I'm Starting To Disbeleive In God.

February 17, 2012

(bismillah)

To Devonian

I find it strange that you don't take yourself responsible for your conscious actions, and never find yourself blameworthy in any situation. Do you never arrive at dilemmas, ponder over the correct action, try to solve a sticky situation, make mistakes you try never to make again, evolve morally and ethically, apologise?

Bar the exceptions - certain psychologically ill persons - everyone feels responsible for their conscious actions. That is what allows us to talk of law, politeness, duty and morality. This sort of speech would make no sense and have no place if we were not responsible for our conscious actions. The fact that it makes sense to say, "I was wrong" or "I don't know why I fell for it again" or "I'm sorry" shows that we take responsibility for our actions.

Now, you may overlook my rudeness in a forum, but perhaps you wouldn't overlook a child-kidnapper who has eyes for your little brother or your child, in hope for a bargaining chip for your money.

When somebody coldbloodedly murders his wife, we don't say, "maybe he made a mistake." Murder is not a mistake. It's not even a big mistake. It would devalue the meaning of the word 'mistake' to call murder a mistake. Mistakes happen when things are unclear, vague, uncertain. But is "don't kill" so vague, especially your own wife? It's immoral. Most of us have a good sense that murder is bad and should not be committed. We are pretty hesitant, psychologically and morally, to murder people. It takes a lot - unless we are psychologically ill - to murder.

Do you think the murderer is blameless?

-----------

You think, erroneously, that one could throw the blame away from the created world and onto the creator. But this actually doesn't resolve the problem and actually adds to it. Because, you are saying that human action is the result of the nature which God has given it, and the environment and various other factors, which means that human beings are therefore so constrained by these factors that they cannot be blamed for their actions. However, how can we blame God when God Himself also acts according to His Nature? It's not as if God becomes not-God, and it's not as if God acts outside of who He is. Thus, all talk of blame is, in fact, a big mistake. Not just that, but it has no meaning. A murderer is not to blame, nor is his parents, nor the parents' parents, nor the environment, and ultimately, nor God. It is as it is.

But to say that is to totally misunderstand what we mean by "blame". When you tell a kid, "don't mess about", you are implying to them that if they continue to mess about, you will get angry, and ground them. And when they complain, you will say, "It's your fault. I told you not to do this." which implies that he could have, if he wanted to, stop messing about. This is what it means to place the "blame" on someone. To tell them that they had sufficient grounds for avoiding the wrong course of action. If an expert tells you that smoking increases the risk of heart problems by 100%, you are said to be "blameworthy" for the heart problem if you develop it after smoking. You had sufficient grounds to avoid it - regardless of other reasons, strong or weak - you employed to continue smoking.

You are taking the word "blame" to mean something it doesn't mean - and in fact, as shown above, ultimately, becomes meaningless.

------------

The best analogy is actually, in this case, no analogy. Just look at what really goes on in the world. There's no need for an analogy. For example, you say:

Many people commit fraud without even realizing it.

And this actually, subconsciously, drives you to generalise over all cases of fraud. But many people commit fraud realising it. They know it's illegal, they feel it's dishonest, but they don't care. They laugh it off. Many people do it, but don't laugh it off, hence guilt. Guilt comes from feeling blameworthy. These people know what they did, they they shouldn't have done it, they they should have known better.

Many people commit fraud without even realizing it. And whatever manipulated this man to believe that it was a good idea...again would be a creation of God, just as he is.

But why do you think this is manipulation rather than choice? I see a clear difference between the two. One could say that Gertrude deceived Jim, played with his mind, and so, through seduction, mesmerised and manipulated him. We would say, "he had little choice. Gertrude had him on a leash", which is to contrast it with another situation, where we say, "she didn't seduce or manipulate him. He did it knowingly and willingly, and his mind was in the right place."

There is a clear difference between saying "Jim chose" and "Jim was manipulated". In our day-to-day activities, we have a lot of "choice" and very little of "manipulation". Even the manipulation is not so great, and differs in degrees. One may be hypnotised and completely out of control, which happens never or very rarely. Another may just be a little tired, which happens more often but hampers our choice to a much lesser degree.

If someone chose to commit fraud, they were not manipulated. They just chose. They were not compelled. We don't see people saying, "I was compelled to eat this chicken" in normal situations (although, one may say that in other situations, for example pregnancy cravings). One is not compelled to watch tv. One is not compelled to say a lie to the boss for some promotion, even though there is an interest to do so, and so one may, after deliberation, choose to do so. Also, murder, if committed by a clinically sane person, would be a choice. The murderer wouldn't say, "I didn't choose to kill him. I was manipulated." Although, one may say "I didn't want to kill him", not to absolve blame, but to show remorse. In other words, he is saying, "I chose to kill him, but that this happened in a moment of rage, and I did not, otherwise, want him dead." However, he is not absolving himself. He got angry, he took the knife, and he stabbed the victim. It doesn't matter why he got angry or how he got angry, but he sufficient grounds not to kill the victim. There's a difference between someone who is born blind and someone who pokes himself in the eye. Thus, there is a difference between someone who has no biological control over his anger and someone who has biological control over his anger.

There is also "habit". Some behavioural peculiarities drift from being voluntary to being involuntary and habitual. One may say, "Don't pick your nose" to a kid, who would not respond, "I can't", but an older person may say, "I can't. I feel I need to do it." Hence the observation that young people are generally mouldable and older people are less flexible.

Edited February 17, 2012 by Jebreil

Thaqalayn313 · February 17, 2012

and for you, you should quote me so my name is visible, im just now noticing that you've been talking to me, sorry if it looked like i was ignoring you. Normally topics have so many people talking, that I skim past ones that dont appear to be directed at me.
On the blind man concept though, i think everyone is looking too much into this, if you guys have another analogy, provide it. My statement popped up off the top of my head, i didnt bother to sit and think through every detail, i was just providing an example of how we are given challanges in life, and how we go about dealing with those challanges, if we choose to sin, isnt necisserily something that is our fault. Thats all.
Most bad people in this world really arent that bad. Murderers and thieves...odds are they were good people, they just got pulled into bad situations beyond their control, and they chose to act based on how theyve been created to act and based on things that have manipulated them to act that way (those things that have manipulated them also being created things).
There are billions of murderers and thieves that live amongst us, every country has a military full of killing machines. Every country has its fair share of ghettos, where people commit many crimes just for the sake of survival. Humanity was brought into a world of violence...we did not choose this, and we are not at fault. Thats all there is to it. Look at your own fellow muslims. A great deal of fighting in the middle east isnt done by evil people, its done by good people in an environment created full of corruption. Sure we make the choice to wage war against eachother, but ultimately, this is not our creation, this is Gods creation. We are not the ones to blame. The creator created, and is responsible for his creation, thats how it goes. Even suicide bombers i wouldnt say are truly evil. We are just people living a life that we were born into, fighting for life as we were born to do in a world of violence which was created for us to live in.
It baffles me how people seem to think that we are the ones responsible for corruption in the world, as if we are the creators of evil. We didnt create anything, we are the creation. (Assuming you believe in God as a creator as scripture states it).
Humanity and life in general has been a destructive, war bound and violent creation for hundreds of millions of years. Before people even had the intelligence or mind to even make clear decisions, we were out destroying others. Whether we were whiping out the mastodons just 10k years ago, whiping out the germans just a generation or 2 ago in ww2, of if you really want to go back, when we were tearing others apart with our sharp reptile like teeth. This is what we are, and this is the world we live in.
Thats not to say we cant change, but i will be the last person to place at least majority of blame on myself or any other human for acting in a way in which he or she was created to act..."good" or "bad" or anywhere in between. Even the good actions we perform are the product of something beyond ourselves.
But of course I am not a theist, so i wouldnt believe in any of these concepts of good and bad anyway for this reason amongst others.

(bismillah)

Its alright , i apologise for not quoting you i was tired and in a hurry for sleep :)

i would reply to you but i think brother Jibreil took the words out of my mouth and said it better than i probably would have so, i see no need to reply until his is

replied to.

Wasalam.

February 17, 2012

(bismillah)

To iDevonian

Just to add to the previous post:

Humanity and life in general has been a destructive, war bound and violent creation for hundreds of millions of years. ... Whether we were wiping out the germans just a generation or 2 ago in ww2 ... This is what we are, and this is the world we live in.

This is very overblown and full of empty pathos. Violence does not define most of our activities. This is a gross reduction and clearly false. War is not the ordinary activity of human beings, nor is murder and theft. Some humans born in the security of families and schools. My daily life is mostly sleeping, eating, drinking, conversing, relieving, reading and watching, and very little of my months is violent. I may get angry now and then or get frustrated at someone, but that's it. While there are complexities in this, in which we are driven by so-called 'base' instincts, which can upset some people, but overall, things are alright. Pessimism, just like optimism, is seeing one side and ignoring the other. Very, very little of human activity is violence, unless you're in the military or the butchers. But, apart from killing animals for survival or out of phobia, we are genuinely anti-violent, except in certain circumstances which unleash war. We can't define humanity by only one of its activities just because we notice it better.

We may experience a lot of wars, but we are not plagued by it. A lot of human beings go to university, but humanity is not defined solely by education.

This being said, this does not absolve a murderer from blame. Just because we make a lot of mistakes, it doesn't mean they are not mistakes.

Edited February 17, 2012 by Jebreil

kim.tinkerbell · February 17, 2012

................................iDevonian........................

"So here is a question for you. If God provides a test as a teacher does, does that mean that God doesnt know what results we will have on the test, just as a teacher doesnt know what results we will have?

God created us, he created the test too, so he should already know how the test will go and he already knows who will pass and who will fail when he creates us."

He provided the test he has the answers to the question he has given us the answers. Just like when you have a exam you "choose" what parts you want to focus on , skip and just read.... How would the teacher know what your going to answer without you answering the question? The teacher has the right answers but that doesnt mean that all the students will answerthe question right , without revising..... You make the descisions whether you want to revise or not....

Just like laws you can choose to break it or stick to it. You choose to steal ( unless you have a condition that makes you steal)......

How would some know killing is bad if the never had rules and reasons to not kill? From where would you know that this good & thats bad? Your surrounding and were did they get the information? Who give us guidlines ?

We were born pure and sinless but the envirment your in can play big role in your decisions. Eve and satan broke rules even thou they were warned yet they choose to go against it..... Whether were suffereing because of their mistakes I dont know but we ate ungratful people and we cause suffereing indirectly.... Oh can you pass me the water I cant be bothered to get it.... Will the lilttle boy with no legs goes and gets water for his family......... We need to help out eachother to stop this suffereing....

........-..............................................................-.......................................................................

Then they would wish they wake up....

Wake me up, wake me up and save me from the narr.... Wake me up and save me from the nar that I put myself in..... Why is it so dark... Why is this place so tight , why are my ribs crashing?

Someone wake me up ,,,,, save me from the chooses that I have made....

But its too late know.....

You never believed in anything.... Not even suhaf ibrahim wa musaa... Know your crying wishing you believed....

Wake me up I hope this a dream ......

Its to let to go back know your dead.... No one can save you from the narr ...... We give you the book but you were blineded by your own theorys........

......Faith.... Dont you think theres something bound humans that has greater power? No, we were here by chance.... Two plants came together and created thos dunya ,,, yeh we where totally made by chance..... Bang BANG BANG oh a human was formed by mud ....by chance hahahah.... Why didnt the mini big bang theory work ,oh the chemicals didnt work out like planned....

Hahahaha lakym deenkum wa lea deen ( you have your relgion and I have mine) even though some of you have dont have have a relgion,,, your entitled to your opinion....

Your really funny idevonian..... Hahahah

.......-.....-.................................................

