Danger of Islam!

[Caduceus Mercurius]

The armageddon meme seems to be a self-fulfilling prophesy. Many religious people, not just the muslims, are actually looking forward to it.

LOL, by doing a search for "armageddon, meme" I arrived at this website: www.thereligionvirus.com

The Religion Virus
by Craig A. James

Table of Contents

1. Why is Religion Like an Elephant's DNA?

You Don't Know Yahweh
The Replicating Chicken Meme
Xeroxing Information
The Expensive Carpool Lane
A Meme by Any Other Name
Three Sources of Knowledge
Our Path
A Bit About Evolution

Interlude: Grandpa and the Sunset

2. Religion's Infancy

1st Trend: The General-Purpose God Meme
2nd Trend: The Monotheism Meme
3rd Trend: The Intolerance Meme
4th Trend: The Globalization Meme
5th Trend: The Abstract-God Meme
6th Trend: The Godly-Origin-of-Morals Meme
7th Trend: The Kindness Meme
8th Trend: The Asexual Meme
9th Trend: The Anti-Rationalism Meme
The Synergy of the Nine Trends

Interlude: The Big V

3. Evolution and Memes

When Does Information Become a Meme?
Reproduction
Survival of the Fittest
Mutation
Wrestling with God
Overpopulation
The Ideosphere and Niches
Memeplexes
Religion as Memes
The Danger of the Metaphor
An Example: Was Joseph Jesus' Father or Not?
Summary: Evolution and Memes

Interlude: A Prayer

4. Religion Grows Up

Reprise: Abraham to Jesus
3rd Trend Revisited: The Intolerance Meme Grows Up
4th Trend Revisited: St. Paul expands the Globalization Meme
10th Trend: The Guilt Meme
11th Trend: The Heaven and Hell Memes
12th Trend: The Proselytism Meme
13th Trend: The Martyrdom Meme
14th Trend: The Armageddon Meme
Synergy: Guilt, Heaven, Hell, Monotheism, and Intolerance

Interlude: Going to the Moon

5. The Invisible Watchmaker

The Worst Programmer in the World
The Invisible Watchmaker
Hierarchical Design: The Golden Gate Bridge
Design without a Designer
A Corollary
Religion Has No Design or Purpose

Interlude: Billy the Racist

6. Why Do Humans Talk?

Is Language Adaptive or Accidental?
Evolution is Slow
The Speedy Alternative
Intentional Memes
Bad Memes Aren't Fatal
High-Bandwidth Evolution
Meme Stability
Memes: One of Evolution's "Good Tricks"

Interlude: The Southern Baptists

7. Why is Religion So Appealing?

Dogs and Cuckoo Birds
What is a Parasite?
What is Natural Selection?
Why Is Religion So Appealing?
Why Start so Young?

Interlude: My Wife's Faith

8. Aliens, Parasites and a Paradox

Religious Niches
Epidemics
Parasites, Hitchhikers, and Symbiotes
Alien Invaders
Sickle-Cell Anemia – Taking the Good with the Bad
The Atheist's Paradox

Interlude: Shakespeare, Genesis and the Big Bang

9. Religion, Technology and Government

Cargo Cults
Religion and Military Technology
Guns, Germs and Steel
The Synergy of Religion, Technology and Government
One Nation Under God

Interlude: Aunt Carolyn's Un-Baptism

10. Closing Sermon

Reprise: Where We've Been
Where are we Going?

References

 

[Forkbender]

whereas all genuine scientists and philosophers are engaged in respectful debate.

Why are you laughing actually? It's true, isn't it?

Not really. There is so much dirt in the academic world and so many 'scientists' who steal ideas and techniques and take responsibility for other people's inventions, it is not even funny. Besides, the debates are not much different than here: both sides don't listen to each other and think they hold the ultimate truth. Breakthroughs are neglected and people stick to what they have been taught.

Science should in theory deal with those things by listening to rational arguments, but in practice there are a lot of power games going on that cause it to be a game of reputation, faith and belief. The mutual respect is sometimes hard to find, although they disguise there attacks in scientific jargon that outsiders don't understand.

