Smith was an utter nutter.
Religion, what's the point?
- Thread starter TheRedFlag
- Start date
Nah, he just saw an opening (several actually) and went for it.
OK (bastard) Mackie's conclusion to the problem of evil is: 'We cannot indeed take the problem of evil as a conclusive disproof of traditional theism because as we have seen there are premises needed to make the problem explicit. There may be (his italics) some way of presenting these which does not lead to an internal contradiction without giving up anything essential to theism but none has been clearly presented and there is a strong presumption that theism cannot be made coherent without a change in at least one of its central doctrines'.
Last edited:
ISIS mass beheadings at it again. This is Salafism, and to think Britannia bars entry from the country of an elected Dutch representative (who voices concern about Islamic teachings and ideology) yet welcomes hate preachers and other vermin of Salafist islam. It's sickening.
Before anyone claims that they are not muslim, these guys know the Qu'ran to the letter better than you do so please don't sell that mirage.
Before anyone claims that they are not muslim, these guys know the Qu'ran to the letter better than you do so please don't sell that mirage.
There's just a new case of a priest fiddling with kids here in Belgium. So yes, I'm afraid so.
I'm pretty sure this just fried my brain.
Paradoxes are fun.
This sentence is false.
This sentence is false.
ISIS mass beheadings at it again. This is Salafism, and to think Britannia bars entry from the country of an elected Dutch representative (who voices concern about Islamic teachings and ideology) yet welcomes hate preachers and other vermin of Salafist islam. It's sickening.
Before anyone claims that they are not muslim, these guys know the Qu'ran to the letter better than you do so please don't sell that mirage.
Erm, ok Essaux. As a Muslim myself if you have closed the subject then who are we to argue. You're the boss.
What's your view on ISIS? Are you a Shia or Sunni? Or adherent to another sect?
I'm a Sunni. I have no association with ISIS and neither do 100s of millions of other Muslims, sunni shite or whatever. They are a rule on themselves and think they have Islam sussed when all they've really done is succumbed to their ego. One of the most dangerous position to be in when the time comes to answer to God.
Us Muslims daily pray we don't fall to the mercy of our own egos. Once you're down that road its very hard to come back.
You sound a lot like Yoda, Dumbstar.
Its a bit difficult to disassociate ISIS from religion isn't it, since religious texts are always open to interpretation to the extent that any person or group can lift a passage for literal interpretation to suit their needs of the moment.
It's possible to create a dodgy ethical code even if you're atheist, though. Religion tempers it for the vast majority of people. Rule of law does the rest. Iraq currently lacks the power structure to stop people like this from trying to impose their philosophy on their compatriots. Same thing is true in the likes of Afghanistan, Pakistan, Nigeria, etc.
ISIS are a political group first and foremost. If they didn't have their eyes on taking power, they wouldn't be doing any of this.
ISIS are a political group first and foremost. If they didn't have their eyes on taking power, they wouldn't be doing any of this.
If salahuddin was alive today and doing what he did back then I wonder if he'd get the same hate as ISIS or if he'd be a hero.
They are striving to establish a caliphate and to expand it to create the Ummah. Whatever your views are on your religion, the fact is that ISIS are following the Qu'ran and hadiths to the letter. Funded by Qatar and Saudi Arabia they are implementing a hard line (salafist) doctrine.
There are lots of things going on right now in ISIS controlled territory that are in sync with their religion:
On sex slavery (IS in relation to captured Yazidi and Christian women):
Qu'ran 33:50 "Prophet, We have made lawful to you the wives to whom you have granted dowries and the slave girls whom God has given you as booty.”
Qu'ran 4:3 permits men to have sex with “what your right hands possess,” a term categorically defined by the ulema as “infidel” women captured during the jihad.
On jihad - mass executions / beheadings:
Qu'ran 47:4 “When you encounter infidels on the battlefield, strike off their heads until you have crushed them completely”
Qu'ran 8:12 “I will cast terror into the hearts of infidels—so strike off their heads and strike off all of their fingertips [i.e., mutilate them]”
On crucifixions happening inside the Islamic State:
Qu'ran 5:33 “the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land.”
Of course they are. Islam differs from the two other abrahamic religions in that it is a COMPLETE package, it's very much so political as it is a religion. Sharia law will govern society, Qu'ran and the hadiths will govern people's individual spiritual life as well as society at large.
They are fighting for domination of the World. They do so, because it is their cause, they fight to dominate for allah.
Atheism doesn't have an ethical code. Its simply a rejection of belief in deities. There's no atheist manifesto or equivalent to religious texts that can be drawn on to murder people such as in the Abrahamic religions.
On the contrary if an atheist commits a crime, then an atheist cannot avoid responsibility for their crime by saying he was believed to do such a thing because it says in such a ("holy") book.
To me, anyone religious (mind you this does not include spiritual) is someone who is blinded and numbed.
To be free from religious nonsense is to be a free soul and man. Free thought does not exist in religious people, no matter how much they try convince themselves that it does.
To me, anyone religious (mind you this does not include spiritual) is someone who is blinded and numbed.
To be free from religious nonsense is to be a free soul and man. Free thought does not exist in religious people, no matter how much they try convince themselves that it does.
Domination of the world? Not really. They want to create a new nation state in the Middle East and to be at the reins of power. It's incredibly simplistic to think it's just about religion just because you hate it.
Have you read the Qu'ran? Do you know what the Ummah entails? Do you really think that all they want is a state in the Middle East?
Wow. Are you that naive?