Karma is a structured relgion,,,,

satyaban · February 17, 2012

................................iDevonian........................
"So here is a question for you. If God provides a test as a teacher does, does that mean that God doesnt know what results we will have on the test, just as a teacher doesnt know what results we will have?
God created us, he created the test too, so he should already know how the test will go and he already knows who will pass and who will fail when he creates us."
He provided the test he has the answers to the question he has given us the answers. Just like when you have a exam you "choose" what parts you want to focus on , skip and just read.... How would the teacher know what your going to answer without you answering the question? The teacher has the right answers but that doesnt mean that all the students will answerthe question right , without revising..... You make the descisions whether you want to revise or not....
Just like laws you can choose to break it or stick to it. You choose to steal ( unless you have a condition that makes you steal)......
How would some know killing is bad if the never had rules and reasons to not kill? From where would you know that this good & thats bad? Your surrounding and were did they get the information? Who give us guidlines ?
We were born pure and sinless but the envirment your in can play big role in your decisions. Eve and satan broke rules even thou they were warned yet they choose to go against it..... Whether were suffereing because of their mistakes I dont know but we ate ungratful people and we cause suffereing indirectly.... Oh can you pass me the water I cant be bothered to get it.... Will the lilttle boy with no legs goes and gets water for his family......... We need to help out eachother to stop this suffereing....
........-..............................................................-.......................................................................
Then they would wish they wake up....
Wake me up, wake me up and save me from the narr.... Wake me up and save me from the nar that I put myself in..... Why is it so dark... Why is this place so tight , why are my ribs crashing?
Someone wake me up ,,,,, save me from the chooses that I have made....
But its too late know.....
You never believed in anything.... Not even suhaf ibrahim wa musaa... Know your crying wishing you believed....
Wake me up I hope this a dream ......
Its to let to go back know your dead.... No one can save you from the narr ...... We give you the book but you were blineded by your own theorys........
......Faith.... Dont you think theres something bound humans that has greater power? No, we were here by chance.... Two plants came together and created thos dunya ,,, yeh we where totally made by chance..... Bang BANG BANG oh a human was formed by mud ....by chance hahahah.... Why didnt the mini big bang theory work ,oh the chemicals didnt work out like planned....
Hahahaha lakym deenkum wa lea deen ( you have your relgion and I have mine) even though some of you have dont have have a relgion,,, your entitled to your opinion....
Your really funny idevonian..... Hahahah
.......-.....-.................................................
Karma is a structured relgion,,,,

"Karma is a structured relgion,,,,"

Karma is not a religion. It is there no matter what faith you practice. This is what I believe.

ThE-Samz · February 18, 2012

And he hasnt smacked anything, he hasnt even really said anything. I dont even think he has really tried yet.

he clearly did, hes won the battle. u just repeat the same points. ur either really ignorant or just blind. no offence

iDevonian · February 18, 2012

(bismillah)
To Devonian
I find it strange that you don't take yourself responsible for your conscious actions, and never find yourself blameworthy in any situation. Do you never arrive at dilemmas, ponder over the correct action, try to solve a sticky situation, make mistakes you try never to make again, evolve morally and ethically, apologise?

Well, a lot of things I dont apologise for. Not because I am impolite, but some things are truly beyond me. Dont get me wrong, i do apologise a lot for mistakes, but often i dont consider myself truly at fault. Often I may lack knowledge of something and therefore I would say its understandable that i make a mistake or do something potentially bad. And yes I try not to do it again. But, why would I truly be to blame for something I didnt have the intention of doing? I would have done it differently if i had the choice to...or rather, if i had known what results the choices would bring. But I did not.

Bar the exceptions - certain psychologically ill persons - everyone feels responsible for their conscious actions. That is what allows us to talk of law, politeness, duty and morality. This sort of speech would make no sense and have no place if we were not responsible for our conscious actions. The fact that it makes sense to say, "I was wrong" or "I don't know why I fell for it again" or "I'm sorry" shows that we take responsibility for our actions.

Sure we do for the sake of being polite. But the only reason we have these issues is because...if we had been created, the creation is designed in a way in which we have these errors. Its not because we chose to make mistakes, we chose to the best of our ability to do what we believe is right. And those choices are based on what manipulates our lives...the rest of creation. If you could live an infallible life, you would, but you cant because you have been created imperfectly. The creator being the one who created beings which are imperfect. Thats assuming you believe such a thing.

Now, you may overlook my rudeness in a forum, but perhaps you wouldn't overlook a child-kidnapper who has eyes for your little brother or your child, in hope for a bargaining chip for your money.
When somebody coldbloodedly murders his wife, we don't say, "maybe he made a mistake." Murder is not a mistake. It's not even a big mistake. It would devalue the meaning of the word 'mistake' to call murder a mistake. Mistakes happen when things are unclear, vague, uncertain. But is "don't kill" so vague, especially your own wife? It's immoral. Most of us have a good sense that murder is bad and should not be committed. We are pretty hesitant, psychologically and morally, to murder people. It takes a lot - unless we are psychologically ill - to murder.

Dont kill is vague in a world in which ever human kills all the time. How many trillions of animals have we slaughtered just in our life time? We farm animals for the sake of eating them. I wouldnt use the word mistake though. Its the natural way. And killing i wouldnt say is always immoral. And lets not forget about the hundreds of thousands of us who join the military for the sake of being trained to kill. Unless you dont consider military casualties on the same level as murder.

Do you think the murderer is blameless?

In the grand scheme of things, yes i would say, if he was created in such a way, then the creator is the one who created the murderer. Therefore the creator is to blame. Many murders truly are, or originally were good people Jebreil, and i know many people here may disagree but often many murders are accidents too. Many are committed without the true intent of killing, and some that are with the intent of killing are done so for many reasons. It could be self defense, it could be an accident, or maybe a person has just lived such a hard life in an environment that they didnt choose to live in, that they gave up trying to be nice and tried another option.

Either way, many people, even criminals truly are or were good people. People in prison werent always tough and violent criminals, they were too innocent children who just so happened to grow up in a corrupt world, outside of their choice, and they were turned into themselves without their own consent. Murderers would never choose to murder if they felt they had a better option. Do you think they wanted to spend their lives behind bars? No. Do you really think they felt good after they murdered someone? No, maybe on rare occasions, but most people do not feel good when they kill someone. Even soldiers are mentally scared.

But that is the world we live in, nobody chose it, here we are.

-----------

You think, erroneously, that one could throw the blame away from the created world and onto the creator. But this actually doesn't resolve the problem and actually adds to it. Because, you are saying that human action is the result of the nature which God has given it, and the environment and various other factors, which means that human beings are therefore so constrained by these factors that they cannot be blamed for their actions. However, how can we blame God when God Himself also acts according to His Nature? It's not as if God becomes not-God, and it's not as if God acts outside of who He is. Thus, all talk of blame is, in fact, a big mistake. Not just that, but it has no meaning. A murderer is not to blame, nor is his parents, nor the parents' parents, nor the environment, and ultimately, nor God. It is as it is.

how can we blame God when God himself also acts according to his nature? I dont know what you mean by that. But again i dont believe in God the way you do, if at all, so im willing to bet this question...even if I did understand it, probably wouldnt apply to what I believe. Please clarify on what you mean, it sounds like this statement could help us wrap this discussion up (not that I mind discussing it, i just want to know where it will go).

But to say that is to totally misunderstand what we mean by "blame". When you tell a kid, "don't mess about", you are implying to them that if they continue to mess about, you will get angry, and ground them. And when they complain, you will say, "It's your fault. I told you not to do this." which implies that he could have, if he wanted to, stop messing about. This is what it means to place the "blame" on someone. To tell them that they had sufficient grounds for avoiding the wrong course of action. If an expert tells you that smoking increases the risk of heart problems by 100%, you are said to be "blameworthy" for the heart problem if you develop it after smoking. You had sufficient grounds to avoid it - regardless of other reasons, strong or weak - you employed to continue smoking.

Even if a parent tells their child not to do something, its in the childs nature to act as they exist to act. The child does have choice, but ultimately, the child is a child, and a child will do what all children do. They will be as they exist to be and they will live as their environment influences them to live. If a child sees a fire, and decides to touch it, is the child at fault if he feels pain? Not really, how would the child know that the flame would burn unless he had touched it or seen it burn something else? The child is not to blame for his curiousity nor his injury.

You are taking the word "blame" to mean something it doesn't mean - and in fact, as shown above, ultimately, becomes meaningless.

We can use the word responsibility then if it makes you feel better. The child is not responsible for his ignorance nor the environment that manipulates him into having an interest in touching fire....assuming god has created all.

------------

The best analogy is actually, in this case, no analogy. Just look at what really goes on in the world. There's no need for an analogy. For example, you say:
And this actually, subconsciously, drives you to generalise over all cases of fraud. But many people commit fraud realising it. They know it's illegal, they feel it's dishonest, but they don't care. They laugh it off. Many people do it, but don't laugh it off, hence guilt. Guilt comes from feeling blameworthy. These people know what they did, they they shouldn't have done it, they they should have known better.

In some cases sure, people do know what theyre doing and they laugh it off. But again their environment has lead them to believe it is a funny act. They are not responsible for such a world. The creator is, for he is the one who created it as it is.

But why do you think this is manipulation rather than choice? I see a clear difference between the two. One could say that Gertrude deceived Jim, played with his mind, and so, through seduction, mesmerised and manipulated him. We would say, "he had little choice. Gertrude had him on a leash", which is to contrast it with another situation, where we say, "she didn't seduce or manipulate him. He did it knowingly and willingly, and his mind was in the right place."
There is a clear difference between saying "Jim chose" and "Jim was manipulated". In our day-to-day activities, we have a lot of "choice" and very little of "manipulation". Even the manipulation is not so great, and differs in degrees. One may be hypnotised and completely out of control, which happens never or very rarely. Another may just be a little tired, which happens more often but hampers our choice to a much lesser degree.

When it comes to the existance of everything, even "gertrude" is a creation. Everything, created by God, assuming you believe that. We are forced to abide by what exists around us. We are manipulated into butchering cows every day to eat them. Is it choice to do so? No not really, we have no choice but to butcher animals or we would all die. But then again, we do have a choice because we can become vegitarians...right? No, we dont really have that choice. Even if you did consider it a plausible choice, it would be a dangerous one for us, and our environment shows us that we dont want that.

That was a very strong example. Now, with Jim and Gertrude, Jim still has a "choice" to act differently from the way gertrude is trying to get him to act, hes just being manipulated moreso than other environmental factors.

Even a simple tv commercial can manipulate people into doing something, even if they do still have a "choice". Theyre affected by their surroundings and with those effects they decide how they will act. Do you ever choose to eat food? Did you choose to wear clothes today? Did you choose to brush your teeth this morning? No i dont think you have truly chosen any of these things. You pretty much have to do them. I guess you could choose not to do any one of them, but that would end up harming you, and you dont really have the choice to harm yourself. Unless you can rationally demonstrate it to be more beneficial to yourself, which most people usually cant. So, you are manipulated into doing these things by your environment. You are manipulated into doing something so simple like brushing your teeth in the morning, even if you think its a "choice", its not a trully free choice. You suffer if you dont choose the better option. And as ive mentioned earlier, some people dont recognize the better option. And who is to blame for a persons mistake, when they perform it out of ignorance? Not the person. Just as a child is not responsible if he happens to go play with a poisonous snake not knowing it is poisonous.

The creator is responsible for the child and the snake.

Hmm, the creator is responsible for the child and the snake...that sounds familiar. I like that.

If someone chose to commit fraud, they were not manipulated. They just chose. They were not compelled. We don't see people saying, "I was compelled to eat this chicken" in normal situations (although, one may say that in other situations, for example pregnancy cravings). One is not compelled to watch tv. One is not compelled to say a lie to the boss for some promotion, even though there is an interest to do so, and so one may, after deliberation, choose to do so. Also, murder, if committed by a clinically sane person, would be a choice. The murderer wouldn't say, "I didn't choose to kill him. I was manipulated." Although, one may say "I didn't want to kill him", not to absolve blame, but to show remorse. In other words, he is saying, "I chose to kill him, but that this happened in a moment of rage, and I did not, otherwise, want him dead." However, he is not absolving himself. He got angry, he took the knife, and he stabbed the victim. It doesn't matter why he got angry or how he got angry, but he sufficient grounds not to kill the victim. There's a difference between someone who is born blind and someone who pokes himself in the eye. Thus, there is a difference between someone who has no biological control over his anger and someone who has biological control over his anger.

well, many people put blame on themselves like you do. A murderer doesnt say "I was manipulated", but realistically, what happened in that murderers life? Did he grow up without parents in a ghetto? Were his "parents" actually street thugs that taught him to be a killer? He may not say "I was manipulated", but realistically, in many cases, he was. Manipulated by an environment and a world that he was placed in, without choice. He didnt choose to not have parents nor did he choose to be raised by thugs. He was manipulated, even if he believes it was purely his choice, he had little choice but to act as he exists to do so.

