Religion, what's the point?

bishblaize said:
Easy. A cult is just a minority religion. Get some guys, get a name, maybe an acoustic guitar with a rainbow strap - you're a cult leader!

If I were you I'd make it one of those fun cults. With blackjack. And hookers.
Click to expand...

Bingo!

But seriously at what point does it become mental illness to be standing out in the rain shouting nonsense about monkeys and earthquakes? I particularly enjoyed heckling him when in the very same sentance he says god is all loving and judgement is coming! So I asked him (very loudly) if he enjoys judging his wife and family in his warped view of what love is. That got a lot of laughs by passer bys, but it was a serious question to him.
 
bishblaize said:
Easy. A cult is just a minority religion. Get some guys, get a name, maybe an acoustic guitar with a rainbow strap - you're a cult leader!

If I were you I'd make it one of those fun cults. With blackjack. And hookers.
Click to expand...

That's not a cult. Just hippies. And they are so 80's. Not even the frats go down that route anymore.

Doomsday cult is the way to go. Prophecies, secret handshakes and group sex in cellars :drool:
 
2cents said:
The idea that 'clarification was needed' about the status of the Ahmadiyya came from the religious parties such as the JI. After all, what business is it of the state to decide who is and who is not a Muslim? Why should it matter? Why should a religious opinion become enshrined in law?

That the issue was on the agenda at all was a result of pressure from the religious right. Bhutto simply caved in to that pressure by amending the constitution, and in doing so helped fuel the sectarian monster that has increasingly haunted Pakistani society since.
Click to expand...

Im not quite sure what point you're trying to make but from an Islamic point of view Ahmadis are not Muslims. As decided by respected Islamic scholars using the Quran and Sunnah. Anyone who wants to debate this can do so by studying Islam in the same level of detail and offering their findings.

Pakistan considers itself a Muslim majority country therefore followed these rulings.
 
Dumbstar said:
Im not quite sure what point you're trying to make but from an Islamic point of view Ahmadis are not Muslims. As decided by respected Islamic scholars using the Quran and Sunnah. Anyone who wants to debate this can do so by studying Islam in the same level of detail and offering their findings.
Click to expand...

Ahmadis consider themselves to be Muslims. As a non-Muslim, that's good enough for me. In any case, why should anyone else, Muslim or not, care how one group chooses to define itself?

The point I'm making - and remember, this is in the context of a discussion of the problems of religious intolerance in Pakistan - is that, while it may be the opinion of some scholars that the Ahmadiyya are not Muslims, it is not something that the state itself should ever worry about. In other words, you've basically proven the point about the state of Pakistan, which is that the laws of the country have become increasingly beholden to the whims and opinions of certain groups of religious scholars - a trend which got a major boost with Bhutto's foolish and dangerous decision to constitutionally decide how one specific sectarian group may define itself. To see just how dangerous this act turned out to be, I suggest you read this article - http://www.zmo.de/Dietrich/Sectarianism.pdf. The crucial point:

in the 'sectarian upbringing' of several leaders of radical Sunnism in Pakistan, the Ahmadi controversy has played a considerable role. Anathematized by most Muslims for their belief that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, the founder of the Ahmadi community, was a prophet, the Ahmadis have been the target of several campaigns of religious violence as well as of governmental persecution. In 1974, the government capitulated to a long-standing demand of the religious parties to declare the Ahmadis a non-Muslim minority in Pakistan. Religious leaders have continued to agitate for further restrictions on the Ahmadis, some of which were imposed by the government in 1984. The Ahmadi controversy bears on sectarian, Shi`i-Sunni, conflict in Pakistan in at least two ways. First, though certain prominent leaders of the Pakistani Shi`a are known to have supported the persecution of the Ahmadis, the history of violence against the latter has supplied the anti-Shi`a front with some of its most vigorous leadership. Many of the leading activists of the Sipah-i Sahaba Pakistan, the militant Sunni organization which will be described later in this essay, began their political careers in agitating against the Ahmadis. Secondly, the constitutional definition of a Muslim so as to exclude the Ahmadis has led to demands, spearheaded by the Sipah-i Sahaba, further to definne Islam so as to exclude the Shi`a too. In a state which professes to be guided by the fundamental principles of Islam, the Ahmadi controversy has contributed to sectarian discourse by forcefully raising, and keeping alive, such questions as who a Muslim `really' is (irrespective of one's own claims in that regard) and what position he (and those who are not Muslim, or are not recognized as such) will have in that state.
Click to expand...

