Sentenced to Death for Blasphemy - Why?

[MagsJ (..a chic geek)]

A government survey organisation question:

Well?

[Ecmandu]

To the regard of this thread:

If people bow to god, that means that they believe that if they were god they’d want people to bow to them. If they believe god should torment and/or kill people, that means that they believe that they should do this if they are god. People are projecting WHAT THEY WOULD DO!! if they were god, upon god. Most these people are very sick in the head.

[ibnrushd]

@Prismatic567

Notable, what is the psychology behind such terrible evil urges and impulses to silence the view of others with death?

In Immanuel Kant’s terms, law necessarily consists of categorical imperatives, i.e. of axioms of morality. Since religious law seeks to provide the definitions for good and evil, it does not make sense to call the system itself good or evil. According to what other system would we be able to do that? And how do we justify the other system? Yet another system? That approach clearly leads to infinite regress.

In terms of Islamic law, the hanafi and shafii schools of jurisprudence accept repentance in lieu of capital punishment, while the maliki and hanbali do not. Pakistan is mostly hanafi.. Therefore, it looks like submitting a declaration of repentance may be enough to avoid the death sentence in this case.

[Karpel_Tunnel]

@Prismatic567

@Karpel Tunnel

Well, in part because Islam teaches you to be terrified of God. Anything that insults God, or might, if you let it stand, you are an accomplice. To eliminate any voice or person that seems to or does criticize or question or insult God, is a must.
It will trigger survival terror.
No one wants a deity to be angry at them, to consider them not on that deity’s side. Especially an angry deity. Organized religions not only potentially soothe some fears, they create a boatload of other fears.

Then the question is WHY do Muslims and other theists associate themselves with a God [all powerful] that need to be protected from being insulted.

Isn’t it ironic that an all-powerful whatever-omni God need fallible-weak believers to protected it from insults by non-believers or even believers?
Why can’t the all-powerful God prevent non-believers from insulting Him or kill those who insulted Him?

Sure. I get all that.

The explanation for the whole shebang is this;

[list]1. DNA wise ALL humans are infected with an existential crisis.

Just a a bunch of non-scientific bunk. You find some microbiologist to back up your ideas that we are infected - lol - with an existential crisis via our DNA. Apart from the category errors your just selling an ideology with pseudoscience.

2. The majority of infected humans conjured up the idea of God is conjured out of nothing to relieve [soothe] and feel psychological secure the existential crisis. This is like clinging on to a security blanket.

Well, gosh, then it sure is weird they come up with these angry jealous gods - those that do - ones that ask for war and who threaten with hell. Of course the religions that are not like this you tend not to focus on, but here you’ve come up with a theory which you use to batter Islam a religion that given the very nature of its deity makes your own hypothesis look ridiculous. A three year old could have come up with a more comforting deity in five minutes in a sandbox. That’s one scary unnerving deity they came up with.

You’ve been peddling this non-scientific bs for years and you are utterly impervious to counterargument.

It’s embarrassing.

[Prismatic567]

@Karpel Tunnel

@Prismatic567

@Karpel Tunnel

Well, in part because Islam teaches you to be terrified of God. Anything that insults God, or might, if you let it stand, you are an accomplice. To eliminate any voice or person that seems to or does criticize or question or insult God, is a must.
It will trigger survival terror.
No one wants a deity to be angry at them, to consider them not on that deity’s side. Especially an angry deity. Organized religions not only potentially soothe some fears, they create a boatload of other fears.

Then the question is WHY do Muslims and other theists associate themselves with a God [all powerful] that need to be protected from being insulted.

Isn’t it ironic that an all-powerful whatever-omni God need fallible-weak believers to protected it from insults by non-believers or even believers?
Why can’t the all-powerful God prevent non-believers from insulting Him or kill those who insulted Him?

Sure. I get all that.

The explanation for the whole shebang is this;

[list]1. DNA wise ALL humans are infected with an existential crisis.

Just a a bunch of non-scientific bunk. You find some microbiologist to back up your ideas that we are infected - lol - with an existential crisis via our DNA. Apart from the category errors your just selling an ideology with pseudoscience.

I have explained the basis of the existential crisis.
Note one clue to the existential crisis is the existence of real ‘Thanatophobia’
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_anxiety_(psychology

Thanatophobia is the manifestation of the existential crisis at 100% on the conscious level, and what underlies ‘thanatophobia’ are the unconscious impulses of the existential crisis I have argued for.
There is so much research going on in this area which you are so ignorant of.
So don’t project your ignorance onto to others.
Don’t be lazy, do more research on the related knowledge to counter my points.

For example, if you can prove ‘thanatophobia’ is a bullshit idea, that would make my claim of an underlying existential crisis tougher to be inferred.

You have not provided any effective argument to counter my point.
If so, where?

2. The majority of infected humans conjured up the idea of God is conjured out of nothing to relieve [soothe] and feel psychological secure the existential crisis. This is like clinging on to a security blanket.

Well, gosh, then it sure is weird they come up with these angry jealous gods - those that do - ones that ask for war and who threaten with hell. Of course the religions that are not like this you tend not to focus on, but here you’ve come up with a theory which you use to batter Islam a religion that given the very nature of its deity makes your own hypothesis look ridiculous. A three year old could have come up with a more comforting deity in five minutes in a sandbox. That’s one scary unnerving deity they came up with.

You’ve been peddling this non-scientific bs for years and you are utterly impervious to counterargument.

It’s embarrassing.

As I had stated the only currency is this philosophical forum is ‘solidly justified arguments’ either in propositions or counter arguments.

I have no dogmatic stance [like theists on blind faith] to cling on.
Definitely I would welcome people pointing errors and falsehoods in my premises which would provide me the opportunity to improve them.

You have not provided any solid counter arguments at all for me to improve my existing arguments.

here you’ve come up with a theory which you use to batter Islam a religion that given the very nature of its deity makes your own hypothesis look ridiculous.

Hey … I researched Islam full time for more than 3 years.
I have provided justifications for my hypothesis: why Islam is inherently evil and malignant with evidences from the 6236 verses from the Quran, i.e. the authorized core of Islam.

What proofs do you have to claim otherwise and why my hypothesis is false?
None!

You’ve been peddling this non-scientific bs for years and you are utterly impervious to counterargument.

Yes, scientific knowledge is most credible.
But within philosophy there is no need to rely solely on science [merely polished conjectures] but to rely on Science coupled with sound philosophical reasoning and inferences of which I have done.

In philosophy, I believe as long as one has one leg on Science and make inferences from other sources of evidences and sound reasoning, that would be considered reasonable [not final] whilst opened for criticisms. So far I have done that.

This is in contrast to the doctrines of theists where both their legs are off scientific grounds [i.e. drive by strong faith] and they are insisting their doctrine are the truth and real.