You may think you have the choice to brush your teeth, but realistically, your choice isnt really your choice. You just act as you exist to act. Its ok, i brush my teeth too, but if i had the choice, i would have perfect teeth and id never have to brush them because they would always be perfect. But i dont have that choice. Instead my choices are...brush my teeth, or suffer. So...what choice do I really have in the matter? Not much, if any at all. And even if I did, my choice would still be very predictable, and i would pick it 99% of the time.

he clearly did, hes won the battle. u just repeat the same points. ur either really ignorant or just blind. no offence

Im repeating myself because nothing has been said to refute them. You sure arent contributing to anything.

(bismillah)
To iDevonian
Just to add to the previous post:
This is very overblown and full of empty pathos. Violence does not define most of our activities. This is a gross reduction and clearly false. War is not the ordinary activity of human beings, nor is murder and theft. Some humans born in the security of families and schools. My daily life is mostly sleeping, eating, drinking, conversing, relieving, reading and watching, and very little of my months is violent. I may get angry now and then or get frustrated at someone, but that's it. While there are complexities in this, in which we are driven by so-called 'base' instincts, which can upset some people, but overall, things are alright. Pessimism, just like optimism, is seeing one side and ignoring the other. Very, very little of human activity is violence, unless you're in the military or the butchers. But, apart from killing animals for survival or out of phobia, we are genuinely anti-violent, except in certain circumstances which unleash war. We can't define humanity by only one of its activities just because we notice it better.
We may experience a lot of wars, but we are not plagued by it. A lot of human beings go to university, but humanity is not defined solely by education.
This being said, this does not absolve a murderer from blame. Just because we make a lot of mistakes, it doesn't mean they are not mistakes.

This goes back to our original discussion months ago on how we view "morals". I dont see things like murder as "immoral". Sure i dont do it, but its just a part of life that we kill things. Is it wrong to kill? Not necisserily. Well you have been asking me questions, I should ask you questions. Do you think killing is wrong? What about killing animals for food? What about fighting in a war you didnt start, in which you either kill or be killed? Now lets say you are in one of these situations and you kill something, now do you deserve to be punished because you have murdered?

I dont think so, i think in some cases, murder is justified. Or atleast responsibility isnt truly in your hands, but rather in the hands of whomever created the environment and situation. That being God if you believe it.

He provided the test he has the answers to the question he has given us the answers. Just like when you have a exam you "choose" what parts you want to focus on , skip and just read.... How would the teacher know what your going to answer without you answering the question? The teacher has the right answers but that doesnt mean that all the students will answerthe question right , without revising..... You make the descisions whether you want to revise or not....

Lets rephrase...how would God know what youre going to answer without you answering the question? Um...he would know because he is God. Thats how he would know. You act based on how he created you and the world you live in.

Just like laws you can choose to break it or stick to it. You choose to steal ( unless you have a condition that makes you steal)......
How would some know killing is bad if the never had rules and reasons to not kill? From where would you know that this good & thats bad? Your surrounding and were did they get the information? Who gives us guidlines ?

you are just a baby in this discussion hun. This deserves another topic, but im sure you would agree with me if i said that scripture does not teach you that murder is wrong. We learn from our environment which is precreated for us. Assuming you believe in creation.

We were born pure and sinless but the envirment your in can play big role in your decisions. Eve and satan broke rules even thou they were warned yet they choose to go against it..... Whether were suffereing because of their mistakes I dont know but we ate ungratful people and we cause suffereing indirectly.... Oh can you pass me the water I cant be bothered to get it.... Will the lilttle boy with no legs goes and gets water for his family......... We need to help out eachother to stop this suffereing....
........-..............................................................-.......................................................................
Then they would wish they wake up....
Wake me up, wake me up and save me from the narr.... Wake me up and save me from the nar that I put myself in..... Why is it so dark... Why is this place so tight , why are my ribs crashing?
Someone wake me up ,,,,, save me from the chooses that I have made....
But its too late know.....
You never believed in anything.... Not even suhaf ibrahim wa musaa... Know your crying wishing you believed....
Wake me up I hope this a dream ......
Its to let to go back know your dead.... No one can save you from the narr ...... We give you the book but you were blineded by your own theorys........
......Faith.... Dont you think theres something bound humans that has greater power? No, we were here by chance.... Two plants came together and created thos dunya ,,, yeh we where totally made by chance..... Bang BANG BANG oh a human was formed by mud ....by chance hahahah.... Why didnt the mini big bang theory work ,oh the chemicals didnt work out like planned....
Hahahaha lakym deenkum wa lea deen ( you have your relgion and I have mine) even though some of you have dont have have a relgion,,, your entitled to your opinion....
Your really funny idevonian..... Hahahah
.......-.....-.................................................
Karma is a structured relgion,,,,

yea, another time tinkerbell, this isnt the time nor place to have this kind of discussion.

Lanatin · February 18, 2012

People forget that what also comes to role in the question of 'accountability' for actions is the intention , and youngsters without discretion and mentally retarded folks are not responsible for anything according to Islam. When you're simply trapped by the lifestyle of your parents, you're not accountable for anything either. The question of morality only begins to kick in when the boy/girl has matured, and then you would have to exercise your power of choice to the best of your ability. No one is created imperfect, but we learn about the ideal way and the crooked way as we pass through childhood and puberty (the stage in our life when we aint responsible for nuffin). Every human sins, but he has the ability to learn from the consequences of his mistake and reform for the better. Isnt God responsible for the discretion, humility and reflection of the human too? I would definetely say so, as it is embedded in his nature.

As for scenarios we are placed in, this is all determined by us and the freedoms we have and has nothing to do with God.

we have no choice but to butcher animals or we would all die

Huh?

iDevonian · February 18, 2012

People forget that what also comes to role in the question of 'accountability' for actions is the intention , and youngsters without discretion and mentally retarded folks are not responsible for anything according to Islam. When you're simply trapped by the lifestyle of your parents, you're not accountable for anything either. The question of morality only begins to kick in when the boy/girl has matured, and then you would have to exercise your power of choice to the best of your ability. No one is created imperfect, but we learn about the ideal way and the crooked way as we pass through childhood and puberty (the stage in our life when we aint responsible for nuffin). Every human sins, but he has the ability to learn from the consequences of his mistake and reform for the better. Isnt God responsible for the discretion, humility and reflection of the human too? I would definetely say so, as it is embedded in his nature.
As for scenarios we are placed in, this is all determined by us and the freedoms we have and has nothing to do with God.
Huh?

I agree with most of it, up till that last statement. The scenarios we are placed in are created by God. We can go back to the most simple of examples, with Adam Eve and the tree of life. God created the tree, the people, the snake...all of it. He created the garden...he created the entire scenario. Then we "chose" to act. But we didnt really choose on our own, we were manipulated by another of Gods creations, both the temptation of the tree, the beauty of the garden, and the desception of the snake. Even our own thoughts and how we develope them. Each part of creation plays its own role in manipulation.

Lanatin · February 18, 2012

I agree with most of it, up till that last statement. The scenarios we are placed in are created by God. We can go back to the most simple of examples, with Adam Eve and the tree of life. God created the tree, the people, the snake...all of it. He created the garden...he created the entire scenario. Then we "chose" to act. But we didnt really choose on our own, we were manipulated by another of Gods creations, both the temptation of the tree, the beauty of the garden, and the desception of the snake. Even our own thoughts and how we develope them. Each part of creation plays its own role in manipulation.

But we must realize the 'scenario' we all partake in can be utilized for both good and bad. So the duality remains, the goodly alternative is always there no matter the case. And we just choose to opt for it out of our own discretion. We can use our anger against injustice instead of venting it out on our family members, we can lie in order to preserve our lives for the greater good...you get the point.

February 18, 2012

(bismillah)

To iDevonian

You don't know what English speakers mean when they use the phrase "I choose".

You may think you have the choice to brush your teeth, but realistically, your choice isnt really your choice. You just act as you exist to act.

A person who says, "I choose to brush my tooth now rather than later" is not denying that she has reasons to do so, nor is she absolving herself of being responsible for her action, but she is denying the possibility of being forced to do so against her will.

You are under the illusion that having reasons for something means being forced to do it. But, choice implies choosing based on reasons which we possess. If Fred chooses to eat now rather than wait because he is hungry, it does not mean he could not have waited if he wanted to. Probably, Fred was wondering: should I eat now or later? He may have wondered this for about 10 minutes. Once he found sufficient reason to eat now, he decided to eat. This is not called 'manipulation' in English.

This is what "I choose" means, because that's how we use it in language.

Let's a look at another such linguistic error:

He didnt choose to not have parents nor did he choose to be raised by thugs. He was manipulated, even if he believes it was purely his choice, he had little choice but to act as he exists to do so.

Yes, he didn't choose his parents. There's a saying, 'friends are the family we choose for ourselves' to contrast it with our actual family, who are not chosen.

Yes, he didn't choose the manner to be raised either.

But this has not turned him into a complete robot. He may not be responsible for certain actions, but he still retains a huge element of choice. Unless he was in a completely isolated world, he would meet non-thugs, possibly see the vileness of thuggery, mature and question some of his actions, evaluate himself and others. Perhaps he would steal from the rich rather than the poor. Perhaps he would be kind to old ladies. Perhaps he would share the s[Edited Out] of food he's found with his thuggish friends. They remain human beings. If caught, they may wish to make amends, educate themselves in prison and prepare for rehabilitation.

Also, again, this is not the majority of people we meet. I, personally, don't know anyone who even knows someone else who fits your description. Civilisation would not exist if humans were mostly fitting that description. Education, science, philosophy, religion, marriage, celebrations, parties, games, fun, holidays, etc would not be so widespread if humans were inherently so blinded to morality and respect.

Let's look at another error:

And as ive mentioned earlier, some people dont recognize the better option. And who is to blame for a persons mistake, when they perform it out of ignorance? Not the person. Just as a child is not responsible if he happens to go play with a poisonous snake not knowing it is poisonous.

Here you take refuge in a case in which one is absolved from blame and generalise it over all cases. Indeed, some people don't recognise the better option, but some people do. Indeed, the child is not responsible, but a herpetologist is.

You make this mistake here too:

If a child sees a fire, and decides to touch it, is the child at fault if he feels pain? Not really, how would the child know that the flame would burn unless he had touched it or seen it burn something else?

By taking a case in which one is not blameworthy, you generalise to all cases. However, interestingly, you tell us why you think the child is not to blame:

Not really, how would the child know that the flame would burn unless he had touched it or seen it burn something else?

Indeed, how would a child know. But what if the child was an adult who knows perfectly that fire burns. Would you say that he is not at fault for playing dangerously with the fire?

Look at these cases. Cases where a person chooses to do something against their better judgement, but for the sake of peculiar reasons. Not where a person has no better judgement. A wise person can clearly distinguish between a child's naive curiosity and an adult's stupid choice. That is why our laws are lifted from children, lenient towards adolescents and harsh towards adults. Because we can clearly make out a difference. This is the real and realistic world in which we live.

But again their environment has lead them to believe it is a funny act. They are not responsible for such a world.

Has it? Don't people often laugh at things and then feel that they shouldn't have laughed? Don't they blame themselves if they do it again? Are people so out-of-control that they can't restrain themselves morally? Don't we say, "such-and-such is not fair" or "I'm sorry, I was wrong."? What do we mean by apologising?

You said "being polite". But it's very insincere to apologise for insulting someone without feeling some remorse, some guilt, for upsetting another person. Aren't true apologies sincere and remorseful?

If you mistakenly step on someone's toe, you say, "sorry. It was an accident." But do you say, "sorry. It was an accident" to a person you've just insulted and degraded? Or do you do it voluntarily?

And killing i wouldnt say is always immoral.

But then sometimes it's immoral.