I've got many questions, because I want to be sure to assess your character properly.
Simplistic is your assumption mate.
So atheists create their own and it's not always pacifistic. To re-appropriate a line from your earlier post about religious ethics, it's often "to suit their needs of the moment".
I'm atheist but I don't hate religion. Human beings can be dicks without it and frequently are.
So you think it's all about religion rather than them being power hungry? If you do, I would say that certainly is simplistic.
The fact that humans can be dicks across the board has nothing to do with Atheism - since its not a belief system as religions are.
Agreed. But it means that your rebuke of the religious can just as easily be applied to the irreligious.
Ah I see. I come with the evidence as presented in the Qu'ran and the Hadiths, yet it has nothing to do with those according to you.
You then come in here and claim some nonsense without even having bothered reading the Qu'ran. You just dismiss that possibility without giving any factual evidence to the contrary. Wether you like it or not, religion is very much their source for their behaviour.
You're just a very naive human being for dismissing that possibility and come in here and tell us that ISIS has nothing to do with religion. In fact, that is an insult towards ISIS who do everything they do in the name of their religion as they have many times pointed out so themselves with their holy book flapping in their hands.
Again, you're entirely missing the point.
Are you perhaps Ben Affleck in disguise trying to throw a hissy fit again like in that Bill Maher and Sam Harris debate?
Feck's sake, that was tiresome to hear as is this nonsense.
They could only be applied to the irreligious if they committed similar murderous acts based on the teachings of a belief system - and since Atheism isn't a tangible belief system, it can't be applied as a counter-example to groups who base violence on religious teachings. Its simply not a valid comparison due to the absence of a tangible belief system on the Atheism end of things.
I've read the Quran in its original arabic.
How do you explain the fact that there are imams and muftis in the muslim world who sit in mosques all day rather than going out and killing non-muslims?
Because not every muslim can assume the role of a fighter in their jihad. Jihad has many faces as you then surely will know.
Are you a muslim?
Because religious texts are open to human interpretation. People randomly accept various texts and interpretations of religious books, whilst randomly ignoring the ones that don't suit them. Therefore a religion is no less valid to members of ISIS who wish to utilize it for their specific political needs, as it is to those who want to utilize it to peacefully enrich their lives. If it can be interpreted one way (ISIS), it can be interpreted in any number of ways based on who is reading/practicing it and relative to their socio-cultural norms.
But if said belief system is mutable enough "to suit their needs of the moment", it's not really that tangible, is it?
But the Quran was clear according to your earlier post. And these people are experts on scripture.
Not even a tiny bit, although that's completely irrelevant.
What do you mean ?
So it comes down to human interpretation and socio-cultural norms just like every other belief system anyone has come up with. I'd agree with that.
Yes, the Qu'ran is clear on Jihad. So what is your point? Are you unable to grasp the concept of that Jihad does not equal fighter in the sense of physically fighting an enemy? Jihad means struggle. The struggle to advance Islam, to establish a caliphate, to achieve the Ummah and then it also means the individual struggle on a spiritual level. You can be a fighter physcially fighting the infidels, or you can be a jihadist by advancing Islam through other means.
Don't play people for a fool with your one sentence answers, thinking that will validate anything you say. It doesn't, it's dangerous and cynical to not give people the entire picture.
These people [ISIS] are certainly more expert on the scriptures that they so fanatically endorse than you are. So your point is?
You've offered nothing constructive to actually rebuking any of the facts presented other than fallacies like "atheism leads to bad things to".
I think we're talking over each other a bit here. I meant that interpretation plays a huge role in any ethics. Systems aren't really created for you, you make them yourself, even though they may start out codified. I doubt any two muslims have the exact same ethical code, for example.
Last edited:
How is that different to any other nation state or movement?
Because maybe religion isn't the deciding factor in cuntishness.
I'd wager to guess most don't because ethics and social norms may vary wildly across the Muslim world from Mauritania to Indonesia. The broader point is that you can't attribute people doing bad things to Atheism because it lacks any sort of philosophy or text that promotes violence, whereas a good number of religions quite clearly do. Its a bit like comparing actual religious texts that blatantly espouse murder with people who don't believe that Unicorns exist, and suggesting they too are capable of evil because of their lack of belief in the existence of Unicorns.
You willingly do not want to grasp that Jihad is something specific to islam and that its adherents can whenever reference to jihad to justify their actions.
Nation states do not hold a book and/or central dogma at the heart of their existence, unlike religion does. Nations do not unify its people the way religion unifies its adherents.
Talking in circles. Whatever, you're either a WUM or very naive.
Of course they do. It's called patriotism. Go to any country in the world and you'll find people who are proud of their nation. You'll also find people willing to fight, die or even kill for them. Religion isn't reinventing the wheel there.
"Nation states do not hold a book and/or central dogma at the heart of their existence, unlike religion does"?
The American Constitution, Magna Carta, etc.
I'm not attributing anything to atheism.
You could flip this around and say that atheism lacks any sort of philosophy or text that promotes pacifism, charity or tolerance, whereas a good number of religions clearly do. The religious can pick and choose how they behave, just like atheists can pick and choose how they behave.
Last edited:
You actually can't flip it around because atheism is not a tangible philosophy or belief system and as such, does not bare the onus of promoting anything, whether violence, pacifism, or anything else. Its simply the absence of a belief in something.
You seem to be thinking I'm having a go at atheism here. I'm not. The buck stops at the individual, even when there is a religious text being followed. Especially ones as open to interpretation as the Bible, Quran, Bhagavad Gita, etc.