'Pray five times a day or be beheaded' [Archive]

I'm With Stupid

07-12-2006, 12:58 AM

Yep Islam seems to be the religious tool of the day for utter shitheads to inflict their backwards views on other people, and remove any human rights they might have. There's no doubt there is some utter scum in positions of power in certain Islamic countries. But like I said, some people have always tried to get others to comply with their idea of acceptable behaviour, or oppress women, or homosexuals, or any number of other groups. Islam just seems to be the latest in a long line of tools and ideas that people have used to do this.

I just feel sorry for all of the normal, good muslim people who end up getting lumped in with this, because I'm sure as hell that that isn't the type of "islam" that they practice.

AllAmericanRageJunky

07-12-2006, 01:28 AM

This thread is officialy derailed!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v686/jackcrack/threadderailed.jpg

OWNED!

AllAmericanRageJunky

07-12-2006, 01:31 AM

In all seriousness though. Raise your hand if you think that beheading people for not praying is a good idea........

seeing as no hands go up. I declare this debate pointless and suggest we all go get drunk!

Teh_Gerbil

07-12-2006, 05:01 AM

I have a very good friend who is a muslim. I can't remember him ever suggesting such a thing to me, our friends or his family. Funny that. Him being a follower of Islam and all... :rolleyes:

Rather so myself.

I'll tell you who is savage - these Religious extremists of ANY religion, such as Christians who try to kill people who do life saving medical research and get the theory of Intelligent Design taught to Children, as fact.

Any Religious extremist is dangerous and savage imho. Christian, Islamic, whatever. I don't give a shit, they are all bastards. Relgion, yeah, ok, have your views. Don't enforce them, don't try to preach them to me, just keep 'em to yourself and be open to debate. They aren't, most of the time.

AllAmericanRageJunky

07-12-2006, 06:29 AM

Alright, I'll break this thread down for everyone since the kitty didn't seem to do the job.

Here's where it has been, and where it can head:

Disillusioned makes a post about a backwards law made by some religious extremists. Then makes a comment (perhaps to initiate a debate?) that the group responsible for the law are barbaric. Several things can come of this.

1) People make the natural assumption that Disillusioneds’ comment about islam being barbaric was only a reference to specific extreme groups in Islam. People then go on to discus how that is a stupid law made by stupid extremists, a conversation which has little point to it since I don't think there are any people here who see decapitation for not praying as a good thing. This conversation also has nothing to do with the original message that Islam is barbaric which makes the whole conversation off topic

2) People make the natural assumption that Disillusioned's comment was about Islam in general but figure it's just get a rise out of everyone so they ignore it. People then go on to discus how that is a stupid law made by stupid extremists, a conversation which has little point to it since I don't think there are any people who see decapitation for not praying as a good thing. This conversation also has nothing to do with the original message that Islam is barbaric which makes the whole conversation off topic.

3) People take Disillusioned literally and assume that he's a racist, demand he apologize/is banned and then make reference to various barbarous acts committed by other religions which leads to a general denunciation of extremism. Disillusioned then chuckles as he doesn't apologize and isn't banned, process is repeated later in the week.

4) People take Disillusioned literally and assume he is ill-informed. Then make obvious reference to all the muslims out there who don't believe in decapitating people. Disillusioned chuckles, process is repeated later in the week.

5) Repeat option 3 and 4 only Disillusioned is banned for being a racist or a troll, which seems unlikely because (in my amateur opinion) he is neither.

Honestly now, who didn't see that coming?

Teagan

07-12-2006, 09:39 AM

The silly thing is that the Koran (the word of Allah) states that Muslims should pray three times a day .. while the Hadith (the Islamic 'traditions' reference) states that it should be five times a day ... so it seems a but unfair to behead someone for not choosing to pray an optional two a day. :confused:

ShyBoy

07-12-2006, 10:47 AM

Disillusioned

07-12-2006, 11:37 AM

I have a very good friend who is a muslim. I can't remember him ever suggesting such a thing to me, our friends or his family. Funny that. Him being a follower of Islam and all... :rolleyes:

Maybe that's because his religious views would not be defined as Islamist. If you bothered to properly read the original post you'd see I was talking about a specific extreme branch of Islam and not Islam in general. But you're too lazy for that.

If a Christian sect was still practicing the religiously inspired violence seen in medieval times I would expect loud condemnation from the overwhelming majority of peaceful Christians. It would be sadly unrealistic if I said I expected the same from the Muslim community. This latest story finds no mention on MCB or MPACUK – if they campaigned against extremism with the kind of zeal they campaign against Israel, maybe some parts of the world affected by Islamism would have more in common with the 21st century than the Dark Ages. But, then I wouldn't call MCB or MPACUK moderate despite both being supposedly mainstream.

hazell

07-12-2006, 12:46 PM

i am a muslim and denounce this law.

who wants to go get drunk?

wait...blackcurrant and lemonades all round

Teagan

07-12-2006, 01:04 PM

If you bothered to properly read the original post you'd see I was talking about a specific extreme branch of Islam and not Islam in general.

Actually, you didn't.

You stated The savagery of Islamism in the 21st century and the sheer backwardness of it is truly depressing.

That is a fairly wide-ranging remark.

Not all Islamism is bad. While Islamism is a set of political ideologies that hold that Islam is not only a religion, but also a political system that governs the legal, economic and social imperatives of the state according to its interpretation of Islamic Law, it also depends on what length that ideology goes to.

I'm With Stupid

07-12-2006, 01:24 PM

It would be sadly unrealistic if I said I expected the same from the Muslim community.
It would be unrealistic because you obviously don't want to hear them condemn it. Simply type "Muslims condemn terrorists" into Google and you'll end up with a million websites with links to Muslim leaders condemning terrorism (and ironically one website in the middle titled "Why don't Muslims condemn terrorism").

I can't say I'm surprised that Irish News Online couldn't get a major Muslim leader to offer a quote to a story about some nutcases in an obscure town in the south of Somalia. Look at terrorism in general and there is condemnation pretty much across the board from Muslims.

Toadborg

07-12-2006, 01:26 PM

Sheik Hussein Barre Rage

good name for a crazed despotic sadist!

Disillusioned

07-12-2006, 02:11 PM

Not all Islamism is bad.

