Islam's God: The Origin of Allah the Moon God

souldevice.org ^ | unknown | anonymous for safety

[agrace]

Very interesting, thanks for the info, taking note of it for further reference.

[OWK]

Easy enough for a scholar such as yourself to conclude but what about people of very low intelligence, or dullards and simpletons who possess moral imperatives without any reflection?

A simpleton, dullard, child, vegetative human being, etc.. who does not possess the faculties of comprehension necessary to restrain his own behavior consistent with morality, cannot be held to a moral standard. Their actions are effectively amoral.

That is why we afford stewardship to these individuals.

[OWK]

I don't see why you can't rationalize that your well-being trumps the well-being of all others.

You could wrongly rationalize just about anything.

But to claim freedom of peaceful action as a moral imperative... as rightful.. as just.. you must afford it to others.

To fail to do so, invalidates the claim for self.

[freedomson]

As opposed to an invisible cloud-walking boogerman?

Let's say you are walking along the beach and you see a wristwatch in the dunes. Would you pick it up and say,
"Look, a collection of silicate molecules from the sand and various metallic atoms in the ocean formed this thing that looks just like a watch. And it's ticking to boot!"

[OWK]

Let's say you are walking along the beach and you see a wristwatch in the dunes. Would you pick it up and say, "Look, a collection of silicate molecules from the sand and various metallic atoms in the ocean formed this thing that looks just like a watch. And it's ticking to boot!"

No.

I'd hold it up to the sky and say.. "God.. you dropped your watch".

[AppyPappy]

But to claim freedom of peaceful action as a moral imperative... as rightful.. as just.. you must afford it to others.

But others do not have to afford it to you.

[freedomson]

A simpleton, dullard, child, vegetative human being, etc.. who does not possess the faculties of comprehension necessary to restrain his own behavior consistent with morality, cannot be held to a moral standard. Their actions are effectively amoral.

This is not true. I've know profoundly retarded people who have innate sense of morality and yet aren't able to read or write beyond a first grade level.

[OWK]

But others do not have to afford it to you.

Indeed they do, if they wish to rationally claim it as a moral imnperative for themselves.

Those who are willing to initiate force against otherwise peaceful men, rationally preclude any claim they might make to such a moral imperative.

Have many done so anyway?

Sure.

But their actions cannot be rationally defended or sustained consistent with the notion of morality.

Hence, they act immorally.

[OWK]

This is not true. I've know profoundly retarded people who have innate sense of morality and yet aren't able to read or write beyond a first grade level.

What part of "who does not possess the faculties of comprehension necessary to restrain his own behavior consistent with morality" didn't you get?

[freedomson]

I'd hold it up to the sky and say.. "God.. you dropped your watch".

LOL! You believe now!

[freedomson]

who does not possess the faculties of comprehension necessary to restrain his own behavior consistent with morality, cannot be held to a moral standard.

What don't you get? They are able to restrain their behavior and yet do not possess the necessary faculties of comprehension.

[freedomson]

who does not possess the faculties of comprehension necessary to restrain his own behavior consistent with morality, cannot be held to a moral standard.

What don't you get? They are able to restrain their behavior and yet do not possess the necessary faculties of comprehension.

[scan58]

Instead of fundamentalist Bhuddist, 'extremist' would be a better word and the Aum Shinrikyo comes to mind. (sarin gas in Japanese subways)

[AppyPappy]

Indeed they do, if they wish to rationally claim it as a moral imnperative for themselves.

No they don't. They can rationalize anything they wish. It's only YOUR morality that compels them to follow your rule. They can simply live by "Let the buyer beware".

[OWK]

They are able to restrain their behavior and yet do not possess the necessary faculties of comprehension.

I stated... (and I quote)

A simpleton, dullard, child, vegetative human being, etc.. who does not possess the faculties of comprehension necessary to restrain his own behavior consistent with morality, cannot be held to a moral standard. Their actions are effectively amoral.

Clearly, I am speaking about people who DO NOT possess the necessary faculties.

You seem to be trying to rebutt my point, by suggesting that there are borderline functional people who DO possess the necessary faculties.

But if they possess the necessary faculties, then I clearly wasn't talking about them.

What part don't you get?

[freedomson]

When two parties argue a point, isn't the purpose to bring the other party around to your point of view for some purpose?

If I bring you around I would be overjoyed that your life would improve by truly coming to understand God and His purpose and His purpose for you and that quite possibly down the road you would come to a saving faith and I could some day embrace you as a brother in heaven.

If you bring me around, and I reject the notion of a creator and I say, 'It's all hogwash!! OWK was right!' would I be better off? Would my life improve some way? Would you take any joy in opening my eyes?

[OWK]

People can "rationalize" damn near anything.

"Rationalization" is being used as equivalent to sophistry.

We're talking about objectively defensible and demonstrable reason, which is another thing altogether.

Reason demands that a moral code (a system defining good and evil among humankind) applies to all humans equally.

If it does not, then it fails the first test, and is hence irrational. (whether some clown "rationalizes" it, or not)

[AppyPappy]

Reason demands that a moral code (a system defining good and evil among humankind) applies to all humans equally.

Imposing morality, that is.

[freedomson]

In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did what was right in his own eyes.

Judges 21:25

[OWK]

If you bring me around, and I reject the notion of a creator and I say, 'It's all hogwash!! OWK was right!' would I be better off? Would my life improve some way? Would you take any joy in opening my eyes?

Your faith is yours to evaluate, and to accept or reject on it's merits.

I share my thoughts.

Take what value you will from them.

Would I consider your life improved, for having forsaken fairly tales in favor of reason?

I think I would perhaps.. yes..

But the decision is yours, and I take even greater pleasure in this.