Why do I say that Islam is an evil religion?

[Eclectic]

https://atheistforums.org/thread-64401-p...pid2114177

Let's stop with the circular links.

Your other thread could easily have been here.  Junking up the forum is frowned upon.

I gave a link because it was necessary to explain in a new topic about an article related to this topic, which is a new subject in itself.

[The Grand Nudger]

It all reads exactly as it would be expected to read considering it's time and place of origin. All of the abrahamics have gotten pretty long in the tooth - so ofc they no longer reflect our values. They don't even reflect the values of the abrahamics anymore.

[arewethereyet]

Let's stop with the circular links.

Your other thread could easily have been here.  Junking up the forum is frowned upon.

I gave a link because it was necessary to explain in a new topic about an article related to this topic, which is a new subject in itself.

Administrator Notice
Don't do it again.

[R00tKiT]

So?  Honestly, so what if many people disagree?  You know what I use the term evil to refer to, and so...whatever opinion you or the housecat may have on the matter, there either is or isn't malice.  Could be the case either way, like I said.  The basic difference between doing a bad thing, and an evil thing.  

Okay, you think the act of being unfaithful might be a bad thing... why, according to moral realism ? and what's the difference between bad and evil?

I don't think it's even honest to dispute this, the act of cheating without malicious intent can properly be regarded as evil, and I frankly don't think you would disagree if you weren't a moral realist.

How about we ask a woman in this thread what they think of the unfaithful husband if he went undetected? 

What do you think, @arewethereyet, of a husband cheating on his wife without her or anyone else ever knowing, and without anyone, anywhere, being physically harmed, is this act inherently evil ? (Y/N).

It's not any argument at all, and you don't really want to argue against moral realism anyway.  

Of course I do. Any person who considers themselves a theist would not agree with or even tolerate moral realism, we think disobeying a supernatural being is a very evil act; this obviously contradicts moral realism.

[arewethereyet]

So?  Honestly, so what if many people disagree?  You know what I use the term evil to refer to, and so...whatever opinion you or the housecat may have on the matter, there either is or isn't malice.  Could be the case either way, like I said.  The basic difference between doing a bad thing, and an evil thing.  

Okay, you think the act of being unfaithful might be a bad thing... why, according to moral realism ? and what's the difference between bad and evil?

I don't think it's even honest to dispute this, the act of cheating without malicious intent can properly be regarded as evil, and I frankly don't think you would disagree if you weren't a moral realist.

How about we ask a woman in this thread what they think of the unfaithful husband if he went undetected? 

What do you think, @arewethereyet, of a husband cheating on his wife without her or anyone else ever knowing, and without anyone, anywhere, being physically harmed, is this act inherently evil ? (Y/N).

It's not any argument at all, and you don't really want to argue against moral realism anyway.  

Of course I do. Any person who considers themselves a theist would not agree with or even tolerate moral realism, we think disobeying a supernatural being is a very evil act; this obviously contradicts moral realism.

Cheating is a broken promise.  It can cause hurt and mistrust.  I might go so far as to say it's evil if the person he cheated with was my sister (which would never happen as they don't like one another) or my best friend.  But it still wouldn't be evil in a heaven or hell kinda way.

[The Grand Nudger]

So?  Honestly, so what if many people disagree?  You know what I use the term evil to refer to, and so...whatever opinion you or the housecat may have on the matter, there either is or isn't malice.  Could be the case either way, like I said.  The basic difference between doing a bad thing, and an evil thing.  

Okay, you think the act of being unfaithful might be a bad thing... why, according to moral realism ? and what's the difference between bad and evil?

I already answered both of these questions, the latter right there in the bit you quoted...... Mind you, in a realist understanding, it doesn't matter what you put into any given category, it matters why you put it there. The statement either does or does not report a fact. I could conceivably call a thing evil, because I feel a particular way about it, maybe it's close to me (as you imagine the issue of a cheating spouse will have any given woman plotting murder as they apprehend a moral monster, lol) - but that's not my position on the morality of it speaking, if so, that's just my emotional investment compromising my rational agency. Sort of like how you get worked up when I shit talk your imaginary friend. Doesn't really make sense to let it affect you the way it does..but you can't help it.

Of course I do. Any person who considers themselves a theist would not agree with or even tolerate moral realism, we think disobeying a supernatural being is a very evil act; this obviously contradicts moral realism.

