Religion, what's the point?

Uzz said:
Yep-I don't know their line of thinking in any great depth, I should add. I don't really agree with their view on the Qu'ran.
Click to expand...

Well in the context of @Mockney's post they're pretty relevant, since they were an extremely influential sect in the first centuries of Islam and their ideas on the nature of God sharply contrasted with what later became the standard/orthodox Sunni view. The Abbasid caliph al-Ma'mun even attempted to impose Mu'tazila thought as the state creed and initiated an inquisition against dissenters, after which support for it declined. But some of their central doctrines are accepted by the Twelver Shi'a today.
 
2cents said:
Well in the context of @Mockney's post they're pretty relevant, since they were an extremely influential sect in the first centuries of Islam and their ideas on the nature of God sharply contrasted with what later became the standard/orthodox Sunni view. The Abbasid caliph al-Ma'mun even attempted to impose Mu'tazila thought as the state creed and initiated an inquisition against dissenters, after which support for it declined. But some of their central doctrines are accepted by the Twelver Shi'a today.
Click to expand...

They weren't as influential as you intimate. Around that time (post Mu'awiyah), there were many, many, different factions all claiming to be the right one (khawarijs, seveners, nusayris), and most of these factions were borne out of a political agenda, as opposed to a religious one.

Mu'tazilah-they reject the Sunnah, and secondly, they reject the Salaf. Resulting in contradictory beliefs. For example, they accept mutwatir hadith. If they do so, they will accept what the Prophet (SAWS) says about the Sunnah, in mutwatir hadith. So, how does one reconcile that logic? On top of that, how can one reject the Salaf but accept the mutwatir hadith? It doesn't add up.
 
Uzz said:
They weren't as influential as you intimate. Around that time (post Mu'awiyah), there were many, many, different factions all claiming to be the right one (khawarijs, seveners, nusayris), and most of these factions were borne out of a political agenda, as opposed to a religious one.

Mu'tazilah-they reject the Sunnah, and secondly, they reject the Salaf. Resulting in contradictory beliefs. For example, they accept mutwatir hadith. If they do so, they will accept what the Prophet (SAWS) says about the Sunnah, in mutwatir hadith. So, how does one reconcile that logic? On top of that, how can one reject the Salaf but accept the mutwatir hadith? It doesn't add up.
Click to expand...

You're missing the point. I'm not interested in debating who's right/wrong, as a non-Muslim it doesn't concern me. But everything you've just written confirms Mockney's point - "Every religion, including yours, has been splintered by interpretational differences." You can try to put it down to politics rather than religion, but no such simple divide between the two spheres exists, certainly not in classical Islam where politics was inherently religious and vice-versa.
 
2cents said:
You're missing the point. I'm not interested in debating who's right/wrong, as a non-Muslim it doesn't concern me. But everything you've just written confirms Mockney's point - "Every religion, including yours, has been splintered by interpretational differences." You can try to put it down to politics rather than religion, but no such simple divide between the two spheres exists, certainly not in classical Islam where politics was inherently religious and vice-versa.
Click to expand...

I never rejected Mockney's claim. So, I fail to see what point you're pushing here.
 
Uzz said:
They weren't as influential as you intimate. Around that time (post Mu'awiyah), there were many, many, different factions all claiming to be the right one (khawarijs, seveners, nusayris), and most of these factions were borne out of a political agenda, as opposed to a religious one.

Mu'tazilah-they reject the Sunnah, and secondly, they reject the Salaf. Resulting in contradictory beliefs. For example, they accept mutwatir hadith. If they do so, they will accept what the Prophet (SAWS) says about the Sunnah, in mutwatir hadith. So, how does one reconcile that logic? On top of that, how can one reject the Salaf but accept the mutwatir hadith? It doesn't add up.
Click to expand...

Well maybe God wants them to be that way for reasons we can't fathom. It might be that from gods perspective it makes perfect sense after all .....
 
Uzz said:
I never rejected Mockney's claim.
Click to expand...

You kind of did though, as you've tried to imply that the doctrinal differences within Islam are political rather than theological, in order to avoid the consequences that Mockney laid out on how this reflects on the reliability of religious texts.
 
2cents said:
You kind of did though, as you've tried to imply that the doctrinal differences within Islam are political rather than theological, in order to avoid the consequences that Mockney laid out on how this reflects on the reliability of religious texts.
Click to expand...

No.

He asked on the reliability of evidence on my argument that I put forward to peterstorey. I said the assumptions I made were based on the holy books on certain facets that are unanimously agreed upon i.e. not my opinion.
 
Uzz said:
No.

He asked on the reliability of evidence on my argument that I put forward to peterstorey. I said the assumptions I made were based on the holy books on certain facets that are unanimously agreed upon i.e. not my opinion.
Click to expand...

This is why I brought up the Mu'tazilites, since their doctrine contradicts the assumptions you believe to be "unanimously agreed upon." The Mu'tazilites believe that God's will and action is bound by his reason, they deny his omnipotence and hold 'reason'/'rationalism' or whatever you want to call it to be inherent in God's nature. Since the debates they provoked were still raging 150 years after Muhammad, and Muslims still couldn't agree, for example, on whether the Qur'an was created by God or whether it is eternal and uncreated, or on the implication of these questions for their view of the very nature of God himself, this raises serious questions on the reliability of the text itself in terms of what it can tell us about God.
 