People are ruining science, just as people are ruining religion. By being stupid, not wanting to see the truth for what it is and neglecting the possibility of them being not right.

[e]I do not say that all scientists are bad scientists, but that those scientists who make a career out of their scientific endavours usually tend to obscure the truth in order to get ahead.

the war on drugs

Bombing afghanistan to secure the production of opium which the Taliban almost eradicated? What do you mean?

 

[Caduceus Mercurius]

Not really. There is so much dirt in the academic world

There is a huge difference between dirt and fire, or dirt and blood.

Bombing afghanistan to secure the production of opium which the Taliban almost eradicated? What do you mean?

Mind-altering substances are not permitted by Islam. The custom of smoking cannabis and using certain herbs may be tolerated locally, but the use and distribution of psychedelics and empathogens is not.

Also, see page 15 of this thread, about the Sharia:

The law is derived from four main sources:

* the Quran, Islam's holy book, considered the literal word of God;
* the hadith, or record of the actions and sayings of the Prophet Mohammed, whose life is to be emulated;
* ijma, the consensus of Islamic scholars; and
* qiyas, a kind of reasoning that uses analogies to apply precedents established by the holy texts to problems not covered by them, for example, a ban on narcotics based on the Quranic injunction against wine-drinking.

For which crimes does the Quran mandate specific punishments?

Five crimes known as the Hadd offenses, Lombardi says. Because these offenses are mentioned in the Quran, committing them is considered an affront to God. They are:

* Wine-drinking and, by extension, alcohol-drinking, punishable by flogging

Even if flogging is not done anymore, it's clear that Islam does NOT favor legalization.

 

[Forkbender]

Not really. There is so much dirt in the academic world

There is a huge difference between dirt and fire, or dirt and blood.

It's a difference of degree, not a difference of kind.

Besides: fire and blood? Didn't the West use swords, guns and bombs to kill muslims since 1100 A.D.? Right now the West occupies three predominantly islamic countries: Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine. And we try to impose our belief system on them. How many countries do muslims occupy? When was the last time that an islamic country invaded a Western country? When was the last time they tried to impose their will on us? Calling islam violent is hypocritical to say the least.

Jesus said something about splinters and beams, which is applicable here.

Mind-altering substances are not permitted by Islam.

Drug enforcement is much stronger in the West and even most busts in Islamic countries are made by DEA or their allies.

 

[Caduceus Mercurius]

Besides: fire and blood? Didn't the West use swords, guns and bombs to kill muslims since 1100 A.D.?

Why are you bringing in pre-Enlightenment 1100 A.D.? I was comparing modern society with modern Islam.

Right now the West occupies three predominantly islamic countries: Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine. And we try to impose our belief system on them. How many countries do muslims occupy?

WE don't occupy them, the oil companies and big corporations do.

When was the last time that an islamic country invaded a Western country?

What do you mean with invasion here?

When was the last time they tried to impose their will on us? Calling islam violent is hypocritical to say the least.

What violence did the cartoonists commit? What violence did the publishers commit?

Jesus said something about splinters and beams, which is applicable here.

No, it is not. Yes, it would be if we'd be talking about the West versus Islam, but that's not what we've been doing. We've been discussing post-Enlightened thinking, including entheogenic initiation, versus traditional Islam. The Jesus metaphor doesn't apply at all. Which confirms once again that it's better not to cite outdated scriptures. :wink:

Drug enforcement is much stronger in the West and even most busts in Islamic countries are made by DEA or their allies.

You know darn well who is behind drug enforcement in the West: Jesus and pals.

 

[zezt]

Are we aware that official science does not even recognize spirit and soul? And that if one claims to have spiritual visions one very well will be classed in our belief system as being 'mentally ill'.

...

So if we were like sat round a table with Muslims who wanted to know what could replace their un-modern Medieval belief system how would you respond?

Well yes i am aware of that.

Also, "having spiritual visions could be classified
as being metally ill..."