It is if you're gay, a woman or not a Muslim - or if you happen to believe gay people, women and non-Muslims should be treated equally.

I'm With Stupid

07-12-2006, 02:17 PM

It is if you're gay, a woman or not a Muslim - or if you happen to believe gay people, women and non-Muslims should be treated equally.
Same as Christianity then? If you take it literally, and at face value that is.

Teagan

07-12-2006, 02:30 PM

It is if you're gay, a woman or not a Muslim - or if you happen to believe gay people, women and non-Muslims should be treated equally.

Another sweeping statement. There are liberal Muslims out there. What about the fundamentalist Christians in the US that want to run the country - and don't want to afford the same rights to minorities just as the extreme Islamists do?

Disillusioned

07-12-2006, 02:33 PM

Same as Christianity then? If you take it literally, and at face value that is.

I can't think of any Christian country that treats women in any way comparable to Islamist regimes.

There are no Christian fundamentalist regimes in the world that execute people because they're homosexual, force women to cover their entire faces or execute people for failing to observe Christianity.

I'm With Stupid

07-12-2006, 02:38 PM

I can't think of any Christian country that treats women in any way comparable to Islamist regimes.

There are no Christian fundamentalist regimes in the world that execute people because they're homosexual, force women to cover their entire faces or execute people for failing to observe Christianity.
That's because all the "Christian countries" have already seen what it's like when Christian fundies run the country. Not to dissimilar to Islamic fundies running a country really, is it?

Disillusioned

07-12-2006, 02:41 PM

Another sweeping statement.

Not at all. An Islamist regime means inequality (and often misery) for women that wanted to be treated like human beings, gay people and non-Muslims.

There are liberal Muslims out there.

And what has that got to do with my criticism of Islamist regimes? :rolleyes:

What about the fundamentalist Christians in the US that want to run the country - and don't want to afford the same rights to minorities just as the extreme Islamists do?

And what has that got to do with my criticism of Islamist regimes? :rolleyes:

Fundamentalist Christians in the Midwest are not going to repeal the Bill of Rights, remove freedoms codified in the Constitution, upheld by the Supreme Court and turn the US into a fundamentalist Christian state. What a pointless hypothetical impossibility. Instead of inventing bizarre future possible injustices how about criticising present ones? (Which include Islamists hanging gay people in Iran and talking of beheading people for not praying five times a day).

I'm With Stupid

07-12-2006, 02:52 PM

Fundamentalist Christians in the Midwest are not going to repeal the Bill of Rights, remove freedoms codified in the Constitution, upheld by the Supreme Court and turn the US into a fundamentalist Christian state. What a pointless hypothetical impossibility. Instead of inventing bizarre future possible injustices how about criticising present ones? (Which include Islamists hanging gay people in Iran and talking of beheading people for not praying five times a day).
The point is that fundies exist in every religion. The only reason that muslim fundamentalists commit such atrocities is because they have the power to do so, whereas fundies from other religions in other countries aren't in that position. I'm sure you'll find people in this country (muslim or not) with similar beliefs, but they are not in a position of power to do anything about it. The fact that the desire exists among people of other faiths (or even non-faiths) in other countries suggests that it is not a problem that is a result of Islam, which you seem to be claiming it is.

Disillusioned

07-12-2006, 03:14 PM

The point is that fundies exist in every religion.

They do but it's indisputable that Muslim fundamentalists pose a great danger. Fundamentalist fruitcakes in the Midwest aren't blowing up planes and beheading gay people so it's pointless bringing them into a discussion about Muslim fundamentalists doing those exact things.

The only reason that muslim fundamentalists commit such atrocities is because they have the power to do so, whereas fundies from other religions in other countries aren't in that position.

That is not the 'only reason' at all. There are some big theological considerations and differences.

Various reformed branches of Christianity and the influence of the dual revolutions in Europe have had a pretty big impact on Christian societies.

The fact that the desire exists among people of other faiths (or even non-faiths) in other countries suggests that it is not a problem that is a result of Islam, which you seem to be claiming it is.

Er, does it? I've never heard of Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus or Sikhs calling for people who miss prayers to be beheaded. I've never heard of any Hindu or Sikh leader in India, any Christian in Ireland or any Buddhist in Thailand demanding gays be hanged in public. Unfortunately where Islamism rules it's a different story. In Iran, gays have been hanged in public. And now in Somalia not praying five times a day might get you beheaded.

To suggest that Islamism is a problem not a result of Islam is bizarre. Islamism derives from Islam. Islamism also happens to be a fanatic and dangerous kind of religious extremism which poses a greater threat to civilised liberal democracy than other forms of religious belief. Whilst moderate Islam itself is certainly compatible with civilised democracy when considering the cartoons controversy and Salman Rushdie it is absolutely clear that Islamism is not.

Teagan

07-12-2006, 03:40 PM

Fundamentalist fruitcakes in the Midwest aren't blowing up planes and beheading gay people ...

What about the Oklahoma bombings?

Disillusioned

07-12-2006, 03:54 PM

What about the Oklahoma bombings?

What about it?

There is always going to be a danger from odd nutters like Timothy McVeigh. However, that's a different kind of danger to organised Islamism; the effects of which have been seen in New York, Bali, Madrid and London. Both can kill, the former has always happened in some form, the latter is a recent phenomenon. Some would also say whereas the likes of Timothy McVeigh and Harold Shipman are just lone madmen with no movement and unified religious ideology the Islamists that struck on 9/11 and 7/7 are united by ideological religious fanaticism.

carlito

07-12-2006, 07:18 PM

What about it?

...with no movement and unified religious ideology the Islamists that struck on 9/11 and 7/7 are united by ideological religious fanaticism.

Come on dis, you'll have to do better than that. Do you think that Islamists in Somalia and the regime in Iran have a unified religious ideology? Look at Iraq - you can see full well that being a muslim and fighting or trying to take power does not mean you're on the same side...

What people are taking issue with here is that you are implying that Islam is inherently violent/dangerous whereas other religions (primarily Christianity) are not. Thats clearly ridiculous, because we have many, many examples of Christian movements doing the same thing, throughout history (see the Crusades, the Inquisition, witch-hunts etc etc ad nauseum) and today (see the KKK, Christian Identity, God's Army in Burma, many rebel factions in West Africa, etc etc). The difference is very clearly that Islamism is more predominant in war-torn, undeveloped, and chaotic countries today. They thus have a greater oppurtunity to be dangerous and enact barbaric practises. See your initial example of Somalia, probably the most chaotic, dangerous, and unstable country in the world: a place where there is increasing support for Islamicist governance because it has the potential to restore some semblence of law and order (and already some success).