Imagine if the government of the United States amended their constitution to insert a clause that stated Jehovah's Witnesses (or any other Christian sect) are forbidden from calling themselves Christians, worshipping in churches, etc?
 
2cents said:
Ahmadis consider themselves to be Muslims. As a non-Muslim, that's good enough for me. In any case, why should anyone else, Muslim or not, care how one group chooses to define itself?

The point I'm making - and remember, this is in the context of a discussion of the problems of religious intolerance in Pakistan - is that, while it may be the opinion of some scholars that the Ahmadiyya are not Muslims, it is not something that the state itself should ever worry about. In other words, you've basically proven the point about the state of Pakistan, which is that the laws of the country have become increasingly beholden to the whims and opinions of certain groups of religious scholars - a trend which got a major boost with Bhutto's foolish and dangerous decision to constitutionally decide how one specific sectarian group may define itself. To see just how dangerous this act turned out to be, I suggest you read this article - http://www.zmo.de/Dietrich/Sectarianism.pdf. The crucial point:



Imagine if the government of the United States amended their constitution to insert a clause that stated Jehovah's Witnesses (or any other Christian sect) are forbidden from calling themselves Christians, worshipping in churches, etc?
Click to expand...

Ok, I see where you're coming from. Firstly I want to say Pakistan is a f*****d up country and always has been. I've been witnessing this for decades from the outside. But it calls itself a Muslim country trying to be secular and religious at the same time so has the right to declare groups within it Muslims or not.

If America did the same with Jehovah's witnesses, etc, then the American government would have to come out and declare itself a Christian country. The US government can't do that because its the taken the full secular route.

As for Ahmadiyyahs why do they so badly want to be called Muslims? There are laws and rules of what makes a Muslim and they clearly fall outside this. There is no compulsion in Islam, if you don't want to be a Muslim then don't. But don't be something else and then call yourself a Muslim either.
 
Dumbstar said:
But it calls itself a Muslim country trying to be secular and religious at the same time so has the right to declare groups within it Muslims or not.
Click to expand...

It only assumed that 'right' in the early 70s, and then only at the behest of the religious parties who, as has been noted above, have never actually polled all that well in Pakistani elections. For around 25 years before that, Pakistan seemed to get by a lot better without feeling the need to officially judge on such matters (there were major anti-Ahmadi agitations in the 50s which the government then did not feel the need to act upon). The big change came with the secession of East Pakistan in '71, a loss which increased the appeal of using Islam as the best means of maintaining the unity of the rest of the country. Unfortunately, it has since become apparent that Islam has been used as much to divide Pakistani Muslims as to unite them.

Dumbstar said:
As for Ahmadiyyahs why do they so badly want to be called Muslims?
Click to expand...

Because they genuinely believe themselves to be Muslims. This isn't a case of them getting together and deciding to call themselves Muslims just to piss other Muslims off. It's a belief every bit as genuinely felt as your own (I'm assuming you're Muslim, apologies in advance if I'm mistaken).

But in any case, why do you care? Who does it hurt?
 
2cents said:
It only assumed that 'right' in the early 70s, and then only at the behest of the religious parties who, as has been noted above, have never actually polled all that well in Pakistani elections. For around 25 years before that, Pakistan seemed to get by a lot better without feeling the need to officially judge on such matters (there were major anti-Ahmadi agitations in the 50s which the government then did not feel the need to act upon). The big change came with the secession of East Pakistan in '71, a loss which increased the appeal of using Islam as the best means of maintaining the unity of the rest of the country. Unfortunately, it has since become apparent that Islam has been used as much to divide Pakistani Muslims as to unite them.



Because they genuinely believe themselves to be Muslims. This isn't a case of them getting together and deciding to call themselves Muslims just to piss other Muslims off. It's a belief every bit as genuinely felt as your own (I'm assuming you're Muslim, apologies in advance if I'm mistaken).

But in any case, why do you care? Who does it hurt?
Click to expand...