Uhm...back when there were "real" witches, people who got them,
were prosecuted as "witches" and burned publicly instantly.
Classified as being crazies!
So, it's not far from what we as people used to do not too long ago.

When you take halluciogens and do something bad,
one can easily claim they lost their minds?
That's pretty much being mentally ill isn't it?
So, don't we do this already?
Classify having visions as being temporarey mentally ill?
(being so drunk you nearly die and beat up somebody isnt, by the way!
This is again the social conditioning / mindwarping to believe certain stuff!!!!!!!!!!!!)

Haven't we done this already forever, throughout the ages in europe?
Thinking if one hallucinates, they are mentally ill?

Witchers, black and white were the ones with knowlegde of poisons and haliciogens, and they were not respected then, as WE are not now.

They were hunted back then, like weed (amongst other things) is now.

About the muslims:

When i would be given that opportunity, i wouls just try to convince them
that they must pracitice their relegion in peace, not force their relogion upon other, etc. The NORMAL things i guess

I am not against anyone believing anything, i mean,
one has to know that for him or herself, but like it is now,
is just fucked up. We are almost again back in the roman time.

This is a small world, something LITTLE has to happen for us all to die.
And it is coming, some religions do not care about that as they so often say themselves, and that dangerous.
That has to go. That's the whole point.

I really recommend you read this book, it is both very informative and very funny, and is the story of the history of psychedelic drugs in the modern scientific age. Storming Heaven, by Jay Stevens

When psychiatrists first used LSD, they were presuming that its effects were a mimetic of 'schizophrenia', but this idea was abandoned, however the bio-psychiatric 'diagnosis' and 'treatment' of 'schizophrenia wasn't and still isn't. It is believed to be a 'mental illness' despite the fact no such medical evidence exists to support that 'scientific' certainty!

'Losing one's mind' is metaphor and is not a biological disease, as neither is a 'broken heart' or 'love sickness'.

I mean one could say the Islamic culture, and our culture had lost its mind. One is mired in a Medieval world view which is irrational, and modern culture in an 'Age of Reason' which--taken to extremes--is irrational.

What do I mean that 'reason' taken to extremes can become irrational?

There's a famous old Greek drama that explores this, The Bacchai by Euripides which explores this theme deeply:
http://www.indiaplaza.com/books/pd.aspx?sku=0195125983

"Summary :


...Regarded by many as Euripides' masterpiece, Bakkhai is a powerful examination of religious ecstasy and the resistance to it. A call for moderation, it rejects the temptation of pure reason as well as pure sensuality, and is a staple of Greek tragedy, representing in structure and thematics an exemplary model of the classic tragic elements.

Disguised as a young holy man, the god Dionysus arrives in Greece from Asia proclaiming his godhood and preaching his orgiastic religion. He expects to be embraced in Thebes, but the Theban king, Pentheus, forbids his people to worship him and tries to have him arrested. Enraged, Dionysus drives Pentheus mad and leads him to the mountains, where Pentheus' own mother, Agave, and the women of Thebes tear him to pieces in a Bacchic frenzy."



Ie, the suppression of our Dionysian ecstatic potential will cause 'madness', irrationality. And can't we see this with BOTH orthodox religious authoritarianism, and Scientistic authoritarianism?
In comparison with the former, the 'freedom' that comes to us in the Age of Science is the better of the two evils, ,,,,but we cannot be complacent with our lot. Because, what about our ecstatic needs as human beings in relationship with nature, animals, each other?

We here at these forums surely know what I mean by ecstasy. I don't mean the drug by that name, also known as MDMA. But the original meaning of the term which I interpret as flowing energetic spirituality.

That has/is being denied us in Islam, Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism (which also forbids 'intoxicants')... AND in our 'modern' culture too! What does THAT mean? is the question.

 

[Forkbender]

Why are you bringing in pre-Enlightenment 1100 A.D.? I was comparing modern society with modern Islam.

What don't you understand about the word SINCE? It is still happening and has been happening for centuries and centuries.

WE don't occupy them, the oil companies and big corporations do.