There are many Christians in the USA (and around the world) today, who, if they were not living in a stable, prosperous nation with a codified constitution, would be happy to bring back stoning, hanging adulterers, or imprisoning women who have abortions.

girl with sharp teeth

07-12-2006, 07:36 PM

Disillusioned

07-12-2006, 07:58 PM

Come on dis, you'll have to do better than that. Do you think that Islamists in Somalia and the regime in Iran have a unified religious ideology

Well both are cases of people holding religious beliefs that in practice prove incompatible in any civilised democracy.

What people are taking issue with here is that you are implying that Islam is inherently violent/dangerous whereas other religions (primarily Christianity) are not.

I've distinguished between Islam and Islamism. And it is entirely accurate to say that the latter is more predisposed to violence in the 21st century than almost all strands of Christianity.

Thats clearly ridiculous, because we have many, many examples of Christian movements doing the same thing, throughout history (see the Crusades, the Inquisition, witch-hunts etc etc ad nauseum)

And indeed there is some similarity between Islamism and aspects of Christianity in medieval times.

and today (see the KKK, Christian Identity, God's Army in Burma, many rebel factions in West Africa, etc etc).

The KKK...today? The KKK have effectively disbanded and no longer exists to paraphrase the ADL. They barely have several thousand members and are almost entirely confined to the internet these days. Christian Identity have some disgusting views but I'm unconvinced that their numbers are in any way comparable to adherents to extreme forms of Islam. (Even in Britain the number of Muslims protesting against free speech outside the Danish Embassy or demanding Salman Rushdie's death was worrying. Have Christian Identity ever managed anything more than a handful of people for one of their rallies?)

Bad things have and continue to be done in the name of Christianity. I've never claimed extremism is absent in Christianity, however, I can accept that Islamism poses a far greater danger to democracy and basic freedoms. Some people evidently cannot.

There are many Christians in the USA (and around the world) today, who, if they were not living in a stable, prosperous nation with a codified constitution, would be happy to bring back stoning, hanging adulterers, or imprisoning women who have abortions.

More pointless - and baseless hypothetical impossibilities.

The idea that Islamism with all the horrible things it encompasses can have somehow derived from Islam is too hard to accept for some people. Hence this fantasy that Christians if they had the opportunity would be behaving in exactly like the Islamists. Come on carlito, you'll have to do better than that...

Bet you're at SOAS. :p

AllAmericanRageJunky

07-12-2006, 08:24 PM

Time for an update on the development of the thread...

People make the natural assumption that Disillusioneds’ comment about islam being barbaric was only a reference to specific extreme groups in Islam. People then go on to discus how that is a stupid law made by stupid extremists, a conversation which has little point to it since I don't think there are any people here who see decapitation for not praying as a good thing. This conversation also has nothing to do with the original message that Islam is barbaric which makes the whole conversation off topic
Maybe that's because his religious views would not be defined as Islamist. If you bothered to properly read the original post you'd see I was talking about a specific extreme branch of Islam and not Islam in general. But you're too lazy for that.

score 1 for me.

People take Disillusioned literally and assume he is ill-informed. Then make obvious reference to all the muslims out there who don't believe in decapitating people. Disillusioned chuckles, process is repeated later in the week.

That is a fairly wide-ranging remark.

Not all Islamism is bad.
Look at terrorism in general and there is condemnation pretty much across the board from Muslims.

score 2 for me.

People then go on to discus how that is a stupid law made by stupid extremists, a conversation which has little point to it since I don't think there are any people here who see decapitation for not praying as a good thing.
good name for a crazed despotic sadist!

score 3 for me.

People take Disillusioned literally and assume that he's a racist
It is if you're gay, a woman or not a Muslim - or if you happen to believe gay people, women and non-Muslims should be treated equally.

score 4 for me. And on a side note, Disillusioned totaly just contradicted an earlier post where he claimed that he wasn't talking about Islam in general.

People take Disillusioned literally and assume that he's a racist, demand he apologize/is banned and then make reference to various barbarous acts committed by other religions which leads to a general denunciation of extremism.
Same as Christianity then? If you take it literally, and at face value that is.

score 5 for me.

People take Disillusioned literally and assume he is ill-informed. Then make obvious reference to all the muslims out there who don't believe in decapitating people.
then make reference to various barbarous acts committed by other religions
Another sweeping statement. There are liberal Muslims out there. What about the fundamentalist Christians in the US that want to run the country - and don't want to afford the same rights to minorities just as the extreme Islamists do?

aaandd score 6 for me.

I could keep this up but I have class soon.

i am a muslim and denounce this law.

who wants to go get drunk?

wait...blackcurrant and lemonades all round

I'm game, but we better do it fast before I get banned to trolling;)

Teagan

07-12-2006, 08:28 PM

Time for an update on the development of the thread... etc etc

You were spot on! :lol:

Erm - you don't know this weekends lucky lottery numbers do you? :)

Replicant

07-12-2006, 08:31 PM

I think that atheists just have a superiority complex, you get extremists all the time. And they're often in power, but they can be religious or not religious. But if they're muslim or christian, how come people denounce 'organised religion' as a solely bad thing. People don't seriously think there would be no wars if there was no religion?

well, somewhat, yes. I do believe organized religions are doing very little good for people at the moment.

I have no trouble with peoples personal believing in whatever created who etc, but what makes me angry is the fact that there are people in the world who are manipulating these beliefs to their own end, to incite hatred of others, and to twist the words of whichever religion in such a way that it makes the followers under the manipulators influence go and kill people.

ideally, I'm pretty sure all major religious texts main aim is for everyone to get along with each other nicely, which no one can argue is a bad thing, should they believe in an omnipresent super being or not. but this is quite obviously not working.

it also annoys me how the US has used the fact that "[christian] god is on our side" to justify government actions... I mean what is this, the crusades?

you can see why some atheists will have a superiority complex, because they think organized religions are terribly misguided, in that there are those being manipulated by people using the guise of "religion" to make them hate whoever they like. Manipulating people is much easier if it's using something they strongly believe in.

