|
Post by woodrowli on Jun 23, 2014 9:29:55 GMT -6
And therein is my underlying concern which prompted the topic: Shouldn't it matter to us when it appears that someone else believes things that make no sense? Are we to agree that as long as a person insists they've freely chosen to believe whatever it is that that's fine and dandy? If deities are as people suppose them to be, shouldn't their presumed ideas and actions make MORE sense than any that people can think up? Not less! In my opinion that would apply if the person was trying to justify their actions on their belief or if they are attempting to convince another person to accept their beliefs. If a person is not imposing their beliefs upon others, who shives a git. Person A believes eating Godiva Chocolates is the true religion and the only path to heaven. He believes those who never eat Godiva Chocolates will never experience Heave, He see buying Godiva chocolates as his tithing to support the one true religion. As long as person A believes that of his own free choice and is not trying to convince Person B that it is true. Why should Person B have any concern about it?
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Jun 23, 2014 9:54:35 GMT -6
I'm increasingly bothered by the common insistence that when someone expresses a belief in the unfounded, generally stated as "Well, you may not agree, but it's true for me," we must all nod respectfully and cease pressing the person to provide good reasons or evidence to support that belief. What we should be doing in such instances is demanding proof that would persuade any reasonable person that there is adequate reason to believe it to be true, literally true. I find it extremely odd that religious beliefs with no evidence other than tradition and sacred writings and typically little or no logic to them are supposed to be granted this pass when expressed by presumably sober adults. Would we do that for beliefs in monsters under the bed solemnly claimed to exist by adults? But we are somehow compelled by present-day ideas of good manners to accept the fact that an otherwise apparently sane, reasonable adult firmly believes that an angel cushioned Aunt Frieda from certain death in a car accident or Jesus cured Uncle Bob's cancer. "Well, I can't prove that to you, but I believe it's true." Then there are tradition-based beliefs which generally are fantastic stories that have arisen about hallowed figures, whether mythical or actual historical figures doesn't seem to matter. Tales of The Book Of Mormon being transmitted to Joseph Smith via golden tablets only he ever actually saw or prophetic teachings being revealed by means of mystical trance states or apparitions, they're all of similar unlikelihood but with so much reverence accorded them that casting doubt upon any aspect thereof becomes akin to commenting unflatteringly about someone's mother. It's about time "Sounds farfetched to me. I can't imagine how any reasonable person could think there's the least bit of truth to that. Give me your evidence" became not only acceptable but expected when beliefs are expressed as truths that must be respected. It's long past time for "Scripture says so" or "Well, it's true FOR ME" to get a pass. Hi Dot: I think Woodrow nailed it. He cites proof that is quite compelling to a huge population, but you and other atheists reject his proof. You are absolutely entitled to reject the proof for all of the reasons that are discussed here from time to time. No one is asking you to give believers a pass. "The difficulty comes in the fact that theists, agnostic and atheists do not have mutually accepted sources of proof." This is it in a nutshell. Skeptics generally require scientific proof. I believe Atheism is inevitable when one applies the standards of science to theological questions. Great religious thinkers would probably wonder why one would apply the standards of science to religious questions in the first place. Jim
|
|
|
Post by stevec on Jun 23, 2014 10:58:34 GMT -6
Hi Dot: I think Woodrow nailed it. He cites proof that is quite compelling to a huge population, but you and other atheists reject his proof. You are absolutely entitled to reject the proof for all of the reasons that are discussed here from time to time. No one is asking you to give believers a pass. "The difficulty comes in the fact that theists, agnostic and atheists do not have mutually accepted sources of proof." This is it in a nutshell. Skeptics generally require scientific proof. I believe Atheism is inevitable when one applies the standards of science to theological questions. Great religious thinkers would probably wonder why one would apply the standards of science to religious questions in the first place. Jim My only response would be to point out the tremendous amount of human effort and financial resources devoted to something that defies logic and physics. Shame on religious leaders, great and small, for not addressing the moral issue posed by such waste. Don't forget that they are all beggars, for what that's worth in society.