----------------------------------

how can we blame God when God himself also acts according to his nature? I dont know what you mean by that. But again i dont believe in God the way you do, if at all, so im willing to bet this question...even if I did understand it, probably wouldnt apply to what I believe. Please clarify on what you mean, it sounds like this statement could help us wrap this discussion up (not that I mind discussing it, i just want to know where it will go).

A child can't be blamed because he acts according to his imperfect nature. So the blame is on his parents, who also act according to their imperfect natures. And then the environment, which is also imperfect in nature. So, God must be at fault then!

But God's actions are also flowing from His nature. If He is Just, then His world would be just and if He is Merciful, then He would show mercy in this world, and so on. God is who He is. He didn't choose His nature. He is who He is. One can't be blamed for what one has not chosen, and God cannot be blamed for His nature, and therefore the actions which flow from His nature, which means His imperfect creations.

Therefore, while we have a blameworthy action (say, murdering an innocent for the sake of fun) we don't have anyone to blame, since no one actually 'chose' to bring it about. It was all a consequence of the 'nature' of reality.

Like I said, this paradox in which we have a blameworthy action but nobody to blame is not real - it stems from your model, in which one is not to be blamed for the actions which flow from their natures which they had no choice in determining. But this absolves everyone from blame, ending in paradox. The truth of the matter is, this principle "one is not to be blamed for the actions which flow from their natures which they had no choice in determining" is false. Because while one may not determine one's own nature, one may still determine things within the boundaries of one's nature. This is choice, and this includes a lot of things.

-----------------------------

This is a very significant point you raise, because it leads to a supremely important question:

You are manipulated into doing something so simple like brushing your teeth in the morning, even if you think its a "choice", its not a trully free choice.

How would 'brushing teeth' have to be for it to be regarded as a "truly free choice"?

---

Interestingly, you are metaphysically muddled.

Edited February 18, 2012 by Jebreil

Thaqalayn313 · February 18, 2012

well, many people put blame on themselves like you do. A murderer doesnt say "I was manipulated", but realistically, what happened in that murderers life? Did he grow up without parents in a ghetto? Were his "parents" actually street thugs that taught him to be a killer? He may not say "I was manipulated", but realistically, in many cases, he was. Manipulated by an environment and a world that he was placed in, without choice. He didnt choose to not have parents nor did he choose to be raised by thugs. He was manipulated, even if he believes it was purely his choice, he had little choice but to act as he exists to do so.
You may think you have the choice to brush your teeth, but realistically, your choice isnt really your choice. You just act as you exist to act. Its ok, i brush my teeth too, but if i had the choice, i would have perfect teeth and id never have to brush them because they would always be perfect. But i dont have that choice. Instead my choices are...brush my teeth, or suffer. So...what choice do I really have in the matter? Not much, if any at all. And even if I did, my choice would still be very predictable, and i would pick it 99% of the time

(bismillah)

I think i will add one more questions though brother jebriels response hits the nail spot on,

Now two things crossed my mind as i read the posts till now,

you seem to have absolved those who become criminals mistakes due to the world around them.

I'll answer you first from an islamic perspective:

The prophet and the 12 imams were infallible.

The Holy Quran states it , and history confirms it.

The place where they were born,he was an orphan and was raised by his uncle to one of the most corrupt nations,corrupt and ignorant of people , the Arabs of that time , in what we call "3asr el jaheliya" or " The Era of Ignorance".

Yet, ever since a young age being raised in such a place , with all the people/circumstances that could have "manipulated" him, he did not fall for them and made his own decisions and became a leader for mankind.

His infallibility and especially the infallibility of the imams is evidence enough.

This manipulative and imperfect world that leads to bad concept is destroyed by the mere fact that the imams, who weren't prophets and lived in the time of ignorance, also were infalliable.

So the concept of being in a corrupt area or having no parents or being around thugs leading to who you are , is proven wrong throughout history.

The infallibility of the imams shows freedom of choice.

Anyways aside from the islamic perspective, because from your posts i dont think you'll consider them completely valid if valid at all,

i'll give you other examples:

Ghandi

Malcom X

Martin Luther King Jr.

Rosa Parks

Nelson Mandela

Buddha

Sayed Hassan Nasrallah

Ayatullah Ruhullah Khomeini

etc,

Now why weren't these people manipulated by the circumstances they were in?

they didnt HAVE to do what they did? they could've remained ignorant like everybody else and had just said "this is gods fault ,we were born into a corrupt world, what can we do"

i know from personal experience , i lived and befriended drunks,potheads,drug dealers , adulterers, i had no brothers or sister to tell me whats right or whats wrong and my parents were both at work for long hours throughout my life, i had the WORST people in my community.

I decided that i wasn't going to be like them i WITNESSED wrong and hadn't seen right but decided to do so.

I abandoned all my community and have only 3 friends now.

I stepped up and began educating myself so i could know whats right and wrong. i refused to bow down to ignorance.

i witnessed first hand the power of ignorance, and i CHOSE to be who i am today.

I wasn't 'manipulated' , if your theory/analysis applied than i should be a drunk,high, sex addict, and/or a murderer.

Now deny my circumstances , tell me it wasn't my choice. Tell me i was manipulated , i challenge you.

Tell me why i didn't take the easy way out , the easy life and decided to step forth and look at every trial as a blessing and learn from it, explain because its either i'm just some abnormal , rare , mentally retarded person who happens to enjoy going through hardship and sacrificing his social life.

& if your going to tell me that it was because i witnessed what it did to them i was manipulated to become who i am today , then your just contradicting yourself because it is the same case of the criminal.

The difference between them and me , is exactly what Imam Ali says:

"The man of knowledge is the one who recognizes that what is known is very little compared to what is not known, and as a result he considers himself ignorant, and accordingly he increases his efforts to know more by going out in search of knowledge."

" The learned man understands the ignorant for he was once ignorant for he was once ignorant himself."

I learned from my ignorance idevonian, i didn't bow down and say i live in an imperfect system so my acts are justified no matter what , i realized the imperfection in the ways of mankind and chose to follow my idols the infallible imams to pursue perfection.

and finally ,

life isn't black & white, if you don't want to brush your teeth its fine , you wont harm yourself if you get your teeth replaced with false teeth, there are so many different options to the examples you state.

you should broaden the possibilities , i know a person who hasn't been to the dentist since he was 9 and he doesn't brush his teeth. Never complains , gargles his mouth in salt water and his teeth aren't unattractive in appearance either.

so please don't give such plain and regular examples and make it seem like your "choice-less" and your manipulated because your so limited in choice , there's plenty of choices.

Wasalam.

Edited February 18, 2012 by Thaqalayn313

satyaban · February 18, 2012

Once again I try to bring the long over complicated debate to a few sentences.

It is my absolute belief that everyone save a few mentally challenged are born with a conscience and know right from wrong. What is necessary is the firmness to avoid the temptation to cheat and think they get away with it

Pascal · February 18, 2012

Maybe its just me but does anyone else find it a little ironic we're all squabbling amongst ourselves when the very person who even started this and asked the question isnt even (presumably) around or reading this anymore?

iDevonian · February 19, 2012

But we must realize the 'scenario' we all partake in can be utilized for both good and bad. So the duality remains, the goodly alternative is always there no matter the case. And we just choose to opt for it out of our own discretion. We can use our anger against injustice instead of venting it out on our family members, we can lie in order to preserve our lives for the greater good...you get the point.

I disagree with that, these "good" alternatives may be few and far between. For example..i mentioned this before, a starving kid in africa. steel food, or starve to death...wheres the good alternative? A boy raised by thugs, from birth taught to act a certain way...not much of an alternative there either. Farming animals so we can slaughter and eat them...well...not much of an alternative there either.

satyaban · February 19, 2012

Maybe its just me but does anyone else find it a little ironic we're all squabbling amongst ourselves when the very person who even started this and asked the question isnt even (presumably) around or reading this anymore?

Indeed! I have thought about this, we have totally hijacked his thread, poor fellow.

iDevonian · February 19, 2012

Yes, he didn't choose his parents. There's a saying, 'friends are the family we choose for ourselves' to contrast it with our actual family, who are not chosen.
Yes, he didn't choose the manner to be raised either.
But this has not turned him into a complete robot. He may not be responsible for certain actions, but he still retains a huge element of choice. Unless he was in a completely isolated world, he would meet non-thugs, possibly see the vileness of thuggery, mature and question some of his actions, evaluate himself and others. Perhaps he would steal from the rich rather than the poor. Perhaps he would be kind to old ladies. Perhaps he would share the s[Edited Out] of food he's found with his thuggish friends. They remain human beings. If caught, they may wish to make amends, educate themselves in prison and prepare for rehabilitation.

The boy will not choose to share what little food he has if he is raised to believe he should keep it. If a child is raised by thugs who act as family, the boy will grow to become part of the family...thats just how it works. And prison rehabilitation is...thats just...in most cases unrealistic. People in prison often live such violent lifestyles, they stand little chance to truly correct themselves.

Either way, we have environmental stresses that strongly tilt people toward violence.

Also, again, this is not the majority of people we meet. I, personally, don't know anyone who even knows someone else who fits your description. Civilisation would not exist if humans were mostly fitting that description. Education, science, philosophy, religion, marriage, celebrations, parties, games, fun, holidays, etc would not be so widespread if humans were inherently so blinded to morality and respect.

Well, perhaps you should pay a visit to the nearest ghetto then. I have grown up near a ghetto, and I know many stories of people put in very very harsh positions. And often...and im sure you have heard this. People fight to get out of these tough positions, but often violence and/or crime and/or life with a family of thugs, brings relief.

The world is not perfect, we all know this. Choice or no choice, we are put in situations and manipulated into situations that lead to violence. Im sure you agree. And if violence is the easier solution, then that is the way it will be, and the way it is for many.

Let's look at another error:
Here you take refuge in a case in which one is absolved from blame and generalise it over all cases. Indeed, some people don't recognise the better option, but some people do. Indeed, the child is not responsible, but a herpetologist is.
You make this mistake here too:

Doesnt sound like a mistake to me, im glad you recognize that some people dont know, which was the point of that particular statement. Some people dont know any better and they are dragged into bad situations, and I dont think it is their fault. Do you? You shouldnt, because its not. A child shouldnt deserve a painful death for ignorance of poisonous snakes. Im providing a variety of examples.

By taking a case in which one is not blameworthy, you generalise to all cases. However, interestingly, you tell us why you think the child is not to blame:
Not really, how would the child know that the flame would burn unless he had touched it or seen it burn something else?
Indeed, how would a child know. But what if the child was an adult who knows perfectly that fire burns. Would you say that he is not at fault for playing dangerously with the fire?
Look at these cases. Cases where a person chooses to do something against their better judgement, but for the sake of peculiar reasons. Not where a person has no better judgement. A wise person can clearly distinguish between a child's naive curiosity and an adult's stupid choice. That is why our laws are lifted from children, lenient towards adolescents and harsh towards adults. Because we can clearly make out a difference. This is the real and realistic world in which we live.
.

I somewhat agree. But this brings into question, where you draw the line between ignorance of a better solution, and whether or not the person is mature and understands. Knowledge of how to act morally doesnt necisserily come with age, nor necisserily with experience. It may not come to many people at all. People have different perspectives on what are good and bad choices. Going back on the example from earlier again, someone starving goes and steels food from another person. Ok well, thats not necisserily a stupid decision even though it includes crime and potentially violence. Also, i was just giving various examples of situations people are placed in that promote violence beyond their control. Me mentioning the ignorance of a child wasnt meant to be a broad overview of all situations people are placed in. You mentioned that I am generalizing all situations, but im not, im just giving a few. I dont know where you got the impression that I was speaking for any given situation.

Has it? Don't people often laugh at things and then feel that they shouldn't have laughed? Don't they blame themselves if they do it again? Are people so out-of-control that they can't restrain themselves morally? Don't we say, "such-and-such is not fair" or "I'm sorry, I was wrong."? What do we mean by apologising?
You said "being polite". But it's very insincere to apologise for insulting someone without feeling some remorse, some guilt, for upsetting another person. Aren't true apologies sincere and remorseful?
If you mistakenly step on someone's toe, you say, "sorry. It was an accident." But do you say, "sorry. It was an accident" to a person you've just insulted and degraded? Or do you do it voluntarily?