AllAmericanRageJunky

07-12-2006, 08:36 PM

You were spot on! :lol:

Erm - you don't know this weekends lucky lottery numbers do you? :)
thanks.:)

being a bit of an asshole. It's finals week at school so I'm running on little sleep.

If I did, I would definitely tell you, long as ya gave me a cut o' the winnings.:yes:

bluewisdom

08-12-2006, 02:48 AM

I have no trouble with peoples personal believing in whatever created who etc, but what makes me angry is the fact that there are people in the world who are manipulating these beliefs to their own end, to incite hatred of others, and to twist the words of whichever religion in such a way that it makes the followers under the manipulators influence go and kill people.If leaders are using religion malevontly, it is those leaders' responsibility, not the religions' in itself. Don't oppose the tool, but the one who handles it.

I do believe organized religions are doing very little good for people at the moment. You have no possible way of ever 'measuring' that. Most of the good derived from religion will never be tangible anyway because of its own nature. And this is what bothers me of the said atheist's superiority complex - that because they can't see it or understand it, they fail to acknowledge and respect the importance their religion has for millions of people.

I fully share your hatred of leaders using organised religion to fulfill their own selfish intrests - but that shouldn't in any case take the right away of anyone professing a religion and belonging to an organised religious group or church. I'm seriously shocked by the amount of people who actually propose to ban organised religion - it would be one of the most intolerant and dictatorial measures ever to be taken, not to mention a Human rights violation.

Namaste

08-12-2006, 12:09 PM

I'm With Stupid

08-12-2006, 01:54 PM

-']There are extremists everywhere and there's no real difference between killing for religion, or being a communist dictator.
Yep, they're both killing in the name of some sort of obscure belief system.

I'm With Stupid

08-12-2006, 02:02 PM

I fully share your hatred of leaders using organised religion to fulfill their own selfish intrests - but that shouldn't in any case take the right away of anyone professing a religion and belonging to an organised religious group or church. I'm seriously shocked by the amount of people who actually propose to ban organised religion - it would be one of the most intolerant and dictatorial measures ever to be taken, not to mention a Human rights violation.
Who's proposing a ban on organised religion? Claiming that you don't think it's particularly positive doesn't mean that you think it should be banned.

I'm With Stupid

08-12-2006, 02:04 PM

-']Totally! Some of the most closed minded ingnorant and bigotted people I know tend to be atheists (in fact most of them).
Funny, if you made that statement about Muslims or Christians or any other theistic religion, everyone would be crying bigot on this website. Somehow it's acceptable to make the same blanket statement against athiests?

Replicant

08-12-2006, 02:06 PM

bluewisdom,
I have no conceptions to ban religion, I think any attempt to do so would be a very bad idea. just like you said, you share my feelings about those using it for their own selfish mean. I fully recognize the importance religion has for many people, but because of this importance it is a much more potent tool for people to use to manipulate the masses.

I cant help but feel dislike for the tool itself when it is being seen to used in the way it has in the past, and now for bad things... just one must have a certain dislike for the gun even though it is the wielder that uses it.

eventually (I hope) people will realise they will never convince another religion theirs is better and give up on trying.

the funny thing is, atheists are now "organizing" too. I cant stand it, what's the point in it if it's just going to end up the same sans-god? here's a quote I found on tinternet somewhere, (here (http://reddit.com/info/m9qm/comments/cmadn), but I only read the first two posts):

Atheism need not be a belief system. But for a growing number of atheists, it is. Atheism as presented by Dawkins and Harris contains the same elements as the religious belief systems they decry:

Their world view is presented as unassailable, i.e., dogma.
They seek to convert others to their opinion, i.e., prosylization.
They seek to destroy competing belief systems and continually disparage the intellectual capacity of any who differ from their mind set.

When atheism attains the organizational structure of traditional religions, the emulation will be complete.

Note: Neither people who adopt a belief system including a god or gods, nor people who adopt a belief system absent a god are necessarily dogmatic or intolerant in their behavior. But atheists are not immune from that behavior, though they often deny that their behavior is the same as the behaviors they decry in established religions

... it's just the brewing's for more trouble :no:

bluewisdom

08-12-2006, 04:22 PM

bluewisdom

08-12-2006, 04:30 PM

Atheism need not be a belief system. But for a growing number of atheists, it is. Atheism as presented by Dawkins and Harris contains the same elements as the religious belief systems they decry:

Their world view is presented as unassailable, i.e., dogma.
They seek to convert others to their opinion, i.e., prosylization.
They seek to destroy competing belief systems and continually disparage the intellectual capacity of any who differ from their mind set.

When atheism attains the organizational structure of traditional religions, the emulation will be complete.

Note: Neither people who adopt a belief system including a god or gods, nor people who adopt a belief system absent a god are necessarily dogmatic or intolerant in their behavior. But atheists are not immune from that behavior, though they often deny that their behavior is the same as the behaviors they decry in established religions Yeh, that seems about accurate. I've met one too many dogmatic, proselitist, and intellectually pedant atheists.

I'm With Stupid

08-12-2006, 04:31 PM

the funny thing is, atheists are now "organizing" too. I cant stand it, what's the point in it if it's just going to end up the same sans-god? here's a quote I found on tinternet somewhere,
I've seen Dawkins talking about this. His argument is bascially that there are more athiests than Jews in America right now, yet the latter have campaign groups and people lobbying the government. Now I take that point, but I would say that the only thing that athiests share, is the belief that there is no God. There is no collection of moral codes specific to athiests (as is sometimes the case with religions), or special requirements or problems that they need sorting out by the government (as is sometimes the case with race groups). And frankly, I don't generally think it's positive for any non-elected person to be speaking for a people based on their 'group', especially one based on such a small detail as not believing in God.

I'm With Stupid

08-12-2006, 04:38 PM

I'm With Stupid and Replicant:

I never meant to imply you were the ones proposing to ban organised religion. Both of you are level-headed and smart enough to know better. But I have heard people proposing it and wishing it, and I was ranting I guess about those people. Sorry if I caused any misundertandings.
See that's the advantage of not being part of an organisation based on a belief system. You can say that, and we won't take offence, because it was nothing to do with us. ;) And a high profile athiest (who, by the way?) can say that safe in the knowledge that he doesn't speak for us. The pope says something crazy, and all Catholics end up taking the flack (incidentally, I still haven't cancelled my membership with that particular organisation. D'you think I can get a form at the Post Office?).

bluewisdom

08-12-2006, 04:57 PM

incidentally, I still haven't cancelled my membership with that particular organisation. D'you think I can get a form at the Post Office?

