Yanks better convert to Islam, or bad things will happen (AlQaeda)

[loinburger]

Originally posted by CyberShy
Please try to undestand what I say, you guys have gods and you guys do worship. Just in a different way, but all religious people have gods and worshipping in different ways.

You've ignored the many objections to your definitions of "god" and "worship."

[Robert]

I think it's hard to give a general definition of worshipping /gods.
We have sportsmen that are being worshipped, according to the press. There are pop idols who are being worshipped by their fans. We have game creators who are being called 'gods'. The football stadion of my team Feyenoord is oftenly called "The temple besides the Maas" (Maas = the name of the river)

Apparantly people do see religion in music and sports. Though we all agree that worshipping sportmen is really not the same as worshipping the god of thunder. But I think we do agree that some soccer fans do have a religious way of admiring their team.

What is a god? What is worshipping? Is worshipping nessecarily for being religious? There are many many books written about what religion is and none of them agree with each other.

But in the end it is that all people try to shape their lives in such a way that they think it's the best. And the rules/forms for this lifestyle is being give by heigher beings. Either 'prophets' (Muhammed, Bhudda, Moses, Paul) or gods.

I think we can all agree that communism has these religious things. They have prophets (Marx, Lenin) they have (had) their holy places (mausoleum of Lenin) they have their book (Das Kapital) they have an ideal (equality and sharing everything) and they live for it. Of course we don't call it a religion, we call it a political opinion. But it has everything that a religion has.

[aneeshm]

They are simply following Quranic law . When Mohammed wanted to loot or fight , he always made a symbolic offer of peace if the enemy converted - knowing that nobody with any self-respect would ever convert . Then , once they refused , he would loot them , kill the men , and maybe take wives from among their women ( he had some twenty wives , the youngest one being nine at the time the marriage was consummated ) .

And , assuming that the enemy converted , then it was even easier for Mohammed - being THE prophet of Islam , he could do whatever he wanted with the converts . He could tell them to commit suicide if he wanted to , and they would be forced to obey .

It is given in the Quran that when Muslims attack a place , they must make an offer of peace if the enemy converts . If they refuse , then the Muslims are allowed to "strike off their heads" .

Some ultra-orthodox clerics opposed bin Laden on the grounds that though the attack on the USA was a good thing , it was not in accordance with Muslim law , as it was not preceded by an offer of conversion . What this offer means is that all further attacks are legtimate by Islamic law , whereas the previous ones , strictly speaking , weren't .

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by CyberShy


1. gods are beings with authority in someones life
2. gods define the rules
3. gods are being worshipped or feared



I think those are valid arguments. Of course you may disagree with them, but then you should coutner them.

Unfortunately as they apply to a god or gods, they also apply to tax inspectors, Britney Spears, the Russian Mafia, law lords, cricket umpires, et cetera.

In other words, the selective definitions you choose to assign to 'god' are so vague, woolly and general, that they also apply to a great number of other items.

By seeking somehow to 'prove' that atheists and people who have a belief in a deity are the same, or equivalent using this kind of sloppy comparison does you no favours whatsoever.

I think that the above 3 things do defenitely apply to the modern atheistic human.

You may think that, but as I and other atheists keep telling you, except only in very general ways [and then equally applicable to those who are not atheists] yes they apply to atheists, but not as part of some overarching 'atheist' belief system, because there isn't one.

You may of course persist in ignoring what the various atheists on this board are telling you of their values and ethics and principles, and how they operate in the world. That is your privilege.

They give only authority to themselves, define their own rules and they worship themselves as in that they put themselves above everything. (ie. 'you have to do what is the best for yourself')

By doing what is best for myself [and I'm not sure how you in any know that what is best for myself is not also of benefit to others] I do not neglect the well-being of others. If you cannot look out for your own good, I fail to see how you can possibly be entrusted with guarding the well-being of others.

I do not only give authority to myself- what kind of monomaniacal solipsistic world do you imagine atheists live in ?

You're now simply making rather insulting assertions about people without in any way having prior knowledge of what all atheists think or do.


As for defining our own rules, well if that means rather than simply accepting the supposed wisdom of nomadic sheepherders from 3000 years in the past, then I'm in favour of questioning received opinion and wisdom, yes.