I am Muslim (and Pakistani born) and no offence taken. No need to apologise. I agree Islam has been used to divide Muslims by Muslims. Not just in Pakistan but all over the world, look at the state they're in. Of course this was all forewarned by the Prophet (PBUH) but we digress.

Ahmadis may truly believe themselves to be Muslims, but the fundamental rules to being a Muslim are clear. They know they are clearly breaking these rules as has been frequently issued to them. We all wish they would give up their false beliefs and come into proper Islam but they choose not to. We all WANT them to be Muslims but you can't have it both ways. Many other sects behave like this too so I'm not just picking on the Ahmadis.
 
Dumbstar said:
Many other sects behave like this too so I'm not just picking on the Ahmadis.
Click to expand...

And no doubt there are Muslims out there who view your own interpretation of Islam as being every bit as illegitimate as the Ahmadis. You realise what a rocky road you start on once you start declaring one particular group to be 'breaking the rules', etc? It's takfir, and it's not long before someone else says it about you and yours. Which is exactly what has happened in Pakistan - first they targeted the Ahmadis, then the Shi'a (who have fought back), and in the last couple of decades the Ahl-i Sunnat (Barelwis).

The Ahmadis hurt precisely nobody by defining themselves as Muslims. They should be free to do so and left alone.
 
2cents said:
And no doubt there are Muslims out there who view your own interpretation of Islam as being every bit as illegitimate as the Ahmadis. You realise what a rocky road you start on once you start declaring one particular group to be 'breaking the rules', etc? It's takfir, and it's not long before someone else says it about you and yours. Which is exactly what has happened in Pakistan - first they targeted the Ahmadis, then the Shi'a (who have fought back), and in the last couple of decades the Ahl-i Sunnat (Barelwis).

The Ahmadis hurt precisely nobody by defining themselves as Muslims. They should be free to do so and left alone.
Click to expand...

I'm a pseudo Barelwi (on my dad's side) but on the whole the main tenets of Islam are belief in only one God, no quibbles with that, and Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) being the last prophet. Ahmadis believe in another therefore have broken a fundamental tenet. If someone else came along and said they believe in God but split into two (pseudo holy trinity style) and wanted to call themselves Muslims then they would also be rejected.

There are always rocky roads, but there is no doubting Ahmadis are not Muslims. What harm can they do? Cause confusion in the religion. My children, grandchildren and so forth would grow up not knowing if Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) really is the final one or the tons of other self professed prophets that have suddenly popped up because we allowed Ahmadis to be called Muslims. They can do a LOT of damage.

Again, not having a go at Ahmadi per se. If they want to believe in what they believe then fine. But use another name, not Muslims or Islam.
 
Incidentally the Lahori Ahmadis (which I guess is a minority within a minority) do not believe Mirza Ghulam to be a prophet but a "reformer", the Ahmadis I've spoken to (quite a few in south London) believe Muhammad was the last "law-bearing" prophet and still the "seal" of the prophets. But regardless of whether that is a mainstream opinion or not (it clearly isn't) that isn't for the state to decide who is Muslim or not. Many aspects of Sufism is pretty out there too but no one has any objections to it. I accept though the finality of prophethood is an issue but there has to be a separation of mosque and state.

Jinnah clearly regarded Ahmadis as Muslims as well
http://blogs.tribune.com.pk/story/23986/undoing-religious-intolerance-undoing-the-second-amendment/

What's interesting is the importing of anti-Ahmadi sentiment abroad. I am shocked to see walking down Tooting high street (Muslim-rich areas in south london) anti-Ahmadi posters even a few declaring them as wajib ul qatl (which is that thing Khomeini declared Salam Rushdie to be).
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/oct/07/ahmadiyya-community-uk-action-hate

Indeed most of the proselytising that the Ahmadis do tend to be around Wimbledon before of fears of reprisal attacks. They have had protests against them by Muslims from building mosques, forced newspapers to "dissociate" themselves from them when they ran an advert celebrating the community's 125th year
http://hurryupharry.org/2014/04/08/disgraceful-treatment-of-ahmadi-community-by-luton-on-sunday/