Yeah sure, and then send it to the 'I no longer believe' office at the Vatican. Or better yet, to the Complaints Departments at The Vatican. I expect they're sitting with arms folded at that office!;)

Replicant

08-12-2006, 05:37 PM

I'm with Stupid: I'm not well read on any of this to be honest, but I did find that quote quite interesting. In fact I really dont like calling myself an atheist any more if it's going to associate me with some belief system.

I took no offence from your statement bluewisdom :) just wanted to air my views on the matter.

I was thinking about my statement that I think religion does little good for people today, and I think the point I was trying to address was that on a world scale, in governments, and "terrorist" organisations, religion is doing little good. at an individual scale I dont think there's anything wrong with people believing they have something watching over them if it keeps the masses happy with a fuzzy feeling inside.

it's not wrong for a person to strongly believe in something. it is wrong for someone to come along and use this belief to manipulate people, this is what I dont like... like my analogy earlier you can understand the conjecture that reducing the amount of tools reduces the amount of abusers of said tools. BUT there is no way to do this when the "tools" are people, without some mass completely voluntary world wide secularisation.

I've been thinking about this a lot recently and it's starting to frustrate me. also noted from that link I provided (no idea how accurate this is) that initially Hinduism and Buddhism were only religious philosophies (perhaps this is why they do less warmongering than certain others):

just basic guidelines for civil discourse in a community, an attempt by the more learned/wise to interpret nature and their surroundings..Open to analysis, criticism by fellow humans.

that's something I could claim to adhere to...I think I may have in invent a nonchurch of rationalism for myself or something.

The ultimate goal of most mass religions are most likely all the same, harmony and peace amongst mankind. that's probably the important bit, but it seems most people are a bit short sighted.

Teh_Gerbil

08-12-2006, 06:35 PM

It is if you're gay, a woman or not a Muslim - or if you happen to believe gay people, women and non-Muslims should be treated equally.

So you would say HAMAS has done nothing good would you?

In the same vein, would you allow me to say all Evangelism is bad? Because it is just the same really - oppressive of women, hateful of homosexuals, backawrd looking, against progress...

Disillusioned

08-12-2006, 08:59 PM

I've seen Dawkins talking about this. His argument is bascially that there are more athiests than Jews in America right now, yet the latter have campaign groups and people lobbying the government.

I can't say I have ever heard Dawkins speaking about Jews lobbying the government. But if you're saying atheists don't - I think you'll find the likes of NARAL and the ACLU contain a disproportionate number of atheists. And then there is the Democratic Party...

As for Dawkins he's a nasty piece of shit: (http://www.thedubliner.ie/template.php?ID=15)
Regarding the accusations of sexual abuse of children by Catholic priests, deplorable and disgusting as those abuses are, they are not so harmful to the children as the grievous mental harm in bringing up the child Catholic in the first place.

To even equate bringing a child up to Catholic to sexual abuse is sick, to say that it is worse insults victims of sexual abuse as well as decent people everywhere. I doubt even Ian Paisley has said anything so hate-filled about Catholics.

I'm With Stupid

09-12-2006, 08:01 AM

I can't say I have ever heard Dawkins speaking about Jews lobbying the government. But if you're saying atheists don't - I think you'll find the likes of NARAL and the ACLU contain a disproportionate number of atheists. And then there is the Democratic Party...
None of which have anything to do with atheism. Pro choice on abortion = atheist since when? Are you claiming that all atheists or pro-choice, or that this organisation are somehow campaigning for a pro-choice stance because it is in line with their atheist beliefs? Like I said, you won't get groups lobbying for atheist causes or beliefs, because other than the lack of belief in God, there is nothing to unify atheists with each other, there are no common beliefs.

And whilst I don't agree with Richard Dawkins on that particular point (though I'm sure there have been people of Catholic upbringing who would equate it to mental abuse, just like there will be people who claim the same about any other form of upbringing), I do think he makes a good point on the labelling of children as being the religion of their parents. He states that the term Catholic child or Muslim child or Jewish child should cause concern, since a child cannot know what their religious beliefs are. I do agree with him that there is a fundamental problem with anyone being given a label which is supposed to be based on their beliefs, for any other reason than them actually adhering to those beliefs. His point is that everyone is born agnostic, and they should never be given a label that they don't give to themselves based on their own informed decision, and I for one agree with him.

Iron Nic

09-12-2006, 08:14 AM

islamic fundamentalists are no different to christian fundamentalists!!!

Disillusioned

09-12-2006, 12:03 PM

Like I said, you won't get groups lobbying for atheist causes or beliefs, because other than the lack of belief in God, there is nothing to unify atheists with each other, there are no common beliefs.

Tbh the same thing could be said of the Jewish community in spite of your earlier paraphrasing of Dawkins.

Blagsta

09-12-2006, 12:39 PM

There are no Christian fundamentalist regimes in the world that execute people because they're homosexual,

Homosexuals in Jamaica are often murdered due to Christian beliefs.

Fiend_85

09-12-2006, 12:51 PM

Homosexuals in Jamaica are often murdered due to Christian beliefs.
No, they're not. "Christian" beliefs are the excuse for the murder of homosexuals.

Disillusioned

09-12-2006, 12:53 PM

Homosexuals in Jamaica are often murdered due to Christian beliefs.

Indeed. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3653140.stm) Although, as the BBC point out the Church is not the only factor. Although, I do not think a homophobic murder is the same as a government executing somebody because of their sexuality.

Blagsta

09-12-2006, 01:17 PM

Indeed. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3653140.stm) Although, as the BBC point out the Church is not the only factor. Although, I do not think a homophobic murder is the same as a government executing somebody because of their sexuality.

The government can sentence gay men to 10 years hard labour for homosexuality, so its not that different.