All you're saying there, is that you believe that there is no objective reason or explanation for why disobeying a supernatural being is an evil act.  Is that what you believe?

[R00tKiT]

I already answered both of these questions, the latter right there in the bit you quoted......  Mind you, in a realist understanding, it doesn't matter what you put into any given category, it matters why you put it there.  The statement either does or does not report a fact.  I could conceivably call a thing evil, because I feel a particular way about it, maybe it's close to me (as you imagine the issue of a cheating spouse will have any given woman plotting murder as they apprehend a moral monster, lol) - but that's not my position on the morality of it speaking, if so, that's just my emotional investment compromising my rational agency. 

It's probably more than just your emotional investment ....... one can plausibly argue that tolerating cheating -as long as one can get away with it- threatens family stability, and hence society. Maybe an increased number of unfaithful husbands is correlated with, say, a higher divorce rate. This might be an argument to condemn cheating even under moral realism.

But let's say there really is no factual basis for condemning this act, it's still conceivable, as you said, to call it evil.

All you're saying there, is that you believe that there is no objective reason or explanation for why disobeying a supernatural being is an evil act.  Is that what you believe?

In a world where naturalism is true, there is obviously no objective reason for why disobeying a supernatural being is evil, because there wouldn't be any supernatural being.. In a world where theism is true or, at least, where naturalism isn't clearly true, one can indeed have good reasons to believe that such an act is evil -say, they had a genuine religious experience that justifies their personal belief and hence their fear of God etc.

Cheating is a broken promise.  It can cause hurt and mistrust.  I might go so far as to say it's evil if the person he cheated with was my sister (which would never happen as they don't like one another) or my best friend.  But it still wouldn't be evil in a heaven or hell kinda way.

Precisely. It's still an evil act even if the person gets away with it, and no one in their right mind can tolerate such an act.. for me religion clearly has an advantage here as it explicitly condemns it, whereas secularism fails to do so.

[The Grand Nudger]

I already answered both of these questions, the latter right there in the bit you quoted......  Mind you, in a realist understanding, it doesn't matter what you put into any given category, it matters why you put it there.  The statement either does or does not report a fact.  I could conceivably call a thing evil, because I feel a particular way about it, maybe it's close to me (as you imagine the issue of a cheating spouse will have any given woman plotting murder as they apprehend a moral monster, lol) - but that's not my position on the morality of it speaking, if so, that's just my emotional investment compromising my rational agency. 

It's probably more than just your emotional investment ....... one can plausibly argue that tolerating cheating -as long as one can get away with it- threatens family stability, and hence society. Maybe an increased number of unfaithful husbands is correlated with, say, a higher divorce rate. This might be an argument to condemn cheating even under moral realism.

But let's say there really is no factual basis for condemning this act, it's still conceivable, as you said, to call it evil.

Yep, people get things wrong all the time...especially when we get around to calling things evil.  

All you're saying there, is that you believe that there is no objective reason or explanation for why disobeying a supernatural being is an evil act.  Is that what you believe?

In a world where naturalism is true, there is obviously no objective reason for why disobeying a supernatural being is evil, because there wouldn't be any supernatural being.. In a world where theism is true or, at least, where naturalism isn't clearly true, one can indeed have good reasons to believe that such an act is evil -say, they had a genuine religious experience that justifies their personal belief and hence their fear of God etc.

And?  Let's assume a person had a genuine religious experience and it filled them with a mighty terror of god.  Okay.  So..what makes disobeying god evil though? 

Cheating is a broken promise.  It can cause hurt and mistrust.  I might go so far as to say it's evil if the person he cheated with was my sister (which would never happen as they don't like one another) or my best friend.  But it still wouldn't be evil in a heaven or hell kinda way.

Precisely. It's still an evil act even if the person gets away with it, and no one in their right mind can tolerate such an act.. for me religion clearly has an advantage here as it explicitly condemns it, whereas secularism fails to do so.

Um....no...it doesn't? I guess "secularism" (I'm pretty sure you don't have the faintest clue what that word means) allows us more specificity to talk about things that are bad and things that are evil than your religion does...but you seem to be willing to insist that there's no objectivity in your religions moral pronouncements to begin with...so...? This response does beg the question, though, why you tried the whole "what the wife don't know" bit. You seem to realize, all of a sudden, that this doesn't matter. I was beginning to wonder if you also thought that, should you be in some place god can't see, then disobeying gods would not be evil. Probably not the case, eh? Because you believe there's something bad about disobeying gods.