And who wouldn't be ? We live in vastly different times, in a vastly different society. Autre temps, autre moeurs, as my esteemed Francophile posters might say.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by CyberShy
Arrian, I'm not redefining, I'm using very well accepted definitions of gods and religion. Of course not 21th century western world definitions but global-all time definitions. Not all gods are Allah-Jahweh alike gods. Not all religions are christian-judaistic-muslim religions. And no, I never said that self worshipping is "immature, selfish brats", those are your words, which just proves again that you just read my posts with a pre-definited idea of what I want to say.

No, I read your posts with the memory of many things you've said in the past, and I'm also capable of reading between the lines. I know you haven't said (at least in this thread) that atheists are selfish brats. I think, based on your posting history on this topic and what you've said in this thread, that you do think that way. If I'm wrong, fine. Only you really know for sure.

As for the terminology, assert all you want, but I reject your overly broad use of "worship" and "god."

-Arrian

[Arrian]

We have sportsmen that are being worshipped, according to the press.

That's hyperbole, and it's not said seriously. Just like when people whine about Americans "worshipping" the "almighty dollar." When someone says that, they don't mean people are actually worshipping money as a god. They mean that people have become unhealthily obsessed with wealth. It's exaggeration used to make a point.

And, later in your post, you seem to acknowledge this... and then go right back to asserting that it's (kinda) the same thing. Oy.

-Arrian

[Arrian]

I think we can all agree that communism has these religious things. They have prophets (Marx, Lenin) they have (had) their holy places (mausoleum of Lenin) they have their book (Das Kapital) they have an ideal (equality and sharing everything) and they live for it. Of course we don't call it a religion, we call it a political opinion. But it has everything that a religion has.

AFAIK, communists do not look to the supernatural. That's a big difference.

Second, look at what you wrote about communism and consider all other political or economic theories. If the shoe fits for communism, it fits for the other theories too. All modes of thought, even...

To the point where the analogy is so strained that it ceases to have meaning.

Humanity clearly has a strong tendency toward the religious. That is clear. But not everything is religious in nature. By trying to claim that there is religion in everything that we do, you stretch the meaning of religion beyond all reasonable bounds. But I guess that's the point, eh? Reason, schmeason. All hail the Pink Unicorn!

-Arrian

[Combat Ingrid]

Originally posted by Arrian
All hail the Pink Unicorn!

Found this on a website:

The Invisible Pink Unicorn is a being of great spiritual power. We know this because she is capable of being invisible and pink at the same time. Like all religions, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorn is based upon both logic and faith. We have faith that she is pink; we logically know that she is invisible because we can't see her.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by aneeshm
They are simply following Quranic law . When Mohammed wanted to loot or fight , he always made a symbolic offer of peace if the enemy converted - knowing that nobody with any self-respect would ever convert . Then , once they refused , he would loot them , kill the men , and maybe take wives from among their women ( he had some twenty wives , the youngest one being nine at the time the marriage was consummated ) .

And , assuming that the enemy converted , then it was even easier for Mohammed - being THE prophet of Islam , he could do whatever he wanted with the converts . He could tell them to commit suicide if he wanted to , and they would be forced to obey .

It is given in the Quran that when Muslims attack a place , they must make an offer of peace if the enemy converts . If they refuse , then the Muslims are allowed to "strike off their heads" .

Some ultra-orthodox clerics opposed bin Laden on the grounds that though the attack on the USA was a good thing , it was not in accordance with Muslim law , as it was not preceded by an offer of conversion . What this offer means is that all further attacks are legtimate by Islamic law , whereas the previous ones , strictly speaking , weren't .

Thanks for the info. I think we tend to forget how much in these AQ statements is directed at fairly arcane discussions within the Salafi world, and arent meant seriously as communications to the West at all.

Also thanks for coming back on topic.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Arrian


That's hyperbole, and it's not said seriously. Just like when people whine about Americans "worshipping" the "almighty dollar." When someone says that, they don't mean people are actually worshipping money as a god.

If we could get all Jews to take G-d and the Torah as seriously as most Americans take money, our shuls would be filled every Saturday, thered be 100 times as many kosher restaurants, we would treat each other better, wed give even more to charity, and in general our whole life as a community would be different. Now maybe Americans dont say "praised are you oh money, who brings forth bread from the earth" before meals, and maybe they dont say "money is responsible for all good things" (though they DO say "money makes the world go round)

Once again i hazard a guess that this is a Christian vs Jewish civilizational thing, and cybershy is taking, though he may not know it, a Jewish perspective. Christians are focused on dogmas, creeds, statements of faith, and have been for 2000 years. Atheist christians take this civilizational quality with them, and so spend hours discussing the precise definition of "worship" to show they dont do it.