I'm With Stupid

09-12-2006, 03:33 PM

No, they're not. "Christian" beliefs are the excuse for the murder of homosexuals.
Haha, yeah. When someone does something bad in the name of Christianity, they're just using the religion as an excuse. When someone does something bad in the name of Islam, it's because Islam is an evil religion with a message of hate. That's the type of rhetoric that I hear from some "Christian" people quite often. (Not saying that this was what you were suggesting by the way).

carlito

09-12-2006, 05:12 PM

Haha, yeah. When someone does something bad in the name of Christianity, they're just using the religion as an excuse. When someone does something bad in the name of Islam, it's because Islam is an evil religion with a message of hate.

:thumb:

Namaste

12-12-2006, 12:25 AM

Funny, if you made that statement about Muslims or Christians or any other theistic religion, everyone would be crying bigot on this website. Somehow it's acceptable to make the same blanket statement against athiests?
So? It's my belef and I'm entitled to express it (just as I believe that anybody is entitled to a voice).

And it's not a blanket statement. A blanket statement would be "atheists are all biggoted".

I'm With Stupid

12-12-2006, 11:54 AM

-']So? It's my belef and I'm entitled to express it (just as I believe that anybody is entitled to a voice).

And it's not a blanket statement. A blanket statement would be "atheists are all biggoted".
Saying that the most closed-minded, ignorant, bigotted people are mainly athiests is about as blanket as you can get without saying all. Yes, you are entitled to your opinion, but in my opinion, it is as close-minded, ignorant and bigotted as those you claim to be talking about. Ironic really. Like I said, if I were to say that, "Most of the most closed-minded, ignorant, bigotted people are Christians," I would be (rightly) accused of religious prejudice and you know it.

Namaste

12-12-2006, 02:40 PM

Saying that the most closed-minded, ignorant, bigotted people are mainly athiests is about as blanket as you can get without saying all. Yes, you are entitled to your opinion, but in my opinion, it is as close-minded, ignorant and bigotted as those you claim to be talking about. Ironic really. Like I said, if I were to say that, "Most of the most closed-minded, ignorant, bigotted people are Christians," I would be (rightly) accused of religious prejudice and you know it.
What the hell are you talking about?

Totally! Some of the most closed minded ingnorant and bigotted people I know tend to be atheists (in fact most of them).

Maybe you should read it. I didn't make a reference to atheists world wide, so why the attitude? Chill...

I was speaking from experience and whilst I know a few far right Christians (I was brought up attending the Protestant church), the most biggotted and closed minded people I have met have mostly been atheists (which is what I said). If I had met a lot of biggotted Muslims then I would change it and generally not care what the PC patrol felt about me.

I could give example upon example of the superiority complexes a lot of atheists I've met have. I don't see why that is offensive, nor closed minded.

I'm With Stupid

12-12-2006, 03:01 PM

-']Maybe you should read it. I didn't make a reference to atheists world wide, so why the attitude? Chill...
I did. You know, the bit in brackets that said "in fact most of them." It's strange that you now seem keen to point out the bit where you said "some" in bold, and ignore the bit where you said most. I'm not arsed, I was just pointing out that if you said the same thing about Christianity, for example, there'd be outrage.

I'm With Stupid

12-12-2006, 03:04 PM

-']I was speaking from experience and whilst I know a few far right Christians (I was brought up attending the Protestant church), the most biggotted and closed minded people I have met have mostly been atheists (which is what I said). If I had met a lot of biggotted Muslims then I would change it and generally not care what the PC patrol felt about me.
Well I guess that's where you and me differ. If most of the racist people I had met had been black, I wouldn't choose to comment on it, because I'd know what the insinuation behind such a comment would be.

Aladdin

12-12-2006, 03:18 PM

I'm curious MoonRat, what kind of bigotry have these atheists displayed? Did they demand that believers should be jailed? Burnt at the stake perhaps?

Namaste

12-12-2006, 05:38 PM

I'm curious MoonRat, what kind of bigotry have these atheists displayed? Did they demand that believers should be jailed? Burnt at the stake perhaps?
A bigot is somebody who is intolerent of other people's lifestyles and opinions, not just religion.

I have met a lot of biggoted atheists. Some are very homophobic, others are very intolerent of Christianity, another believes all immigrants should be sent to Africa, all the troops pulled out of Iraq and to have the army around the borders of Africa shooting anybody who tries to escape.

I've met some very intolerent atheists as regards their opinion on Muslims, another guy was laughing because he believed he had 'one over' on a Christian girl in work because God is apparently 'bullshit' because nobody can prove he exists and that makes her somehow a bit dumb and closed minded (although I pointed out that nobody can prove God doesn't exist either).

I know people who believe same sex couples shouldn't be allowed to show affection in public, I've met left wingers who believe that people should be put in jail for exercising their freedom of speech (double standards in the case of Nick Griffin).

Yes there are fundementalist Christians, Muslims and so on... But before criticising the human rights abuses of religions remind yourself of what Mao's China did to Tibet, or the Soviet Gulags, both secular.

Well I guess that's where you and me differ. If most of the racist people I had met had been black, I wouldn't choose to comment on it, because I'd know what the insinuation behind such a comment would be.

Well it would depend on where you grew up. Most of the racist people I have met have been white because I grew up in a white working man's town. There is no harm in pointing out that people other than those who are white are racist but I do see your point, somebody will take it to heart.

It's not that I'm taking a stab at atheists at all, it's just that I've met so many bigotted atheists and somebody brought the topic up, so I thought I'd share my experience.

I'm With Stupid

12-12-2006, 05:54 PM

bluewisdom

12-12-2006, 06:23 PM

Hmm, other than the "got one over on a girl from work" bloke, it sounds like you've met some bigotted people, who happen to be atheists, rather than some people who are bigotted as some sort of side effect of atheism. I know you didn't claim that atheism was the cause of them being bigotted, but simply mentioning that fact suggests that it is somehow relevent to their attitudes towards others.Good point.

It gets my attention though, that you'd be wound up by MoonRats comment on atheists, when you have so many times said yourself that one atheist doesn't speak for another or the whole group - as opposed to religions, where it's natural to assume people from the same religion would think alike. :chin:

Aladdin

12-12-2006, 06:35 PM

-']A bigot is somebody who is intolerent of other people's lifestyles and opinions, not just religion.

I have met a lot of biggoted atheists. Some are very homophobic, others are very intolerent of Christianity, another believes all immigrants should be sent to Africa, all the troops pulled out of Iraq and to have the army around the borders of Africa shooting anybody who tries to escape.

