if your feeling is to be taken as fact you are making the ground safe for those who have the 'feeling' or 'calling' of murdering Infidels. If the moderate says they are 'misguided', who are they to say that? After all, if they accept a moderate feeling as the real calling of God, who are they to say the extremist one, which is just as powerful, is not the word?

[Bri]

I'm not sure I understand your question.

-Bri

[uruk]

Well, isn't that the central problem with religeon? Interpretation.
Who's interpretation is correct? That's the primary reason for all the different flavors, sects and schizims in all religeons.
How true can "the word of god" be if it can be interpreted in so many ways.
I know it is a problem of human language. But you'd think there would be a legalese version so that the actual intention is harder to miss.

You know "thou shalt not kill except where the party of the first part is in clear and present danger (see addendum XXI section 4567 as to what constitutes "danger" and "clear and present") or where the originator of said law (see God) has issued a legal form (see form # 56793 commandment of genocide, jihad, and abortion clinic neutralization) in triplicate to wit of said temporary suspention of previously issued law mentioned abouve..etc.,etc.

I believe that extremism is bad in almost every case because it is binary. It's either/or. Full on all the time. The world is not black and white.

We are a social species. Coexistance is necessary for continued existance.


Religeous extremists set themselves apart form the diversity in the world. Religeous extremeisim is intolerant of diversity. It seeks total homogenization. An Us against them atitude. It needs that kind of adversarial energy to keep it unified. A common enemy to fight against.

The problem with that kind of approach is once it achieves total homogenization it loses that adversarial energy. And people being what they are, namely individuals, will naturaly have slightly different interpretations of doctrine and then the schizimz begin to form within the leadership and then you have a breakdown of the whole system. The cycle begins again with it's subsequent spilling of infidel blood.

A moderate religeous view is more tolerant of other religeons. It allows for the coexistance of other ideas and religeons. And coexistance means survival of the whole.

Religeon is a good thing, if taken in moderation.

[Undesired Walrus]

But when we take this moderation, we often are stopped in the corner of the believer when they state 'They just know' that God told is there.

Now, I really believe that extremists too have this 'feeling'.

This thus must make the ground safe for extremists, as a large majority of the world are stating that this is the truth. Thus, who is to say the extremists are wrong?

[Bri]

I don't think many moderates -- if pressed -- would say that they know for a fact that God exists. Most people do understand the difference between fact and faith. Religion is clearly faith-based.

-Bri

[uruk]

Well the tip off should be that "what god tells me" is different from what god tells everyone else. They can't all be right if they are contradictory, but they can all be wrong.

Then there is written doctrine. If you hold the written doctrine to be true and god tells you to do something contradictory to doctrine; doctrine and what god tells you cannot both be true if they are contradictory. One has to be the right one. Or both can be wrong.

Then you run into the issue of language. If contradictory interpretations can be derived from the written doctrine, then something is wrong with the wording of the doctrine or the concept.

So who's to say the extremeist feelings are wrong? Well, nobody. Feelings are subjective. But if his actions, based on those feelings, are against the laws of a society, the society has the right to remove or isolate him.

The laws of man will always trump the "laws of god" because the laws of man are neccessary for the practical functioning of a society. (provided the laws are in the best interest of promoting the well being of the society)

Not everyone in a society is beholden to one particular religeon (unless your in a theocracy). Therefore the laws of one particular religeon cannot be applied to a whole society, only the laws agreed upon by that society.

So who's to say the extremeist is wrong in general? Society.

[bignickel]

I have no problem with anyone 'feeling' god/s.

The problem is when someone goes beyond 'feeling' and thinks 1. they 'know' the will of god/s and, very importantly, 2. this trumps all human concerns.

And that's where all the trouble starts.

If I believe that I was created by a purple ghost on Pluto, that could be meaningless in the grand scheme if I believed 1. that his purpose and will was for me to mind own business, or 2. that his purpose and will was trumped by human concerns.

The problem remains that many theists believe that god/s will is 1. knowable, and 2. trumps human concerns. Once you've decided on this, you've lost all power to critically debate any other similar believer. How can you prove that you're knowledge of the divine is more accurate than theirs? Which brings us to the points that Dawkins, Harris, et al were bringing to the fore in their books: faith is simply unacceptable in human reasoning. Their is no 'benign' form of faith (that acknowledges the aforementioned above) that can be allowed to participate in rational discourse, since it is invalidated the second a different 'faith' shows up.

(Renaissance Biker's forum quote perfectly sums up why)

[articulett]

The problem isn't people who think they know what god wants for them--it's the ones whose god is telling them what he wants for me-- that bugs me. I am completely against propping up the notion that "faith" and "obedience" to a "higher authority" are good or salvation worthy. I don't think faith is good for anything except manipulating people and getting them to feel good while doing bad.