Because the implementation is more fundamental/primitive.
Religion, what's the point?
- Thread starter TheRedFlag
- Start date
All major religions are hundreds or even thousands years old and very backwards by default. However many denominations of Christianity or Judaism are trying to adapt and are much more lax in the way scripture is interpreted, even though they are much older than Islam. The vast majority of Islam on the other hand is still enforcing their archaic values and is refusing to adapt to the changes in the modern society.
If a religion has to adapt then it isn't really that same religion anymore, is it?
They are all invented by humans and revised along the way based on human interpretations of them.
In this thread are men whose Gods are their own desire.
Islam has changed massively in the last 100 years. In many cases it's become more hardline, but to say it's the same as always would be wrong.
"even though they are much older than Islam"?
I'd say that gets the wrong end of the stick, mate. With Christianity and Judaism and other religions having had more time, there's been more time for reformation. Christianity and Judaism has also been a constant part of the changes, whereas a lot of the Moslem world are having western values thrown at them, rather than seeing the changes emanate from within their societies. Of course there's a reluctancy and, with a smaller percentage, a backlash.
If you look back hundreds of years in time, you'd see that a lot of current western values, like the equal rights between the sexes, Islam lead the way in comparison to Judaism and Christianity. Sadly, in some areas, they've regressed rather than moved forward from such ideals. It goes to show, though, that societies and religions are tied together, and for the western world, which generally has lower rates of poverty and disease than much of the world, there is time and resources to devote to these notions. Christianity as expressed in hard-up areas of Africa doesn't exactly look that much better than any maligned image of Islam, even if Islam has the best action foootage.
Excellent post. Someone who actually gets it.
I disagree with your conclusion that Muslim societies are poor and that's why Islam is not as progressive as other religions. In fact the some of the richest countries in the world are Muslim yet Islam is just as backward there as it is in the poor ones.
You're simplifying my argument a fair bit. Poorer than European countries on average, yes. As for tiny oases made of oil, that's a relatively new thing, certainly when compared to the rate at which religion tends to change. You also totally ignored my point regarding secular values being exported aggressively by the west, and the perfectly reasonable reluctancy to go along with them willy nilly, especially when you're looking down the barrel of a gun wielded by the same benevolent political reformer, or whatever euphemism you might want to employ for the misguided efforts to "civilise" the world.
Also, I did not mean to come off as saying that any given country with resources will see reform come, clearly there's more to it than that. The boundaries for the religion don't exactly stop at the dividing lines of nation states for the most part, do they?
That is true but they also tend to be autocratic regimes brutally repress their population and quickly clamp down on rebel movements/ideas. Saudi and Bahrain come to mind.
I'm not saying their ideas with relation to some of their more medieval social conservative ideas won't get approval from even in the more affluent Muslim communities but it's not as simple as that. They figured out if you impose religious doctrine into politics, you can play on tribalism, sectarianism and are more likely to get a loyal band of hardline followers if you are seen to have divine credibility.
As an aside, Tunisia just democratically elected a self-styled secular party recently over the Islamist Ennahda party. And as I have mentioned previously even in places like Pakistan, far-right islamist parties don't do that well in elections. Because it's clear in my opinion that Muslims want justice, democracy as much as anyone else and more than anything else. Now of course many want Sharia, or what they interpret it to be, but which highly varies.
@Eriku and @Wolverine I am not trying to simplify the issue. For sure there are many other factors that go hand in hand with Islam like the tribalism, dictatorships, economic development, etc. However no one can easily separate the cause and effect. Are Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, etc. in their current state because of the Islamic values that are being followed there? Or is it the other way around - Islam has grown to be so conservative and intolerant, because of their tribalism, dictatorship, sectarianism? These are complex questions and unless we have a time machine allowing us to go back in time and play different scenarios we wouldn't know the answers.
Anyways, I don't want to seem like I'm picking on Islam - in fact I believe that all religions are damaging to today's society for various reasons. In my opinion Islam is the worst of the pack at the moment, but probably Christianity was worse in the middle ages, other religions like the Mayan or Aztec ones based on human sacrifices for sure were pretty bad and in the future who knows - maybe another religion would become prominent with a new set of terrible dogmas. However all that is beside the point - it's not a competition which religion is "less bad".
All religions have the potential to become a real danger, because they work on blind belief and threats and promises for hell, heaven, resurrection, reincarnation, etc. - all imaginary concepts disconnected form reality. When you brainwash people to believe that life and the world around us are worthless compared to what awaits after, you can make them do anything - some terrible acts praised by various religions and cults: genocide, killing one's own children, suicide, obliteration of the human race, etc.
Anyways, I don't want to seem like I'm picking on Islam - in fact I believe that all religions are damaging to today's society for various reasons. In my opinion Islam is the worst of the pack at the moment, but probably Christianity was worse in the middle ages, other religions like the Mayan or Aztec ones based on human sacrifices for sure were pretty bad and in the future who knows - maybe another religion would become prominent with a new set of terrible dogmas. However all that is beside the point - it's not a competition which religion is "less bad".