I've met some very intolerent atheists as regards their opinion on Muslims, another guy was laughing because he believed he had 'one over' on a Christian girl in work because God is apparently 'bullshit' because nobody can prove he exists and that makes her somehow a bit dumb and closed minded (although I pointed out that nobody can prove God doesn't exist either).

I know people who believe same sex couples shouldn't be allowed to show affection in public, I've met left wingers who believe that people should be put in jail for exercising their freedom of speech (double standards in the case of Nick Griffin).

Yes there are fundementalist Christians, Muslims and so on... But before criticising the human rights abuses of religions remind yourself of what Mao's China did to Tibet, or the Soviet Gulags, both secular. Actually I'm not sure what being an atheist got to do with being homophobic or anti-immigration.

A racist is a racist and a homophobe is a homophobe. If they happen to be atheists as well, so be it. But that is a footnote really. Their bigotry is not fomented, promoted or associated in any way whatsoever with their atheism.

It's a bit like me saying all left handed people are bigoted because I've come across a few of them that were.

I'm With Stupid

12-12-2006, 06:45 PM

It gets my attention though, that you'd be wound up by MoonRats comment on atheists, when you have so many times said yourself that one atheist doesn't speak for another or the whole group
Well that's the point though. There is nothing to link one atheist to another other than a lack of belief in God, so to suggest that atheists are in some way "more likely" to have a certain characteristic, or "the majority" have a certain characteristic, is ridiculous. And if you don't think that atheists are more likely to have a certain characteristic than a non-athiest, then it is completely irrelivent to mention it. It reminds me of the whole femenist/Steve Irwin issue tbh. Fucking hell, remember that?

Namaste

12-12-2006, 08:12 PM

Hmm, other than the "got one over on a girl from work" bloke, it sounds like you've met some bigotted people, who happen to be atheists, rather than some people who are bigotted as some sort of side effect of atheism. I know you didn't claim that atheism was the cause of them being bigotted, but simply mentioning that fact suggests that it is somehow relevent to their attitudes towards others.

Maybe that's how you interpretted it, not how I'd interpret it. I was reacting to this quote...

I think that atheists just have a superiority complex, you get extremists all the time. And they're often in power, but they can be religious or not religious. But if they're muslim or christian, how come people denounce 'organised religion' as a solely bad thing. People don't seriously think there would be no wars if there was no religion?

bluewisdom

12-12-2006, 09:31 PM

Well that's the point though. There is nothing to link one atheist to another other than a lack of belief in God, so to suggest that atheists are in some way "more likely" to have a certain characteristic, or "the majority" have a certain characteristic, is ridiculous. And if you don't think that atheists are more likely to have a certain characteristic than a non-athiest, then it is completely irrelivent to mention it. It reminds me of the whole femenist/Steve Irwin issue tbh. Fucking hell, remember that?Yes, I remember that perfectly well, haha. And yes, I agree to this point, hence the 'good point' comment at the beginning of my post.

I guess I was just pointing out -very inarticulately- that you had the same reaction about a blanket statement being said about atheism than religious people have when they feel they are being all tarred with the same brush. Not pleasant is it? :p ;)

I'm With Stupid

12-12-2006, 10:14 PM

YI guess I was just pointing out -very inarticulately- that you had the same reaction about a blanket statement being said about atheism than religious people have when they feel they are being all tarred with the same brush. Not pleasant is it? :p ;)
Yes I know. That's why I said that it is equally unacceptable to make blanket statements about atheists as it is against religious people.

Namaste

12-12-2006, 10:57 PM

Good point.

I didn't intend on sounding like I hate atheists, or disrespect their belief or wish to tar them all the same (a human is a human to me)... But to highlight the point that there are shits everywhere and that I've met a lot of bigotted atheists and that it isn't confined to religion.

Toadborg

13-12-2006, 10:51 AM

-'](although I pointed out that nobody can prove God doesn't exist either).

AAaaaarggghhhhhh!!!!!!

:no:

:mad:

Do you believe EVERYTHING then?

because you can't 'prove' any negative........

Namaste

13-12-2006, 05:48 PM

AAaaaarggghhhhhh!!!!!!

:no:

:mad:

Do you believe EVERYTHING then?

because you can't 'prove' any negative........

What have my beliefs got to do with anything?

bluewisdom

13-12-2006, 11:55 PM

Yes I know. That's why I said that it is equally unacceptable to make blanket statements about atheists as it is against religious people.Yes, I know you did :)

bluewisdom

14-12-2006, 12:16 AM

I was thinking about my statement that I think religion does little good for people today, and I think the point I was trying to address was that on a world scale, in governments, and "terrorist" organisations, religion is doing little good. at an individual scale I dont think there's anything wrong with people believing they have something watching over them if it keeps the masses happy with a fuzzy feeling inside.Apart from the highlighted part which I find a tad patronising tbh :p, I guess what I find uncomforting (for lack of a better word) is the viewpoint that seems to be spreading about lately that organised religion in a world / governments and other organisations scale is "bad" or dangerous, but that at individual scale it's ok. I find this is not only an over-simplification, but also misguided and inaccurate tbh. Religion can and has done good on bigger scales than just individually - as much as it has done bad on an individual basis. That said I still stand by the point that I don't think the effects of religion can really be 'measured' though - big or small scale.

Toadborg

14-12-2006, 01:37 PM

-']What have my beliefs got to do with anything?

I just had to point out the stupidity of the 'you can't disprove god exists' bollocks line.......

Namaste

14-12-2006, 02:11 PM

I just had to point out the stupidity of the 'you can't disprove god exists' bollocks line.......
Why? Nobody know whether s/he exists or not, the same with extraterrestrial life.

The fact is that a lot of people feel 'touched by God' at one point in their life. You cannot prove that it wasn't God who touched them, nor can you prove it that it was.

A lot of people do not believe in God because science has yet to prove that God exists. Once people believed the earth is flat, yet then it was found that the world isn't flat at all. Science and discovery may prove that there is a God or higher being one day, it just hasn't so far.

What I was pointing out was that my friend was looking down on somebody because what they believed didn't conform with science, but then science is ever evolving and one day science may prove that a higher deity does exist.