There was a rumour spread by many against Sadiq Khan (Tooting MP and now Labour shadow cabinet member) that his wife was Ahmadi during election season. There was also threats of an attack on Nasser Butt, Lib Dem candidate who is an ahmadi when he was running for MP in Tooting.
http://www.wimbledonguardian.co.uk/news/9306389.Muslim_sect_thanks_paper_for_exposing_hate/

Furthermore highlighting of Ahmadi taxi driver companies/halal meat shops has meant closing of business, distribution of leaflets against them and a truly disgustingly sinister atmosphere of hate. By all means, challenge them to debates, say you disagree they are Muslims but they have the right in a secular democracy to call themselves that and indeed they should anywhere. I've literally never heard of any form of violence from their community despite being one of the most persecuted in the world. That's something Sunnis and Shias (read up how it is for Bahai's and other minorities in Iran) should be thoroughly ashamed of.

All united for Palestine under human rights etc but will actively endorse the persecution of minorities within their communities and back home.
 
Redlambs said:
2) How do I go about setting up my own cult? I reckon I could get a group of followers off the back of this.
Click to expand...

It'd certainly be an interesting experiment. I mean if you could get a couple of dozen followers to believe in some nonsense it would be a great example of the absurdity of religion. In this day and age, when nearly everything can be disproved, it would be a great achievement to get people to buy into you religion.

I mean if Derren Brown, David Blaine or Dynamo were around 2,000 years ago they could have produced a fair few miracles. That's my view of Jesus. If he was alive now he'd be on Channel 4 putting phones into bottles.
 
Dumbstar said:
What harm can they do? Cause confusion in the religion. My children, grandchildren and so forth would grow up not knowing if Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) really is the final one or the tons of other self professed prophets that have suddenly popped up because we allowed Ahmadis to be called Muslims. They can do a LOT of damage.
Click to expand...

So an entire community must suffer so that your children might avoid 'confusion'? Have you considered that some of Pakistan's current problems might stem from attitudes exactly like this?

What about Ahmadi children, have you thought how confusing it must be for them to have their parents' teachings completely contradicted by state law?

Wolverine said:
Many aspects of Sufism is pretty out there too but no one has any objections to it.
Click to expand...

Well since 2005 there has been a wave of attacks on Barelwi Sufi shrines in Pakistan, it's obvious there are plenty of Sunni sectarians out there who violently oppose Barelwi rituals and practices.
 
2cents said:
Well since 2005 there has been a wave of attacks on Barelwi Sufi shrines in Pakistan, it's obvious there are plenty of Sunni sectarians out there who violently oppose Barelwi rituals and practices.
Click to expand...

Of course. I was implying relative there. But there isn't a "mainstream" hostility towards the Sufis (with qawaali music being an integral part of Pakistani culture) as there is towards the Ahmadis. I completely agree with you btw, do not buy at all there being confusion that can't be overcome with explanation. We need to be able to tolerate opposing sects or points of view even when it comes to doctrine we hold most sacred.
 
Dumbstar said:
I'm a pseudo Barelwi
Click to expand...
I think the majority of younger people, who were born into barelwi families, are realizing that some concepts of the barelwi creed are not so much based on Quran and Sunnah. Rather they are based more on stories which has no concrete proof of existence. I can tell you loads of scenarios where I've asked some guy the reasoning behind certain acts and the guy tells me some bogus harry potter story, but when you ask for evidence from quran or sunnah then they just get angry. It's mainly the older, uneducated people, who do this and believe in some of the concepts.
 
Relevated said:
I think the majority of younger people, who were born into barelwi families, are realizing that some concepts of the barelwi creed are not so much based on Quran and Sunnah. Rather they are based more on stories which has no concrete proof of existence. I can tell you loads of scenarios where I've asked some guy the reasoning behind certain acts and the guy tells me some bogus harry potter story, but when you ask for evidence from quran or sunnah then they just get angry. It's mainly the older, uneducated people, who do this and believe in some of the concepts.
Click to expand...
You mean evidence from one bogus story to prove/disprove another bogus story? Makes sense...
 
A monk came up to me the other day and bowed his head and started doing this low humming noise. There were loads of them heading to this big shrine near my house. I didn't know what he wanted so I just did the same back to him. He gave me this really funny look and then walked away. A woman I know who was watching was almost crying laughing.
 