WE are all consumers of their products, so WE support their presence even if we don't agree. With invasion I mean the way the US and Co. invaded Afghanistan and Iraq and the way Israel with the help of the US, the UK and other Western States invaded Palestine.

What violence did the cartoonists commit? What violence did the publishers commit?

What violence was committed against them? As far as I know they are all safe as houses. They were threatened, true, but what goes on in the mind of a person who threatens someone else? He must feel threatened first, right? He must feel that the other is coming onto his territory and neglect some basic principles of respect. I don't say we have to be respectful of religious blindness, but the cartoons were aimed at the wrong thing. They took some extremists for representatives of a religion, just like what happens here on the forum when we discuss Christians: we always look to the deep south and never to the priest who says that we shouldn't take the church too seriously. True criticism comes from within, you can only inspire others to think, not make them think what you want them to.

No, it is not. Yes, it would be if we'd be talking about the West versus Islam, but that's not what we've been doing. We've been discussing post-Enlightened thinking, including entheogenic initiation, versus traditional Islam. The Jesus metaphor doesn't apply at all. Which confirms once again that it's better not to cite outdated scriptures. :wink:

No, that's not what we have been discussing. We have been discussing Islam, not versus anything. Post-Enlightened thinking doesn't exist. We are still in the period of Modernity and we are still bombing Iraq/Afghanistan/Palestine. We have given them plenty of reasons to be angry at us. Violence is always on both sides, otherwise there wouldn't be any reason for it and people wouldn't fight. We aren't ahead/better than them. 80 years ago our women didn't have a right to vote. 150 years ago we still had slaves. Racial segregation was a reality until 40 years ago and is quickly winning ground again. Who are WE to judge?

You know darn well who is behind drug enforcement in the West: Jesus and pals.

Jesus is behind the drug enforcement? Wow! I did not know He was secretely pushing buttons in heaven instructing lawmakers to control substances!

 

[restin]

We've been discussing post-Enlightened thinking, including entheogenic initiation, versus traditional Islam.

you're doing it again...changing the subject so the argument wouldn't count...

ethnogenic initiation? Who started it? The government. Without the government starting high-end prohibition, there would be no rebel movement --> the ethnogenic initiation is a rebel movement. The hippies were protesting.

 

[Caduceus Mercurius]

So if we were like sat round a table with Muslims who wanted to know what could replace their un-modern Medieval belief system how would you respond?
Would it just be that we are 'scientific', and 'reasonable'? Is that enough? What about the spiritual aspect of life?

All we can offer is what we know about the Golden Mean and the fractal nature of reality. It abolishes the artificial dichotemy between matter and spirit, yet is a non-threatening concept, for it is not associated with any geographical or religious history. It answers questions posed by both science and religion, and indirectly abolishes the concept of monotheism. It's legal and for all ages. It does not require blind following and does not involve groupthink.

Entheogenic initiation could be offered to those who have the legal freedom and mental stability to do so. This is a very interesting field, but for legal reasons, as well as its identification with existing religious and/or seemingly materialistic groups, has way more restrictions.

 

[Caduceus Mercurius]

you're doing it again...changing the subject so the argument wouldn't count...

No, that's what Forkbender did, quite clearly. We're discussing the tension between traditional Islam (which is based on the Quran) and modern society. See the first post of this topic.

ethnogenic initiation? Who started it? The government. Without the government starting high-end prohibition, there would be no rebel movement --> the ethnogenic initiation is a rebel movement. The hippies were protesting.

Entheogenic initiation refers to the things Brugmansia mentioned.

 

[HeartCore]

You know darn well who is behind drug enforcement in the West: Jesus and pals.

That's a fact for sure.

 

[Caduceus Mercurius]

This debate is useless if you insist that "we" includes the American government and army, the Christian 'Just Say No' movement, the Christian religion itself, corporatism, our past etc.

 

[Caduceus Mercurius]

No, that's not what we have been discussing. We have been discussing Islam, not versus anything.