I'm With Stupid

14-12-2006, 02:29 PM

Even the strongest atheists will generally say "It is highly improbable that God exists" rather than "he doesn't exist." Most will just say "I don't believe that God exists." But I think it's entirely acceptable to just say that something doesn't exist, when really you mean, there is no scientific evidence that it exists. It's just a shorter way of saying it. I have got to say that I do think people who try and convert people are a pain in the arse. If someone pushes me, I'll argue my point as to why I don't think God exists, but I won't try and prove someone wrong. If they want to believe in God, let them. As long as it doesn't effect me in any way.

Aladdin

14-12-2006, 03:59 PM

Another question all people should be asking themselves is: "if God does exist, does it actually matter?"

Think about it. Should it change how one behaves, what one does in life?

I'm With Stupid

14-12-2006, 04:06 PM

Another question all people should be asking themselves is: "if God does exist, does it actually matter?"

Think about it. Should it change how one behaves, what one does in life?
Well then you get into the realm of the afterlife, and the majority of theistic religions believe that not only do you have to be a moral person, but you have to accept God in order to get into heaven. So to them it does matter. But a lot of people that believe in God also think "well as long as I lead a good moral life, if there is a heaven, I'll be in," so to them no, it doesn't matter.

Flashman's Ghost

14-12-2006, 04:07 PM

Another question all people should be asking themselves is: "if God does exist, does it actually matter?"

Think about it. Should it change how one behaves, what one does in life?

Well if someone proved he existed and that living in sin is going to have you burning in hell for infinity I suspect there might be a sudden rise in marriage applications

Aladdin

14-12-2006, 04:36 PM

But how would they know which God is the true one?

Unless he tells us himself, if we only were to prove somehow the existence of a superior being, we still don't know anything about it. For all we know this being seeded life in the Universe and let it flourish without any rules. For all we know the seven-headed, green skinned God worshipped by the inhabitants of the second planet orbiting around Alpha Centauri is the true one.

There have been and still are hundreds if not thousands of religions and beliefs in this planet alone. But none of them has the upper hand to prove their god is the true one.

And in any case, if there is a God, and if he is really a perfect being, that must mean he's altruist. And no altruist being would dream of sending good people to eternal damnation simply for failing to worship him. Moreover, people should be good because it is the right thing to do, not because of fear of retribution.

Therefore, people should just lead good lives, because it is right to do so, and if at the end of their lives it turns out there is a superior being and he is an all-knowing, omnipotent being of infinite goodness and wisdom like all the religions more or less claim, then they can rest assured they will be rewarded regardless of whether they have observed any silly rules regarding worshipping, visiting holy sites or refraining from eating certain food.

Flashman's Ghost

14-12-2006, 04:43 PM

Well yeah, I agree with most of that.

But if I knew God existed (rather than having faith he does so) and he was putting demands on me, say for example he interrupted all TV programmes saying that those who don't go to church next Sunday are going to burn in fire and brimstone for all eternity, you would have to be either a bit stupid or a masochist not to be down church on the Sunday

Aladdin

14-12-2006, 05:59 PM

Deep Fathom

14-12-2006, 06:10 PM

Yeah I agree with that.

I simply cannot believe any God would be prepared to send people to hell for some of the acts warned against in the various Holy Books around, so He'd have to tell me Himself for me to actually believe it.

So far He's been rather mute on the subject so I guess he doesn't really mind... ;)

And on top of that, "sin" is a product of many things you cannot influence and control, meaning that if you grow up in an atheist family, you must be condemned to hell. There are so many factors and it's quite absurd if one tries to argue that you "should" become religious and that every individual has a choice. Not everyone does, and not always is religion illuminated to everyone.

A mere wrong social circle can affect your religious status. And for that, you go to hell. Logical. :p But this notion, of heaven and hell, I find quite hard to fathom, because the complexity of such a place would be simply too much to imagine. Where does the line go, whether you go to heaven or hell? For this reason, I find many other religions more tempting, but ultimately, theism just isn't for me.

I'm With Stupid

14-12-2006, 06:15 PM

A mere wrong social circle can affect your religious status. And for that, you go to hell. Logical. :p But this notion, of heaven and hell, I find quite hard to fathom, because the complexity of such a place would be simply too much to imagine. Where does the line go, whether you go to heaven or hell? For this reason, I find many other religions more tempting, but ultimately, theism just isn't for me.
And by the looks of it, considering the types of twat that would end up in heaven, I'd rather be in hell. I mean Mary Whitehouse and Cliff fucking Richard. Fuck an eternity with them.

bluewisdom

15-12-2006, 12:00 AM

And in any case, if there is a God, and if he is really a perfect being, that must mean he's altruist. And no altruist being would dream of sending good people to eternal damnation simply for failing to worship him. Moreover, people should be good because it is the right thing to do, not because of fear of retribution.

Therefore, people should just lead good lives, because it is right to do so, and if at the end of their lives it turns out there is a superior being and he is an all-knowing, omnipotent being of infinite goodness and wisdom like all the religions more or less claim, then they can rest assured they will be rewarded regardless of whether they have observed any silly rules regarding worshipping, visiting holy sites or refraining from eating certain food.I agree with this a 100%.

Namaste

15-12-2006, 12:14 AM

And in any case, if there is a God, and if he is really a perfect being, that must mean he's altruist. And no altruist being would dream of sending good people to eternal damnation simply for failing to worship him. Moreover, people should be good because it is the right thing to do, not because of fear of retribution.
Yes, but then what is "good" is debatable isn't it. For example, something which you consider a moral act might not be so moral in the eyes of another. For example, in the case of animal rights activism, where somebody would believe it's the right thing to blow up a laboratory which tests on animals.

By society's eyes that is an act of terrorism, but through the eyes of an activist it could be seen as an act of virtue.

CptCoatHanger

15-12-2006, 09:08 AM

-']Yes, but then what is "good" is debatable isn't it. For example, something which you consider a moral act might not be so moral in the eyes of another. For example, in the case of animal rights activism, where somebody would believe it's the right thing to blow up a laboratory which tests on animals.

By society's eyes that is an act of terrorism, but through the eyes of an activist it could be seen as an act of virtue.

Agreed. It's a debate.

The answer, however, isn't then to abandon all critcal thought and just flip open the ol' reference book and look up what is and isn't allowed.