Relevated said:
I think the majority of younger people, who were born into barelwi families, are realizing that some concepts of the barelwi creed are not so much based on Quran and Sunnah. Rather they are based more on stories which has no concrete proof of existence. I can tell you loads of scenarios where I've asked some guy the reasoning behind certain acts and the guy tells me some bogus harry potter story, but when you ask for evidence from quran or sunnah then they just get angry. It's mainly the older, uneducated people, who do this and believe in some of the concepts.
Click to expand...
I don't know about majority but some of the barelvis that I've known or came across are absolute bonkers. They refuse to offer namaz with Jamaat in Harmaain instead they make seperate Jamaats by themselves in their hotel rooms. While other says 'La-hawla' when you say salaams to them.
 
Those crazy fools be believin' in the wrong fairy tale. Silly people!
 
Relevated said:
I think the majority of younger people, who were born into barelwi families, are realizing that some concepts of the barelwi creed are not so much based on Quran and Sunnah. Rather they are based more on stories which has no concrete proof of existence. I can tell you loads of scenarios where I've asked some guy the reasoning behind certain acts and the guy tells me some bogus harry potter story, but when you ask for evidence from quran or sunnah then they just get angry. It's mainly the older, uneducated people, who do this and believe in some of the concepts.
Click to expand...

sb3hn4.gif
 
the guy tried telling me that a kid went to the graveyard and his grandfather, who had died prior to his birth, instantly recognized him.
 
Pfft, that's nothing. Some guy tried telling me this book written by an illiterate man in the 7th century was actually dictated verbatim by God from scripture that had existed in heaven for all eternity and that we should just take on faith that everything in it is concrete proof of it's own existence.

People are weird, ey?
 
Last edited:
Mockney said:
Pfft, that's nothing. Some guy tried telling me this book written by an illiterate man in the 7th century was actually dictated verbatim by God from scripture that had existed in heaven for all eternity and that we should just take on faith that everything in it is concrete proof of it's own existence.

People are weird, ey?
Click to expand...

Well I'm a direct sign Jesus is coming back. Top that!
 
Find it hard to multiquote so I'll reply to each person here:

@Wolverine, you are correct about the Lahori ahmadis and I argued this point a few years ago. However, Lahoris hold Mirza Gulam in very high regard. This is the man who himself has claimed to be God, Vishnu, Prophet Jesus, etc. Therefore Lahoris are outside Islam by holding in esteem the same man (and a bit stupid for going against everything Gulam has said himself). I've seen his writings - believe me I've done a lot of research on these guys as most of my friends are Ahmadis and I'm torn what to call them. We have a mutual agree-to-disagree stance with each other and continue remaining friends.

@2cents, if you dont' want to be a Muslim, don't. Its easier than trying to force your way into something that will not accept you in the guise you're in. Its really not hard.

@Relevated and @kid777, my 'local' is very anti everyone else. I.e. don't go to their mosques, don't pray behind/with them, etc. That's why I'm pseudo. I'm looking at everything eyes wide open. But I would also issue a warning not to go the other way (i.e. salafis, wahabbis, etc). You'll dogma (verb) your faith into a spirally mess you can't get out of either.
 
Mockney said:
Pfft, that's nothing. Some guy tried telling me this book written by an illiterate man in the 7th century was actually dictated verbatim by God from scripture that had existed in heaven for all eternity and that we should just take on faith that everything in it is concrete proof of it's own existence.

People are weird, ey?
Click to expand...
yeah proper
 
:lol: That's going to be one of those articles that gets brought up every time Zarlak has one of his debates about opinion polls.

It's unlikely to be muslims making up the majority of that vote, btw. ISIS are basically killing all the muslims who aren't a part of their cause. If anything, most muslims are their enemy.

Plus, muslims only make up 1 in 21 Britons.
 
A compelling argument against Christianity, and perhaps against organized religion in general, IMO.

 
Last edited:
I had god botherers at the door on Sunday. They had their little daughter front and centre handing out the leaflets so I had to be polite. Which made it even more annoying.
 