It depends on the situation, people wont remorse over something they feel isnt their fault. And nobody is going to give a sincere apology for something they feel isnt their fault.

But then sometimes it's immoral.

Yes, but sometimes it isn’t.

----------------------------------

A child can't be blamed because he acts according to his imperfect nature. So the blame is on his parents, who also act according to their imperfect natures. And then the environment, which is also imperfect in nature. So, God must be at fault then!
But God's actions are also flowing from His nature. If He is Just, then His world would be just and if He is Merciful, then He would show mercy in this world, and so on. God is who He is. He didn't choose His nature. He is who He is. One can't be blamed for what one has not chosen, and God cannot be blamed for His nature, and therefore the actions which flow from His nature, which means His imperfect creations.
Therefore, while we have a blameworthy action (say, murdering an innocent for the sake of fun) we don't have anyone to blame, since no one actually 'chose' to bring it about. It was all a consequence of the 'nature' of reality.

So, if nature is corrupt, that would mean, corruption is flowing from the nature of God. If his creation is imperfect, then the imperfection flows from Him. Thats what it sounds like you just said, and I would say that goes against What God is claimed to be. He cant have imperfect or corrupt things flowing from him, God himself shouldnt be corrupt, nor should his creation nor the relation of the two.

Like I said, this paradox in which we have a blameworthy action but nobody to blame is not real - it stems from your model, in which one is not to be blamed for the actions which flow from their natures which they had no choice in determining. But this absolves everyone from blame, ending in paradox. The truth of the matter is, this principle "one is not to be blamed for the actions which flow from their natures which they had no choice in determining" is false. Because while one may not determine one's own nature, one may still determine things within the boundaries of one's nature. This is choice, and this includes a lot of things.

Im not saying nobody is to blame. This goes back to the previous statement.

-----------------------------

This is a very significant point you raise, because it leads to a supremely important question:
How would 'brushing teeth' have to be for it to be regarded as a "truly free choice"?

You would be able to brush them or not brush them without having to suffer for choosing one option over the other. Thats like asking, when do we have truly free choice when it comes to lighting ourselves on fire. I guess we could set ourselves on fire, but that would never happen because we would all rather abide by how we are created...and to avoid trouble.

I decided that i wasn't going to be like them i WITNESSED wrong and hadn't seen right but decided to do so. I abandoned all my community and have only 3 friends now.
I stepped up and began educating myself so i could know whats right and wrong. i refused to bow down to ignorance.
i witnessed first hand the power of ignorance, and i CHOSE to be who i am today.
I wasn't 'manipulated' , if your theory/analysis applied than i should be a drunk,high, sex addict, and/or a murderer.
Now deny my circumstances , tell me it wasn't my choice. Tell me i was manipulated , i challenge you.
Tell me why i didn't take the easy way out , the easy life and decided to step forth and look at every trial as a blessing and learn from it, explain because its either i'm just some abnormal , rare , mentally retarded person who happens to enjoy going through hardship and sacrificing his social life.
& if your going to tell me that it was because i witnessed what it did to them i was manipulated to become who i am today , then your just contradicting yourself because it is the same case of the criminal.
The difference between them and me , is exactly what Imam Ali says:
"The man of knowledge is the one who recognizes that what is known is very little compared to what is not known, and as a result he considers himself ignorant, and accordingly he increases his efforts to know more by going out in search of knowledge."
" The learned man understands the ignorant for he was once ignorant for he was once ignorant himself."
I learned from my ignorance idevonian, i didn't bow down and say i live in an imperfect system so my acts are justified no matter what , i realized the imperfection in the ways of mankind and chose to follow my idols the infallible imams to pursue perfection.
and finally ,
life isn't black & white, if you don't want to brush your teeth its fine , you wont harm yourself if you get your teeth replaced with false teeth, there are so many different options to the examples you state.
you should broaden the possibilities , i know a person who hasn't been to the dentist since he was 9 and he doesn't brush his teeth. Never complains , gargles his mouth in salt water and his teeth aren't unattractive in appearance either.
so please don't give such plain and regular examples and make it seem like your "choice-less" and your manipulated because your so limited in choice , there's plenty of choices.
Wasalam.

Not even all muslims believe in infallible Imams...I dont see why you would believe that I would. And i think its great that you managed to be of the lucky ones who arent drawn into bad situations in the world. Congrats. Would you like a cookie? And congrats to the dentist, who can keep good teeth even without brushing them. I mean, thats impressive, but many people cant.

Edited February 19, 2012 by iDevonian

February 19, 2012

(bismillah)

To iDevonian

1.

A lot of philosophically-inclined people have a bad understanding of what it means to say "I choose to brush my teeth." It means, I have better reasons to brush my teeth than not to and so I will act on it.

2.

If Harry says "I have no free choice to brush my teeth", it means that Harry cannot say, "I choose to brush my teeth." But in most situations we can say, "I choose" rather than "I have no choice".

3.

One might say, "I have no free choice" in a situation where there efforts would change nothing, like a person bumping into a brick wall. But in a situation where one's efforts change everything - say as a dictator of a country - one is free to pass any law one wants.

-------

4.

If we take your viewpoint, God is not blameworthy. God is what He is. So, if imperfection flows from Him, it's a consequence of His nature. He is not at fault. One is not at fault for what one has no choice over, and one has no choice over one's nature. One just is.

-------

5.

Im not saying nobody is to blame.

Either you are saying the blame is on corrupt humans, or it's on God, or nobody is to blame. In the quote above you eliminate the 3rd possibility, which leaves us with blaming either corrupt humans or God.

If you are saying God is to blame, then this does not follow from your viewpoint. Because the very same reason which absolves His creation from blame absolves Him from blame - the lack of choice over one's nature. He can't be blamed for His nature because that's just who He is. It's not as if He could be something else, like non-God.

Which leads us to saying corrupt humans are to blame, and that is Quod Erat Demonstrandum.

---------

6.

But this brings into question, where you draw the line between ignorance of a better solution, and whether or not the person is mature and understands.

It's not black and white of course. The reality can be vague, but there are some clear areas. For example, when somebody says, "I shouldn't have insulted. I was wrong" or when somebody thinks to himself, "I must not get angry" only to subsequently get angry, or when somebody tries to justify one instant of immorality by saying, "just this once." These show a person who has better judgement, but chooses differently. He has moral inclinations towards the good, but a stronger inclination towards satisfying, say, lust. In some situations, we could understand a person being blinded by lust. But in other situations, we might find it abhorrent even to imagine. Adultery and betrayal of trust come to mind.

7.

I dont know where you got the impression that I was speaking for any given situation.

Because you seemed to argue that these cases show that humans don't choose their actions, are not responsible for their actions, cannot be blamed for their actions.

My critique was just to show that these consequences follow from those cases, and there are cases which show the humans do choose their actions, are responsible for their actions, can be blamed for their actions.

8.

Doesnt sound like a mistake to me, im glad you recognize that some people dont know, which was the point of that particular statement. Some

That some people do know was the point of my particular statement. One cannot generalise to all cases the case of an ignorant child or the case of a blind man with a hole in front of him. There are cases of a stupid adult and a dilemma-stricken man to show the other side, where we do have choice and we are responsible, and potentially blameworthy.

Of course, you are clarifying that this was not your intention and that you do recognise the cases where a person is responsible for his actions, so my objection is no longer present.

9.

The world is not perfect, we all know this. Choice or no choice, we are put in situations and manipulated into situations that lead to violence. Im sure you agree. And if violence is the easier solution, then that is the way it will be, and the way it is for many.

But not all people choose the easier solution. Yes, in some cases, if violence is the easier solution, it is the way. But, in other cases, even if violence is the easier option, it is not the way and it is rejected by the individual. History has countless examples of resisting easy solutions or violence.

10.

Choice is when an individual does what it wants, while capable of doing what it doesn't want.

11.

If that individual is a moral being - like the majority of human beings - with some sort of moral understanding, it will often meet moral dilemmas, where morality and interest clash. This is the reality of our lives.

12.

Kate might feel guilty of forgery before she even commits it. But she still commits it, because she fears losing her job. This is not manipulation. Yes, of course, she is pressured, but she is not forced. Some people don't bow down to pressure. Kate herself might think it over - shall I give in to pressure or not. She knows she can do either, and each has its consequence. When she feels she has sufficient grounds for an action, she acts. This is what it means for Kate to choose. After all, a lot of our choices and decisions are made in sticky situations.

13.

It depends on the situation, people wont remorse over something they feel isnt their fault. And nobody is going to give a sincere apology for something they feel isnt their fault.

Indeed, it depends on the situation. One does not feel remorse for something they feel isn't their fault, because they believe remorse is for the times when they are at fault.

14.

Bruce is required to be in a company meeting in another country the next day. There's a problem, and the flight is cancelled by the airlines. Bruce's absence seriously harms the company's investments. The company manager wishes to blame someone. Bruce doesn't feel remorse. He had no choice. Any effort he would make would make no difference. The company manager would probably agree with Bruce, and probably, so will we.

But say the flight hadn't cancelled, but rather Bruce didn't make the effort to go on time. Here, Bruce would probably feel some remorse or, if he is arrogant, wouldn't care less. But the company manager would blame Bruce, and probably, so will we.

15.

Bruce is not forced to be arrogant, by the way. He chooses to be conceited. He might say, "oh, let them rot. They're stupid."

We would ask, "Are you to blame?"

He would say, "No."

We would ask, "Why not? Is it because you had no choice because you are conditioned by your upbringing?"

He would say, "No. I'm not to blame because they're a bunch of greedy businessmen who think they can force me to come to their stupid meetings. Also, as long as they don't raise my salary, this is how it's going to be. They better deal with it."

16.

A person doesn't give his upbringing as reasons for all his choices (some choices do rely on such reasons. "Why do you like Christmas?" "That's how I was brought up." but this means "It reminds me of my childhood, my family, warm memories, etc", and it doesn't mean "I am manipulated by my upbringing and I have no truly free choice in the matter.")

A person gives other reasons. "Why did you apply to the marines?" "Because I like action." and not "Because my upbringing has left me no true freedom of choice."

One might say, "My parents encouraged me to play football, and so I applied to play professionally." But does it make sense to say, "My parents' encouragement left me with no real freedom of choice but to play professionally"?

17.

Yes, but sometimes it isn’t.

Yes, but sometimes it is. And when murder is immoral, it is morally condemned, it is blameable, and the person who wants to murder is blameworthy.

Edited February 19, 2012 by Jebreil

Thaqalayn313 · February 19, 2012

Not even all muslims believe in infallible Imams...I dont see why you would believe that I would. And i think its great that you managed to be of the lucky ones who arent drawn into bad situations in the world. Congrats. Would you like a cookie? And congrats to the dentist, who can keep good teeth even without brushing them. I mean, thats impressive, but many people cant.

(bismillah)

The infallibility of the prophets applies to all muslims , and i think your being too narrow minded i gave you examples of others who came out of harsh circumstances and you completely disregarded them and just used my beginning statement to make the rest of my statements seem invalid.

I gave you an Islamic perspective and a non Islamic perspective.

You say, one of the "lucky" ones so now luck is involved in manipulation ? so now not ONLY my friend are you saying that someone that is a criminal that was manipulated or molded into who he is by events of his life or the creation around him but he must have BAD LUCK ?

oh well that criminal was unlucky he was drawn into bad situations , as if he had no control over himself.

I find it quite extraordinary how you are so determined to take the blame off yourself, you try so hard to force yourself to accept what you believe instead of simply admitting to your ignorance.

You don't want to , you don't want to blame yourself, your a negative person "Would you like a cookie?" , i wasn't praising myself or showing off , your negativity is present through your replies.

And this my friend is the main cause of your distorted ideology , through your negativity you developed your ignorance your so keen on remaining so , infact i praise brother Jebriel for even continuing and replying to you using your ideology it just shows that he has a better sense of morality and patience , he took what you said and applied his thoughts , unlike you throughout this thread you just keep trying to justify your statements.

Nevertheless,

It seems like your keen on being narrow minded and disregarding anything but your own 'idea' so i think ill just leave i don't see the point with debating with you anymore.

I wish you all the best.