This is what we've been discussing (emphasis in bold is mine):

I am not saying that. What we ARE saying is this: that the very religion AS political system--Shariah Law is barbaric and evil and is actually HAPPENING!! it IS happening. And there are now calls from Islamic Muslims to have this law in our culture which believes in freedom --ok, relative to that oppression anyhow. So this is a major warning to not be politcally correct and make these people know that we will NOT stand for this oppression here. Please see that?

Post-Enlightened thinking doesn't exist.

Bollocks. Women have liberated themselves, gays have rights, we have freedom of speech, we have created our own independent media, human rights organizations... Yes, we're still in the process of gaining more freedom, but we have come a long way!

 

[Pariah]

Dear Mr. Briq Whall


Our fundemental differences in opinion have created a rift between us, I've come to realise we have not been arguing to find the truth, but have been defending our positions rigidly in a game of ego tennis.

I feel we aren't helping the process of reasonable debate any longer with the way we are communicating - do you agree that such discussions should keep in mind the need to discover truth whatever it may be?

May I make a suggestion?

Lets take a step back and evaluate our thoughts on the subject discussed. The discussion has degraded somewhat, but what to do about it?

I would suggest wiping the slate clean in a way, looking at the way this conversation started, and how it progressed: It started with a controvertial subject, using a video to communicate a position. This may have been a bad idea: the opinion of the postee was not communicated in a clear, concise, and logical way.

The conversation proceeded in a way that was not conducive to agreement in response to the unclear nature of the origional post, but also due to people's emotional response to the controversy.

What sould we do about this?

I would suggest either the origional poster, or a supporter of the position creates a structured outline of their position first, then use a fallacy free arguement to justify your position:


What is your general claim?

What specific definitions will be required to clarify your language?

What is your justification for your claim?

What are the implications of your position? What is the practical solution that follows from the justified claim? How would you go about applying the solution?

Demonstrate that the implication follows from the general claim in a logical manner without appealing to emotion, or falling into any fallacy.

***

When the position is communicated, the opposition will first search the position for fallacy: name it or demonstrate the way in which it is not logical, then request the fallacy be deleted or changed into a valid structure.

Once all fallacy is omitted, the remaining arguement should be attacked and defended on the basis of whether it really applies in the situation.

***

The target of truth and consensus should be kept in mind. The idea is that a position which neither party can deny is formed.


***


I hope this finds you well Mr. Whall, I hope we can resume a constructive approach to truth in the future.


Yours,

Mr. Ray Ving Lou Niey

 

[Forkbender]

This is what we've been discussing (emphasis in bold is mine):

I am not saying that. What we ARE saying is this: that the very religion AS political system--Shariah Law is barbaric and evil and is actually HAPPENING!! it IS happening. And there are now calls from Islamic Muslims to have this law in our culture which believes in freedom --ok, relative to that oppression anyhow. So this is a major warning to not be politcally correct and make these people know that we will NOT stand for this oppression here. Please see that?

Quoting an ancient text isn't the way to go. :wink:
The debate went on for ages after this post, and was generally about Islam. I heard very little on our own culture or the way the two relate. All you guys bring forth is value judgements about what you think Islam is.

Post-Enlightened thinking doesn't exist.

Bollocks. Women have liberated themselves, gays have rights, we have freedom of speech, we have created our own independent media, human rights organizations... Yes, we're still in the process of gaining more freedom, but we have come a long way!

That is all still very much Enlightenment thinking, not POST-Enlightened thinking.

What's all this bullshit about me trying to change the subject? Your post-enlightened thinking (whatever that may be) and entheogenic initiation wasn't discussed at all previously. It was mentioned, but not discussed.

This debate is useless if you insist that "we" includes the American government and army, the Christian 'Just Say No' movement, the Christian religion itself, corporatism, our past etc.

It is also useless if you insist that your version of Islam is the only true Islam and should be fought. You are fighting a straw man, because Islam as you explain it doesn't exist in the real world.