I ask, not what dogmas does a man assert, but how does a man live? I venture that a man who follows Torah, by loving his neighbor, by respecting his parents, by resting on shabbas, is more living Judaism, is more "worshipping" G-d , even if he doubts certain dogmas, than someone who proclaims various theistic theories but LIVES as if G-d had no power or meaning for him, as if, indeed, money or celebrity or success or beauty WERE gods. In Judaism we have a concept called Kavannah, intention, focus, motivation. Worship without Kavannah is of little value. Kavannah without formal ritual? Well theres dispute about that - certainly theres lots of obsession in J about formal ritual - but the greatest chassidic masters said that what came out of sincere Kavannah, for example a humble sheperds tune by one too ignorant to know the prayers, was of greater value than the mass of prayers by those whose kavannah was weaker (though they didnt suggest that those who knew the rituals should abandon them)

There are many whose Kavannah toward money, celebrity, self, etc, etc is VERY strong - so they dont have formal ritual - there LOVE for what they honor is great. If I deny that what they do is a form of worship, then must I not also deny that much that I consider worship of G-d is also true worship?

[lord of the mark]

'I have heard from my father the Holy Komarna. One time a Jewish peasant boy came to the big town to celebrate Rosh Hashanah. He didn't know how to pray. He could not even read the letter Alef. He only saw that everyone was traveling to the synagogues to participate in the holy prayers. He thought, "If everybody is going to town I must go too!"

He arrived at the town synagogue with his father and watched the congregants crying and singing together swaying to and fro. He turned to his father and asked, "Father, what is this all about?"

His father turned to him and said, "The Holy One blessed be sits enthroned in the heavens and we pray all year long to Him. We especially pray during these two days of Rosh Hashanah when the whole world is being judged and each person is being judged for the rest of the year."

The son responded, "Father, what am I to do since I do not know how to pray?"

His father quickly said to him condescendingly, "All you have to do is be quiet and listen to the other Jews praying. That is enough for you."

"But Father, if I don't know what these people are saying how is that going to effect God's decision? How is being silent going to help me?"

His father became unnerved and blurted out, "Listen, you should be quiet so no one will know you're an ignorant peasant!"

The son stood still for a couple of minutes as his father and the rest of the congregation continued praying and then - the young boy stood up and spoke loudly.

"I am going to pray to God in the way I know best. I will whistle to God as I whistle to my flock of sheep."

He began whistling the sweet calling as most shepherds know. His father was enraged. The boy continued whistling with all his might not caring what other people thought.

Now, it happened to be, that this particular Rosh Hashanah, all the heavenly gates were shut and suddenly because of this pure whistling of the heart, all the gates burst open. The prayers of Israel were finally heard. '

Nachlei Binah P. 317 #632 Tehillim Ben Beiti, Rabbi Eliezer of Komarno

[Arrian]

My honest opinion, LotM, is that some of the strains of Judaism are approaching secular philosophy.

In any event, there *are* similarities between religious worship and other beliefs or ways of life. To point that out is one thing. To flatly state that they are one and the same, however, as Cybershy is wont to do, is another. To me, anyway.

I respect your opinion on this stuff, really I do. But I still reject the idea that (most) atheists are, as Cybershy likes to claim, religious in their (non)beliefs and therefore atheism is a religion. That's simply taking a valid analogy a step or two too far... and which point it breaks down.

Further, stepping away from the general, I think I've got a pretty good handle on my beliefs or lack thereof. I'm not really the worshipful sort... about anything. The closest thing might be baseball, but even then I'm really into the statistical side of the game, rather than the "mystique and aura" stuff (if you understand the reference... it's specific to the Yankees). In my experience with friends who share my agnosticism, or who perhaps have some belief but are not practicing christians or jews, it seems to me that some people's personalities lean toward or away from the religious. I have an Aunt who appears to be a born fanatic... it doesn't really matter which religion she picks (and she's picked a couple of different ones), she's gonna be a fanatic. I, on the other hand, am just not that way.

I think (but certainly cannot prove) that this is a personality trait that many atheist probably share. We prefer reason over faith. There are many others who prefer faith over reason, or (perhaps most impressively!) can mix the two equally.

Ok, now I'm really rambling. I'm gonna stop now and maybe mull this a bit.

-Arrian

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Arrian
My honest opinion, LotM, is that some of the strains of Judaism are approaching secular philosophy.