Wasalam.

February 19, 2012

this is added to my initial post above:

18.

You would be able to brush them or not brush them without having to suffer for choosing one option over the other.

So how would one make a decision if they are no different for us?

If brushing and non-brushing were equal, we would not prefer any option over the other - so how would we choose an option?

19.

When you choose something, you prefer something over another, and you prefer it for some reason.

20.

For me to actually make the choice, brushing and not-brushing cannot be equal. One is slightly preferable for some reason. For example, hygiene or beautiful teeth or fresher breath. That's why I would choose brushing teeth over not-brushing teeth. This non-equality of options gives me reasons to choose the better option. It doesn't restrict me though, as I am capable of acting unreasonably. I am not compelled to choose brushing teeth, but I prefer it, so I freely choose it. I do it because I want to - the want is not imposed on me.

-----

You are still muddled in what it means to have a choice and for someone to choose without being compelled. You're confusing having reasons for being restricted.

iDevonian · February 19, 2012

1.
A lot of philosophically-inclined people have a bad understanding of what it means to say "I choose to brush my teeth." It means, I have better reasons to brush my teeth than not to and so I will act on it.

ok, so by having your teeth rot out on you, you are enticed into choosing to brush them. hows that sound to you?

2.
If Harry says "I have no free choice to brush my teeth", it means that Harry cannot say, "I choose to brush my teeth." But in most situations we can say, "I choose" rather than "I have no choice".

Do we really have a choice, even if deciding not to will harm us? We all have a "choice", and yet, nobody is going to decide not to brush their teeth if it causes them pain.

4.
If we take your viewpoint, God is not blameworthy. God is what He is. So, if imperfection flows from Him, it's a consequence of His nature. He is not at fault. One is not at fault for what one has no choice over, and one has no choice over one's nature. One just is.

Why would God imperfection flowing from him? Given that it is God, i wouldnt expect such a thing.

-------
5.
Either you are saying the blame is on corrupt humans, or it's on God, or nobody is to blame. In the quote above you eliminate the 3rd possibility, which leaves us with blaming either corrupt humans or God.

Well, I had mentioned this in the post before as well, why would God have an imperfect nature flowing from him? Being that it is God, that sounds odd. But if that were the case and that is what you believe, then I would say nobody is at fault before I said mankind were. Because mankind as you said would be no more or less guilty than God. If I did blame mankind, I would blame God too.

---------
It's not black and white of course. The reality can be vague, but there are some clear areas. For example, when somebody says, "I shouldn't have insulted. I was wrong" or when somebody thinks to himself, "I must not get angry" only to subsequently get angry, or when somebody tries to justify one instant of immorality by saying, "just this once." These show a person who has better judgement, but chooses differently. He has moral inclinations towards the good, but a stronger inclination towards satisfying, say, lust. In some situations, we could understand a person being blinded by lust. But in other situations, we might find it abhorrent even to imagine. Adultery and betrayal of trust come to mind.

This appears to go back to the last question of why there is a corrupt nature flowing from God to begin with.

Because you seemed to argue that these cases show that humans don't choose their actions, are not responsible for their actions, cannot be blamed for their actions.
My critique was just to show that these consequences follow from those cases, and there are cases which show the humans do choose their actions, are responsible for their actions, can be blamed for their actions.

And many that would show that humans arent responsible for consequences that they deal with. Which goes back to the earlier question again.

But not all people choose the easier solution. Yes, in some cases, if violence is the easier solution, it is the way. But, in other cases, even if violence is the easier option, it is not the way and it is rejected by the individual. History has countless examples of resisting easy solutions or violence.

This goes back on the point before this one, sorry i deleted it out because we appear to agree, you can find cases for both the guilty and non guilty who suffer from consequences of their actions. Often violence isnt simply easier, but rather it just appears to be the more beneficial path. And in many cases it can be, but as you have pointed out, not always, which is fine.

10.
Choice is when an individual does what it wants, while capable of doing what it doesn't want.

Well, we can do what we dont want to do, but we would never choose what we dont want to do. And in many cases, what we dont want to do is defined by a corrupt existance. So its as if this corruption in many cases, dictates our decisions for us. For example, while living in the arctic, I have a choice not to wear clothes, but because of the environment, do I really have a choice? I guess, but I would never choose not to wear clothes in the arctic because I would die. I may have choice, but I will always pick the same solution of wearing clothes regardless of my options. Simply because of what exists around us.

11.
If that individual is a moral being - like the majority of human beings - with some sort of moral understanding, it will often meet moral dilemmas, where morality and interest clash. This is the reality of our lives.

This goes back to the earlier question again of...why is the reality of our lives corrupt, and why does a corrupt nature flow from God.

12.
Kate might feel guilty of forgery before she even commits it. But she still commits it, because she fears losing her job. This is not manipulation. Yes, of course, she is pressured, but she is not forced. Some people don't bow down to pressure. Kate herself might think it over - shall I give in to pressure or not. She knows she can do either, and each has its consequence. When she feels she has sufficient grounds for an action, she acts. This is what it means for Kate to choose. After all, a lot of our choices and decisions are made in sticky situations.

Thats fine, same question again.

Indeed, it depends on the situation. One does not feel remorse for something they feel isn't their fault, because they believe remorse is for the times when they are at fault.

yup, same question again.

16.
A person doesn't give his upbringing as reasons for all his choices (some choices do rely on such reasons. "Why do you like Christmas?" "That's how I was brought up." but this means "It reminds me of my childhood, my family, warm memories, etc", and it doesn't mean "I am manipulated by my upbringing and I have no truly free choice in the matter.")

mmk sure, however and ill give this example again because its fairly simple, a person choosing to wear clothes in the arctic. Who is to blame for bruces death if he doesnt wear clothes? Its not really bruces fault that he exists in an environment that is destructive and manipulates him into doing certain things. If he dies, who do you blame? You blame the source of the corruption, that being God. Which goes back again to that question of a corrupt nature flowing from God.

Yes, but sometimes it is. And when murder is immoral, it is morally condemned, it is blameable, and the person who wants to murder is blameworthy.

And when the person is not blameworthy, then who do you blame? You blame the nature of the situation which comes from God.

Maybe you are expecting me to respond this way, you lined it up at the very beginning of your statement. So im interested in why a corrupt nature comes from God. I dont believe it has to be this way.

this is added to my initial post above:
So how would one make a decision if they are no different for us?
If brushing and non-brushing were equal, we would not prefer any option over the other - so how would we choose an option?

You can benefit from choices without having to suffer for choosing wrong ones.

(bismillah)
The infallibility of the prophets applies to all muslims , and i think your being too narrow minded i gave you examples of others who came out of harsh circumstances and you completely disregarded them and just used my beginning statement to make the rest of my statements seem invalid.
I gave you an Islamic perspective and a non Islamic perspective.
Wasalam.

Your statements are fine from your perspective, but they hadnt been...usefull. I appreciate your input though.

Edited February 19, 2012 by iDevonian

February 20, 2012

(bismillah)

To iDevonian

Just a question first: you refer several times to a particular queston and/or point in your post. Which question and/or point do you mean?

-------

1.

ok, so by having your teeth rot out on you, you are enticed into choosing to brush them. hows that sound to you?

Well, we normally don't say, "I'm enticed to brush my teeth" because 'entice' is strong word with a unique flavour. We like to say, "I'm enticed by the catchy film trailer" or "The food looks enticing", which seems to have a great impact on us. The same impact is not felt about the advantages of brushing teeth. I mean, I don't smoke, but I don't find the benefits of not smoking 'enticing'. The chain-smoker who couldn't care less about these benefits is certainly not 'enticed'.

But, knowing that my teeth would rot, I have reason for brushing my teeth. But this doesn't mean I will brush my teeth.

2.

Do we really have a choice, even if deciding not to will harm us? We all have a "choice", and yet, nobody is going to decide not to brush their teeth if it causes them pain.

But there are people who knowingly and willingly smoke, or knowingly and willingly don't brush their teeth, or willingly and knowingly prefer to suffer but not go to the doctors.

However, if the pain becomes overwhelming, our choice is inhibited, and we succumb. Interestingly, we are not compelled against our will, but nor do we have a choice. Before this stage, we didn't want to go to the doctor, and there were grounds for going and not going. At this stage however, we want to go to the doctor and there are no grounds for not going. It's not choice, because there is only one opton. But there's no compulsion, as we are willing to go. It's voluntary, but it's not a choice. Rather, it is natural. It is as natural as a flower whose nature it is to bloom, or a fruit whose nature it is to ripen. Faced with such ovewhelming pain, it's just natural to surrender.

Another example: We can hold our breath if we want to, but at some turning point, our mouths open and our lungs begin to breath; we have no choice, but we are not compelled to breathe against our will - we just can't will to hold our breath after the turning point.

3.

My situations are hugely determined by factors outside of me. The overwhelming pain gives me no ground for resisting the doctors. This much is determined. But of my own volition, I pursue this determined chart. If somebody says, "were you forced to go to the doctors?" I would say, "I couldn't bear the pain anymore. I told them to take me to the doctors." We can contrast this with another case where I was forced to go against my will: say if the pain wasn't so unbearable, but my nurse took me by the hand and dragged me to the doctors. Here, it would make no sense for me to say, "I couldn't bear the pain anymore. I told them to take me to the doctors." There is a distinction between these two cases.

4.

in many cases, what we dont want to do is defined by a corrupt existance. So its as if this corruption in many cases, dictates our decisions for us.

If Jimmy murdered Paul, it makes sense to say, "Jimmy is a murderer" but it doesn't make sense to say, "Jimmy's decisions were dictated to him by a murdering or corrupt existence". There is no such 'corrupt existence'. Jimmy is the murderer, for he carried it out. He dictated the murder. There is no 'external element' dictating what we should do. We just do it. We are the authors of our actions. There is no mysterious author outside of us.

5.

If I am corrupt, then I am corrupt. Corruption is not imposed upon me.

If I killed someone, then I killed someone. Killing someone was not imposed upon me.

6.

There is a temptation here to become metaphysical and divorce us from our actions, somehow removing us from the process. But we are very much embedded in the process. We are affected by and we affect the world. Sometimes we have choice and sometimes we don't. Sometimes we are compelled against our will. Sometimes we are deceived and manipulated.

7.

For example, while living in the arctic, I have a choice not to wear clothes, but because of the environment, do I really have a choice? I guess, but I would never choose not to wear clothes in the arctic because I would die. I may have choice, but I will always pick the same solution of wearing clothes regardless of my options.

Yes, of course you would.

But if, for the sake of showing me that you are not manipulated to wear warm clothes, you decided to get into swimwear for 5 minutes and then re-wear your clothes, you may just find that there is some ground for acting otherwise. Depends how much you like me and care for my opinion, how much you enjoy our conversations, and how adamant you are to show me that you're free.

8.

Well, I had mentioned this in the post before as well, why would God have an imperfect nature flowing from him? Being that it is God, that sounds odd.

I don't believe it, so if you don't either, we could drop it.

9.

And when the person is not blameworthy, then who do you blame? You blame the nature of the situation which comes from God.

I don't blame anyone when nobody is blameworthy. Where there is no crime there is no blame, neither for mankind nor for God.

Where a human being commits a crime which is blameworthy though, I blame the human being.

10.

in the arctic. Who is to blame for bruces death if he doesnt wear clothes? Its not really bruces fault that he exists in an environment that is destructive and manipulates him into doing certain things. If he dies, who do you blame? You blame the source of the corruption, that being God.

But why wouldn't he wear clothes? You made an admirable case above to show how we have almost no grounds but to wear clothes. If Bruce, say for exhibitionist purposes or for any unreasonable intention, skipped along the ice stark naked, only to drop dead an hour later, then why not blame him?

11.

Not every action is blameable, since sometimes we suffer from consequences which we didn't intend and which we couldn't foresee. But this doesn't put God at fault anymore than pulling the trigger against someone's temple puts God at fault. Events just unravel naturally. Pulling the trigger fires a shot, kills an individual. The lack of clothes in the Arctic ends in a frosty death.

12.

If God knows all that there is to know, He would know all options and their values - He would choose the better option. This tautology is the source of our world. This enoins us to praise God for everything He has created, because it is sublime and beautiful, awesome and intricate. Even the evil is tragically emotive and dripping with bittersweetness.