So...what is it?

[R00tKiT]

It's probably more than just your emotional investment ....... one can plausibly argue that tolerating cheating -as long as one can get away with it- threatens family stability, and hence society. Maybe an increased number of unfaithful husbands is correlated with, say, a higher divorce rate. This might be an argument to condemn cheating even under moral realism.

But let's say there really is no factual basis for condemning this act, it's still conceivable, as you said, to call it evil.

Yep, people get things wrong all the time...especially when we get around to calling things evil.  

I agree, but they wouldn't really be wrong if they called cheating evil. Again, even from a moral realist viewpoint, it's not hard to find objective facts supporting this assessment. 

And?  Let's assume a person had a genuine religious experience and it filled them with a mighty terror of god.  Okay.  So..what makes disobeying god evil though? 

A person who believes that god is their creator, that is the same entity that endowed them with everything they have, will naturally think disobeying this entity is ungrateful and evil.

Imagine you went away from home for a trip, in the meantime you lent your neighbor your car for a couple of weeks.. and when you come back, you find out that your car was stolen, and the ungrateful neighbor is nowhere to be found. I'm sure you'll be more upset than you would be if some anonymous person forced you out of your car and drove away. There is something particularly atrocious about ungratefulniess, your neighbor's betrayal is a different level of evil than that of stealing your goods by brute force.

 That's how a religious person sees the act of disobeying God. Being in good health, endowed with eyesight, hearing, being able to walk, and not being affected by the very long list of debilitating illnesses and disabilities, and yet, with all that, fail to perform simple religious deeds, or worse reject belief in God altogether... The religious person naturally sees that everything he has is a gift from God, and so, for them, returning the favor by not respecting a simple to-do (and not to do) list is a form of betrayal, of betraying their creator, and is indeed evil.

Um....no...it doesn't?  I guess "secularism" (I'm pretty sure you don't have the faintest clue what that word means) allows us more specificity to talk about things that are bad and things that are evil than your religion does...but you seem to be willing to insist that there's no objectivity in your religions moral pronouncements to begin with...so...?  This response does beg the question, though, why you tried the whole "what the wife don't know" bit.  You seem to realize, all of a sudden, that this doesn't matter.  I was beginning to wonder if you also thought that, should you be in some place god can't see, then disobeying gods would not be evil.  Probably not the case, eh?  Because you believe there's something bad about disobeying gods.  

I think we already reached a stalemate, it really comes down to your a prioris. In a naturalist worldview, no religious statement is objective in any way -some may argue that religious language becomes meaningless. In a theistic worldview, there obviously are objective moral evils other than the plain evils like physically harming someone. Secretly cheating on a spouse is a grave sin in abrahamic religions, it's "meh, who cares" outside of religion. That's it, these two viewpoints are diametrically opposed.

So how to break this stalemate ? In my example about unfaithfulness, I was attempting to poke holes in the realist viewpoint : there might very well be acts that are evil and yet can't be shown to be so by appeal to objective facts. Even if I weren't religious at all, I would find it really hard to consider cheating anything below evil.

[The Grand Nudger]

 There is something particularly atrocious about ungratefulniess, 

There we go, see, you're a realist all of a sudden.  There's something bad about disobeying a god, and it's that it's an ungrateful act.  

I think we already reached a stalemate, it really comes down to your a prioris. In a naturalist worldview, no religious statement is objective in any way

Plenty of religious statements can be objective.  It's wholly on the religious if they choose to make statements which are not.  

 In a theistic worldview, there obviously are objective moral evils other than the plain evils like physically harming someone. 

That's not obvious at all.  For a long time, and even today, people have argued divine command shit...where nothing about an act itself is the reason that anything is good or bad.  It just boils down to the completely arbitrary positions of some silly god.  

So how to break this stalemate ? In my example about unfaithfulness, I was attempting to poke holes in the realist viewpoint : there might very well be acts that are evil and yet can't be shown to be so by appeal to objective facts. Even if I weren't religious at all, I would find it really hard to consider cheating anything below evil.

There is no stalemeate, you're a moral realist..like most people tend to be, you just happen to be an islamist too...and that compromises your rational agency.

That's why you say absurd and manifestly false shit, as you continue to do even in that post, and fling yourself into doomed arguments. You've been sold a bill of goods about western degeneracy by your fruitcake shaman, and that's turned you into a raging asshole. Sorry bud.