In any event, there *are* similarities between religious worship and other beliefs or ways of life. To point that out is one thing. To flatly state that they are one and the same, however, as Cybershy is wont to do, is another. To me, anyway.

I respect your opinion on this stuff, really I do. But I still reject the idea that (most) atheists are, as Cybershy likes to claim, religious in their (non)beliefs and therefore atheism is a religion. That's simply taking a valid analogy a step or two too far... and which point it breaks down.

Further, stepping away from the general, I think I've got a pretty good handle on my beliefs or lack thereof. I'm not really the worshipful sort... about anything. The closest thing might be baseball, but even then I'm really into the statistical side of the game, rather than the "mystique and aura" stuff (if you understand the reference... it's specific to the Yankees). In my experience with friends who share my agnosticism, or who perhaps have some belief but are not practicing christians or jews, it seems to me that some people's personalities lean toward or away from the religious. I have an Aunt who appears to be a born fanatic... it doesn't really matter which religion she picks (and she's picked a couple of different ones), she's gonna be a fanatic. I, on the other hand, am just not that way.

I think (but certainly cannot prove) that this is a personality trait that many atheist probably share. We prefer reason over faith. There are many others who prefer faith over reason, or (perhaps most impressively!) can mix the two equally.

Ok, now I'm really rambling. I'm gonna stop now and maybe mull this a bit.

-Arrian

well of course I deny the equation of "religious" with fanatic, as you know.

as for veering towards secular philosophy, I hold that many of these dualisms, secular vs religious, natural vs supernatural, are arbitrary, and that a living Judaism needs to move beyond them. Dualistically dividing things up into categories, and then logically analyzing based on them, is a Greek, Aristotelian approach, and while Im all for it use in designing spaceships and analyzing public policy, and so forth, I think it fails in approaching the spiritual side of things (for a more formal analysis of why the difference, I think Franz Rosenzwieg addresses that in Star of Redemption, which unfortunately ive only gotten part way through - the German idealist vocab is somewhat daunting) You may consider that this makes me an "irrationalist" so be it.

And im not saying mystical or aura is what makes worship (though that was the implication of the story i quoted) I can see that to make this clear, I need to develop this further. DOnt think i will now though.

"In any event, there *are* similarities between religious worship and other beliefs or ways of life. To point that out is one thing. To flatly state that they are one and the same, however, as Cybershy is wont to do, is another. To me, anyway."

I understand the problems with that equation. Do you see the equal problems presented by the equation of ALL religions, even all forms of Islam, with a particularly intolerant form of Islam, which is the equation that IIRC, was made in the post Cybershy originally responded to? I think categories like "religion" and "worship" while occasionally useful in comparative "religion" can be as misleading in suggesting parallels among "faith traditions" as they are useful. The post CS was responding to was a good example of how they can be both misleading, and used in a way that is both infantile and offensive. CS was simply responding in kind.

As is so often the case, his countertroll took on a life of its own, from which he has had a hard time retreating - probably because some of polys more obsessive posters are attacking him as if what he said was nonsense. While I wont stand behind the literal wording of what he said, I think the "kavannah" behind is right - indeed the very intensity of the response demonstrates it.

[Arrian]

Do you see the equal problems presented by the equation of ALL religions, even all forms of Islam, with a particularly intolerant form of Islam, which is the equation that IIRC, was made in the post Cybershy originally responded to?

Of course, and I've generally quit pulling that crap. I'm a lot more careful to focus my criticisms, to the extent I feel the need to criticise at all.

While I wont stand behind the literal wording of what he said, I think the "kavannah" behind is right - indeed the very intensity of the response demonstrates it.

Disagree there. The intensity of the response is a natural reaction to being told what you (or a general group you are part of) believe or don't believe. Nobody likes that, whether religious or not. Therefore, the intensity of the response doesn't demonstrate that atheists are... anything, really.

-Arrian

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by CyberShy
What is a god? What is worshipping? Is worshipping nessecarily for being religious? There are many many books written about what religion is and none of them agree with each other.

But in the end it is that all people try to shape their lives in such a way that they think it's the best. And the rules/forms for this lifestyle is being give by heigher beings. Either 'prophets' (Muhammed, Bhudda, Moses, Paul) or gods.

In short, you apply the word "worship" to the simple fact of having a sense of purpose.

As a result, any person who has a purpose belongs to a "religion".

Ultra-broad definitions are so fun! Thank you for this wonderfully enlightening discussion.