 

[Caduceus Mercurius]

If you think you didn't change the subject, let me repeat the sequence of our discussion then:

You can't prove that. We're in the process of modernizing the world, and one of its aims (and accomplishments) is to end unnecessary fighting. We do not have war in the Netherlands, we do not have war between the Netherlands and Germany, because of our modern mindset. The SP episode was funny, but had absolutely nothing to do with reality. RIGHT NOW people are fighting and scheming for God, whereas all genuine scientists and philosophers are engaged in respectful debate. Yes, people also fight over resources and territory, but that doesn't mean we should pay no attention to the hostility generated by religious doctrine.

So the two parties discussed are 1) those who have become modernized, liberated and free (or as you say, are in the process of being enlightened), and 2) those who fight and scheme for God, i.e. those who will fight (set buildings on fire, shed blood) in the name of God.

Not really. There is so much dirt in the academic world and so many 'scientists' who steal ideas and techniques and take responsibility for other people's inventions, it is not even funny. Besides, the debates are not much different than here: both sides don't listen to each other and think they hold the ultimate truth. Breakthroughs are neglected and people stick to what they have been taught.

You see, you're bringing in "the debates here", whereas I was talking about what we see here in Europe: critics of Islam (and people with a sense of humor) being threatened and killed in the name of the Quran.

 

[Forkbender]

I was talking about scientific debates because you mentioned that they were respectful while they are clearly not. I compared these scientific debates to this debate we are having right now, which has also this quality.

I was talking about what we see here in Europe: critics of Islam (and people with a sense of humor) being threatened and killed in the name of the Quran.

If a loonatic kills someone in the name of Terence McKenna do you blame McKenna? If a crazy person kills someone while on shrooms do you blame the shrooms?

All I'm trying to do here is to find a way in which you can criticize someone without criticizing their worldview and the only way to do that is to criticize their actions directly and not relate it to their worldview or their beliefs. If they notice that people find it strange that they use violence and hold them personally accountable for that, they will think differently than if we say: it is the Quran that is the problem. Indirect criticism of actions (i.e. by calling the Quran or the Bible a bad influence) never helps a person. You saw in the trip report that Brugmansia posted that true change from within is achievable, while previous to that trip the person would probably never be convinced by anyone. Does a trip criticize the Quran/Bible? Or does it help you see that you have grown too attached to it and that there is truth to be found in every single moment?

 

[Caduceus Mercurius]

I've come to realise we have not been arguing to find the truth, but have been defending our positions rigidly in a game of ego tennis.

I don't like it when either party accuses the other party of 'ego' games, whether in this discussion or any other. We don't even agree what the ego is, so why use that word? These are serious discussions with lots of information to back up claims. I appreciate all participants in this thread who have taken the time to read all posts, and have taken the effort to think about and write detailed replies.

I feel we aren't helping the process of reasonable debate any longer with the way we are communicating - do you agree that such discussions should keep in mind the need to discover truth whatever it may be?

YES!! Whatever it may be.

I would suggest wiping the slate clean in a way, looking at the way this conversation started, and how it progressed: It started with a controvertial subject, using a video to communicate a position. This may have been a bad idea: the opinion of the postee was not communicated in a clear, concise, and logical way.

Yes, I wholeheartedly agree. It was a bad start, which I think was eventually agreed upon by everyone, including zezt.

What specific definitions will be required to clarify your language?

Yes! Definitions for clarity!

What is the practical solution that follows from the justified claim? How would you go about applying the solution?

The good thing about this thread is that we did discuss a couple of possible solutions, even projects. And none of them involved compulsion or violence!

Thanks for this post Pariah, I really appreciate it, even if your intent was to chastise me!

 

[Forkbender]

Thanks to Pariah. It should be in every 10-page+ discussion on this forum.

 

[Caduceus Mercurius]

If a loonatic kills someone in the name of Terence McKenna do you blame McKenna? If a crazy person kills someone while on shrooms do you blame the shrooms?

If thousands of persons would kill in the name of McKenna, I think we should seriously reconsider what he wrote. If thousands of people start killing others while on shrooms, yes, we might want to reconsider some things... But this is a rather hypothetical argument, isn't it?

Qur'an, Chapter 8, Verse 17: "It is not ye who slew them; it was Allah."