|
|
|
Post by woodrowli on Jun 23, 2014 12:06:20 GMT -6
Hi Dot: I think Woodrow nailed it. He cites proof that is quite compelling to a huge population, but you and other atheists reject his proof. You are absolutely entitled to reject the proof for all of the reasons that are discussed here from time to time. No one is asking you to give believers a pass. "The difficulty comes in the fact that theists, agnostic and atheists do not have mutually accepted sources of proof." This is it in a nutshell. Skeptics generally require scientific proof. I believe Atheism is inevitable when one applies the standards of science to theological questions. Great religious thinkers would probably wonder why one would apply the standards of science to religious questions in the first place. Jim My only response would be to point out the tremendous amount of human effort and financial resources devoted to something that defies logic and physics. Shame on religious leaders, great and small, for not addressing the moral issue posed by such waste. Don't forget that they are all beggars, for what that's worth in society. I do not see that as being applicable to all religions, not even to all major religions. Not every religion has ordained paid leaders. Not all Religions tithe.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Jun 23, 2014 14:30:18 GMT -6
Hi Dot: I think Woodrow nailed it. He cites proof that is quite compelling to a huge population, but you and other atheists reject his proof. You are absolutely entitled to reject the proof for all of the reasons that are discussed here from time to time. No one is asking you to give believers a pass. "The difficulty comes in the fact that theists, agnostic and atheists do not have mutually accepted sources of proof." This is it in a nutshell. Skeptics generally require scientific proof. I believe Atheism is inevitable when one applies the standards of science to theological questions. Great religious thinkers would probably wonder why one would apply the standards of science to religious questions in the first place. Jim My only response would be to point out the tremendous amount of human effort and financial resources devoted to something that defies logic and physics. Shame on religious leaders, great and small, for not addressing the moral issue posed by such waste. Don't forget that they are all beggars, for what that's worth in society. Hi Steve: That is the point though. The religious leaders, at least those who are not simply frauds, genuinely believe that the services they provide are valuable and more than worth the human and financial costs. You disagree of course, and that is fine. It goes without saying that your point of view is not shared by religious leaders and those who support them. Even if we agree for the sake of argument that all time and money invested in religion is a net "waste" of resources - so what? Virtually all of America's spending on recreation, fashion, consumerism, partying, pro sports etc. etc. etc. is a waste too, from one perspective. Jim
|
|
|
Post by stevec on Jun 23, 2014 15:18:45 GMT -6
My only response would be to point out the tremendous amount of human effort and financial resources devoted to something that defies logic and physics. Shame on religious leaders, great and small, for not addressing the moral issue posed by such waste. Don't forget that they are all beggars, for what that's worth in society. I do not see that as being applicable to all religions, not even to all major religions. Not every religion has ordained paid leaders. Not all Religions tithe. Name one religion that survives without donations?
|
|
|
Post by stevec on Jun 23, 2014 15:45:51 GMT -6
My only response would be to point out the tremendous amount of human effort and financial resources devoted to something that defies logic and physics. Shame on religious leaders, great and small, for not addressing the moral issue posed by such waste. Don't forget that they are all beggars, for what that's worth in society. Hi Steve: That is the point though. The religious leaders, at least those who are not simply frauds, genuinely believe that the services they provide are valuable and more than worth the human and financial costs. You disagree of course, and that is fine. It goes without saying that your point of view is not shared by religious leaders and those who support them. Even if we agree for the sake of argument that all time and money invested in religion is a net "waste" of resources - so what? Virtually all of America's spending on recreation, fashion, consumerism, partying, pro sports etc. etc. etc. is a waste too, from one perspective. Jim I'll agree that the Vatican = Hollywood = 5th Ave = neighborhood church = any nightclub = Sports Authority Field, the latter being an abomination. Should we simply equate religion with the entertainment industry and not pretend it's anything more noble.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Jun 23, 2014 16:04:45 GMT -6
Hi Steve: That is the point though. The religious leaders, at least those who are not simply frauds, genuinely believe that the services they provide are valuable and more than worth the human and financial costs. You disagree of course, and that is fine. It goes without saying that your point of view is not shared by religious leaders and those who support them. Even if we agree for the sake of argument that all time and money invested in religion is a net "waste" of resources - so what? Virtually all of America's spending on recreation, fashion, consumerism, partying, pro sports etc. etc. etc. is a waste too, from one perspective. Jim I'll agree that the Vatican = Hollywood = 5th Ave = neighborhood church = any nightclub = Sports Authority Field, the latter being an abomination. Should we simply equate religion with the entertainment industry and not pretend it's anything more noble. That is up to the individual of course. From your point of view Vatican = Hollywood makes perfect sense. For others it is qualitatively different. Sports Authority Field = Heaven makes perfect sense from any point of view though! J
|
|
|
Post by woodrowli on Jun 23, 2014 17:37:41 GMT -6
I do not see that as being applicable to all religions, not even to all major religions. Not every religion has ordained paid leaders. Not all Religions tithe. Name one religion that survives without donations? Islam. We are not obligate to tithe but we are obligated to help the needy. This can be through any charity or to needy people we come across. There is no obligation for us to pray in a mosque. We are obligated to pray as a community, but that can be in our homes or even on the street as you will find in most of the world Most Imams are not paid. We have no ordained clergy and no paid missionaries. We have no central organization or center we send donations to or have to pay in. In spite of the number of Mosques in the world, the majority of us do not "belong" to a Mosque or financially support one. We are low budget and cheap skates. We do not pay to worship. Even for areas that do have very elaborate Mosques, there are basically no interior furnishings. We do not have pews etc.
|
|
|
Post by woodrowli on Jun 23, 2014 21:34:07 GMT -6
I should have mentioned above there are many types of charity we may donate to, such as non-Muslim charities, non-Muslim individuals help with building a Mosque (Provided the Imam can not afford it) etc. But only Zakat is obligatory and that does have limitations as to who we can give it to. Zakat is 2.8 the value of all we have owned in the previous year. Anything in excess of that is not Zakat and does not have the restrictions. These are what we are permitted to count as Zakat to. It is our choice to decide which we give it to. SOURCEThat does not mean we are forbidden to give charity to non-Muslims, we just can not count what we give to them as part of our Zakat.
|
|
|
Post by woodrowli on Jun 23, 2014 21:43:33 GMT -6
Another thing to note Saudi providing money to build Mosques is actually forbidden.