All religions have the potential to become a real danger, because they work on blind belief and threats and promises for hell, heaven, resurrection, reincarnation, etc. - all imaginary concepts disconnected form reality. When you brainwash people to believe that life and the world around us are worthless compared to what awaits after, you can make them do anything - some terrible acts praised by various religions and cults: genocide, killing one's own children, suicide, obliteration of the human race, etc.
Where would you put buddhism in amongst that?
The fact that it (or its name really) has been used as a tool by dictatorships to solidify their power doesn't automatically make religion all about being a tool for dictatorships to rule.
Many dictatorships, regimes, governments and even terrorist organisations now use "human rights" as an excuse, justification or as a tool to solidify their power and control over different parts of the world. That doesn't mean we should mock human rights and reject them altogether. We just need to calmly distinguish between cases where human rights are really represented, and cases where human rights are just being used as an excuse or a tool to gain a political advantage.
There's something terribly sad about a human being wasting the miracle of life by waiting for something better. I hate most things about religion and I feel that we're far too tolerant of it; it's difficult to criticise without being called a bigot by the bloody god brigade. If I told you that I believe in Dafydd of Pembrokeshire who created all Welsh people in a day and says that we all must walk around naked, then how is that different to somebody telling you they believe in God? It isn't.
Buddhism is not that different in the grand scheme of things. The Buddhist concept of eternal soul that gets reborn infinite times is not more realistic than other religions' concept of a similar soul spending eternity in heaven or hell. Ultimately all religions try to manipulate people by exploiting their fear of death.
I've decided to become a priest.
I can't be doing with the real world and having a real job and shit anymore.
The only problem is I'm not sexually attracted to children, is that still compulsory?
I can't be doing with the real world and having a real job and shit anymore.
The only problem is I'm not sexually attracted to children, is that still compulsory?
I think it depends largely on the church you want to join
The over-generalizations in this thread are hilarious.
Pretty much every post is an over-generalization of some kind.
Thanks for your very detailed and specific input.
He wasn't excluding his own or yours.
I agree with you.
This reminds me of the meme where the guy is complaining that no one is posting anything meaningful, but he himself contributes nothing to the thread.
How's it going Pete, still struggling to accept that Epicurus is making no sense?
... Still waiting for you or any religious dupe to rebut him.
Still waiting for you or any religious dupe to rebut him....
OK then Peter. Point out where I'm going wrong with this.
For a piece of logic to be irrefutable each premise and each part of the statement must be itself beyond refute, right?
That could be because its a logical certainty ("a triangle has three sides"), because there's so much evidence it would be ridiculous to claim otherwise ("humans have legs", "the earth goes round the sun") or because an individual accepts the premise for the purposes of the debate ("a=1", "If pigs had wings").
Right so far?
Keep going
The premises are
God is omnipotent
God is benevolent
Evil exists
The statements are
If God is unable to prevent evil then he is not omnipotent
If God is unwilling to prevent evil then he is not benevolent
If God is neither able nor willing to prevent evil, why call him God?
Right so far?
God is omnipotent
God is benevolent
Evil exists
The statements are
If God is unable to prevent evil then he is not omnipotent
If God is unwilling to prevent evil then he is not benevolent
If God is neither able nor willing to prevent evil, why call him God?
Right so far?
...
Couldn't be more simple. The problem is that you're setting some sort of criteria as to how a supernatural entity - that you think doesn't even exist in the first place - should behave. For all you know, and you know feck all, this being could have its reasons to behave and act any way it wants. Your evidence, however, for the non-existence of a supernatural being is because the thing, that doesn't exist anyway, also does not behave the way you think it should behave. How on earth does this makes sense?
Not how Pete thinks it should behave, but how it is described by people who buy into the bollocks.
Well, that would require looking a bit into exegesis and hermeneutics, and I doubt either of you would have anything meaningful to contribute in that respect.
This seems to be catching on here in the states.
The book that claims Jesus had a wife and kids — and the embattled author behind it
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-kids-and-the-controversial-author-behind-it/
The book that claims Jesus had a wife and kids — and the embattled author behind it
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-kids-and-the-controversial-author-behind-it/
A book which claims to be as important as the bible does shouldn't require years of study of understand. It would mean that almost every person who believes it doesn't understand it. And when even those who do put in the effort disagree about it, then surely that point it being just another incoherent old story.
But, simply put, do you think that god is all loving and all powerful?
Last edited:
No you're the muppets who define this entity as all-singing, all-dancing - all Epicurus does is point out the illogicality of your invention.
It's not a book, it's a collection of different types of writings, one third of which is poetry. And as any other ancient Hebrew and Greek text it obviously requires a certain degree of study. That's why there are modules in universities on ancient literature, you know.
Yep you're on the right track (which leads to an inevitable conclusion).