13.

You can benefit from choices without having to suffer for choosing wrong ones.

But aren't they said to be wrong because they entail suffering? If there was no suffering (or some other disadvantage) we wouldn't call them wrong. And if there is no morally wrong choice, there is no morally right choice either. One just acts naturally. For example, there is no right or wrong choice of favourite ice-cream. I like pistachio ice-cream and lemon ice-cream. I would be content with either, and there is no right or wrong, because there is no disadvantage or advantage of one option of the other.

14.

To create a being with moral sense, who could choose the morally right, it must have the choice towards the morally wrong. Otherwise, there is no choice between good and bad, and all action would be naturally good. (To see this, we could try and imagine how we would live in such a world)

Natural action is morally nonsense. One is not blamed or praised for acting naturally.

A volcano erupts, a snake strikes, a bee stings, a lion hunts, the elephants stampede, babies wail, autistics have difficult relationships. It makes no sense to blame or praise these. There is no morality in these examples. In a world where we are impulsively 'good', we are not praiseworthy - there is no moral conduct.

15.

A moral code in a world in which we are impulsively 'good' would be no different to a scientific textbook on human behaviour. But then, such a code would be redundant, and in fact nonsense. A code delineates right conduct from wrong conduct. In such a world, there would be no moral code. Morality would make no sense.

I wonder if heaven is meant to be such a world.

16.

There are some rare choices where we have absolute no reason for either, but for which we must choose one option.

17.

Those rare cases aside, mostly we choose A because of X rather than choose B because of Y. That is, we choose for a reason. These choices are free, because the reasons don't impose themselves; they only suggest to varying degrees.

Edited February 20, 2012 by Jebreil

iDevonian · February 20, 2012

(bismillah)
To iDevonian
Just a question first: you refer several times to a particular queston and/or point in your post. Which question and/or point do you mean
But, knowing that my teeth would rot, I have reason for brushing my teeth. But this doesn't mean I will brush my teeth.

I was referring to, why a corrupt nature exists at all. You mentioned something about it flowing from God.

However, if the pain becomes overwhelming, our choice is inhibited, and we succumb. Interestingly, we are not compelled against our will, but nor do we have a choice. Before this stage, we didn't want to go to the doctor, and there were grounds for going and not going. At this stage however, we want to go to the doctor and there are no grounds for not going. It's not choice, because there is only one opton. But there's no compulsion, as we are willing to go. It's voluntary, but it's not a choice. Rather, it is natural. It is as natural as a flower whose nature it is to bloom, or a fruit whose nature it is
to ripen. Faced with such ovewhelming pain, it's just natural to surrender.

There is another "choice", that is to accept the pain. But that would lead to your death ultimately, and what good is having an option if it destroys you? Its not really an option anymore.

Another example: We can hold our breath if we want to, but at some turning point, our mouths open and our lungs begin to breath; we have no choice, but we are not compelled to breathe against our will - we just can't will to hold our breath after the turning point.

sure, we dont really have a choice because it will destroy us.

If Jimmy murdered Paul, it makes sense to say, "Jimmy is a murderer" but it doesn't make sense to say, "Jimmy's decisions were dictated to him by a murdering or corrupt existence". There is no such 'corrupt existence'. Jimmy is the murderer, for he carried it out. He dictated the murder. There is no 'external element' dictating what we should do. We just do it. We are the authors of our actions. There is no mysterious author outside of us.

We are not the authors of all of our actions. We discussed brushing teeth. Sure, we accept that we must do it, or we will suffer the consequences. But we dont really have an option but to choose to brush our teeth. Its either choose to brush your teeth, or allow yourself to be destroyed. We arent dictating how our teeth rot, that is dictated by nature.

Id consider it a corrupt existance. Mankinds decision to farm and slaughter cattle is dictated by a corrupt existance. We didnt really choose to do what we do. Now of course mankind has a mind and we can contemplate what we do, but that doesnt mean we can always change what we do. We act as we exist to act. The corrupt existance forces us to slaughter animals just as it forces us to brush our teeth. As you said, sometimes we dont have a choice, and violence and pain can be inevitable.

If I am corrupt, then I am corrupt. Corruption is not imposed upon me.
If I killed someone, then I killed someone. Killing someone was not imposed upon me.

Corruption was not imposed on you? Is that what you said as your teeth rotted out of your head and you felt the pain and sorrow of it all?

There is a temptation here to become metaphysical and divorce us from our actions, somehow removing us from the process. But we are very much embedded in the process. We are affected by and we affect the world. Sometimes we have choice and sometimes we don't. Sometimes we are compelled against our will. Sometimes we are deceived and manipulated.

ah thank you, yes I agree.

Yes, of course you would.
But if, for the sake of showing me that you are not manipulated to wear warm clothes, you decided to get into swimwear for 5 minutes and then re-wear your clothes, you may just find that there is some ground for acting otherwise. Depends how much you like me and care for my opinion, how much you enjoy our conversations, and how adamant you are to show me that you're free.

Then id be risking my life :P, i dont consider that true freedom.

I don't believe it, so if you don't either, we could drop it.

well, something is causing my teeth to rot out of my head and its causing mankind to hunt and kill other animals. I dont blame myself for these painful events and violent acts of savagery. So I'll either blame God, or I will blame the nature that flows from God. Which shall I choose? Or is there another option?

But why wouldn't he wear clothes? You made an admirable case above to show how we have almost no grounds but to wear clothes. If Bruce, say for exhibitionist purposes or for any unreasonable intention, skipped along the ice stark naked, only to drop dead an hour later, then why not blame him?

Why should we blame him when the environment is what destroys us? He didnt create the violent and destructive environment. If the man had a good reason to go out on the ice naked, would you still blame him? Maybe he had to save his daughter or something. Either way, its the environment that is destructive here. At least in part it is.

Not every action is blameable, since sometimes we suffer from consequences which we didn't intend and which we couldn't foresee. But this doesn't put God at fault anymore than pulling the trigger against someone's temple puts God at fault. Events just unravel naturally. Pulling the trigger fires a shot, kills an individual. The lack of clothes in the Arctic ends in a frosty death.

ok, and God is the one who created the environment in which violent things occur. Or do you believe God is not responsible for the way the environment exists? And that it "flows" from him.

But aren't they said to be wrong because they entail suffering? If there was no suffering (or some other disadvantage) we wouldn't call them wrong. And if there is no morally wrong choice, there is no morally right choice either. One just acts naturally. For example, there is no right or wrong choice of favourite ice-cream. I like pistachio ice-cream and lemon ice-cream. I would be content with either, and there is no right or wrong, because there is no disadvantage or advantage of one option of the other.

Both ice creams can still taste good, you can act in good ways without acting in bad ways as well. For example, you can love people without having to hate them. You can like pistachio ice cream and lemon ice cream, without disliking vanilla. Maybe you're just indifferent to vanilla. Either way, you can have good things and you can do good things, without their being corruption along side them. On a side note, how could Jannah exist if this were not true? And I imagine you have heard that question before.

To create a being with moral sense, who could choose the morally right, it must have the choice towards the morally wrong. Otherwise, there is no choice between good and bad, and all action would be naturally good. (To see this, we could try and imagine how we would live in such a world)
Natural action is morally nonsense. One is not blamed or praised for acting naturally.
A volcano erupts, a snake strikes, a bee stings, a lion hunts, the elephants stampede, babies wail, autistics have difficult relationships. It makes no sense to blame or praise these. There is no morality in these examples. In a world where we are impulsively 'good', we are not praiseworthy - there is no moral conduct.

I believe there can be morally good without there being morally bad. There can be benefits without corruption, there can be pleasure without pain. You can enjoy your pistachio ice cream without having to know what rotting meat tastes like. Or even better, perhaps you could know what rotting meat tastes like, and simply not ever have to experience it. Or you could know what rotting teeth feels like without having to experience it either. There are options. Violence and pain isnt necissery.

I wonder if heaven is meant to be such a world.

yea...for those who do believe in heaven and say the things you are saying, i would wonder that as well.

Alright well...That one question is there, where does the corruption come from and is God responsible for it? God created all, so i would say God is responsible for creation ie he is responsible for corruption. But you said something like corruption would flow from him and he wouldnt be responsible or something like that.

Then theres the whole can there be good and not bad. Id say yes there can be, i can give you a christmas present without having to steel something from you first.

Also, just throwing this in. You said something earlier about us being affected by the earth and the earth being affected by us. Well I see us as almost one in the same, so that sounds fine to me.

MysticKnight · February 20, 2012

We're not totally free but we should strive to be free as possible. So many factors play on so much of our decisions, that we hardly had a choice. Hardly had one, but never the less had one. At the end of the day, we should try to be free as possible.

February 20, 2012

(bismillah)

To iDevonian

I would like to add 4 more bits I would address tomorrow (or the day after) to the 2 parts you have already mentioned (namely, corruption and God - good and bad):

1. Distinction between our teeth rotting and brushing our teeth in terms of which is imposed on us and which is a choice

2. Distinction between blaming a naked arctic adventurist and blaming a man who ran out naked to save his daughter

3. Freedom to commit suicide or to self-harm

4. This one is not essential, but interesting: on the case of the overwhelming pain to which the patient succumbs, you said: There is another "choice", that is to accept the pain. I had already tried to express why there is no other choice, but it's not compulsion either. I might add this one into the discussion too.

iDevonian · February 20, 2012

(bismillah)
To iDevonian
I would like to add 4 more bits I would address tomorrow (or the day after) to the 2 parts you have already mentioned (namely, corruption and God - good and bad):
1. Distinction between our teeth rotting and brushing our teeth in terms of which is imposed on us and which is a choice
2. Distinction between blaming a naked arctic adventurist and blaming a man who ran out naked to save his daughter
3. Freedom to commit suicide or to self-harm
4. This one is not essential, but interesting: on the case of the overwhelming pain to which the patient succumbs, you said: There is another "choice", that is to accept the pain. I had already tried to express why there is no other choice, but it's not compulsion either. I might add this one into the discussion too.

ya take your time, ill be here

February 22, 2012

(bismillah)

Un autre jour, if you don't mind. Very busy.

iDevonian · February 22, 2012

(bismillah)
Un autre jour, if you don't mind. Very busy.

Ya, make it a week if ud like, its fine.

Seekingtruth14 · February 22, 2012

Salam!

I hope you are well sister!

Maybe other brothers/sisters have already answered your questions, but I will try to answer question nr.1 according to what I have understood.

Regarding question nr 1. Allah (swt) loves those who obey Him and He punish those who do not obey him. It doesn’t pain Allah (swt) to see saddam being punished in hell fire, since saddam has killed millions of people. Secondly, Allah (swt) doesn’t put anyone in hell. If someone disobeys and insists to disobey Allah (swt) in his whole life, the truth is that he is dragging himself to hell fire and not Allah ÓÈÍÇäå æÊÚÇáì. Allah (swt) is giving Him guidance but he keeps rejecting Allah’s (swt) guidance. Allah (swt) doesn’t want anyone to go to hell, but the person himself insists to be obedient and is therefore responsible for going to hell. Allah (swt) said:

“And We did not wrong them, but they wronged themselves…” [11:101]

So all who goes to hell are people who don’t want to accept Allah (swt) in their lives even though they are confident that Allah (swt) exists.

Is this a satisfying answer or not? please tell me dear sister.

May Allah (swt) help us find the truth.

February 23, 2012

(bismillah)

To iDevonian

1.

We don't blame dentists for pulling out teeth or drilling into the cusp if it will only beautify or heal the patient's mouth.

2.

If we find a meaning for the world, we will better understand "why". If we understand that the dentist is not harming but healing, then we will be accepting of the pain.

3.

Finding whether there is a meaning to the world, and what that meaning is, is the single most important discovery a human being can make.

4.

Until we find the meaing, we are invited, by religion, to trust that the world has a meaning, to protect us from despair, nihilism or egoism.

------

5.

My tooth rotting is imposed on me, but then I wouldn't attribute it to myself anyway. However, if it rotted because I decided I was too lazy to brush my teeth, then I would say "it was my fault".

6.