2cents said:
This is why I brought up the Mu'tazilites, since their doctrine contradicts the assumptions you believe to be "unanimously agreed upon." The Mu'tazilites believe that God's will and action is bound by his reason, they deny his omnipotence and hold 'reason'/'rationalism' or whatever you want to call it to be inherent in God's nature. Since the debates they provoked were still raging 150 years after Muhammad, and Muslims still couldn't agree, for example, on whether the Qur'an was created by God or whether it is eternal and uncreated, or on the implication of these questions for their view of the very nature of God himself, this raises serious questions on the reliability of the text itself in terms of what it can tell us about God.
Click to expand...

2 things-

1. You're giving a lot of credence to a very small, insignificant sect that lasted less than 100 years, in 1 city of the Islamic empire (the Baghdad branch barely lasted). If we take that into account, shouldn't we also take into account the other sects/schools of thoughts that accept the Qu'ran in its form?
2. The assumptions I made (God is one, God is eternal) don't contravene Mu'tazilah beliefs. I have never read anything about God not being omnipotent with Mu'tazilah thought. Perhaps you can show me your sources.
 
1. I'm just using them as an example. There are other sects that have come to different conclusions on a variety of things (I believe we've already discussed the Ahmadis). The Mu'tazilites were indeed a minority sect, intellectually-driven, and mostly present in Basra. I believe they were more influential than you assume, primarily because the challenge they presented inspired their opponents to elaborate on what eventually became the standard/orthodox Sunni view of the Qur'an and God. Also, they influenced Twelver Shi'ism in many ways. But in any case, your dismissal of them appears to be based on the fortuitous fact that you happen to adhere to the sect that triumphed in these debates as much as anything else.

2. For sources, I'll mention two which I have at hand right now - Marshall Hodgson's Venture of Islam and Gustave von Grunebaum's Classical Islam, A History: 600-1258. To give one example re: God's lack of omnipotence, they both make the point that because the Mutazilites believe that all of God's actions can be rationally understood, they believe that he therefore could not be responsible for any evil that exists in the world, since that would require the kind of "we're not meant to understand" leap typified in this kind of thing: "My personal belief on the situation is that God is simply too great for human understanding." Therefore such evil as exists does so independent of God.
 
Here's an online source which appears to represent the various viewpoints quite well (personally I've no idea on the worthiness of the site in general) - http://www.muslimphilosophy.com/ip/rep/H009.htm#H009SECT3

The third major issue discussed in kalam was freedom of the will. The Mu'tazila and Qadariyya both came out unequivocally in support of freedom of the will. They held that we are the creators of our own acts, for otherwise God would be committing a grave injustice if he were to punish those who had no choice in what they did...At the other extreme, the Jabriyya held that man could not have any control over his actions, since God was the sole creator and actor. Most other groups tried to strike a balance between these two poles. The Shi'a tended to affirm the freedom of the will and some of them, such as the Zaydiyya, agreed completely with the Mu'tazila on this. Some Shi'a factions, however, qualified their stance by affirming that we are in part compelled because of the chain of causation that triggered our acts. The Khawarij accepted the idea of predestination, holding that God was the Creator of the acts of people, and that nothing occurs which he did not will.

This was also the view of mainstream orthodox and traditionalist groups, who affirmed that the will of God was supreme and that he was the creator of all human acts, whether evil or good; nothing could happen on earth that contradicted his will. This position was later given some nuances by al-Ash'ari, who argued that God created human acts, but we acquired (kasaba) these acts by willing them prior to their creation.
Click to expand...
 
Uzz said:
He asked on the reliability of evidence on my argument that I put forward to peterstorey. I said the assumptions I made were based on the holy books on certain facets that are unanimously agreed upon i.e. not my opinion.
Click to expand...

Well tbf, my question wasn't really realted to your argument with pete, it was just a contention of your claim that the information we have of God is "reliable". If I took that claim out of context, apologies, but it seemed pretty challengable.....

Also the claim that they're unianimously agreed upon only aplies to your particular sect, of your particular religion, at this particular time in history. The vast majority of people (alive, and especially dead) do not, and did not agree with it.

This is why I try and stay out of these threads now tbf, 'cos you always end up arguing the dogmatic oddities of one particular form of modern faith.

I'd rather discuss why a tiny rock planet in an insignificantly small part of an unimaginably huge universe, that's existed for several billion years, spawning billions of life forms in its time, took over 99% of it's multi-billion year existence to produce the one species the entire cosmos was supposedly created for. And why, after 100,00 years of this species existence, did the vitally important knowledge of it's purpose stay hidden until over 10,000 years into it's development of civilisation. Only to be eventually revealed only to one small geographic location, in one specifically backward period, in the form of vague metaphorical poetry. And why despite the hugely time consuming effort of creating such an immeasurably huge universe in such meticulously perfect detail, just to put one species on one planet after trillions of years, the all knowing, all powerful, omnipotent creator couldn't get his message across well enough without having to come back twice more to clarify it. And still to the same backward sand tribes, in the same singular geographical area, in the same general shitty period. And why despite the infinitely more trouble these differing clarifications have caused for nearly 2,000 years, has he never bothered to come back again?