Not sure how he "destroys" Christianity but his arguments are:

1. How can god exist if he lets children suffer?
2. What about all the people who weren't born into a Christian society, are they automatically doomed?
3. Hypocritical that those people can't go to heaven but a death row inmate in America can after a confession of his sins.
4. Why listen to a book that supports slavery
5. People that wrote the bible did crazy things.
6. How are we supposed to believe with the little evidence we have?
7.Believing in miracles is illogical (he didn't outright say this but his comparison between crazy people and Catholics say enough)
8. Bible itself contains a whole host of immoral acts

Among others.

No I'm not going to sit here and debunk all of his arguments, no point to it but just for arguments sake I'll tackle a few.

Most Christians accept that not everything in the bible can be taken literally and faith in God doesn't necessarily have to equate to taking everything in the bible to heart.

He makes good points but he asks questions that no one has the answer to and it all boils down to "God doesn't exist because bad stuff happens". So if children suffering and other bad things are evidence that god doesn't exist, does that mean that the millions of happy children out there are evidence that he does exist?

No real proof that a last minute confession would actually stop a death row inmate from going to hell.

Christianity also isn't about belief in the people that wrote the bible or supporting what they did to their kids.

As for the little evidence and miracles part, well I suppose that's the whole point of religion, having faith.

Note I'm just presenting an opposing view, not a very detailed one either as its mainly just philosophical questions that no one has a real answer for.
 
He does a pop number on the problem of evil. It's actually much more difficult to refute in its stripped-down and logical form:

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"
 
JSArsenal said:
Not sure how he "destroys" Christianity but his arguments are:

1. How can god exist if he lets children suffer?
2. What about all the people who weren't born into a Christian society, are they automatically doomed?
3. Hypocritical that those people can't go to heaven but a death row inmate in America can after a confession of his sins.
4. Why listen to a book that supports slavery
5. People that wrote the bible did crazy things.
6. How are we supposed to believe with the little evidence we have?
7.Believing in miracles is illogical (he didn't outright say this but his comparison between crazy people and Catholics say enough)
8. Bible itself contains a whole host of immoral acts

Among others.

No I'm not going to sit here and debunk all of his arguments, no point to it but just for arguments sake I'll tackle a few.

Most Christians accept that not everything in the bible can be taken literally and faith in God doesn't necessarily have to equate to taking everything in the bible to heart.

He makes good points but he asks questions that no one has the answer to and it all boils down to "God doesn't exist because bad stuff happens". So if children suffering and other bad things are evidence that god doesn't exist, does that mean that the millions of happy children out there are evidence that he does exist?

No real proof that a last minute confession would actually stop a death row inmate from going to hell.

Christianity also isn't about belief in the people that wrote the bible or supporting what they did to their kids.

As for the little evidence and miracles part, well I suppose that's the whole point of religion, having faith.

Note I'm just presenting an opposing view, not a very detailed one either as its mainly just philosophical questions that no one has a real answer for.
Click to expand...

1) Christians only really say things shouldn't be taken literally when it suits them. Slavery was fine, until it wasn't fine in normal life anymore and then they said, that's not really what is meant in the bible. You still see it with Homosexuality. The anti-gay crowd saying it's an abomination because the bible says so. In fifty years time Christians will laugh at the notion that they ever opposed Homosexuality because it will be such an accepted and normal way of life.

2) How would good stuff happening be evidence for God. He has said the opposite. He even used people thanking god for small trivial things as an example of how ludicrous it is. He pointed out that if there is an all powerful god, then he is Evil as he has the power to stop the suffering of the children and their families but doesn't or he is a benevolent god who would like to stop the suffering but can't. There's also the fact that Billions of people are destined to go to hell just because they have the wrong religious education. If a god cared enough about these people, why would they be damned to spend an eternity in hell through no fault of their own. Like an eternity in the worst place imaginable, being tortured for the crime of being unaware of the real religion. That is more fecked up than any justice system on earth.

3) I know in the catholic school I went to, as long as you confessed and truly meant it and did your penance, you were absolved of your sins. If they were teaching Christianity properly then yes, a child rapist and murderer would get into heaven, if he was truly sorry for his sins, before an Indian child who happened to have never heard of Jesus.

4) Not really sure of your point, so I won't address it.

5) In no other part of life is faith a good thing. Believing something in the absence of evidence or worse, contrary to evidence is not a trait we should be promoting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.