We also can not donate any money to anyone who claims to be from Muhammad(saws) Family line.
|
|
|
Post by stevec on Jun 23, 2014 22:01:16 GMT -6
Woodrowli,
All those people in the street, they all donate time and effort, and in extreme cases their lives, so that Islam can flourish. I don't necessarily mean to single out Islam, all religions do the same. There are times when donated time and energy are more useful than money. Time and energy can vest a person in a cause, more so than merely donating cash. I've been on both sides of that decision process, donating money was easier of the two. If you want to change the world, get people to sacrifice time and energy, the money will follow later.
I don't care if Islam's leaders are rich or poor, professional or not, organized or haphazard, the end results prove that power, pride, and prestige are goals in and of themselves, and just as addictive as wealth. With all due respect, I can clearly see that money is not a motivating factor in your spiritual life, but I do see some pride seeping through in regard to your beliefs and practices. It's fine, btw, I don't have a problem with that, it's only human.
|
|
|
Post by stevec on Jun 23, 2014 22:28:11 GMT -6
Zakat is nothing more than fancy legalese for donations, tithing, or taxes. The end result is that Mosques get built, Mosques receive upkeep, and Islamic religious leaders have power. It's obvious that the Islamic world gets things done, despite all its spiritual legal jargon.
|
|
|
Post by stevec on Jun 23, 2014 22:48:58 GMT -6
I'll agree that the Vatican = Hollywood = 5th Ave = neighborhood church = any nightclub = Sports Authority Field, the latter being an abomination. Should we simply equate religion with the entertainment industry and not pretend it's anything more noble. That is up to the individual of course. From your point of view Vatican = Hollywood makes perfect sense. For others it is qualitatively different. Sports Authority Field = Heaven makes perfect sense from any point of view though! J Yes, Hollywood vs. Holywood is a close call, qualitatively speaking. I know that's my humble opinion, but what the heck, somebody has to say it.
|
|
|
Post by woodrowli on Jun 24, 2014 2:30:42 GMT -6
Woodrowli, All those people in the street, they all donate time and effort, and in extreme cases their lives, so that Islam can flourish. I don't necessarily mean to single out Islam, all religions do the same. There are times when donated time and energy are more useful than money. Time and energy can vest a person in a cause, more so than merely donating cash. I've been on both sides of that decision process, donating money was easier of the two. If you want to change the world, get people to sacrifice time and energy, the money will follow later. I don't care if Islam's leaders are rich or poor, professional or not, organized or haphazard, the end results prove that power, pride, and prestige are goals in and of themselves, and just as addictive as wealth. With all due respect, I can clearly see that money is not a motivating factor in your spiritual life, but I do see some pride seeping through in regard to your beliefs and practices. It's fine, btw, I don't have a problem with that, it's only human. Just a few thoughts arise from this. With the exception of the Shi'a Khans are there any living individuals that have gained materially from Islam? The people in the street do donate their time, but not to any organization. Why they pray in the street is simply because it is prayer time. Each of the 5 obligatory prayers are to be said at a specific time. People being people will usually do things where it is most convenient. Not any more organized or supportive than the Coffee and lunch breaks in most factories. Also take about the same amount of time as a coffee break. Getting to leaders. Sunni do not have any organized or ordained leaders. There is no central leader that speaks for Islam or Muslims. We are not to follow any man unless we have found reason to agree with what they say. No sunni can issue a religious edict that we are obligated to follow. Among the Shi'ite an Ayatollah or Khan is required to be followed if he ussues a Fatwah. Sunni retain the right to tell anyone issuing a Fatwah to shove it where the sun don't shine, and we often do. Like among all people on occasion some people will attain a charismatic persona and gather a following. Usually it is limited to the Nation they live in. We have had 10 Caliphates but only the First 5 Imams which formed the First Caliphate ruled both politically and religiously over all Muslims. That will not happen again until the return of Jesus(as). Islam is not very well organized, Muslims typically seem to be too arrogant to follow any leader. We seem to have a very strong disdain for anyone that tries to take on a National leadership role. To be a Muslim National ruler is usually a job with short tenure before the people overthrow them. the only lasting ones that managed to stay in control by brute support and the support of Non-Muslim Nations.
|
|