I didn't ordain for teeth to rot if not brushed, but I did ordain for myself not to brush my teeth. That is what we mean when we say, "it's my fault." Not that we made nature how it is, but that we chose to act in a particular way which naturally led to an unpleasant event.

7.

Why should we blame him when the environment is what destroys us? He didnt create the violent and destructive environment. Either way, its the environment that is destructive here. At least in part it is.

When we blame Bruce, we don't blame him for making the environment destructive. We blame him for not protecting himself from the destructive environment when he had good reason and good resource to do so.

However, in a case where there is no resource and the reason is impaired, we are hesitant in blaming him. So, in situation where Bruce was an exhibitionist, we find him blameworthy and extremely silly.

-----

8.

First, we have to distinguish between morally good and bad and amoral good and bad. Vanilla ice-cream can be good, but this doesn't mean morally good. One can have pleasure without pain. This is true.

9.

Something which is natural is neither morally good nor morally bad.

The fact that humans urinate is neither morally good nor morally bad. It just is.

The fact that humans speak is neither morally good nor morally bad. It just is.

10.

Urinating on a stranger's lawn, however, is morally bad. This is because there is a choice to refrain.

Speaking for the sake of the oppressed is morally good. This is because there is a choice to be silent.

11.

If we naturally refrained from urinating on strangers' lawns and we naturally spoke for the sake of the oppressed, these would not be moral. They would not be praiseworthy. They would just be the way things are. Urinating and speaking in and of themselves are not blameworthy or praiseworthy. They just are. For morality and moral conduct to make sense, there must be a choice involved, where something is right and something is wrong.

-------------

12.

Again, you rely on a case where our choice is overburdened, and try to make a conclusion from this:

I wrote:

But why wouldn't he wear clothes? You made an admirable case above to show how we have almost no grounds but to wear clothes. If Bruce, say for exhibitionist purposes or for any unreasonable intention, skipped along the ice stark naked, only to drop dead an hour later, then why not blame him?

You replied:

If the man had a good reason to go out on the ice naked, would you still blame him? Maybe he had to save his daughter or something.

Maybe. And in that case we would praise him rather than blame him. If he was out just to prove he's macho, though, we would blame him, also for his vanity.

The point is to distinguish the cases where someone is at fault from the cases where someone is not at fault. To distinguish between cases where we are blind and cases where we can see.

---------

I don't think it's actually that important yet to talk about my points (3) and (4) laid out in my previous post. You wrote this at some point:

Then id be risking my life :P, i dont consider that true freedom.

Given that we are talking about choice, and 'freedom' in the context of choosing, what do you mean "I don't consider that true freedom?"

-------

I may take out about a week after this, as you mention, depending on the length of your response.

Edited February 23, 2012 by Jebreil

iDevonian · February 23, 2012

hold on, ill just start from scratch. Theres a lot going on here.

ShiaBen · February 23, 2012

If you want to disbelieve, at least spell it right, can't tell if you're lying or not lol.

iDevonian · February 23, 2012

ok so, this is in relation to your earlier statements.

(bismillah)
To iDevonian
I would like to add 4 more bits I would address tomorrow (or the day after) to the 2 parts you have already mentioned (namely, corruption and God - good and bad):
1. Distinction between our teeth rotting and brushing our teeth in terms of which is imposed on us and which is a choice
To iDevonian
1.
We don't blame dentists for pulling out teeth or drilling into the cusp if it will only beautify or heal the patient's mouth.
2.
If we find a meaning for the world, we will better understand "why". If we understand that the dentist is not harming but healing, then we will be accepting of the pain.
3.
Finding whether there is a meaning to the world, and what that meaning is, is the single most important discovery a human being can make.
4.
Until we find the meaing, we are invited, by religion, to trust that the world has a meaning, to protect us from despair, nihilism or egoism.
5.
My tooth rotting is imposed on me, but then I wouldn't attribute it to myself anyway. However, if it rotted because I decided I was too lazy to brush my teeth, then I would say "it was my fault".
6.
I didn't ordain for teeth to rot if not brushed, but I did ordain for myself not to brush my teeth. That is what we mean when we say, "it's my fault." Not that we made nature how it is, but that we chose to act in a particular way which naturally led to an unpleasant event.

Hmm, i appear to have women on the mind. This response may take longer than expected.

Ah lets see...Yes ai agree, if your tooth rotting was imposed on you, then you wouldnt attribute it to yourself. Teeth can still rot even if you try hard to maintain them. Simply because our teeth are not perfect, they always rot away eventually, as do many parts of our body. In most cases. You may have on rare occasions 100 year olds who still have their teeth, but generally speaking, you will undergo the pain of rotting teeth in your life, regardless of how hard u try to protect them. And this goes back to the question of why the environment is corrupt to begin with. And then you talk about finding meaning in life through religion, which is fine, but it feels like a bit of an outside statement. Alright moving on.

2. Distinction between blaming a naked arctic adventurist and blaming a man who ran out naked to save his daughter
7.
When we blame Bruce, we don't blame him for making the environment destructive. We blame him for not protecting himself from the destructive environment when he had good reason and good resource to do so.
However, in a case where there is no resource and the reason is impaired, we are hesitant in blaming him. So, in situation where Bruce was an exhibitionist, we find him blameworthy and extremely silly.
8.
First, we have to distinguish between morally good and bad and amoral good and bad. Vanilla ice-cream can be good, but this doesn't mean morally good. One can have pleasure without pain. This is true.
9.
Something which is natural is neither morally good nor morally bad.
The fact that humans urinate is neither morally good nor morally bad. It just is.
The fact that humans speak is neither morally good nor morally bad. It just is.
10.
Urinating on a stranger's lawn, however, is morally bad. This is because there is a choice to refrain.
Speaking for the sake of the oppressed is morally good. This is because there is a choice to be silent.
11.
If we naturally refrained from urinating on strangers' lawns and we naturally spoke for the sake of the oppressed, these would not be moral. They would not be praiseworthy. They would just be the way things are. Urinating and speaking in and of themselves are not blameworthy or praiseworthy. They just are. For morality and moral conduct to make sense, there must be a choice involved, where something is right and something is wrong.
12.
Again, you rely on a case where our choice is overburdened, and try to make a conclusion from this:
I wrote:
But why wouldn't he wear clothes? You made an admirable case above to show how we have almost no grounds but to wear clothes. If Bruce, say for exhibitionist purposes or for any unreasonable intention, skipped along the ice stark naked, only to drop dead an hour later, then why not blame him?
You replied:
If the man had a good reason to go out on the ice naked, would you still blame him? Maybe he had to save his daughter or something.
Maybe. And in that case we would praise him rather than blame him. If he was out just to prove he's macho, though, we would blame him, also for his vanity.
The point is to distinguish the cases where someone is at fault from the cases where someone is not at fault. To distinguish between cases where we are blind and cases where we can see.

Yes all this is fine, but Bruce, even if he is praised for going out in the cold risking his life and potentially dying for the sake of saving his child...regardless of all this, the man suffered and died in a painful way, in an environment that was not of his choosing. So it goes back on that original statement of the origins of the corrupt environment.

And yes thats fine that some things are good, some are bad and some you consider to be neither. However, i would say that nature which destroys us, it may not be our moral or immoral creation, but id still like to know why it is here. The way I see it, its kind of like the movie saw if you have seen that. Jigsaw takes people and he traps them in rooms with certain tools and weapons, and he puts them in dangerous situations where they must use the weapons and tools to escape. For example, one guy is in a room with a candle. And on the floor there are broken shards of glass everywhere, and he cant escape the room without a combination to a safe with a key in the safe. The combination to the safe is on the wall, but heres the catch. There are thousands of numbers on the wall.

So the man has to go back and forth through the shards of glass with his tiny candle reading the numbers on the wall, so he can get the key to save his life.

Now, this is a bit extreme, but jigsaw designed the trap, just as god has created an environment in which bruce died trying to survive. Bruce is not guilty of creating the trap, nor is he to blame if he dies in it fighting for a greater good. And the man in jigsaws trap isnt to blame either (for the sake of arguement). But i would blame jigsaw for designing the environment that kills, just as I would blame God for putting bruce in a situation in which he will die fighting for good things.

And you could say, well its all a test. And I would say, what is the purpose of the test when jigsaw could simply create a good person, and create, rather than a trap, create heaven.

But, the point here is, i would say that what exists, if you believe in God, would be a creation of God.

The trap itself may not be morally good nor bad, but those responsible for the trap may be.

What youre saying, otherwise id agree with. Though i do believe there are exceptions to each of them. Urinating on someones lawn may not always be morally bad, nor speaking out against repression always morally good. But that part of the statement doesnt seem too important in regards to my previous questions about where the corruption comes from and why.

Given that we are talking about choice, and 'freedom' in the context of choosing, what do you mean "I don't consider that true freedom?"

I believe true freedom would mean that we were able to make choices without pain of a false choice due to our environment. For example, we could choose to do good things like baking muffins for our neighbors, without having to potentially burn ourselves by touching the oven. Or we could help our children in various ways, without having to die out in the cold tundra trying to save them. Or we could speak against repression, without having to risk our lives fighting against it. Or we could not urinate on peoples lawns, without having to deal with the stress of holding it in. etc etc.

We could live in an environment in which we do good things without having to deal with the bad. So why not? It goes back to the question of why nature exists in the corrupt way that it does.

I would say God has created our environment, and by doing so, he is responsible for its traps, just as jigsaw is responsible for the traps he made.

Edited February 23, 2012 by iDevonian

February 23, 2012

(bismillah)

To iDevonian

- you have women on your mind! That was amusing.

- The majority of the world's cases is not a Jigsaw-like scenario. I mean, honestly. How many of us have to save our children from deathly ice?

- I'm sure not brushing teeth has something to do with risking our teeth, otherwise they wouldn't encourage it. Again, there is no way of eliminating "blame" for humans in the cases in which we normally find them blameworthy. There's a reason we say, "it's my/your/their fault."

- The meaning of the world wasn't an outside statement. It was putting the question "why did God create it such?" into perspective.

We could live in an environment in which we do good things without having to deal with the bad. So why not?

For this post, it's adequate to just say, you are imagining a different world with that statement, which is coherent, but you are describing it with the language of this world. You're saying:

We could live in an environment in which we do things, we now call good, without having to deal with actions, we now call bad.

And I would respond, yes, we could live in such an environment. But we would no longer have a moral language - there would be no praise and no blame, no good action nor bad action. We would just be acting out our life naturally. There would be no good person or bad person. In religious terms, it would be like angels whose nature it is to act rationally.

Edited February 23, 2012 by Jebreil

iDevonian · February 24, 2012

(bismillah)
To iDevonian
- you have women on your mind! That was amusing.
- The majority of the world's cases is not a Jigsaw-like scenario. I mean, honestly. How many of us have to save our children from deathly ice?
- I'm sure not brushing teeth has something to do with risking our teeth, otherwise they wouldn't encourage it. Again, there is no way of eliminating "blame" for humans in the cases in which we normally find them blameworthy. There's a reason we say, "it's my/your/their fault."
- The meaning of the world wasn't an outside statement. It was putting the question "why did God create it such?" into perspective.
For this post, it's adequate to just say, you are imagining a different world with that statement, which is coherent, but you are describing it with the language of this world. You're saying:
We could live in an environment in which we do things, we now call good, without having to deal with actions, we now call bad.
And I would respond, yes, we could live in such an environment. But we would no longer have a moral language - there would be no praise and no blame, no good action nor bad action. We would just be acting out our life naturally. There would be no good person or bad person. In religious terms, it would be like angels whose nature it is to act rationally.

ok. So...why live in a corrupt environment, rather than the one in which we'd live like angels. Thats a statement and a question in one.

And thanks for clarifying the statement from before. Why did God create it such, or create it as such?

Edited February 24, 2012 by iDevonian

Sign In

I'm Starting To Disbeleive In God.

Recommended Posts

Guest Jebreil

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Guest Jebreil

Ugly Jinn

iDevonian

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest Jebreil

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest Jebreil

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest Jebreil

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest Jebreil

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest Jebreil

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest Jebreil

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest Jebreil

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest Jebreil

Link to comment

Share on other sites