So we can argue all we like over whether an era appropriate conduit for some era appropriate poetry can be plausibly considered a miracle, but it's small fry shit compared to why the creator of all time and space would be in anyway concerned with our hats.
 
Mockney said:
Well tbf, my question wasn't really realted to your argument with pete, it was just a contention of your claim that the information we have of God is "reliable". If I took that claim out of context, apologies, but it seemed pretty challengable.....

Also the claim that they're unianimously agreed upon only aplies to your particular sect, of your particular religion, at this particular time in history. The vast majority of people (alive, and especially dead) do not, and did not agree with it.

This is why I try and stay out of these threads now tbf, 'cos you always end up arguing the dogmatic oddities of one particular form of modern faith.

I'd rather discuss why a tiny rock planet in an insignificantly small part of an unimaginably huge universe, that's existed for several billion years, spawning billions of life forms in its time, took over 99% of it's multi-billion year existence to produce the one species the entire cosmos was supposedly created for. And why, after 100,00 years of this species existence, did the vitally important knowledge of it's purpose stay hidden until over 10,000 years into it's development of civilisation. Only to be eventually revealed only to one small geographic location, in one specifically backward period, in the form of vague metaphorical poetry. And why despite the hugely time consuming effort of creating such an immeasurably huge universe in such meticulously perfect detail, just to put one species on one planet after trillions of years, the all knowing, all powerful, omnipotent creator couldn't get his message across well enough without having to come back twice more to clarify it. And still to the same backward sand tribes, in the same singular geographical area, in the same general shitty period. And why despite the infinitely more trouble these differing clarifications have caused for nearly 2,000 years, has he never bothered to come back again?

So we can argue all we like over whether an era appropriate conduit for some era appropriate poetry can be plausibly considered a miracle, but it's small fry shit compared to why the creator of all time and space would be in anyway concerned with our hats.
Click to expand...

Mysterious ways and all that...
 
2cents said:
For sources, I'll mention two which I have at hand right now - Marshall Hodgson's Venture of Islam and Gustave von Grunebaum's Classical Islam, A History: 600-1258. .
Click to expand...

is this book accessible for someone who knows little about Islam (but has at least half a brain?).
 
Honestly, I wouldn't recommend it for casual reading. It's a massive three-volume work aimed at challenging the methods by which Islamic history was traditionally taught in the West.

For a much more accessible work, I'd suggest Jonathan Berkey's 'The Formation of Islam', or one of the classic books on the history of the Arabs by Hourani or Hitti.
 
Mockney said:
I'd rather discuss why a tiny rock planet in an insignificantly small part of an unimaginably huge universe, that's existed for several billion years, spawning billions of life forms in its time, took over 99% of it's multi-billion year existence to produce the one species the entire cosmos was supposedly created for. And why, after 100,00 years of this species existence, did the vitally important knowledge of it's purpose stay hidden until over 10,000 years into it's development of civilisation. Only to be eventually revealed only to one small geographic location, in one specifically backward period, in the form of vague metaphorical poetry. And why despite the hugely time consuming effort of creating such an immeasurably huge universe in such meticulously perfect detail, just to put one species on one planet after trillions of years, the all knowing, all powerful, omnipotent creator couldn't get his message across well enough without having to come back twice more to clarify it. And still to the same backward sand tribes, in the same singular geographical area, in the same general shitty period. And why despite the infinitely more trouble these differing clarifications have caused for nearly 2,000 years, has he never bothered to come back again?

So we can argue all we like over whether an era appropriate conduit for some era appropriate poetry can be plausibly considered a miracle, but it's small fry shit compared to why the creator of all time and space would be in anyway concerned with our hats.
Click to expand...

Thats the crux of it for me, and I know the answer that the majority give and @RexHamilton has it spot on.
 
2cents said:
Honestly, I wouldn't recommend it for casual reading. It's a massive three-volume work aimed at challenging the methods by which Islamic history was traditionally taught in the West.

For a much more accessible work, I'd suggest Jonathan Berkey's 'The Formation of Islam', or one of the classic books on the history of the Arabs by Hourani or Hitti.
Click to expand...

Cheers.
 
Mockney said:
This is why I try and stay out of these threads now tbf, 'cos you always end up arguing the dogmatic oddities of one particular form of modern faith.
Click to expand...
They're always crashing in the same car. A logical, empirical, historical or probabilistic critique is met with the 'god is ineffable' card, followed by a pseudo-rational discussion of how many angels dance on the head of a pin.
 
Mockney said:
Well tbf, my question wasn't really realted to your argument with pete, it was just a contention of your claim that the information we have of God is "reliable". If I took that claim out of context, apologies, but it seemed pretty challengable.....

Also the claim that they're unianimously agreed upon only aplies to your particular sect, of your particular religion, at this particular time in history. The vast majority of people (alive, and especially dead) do not, and did not agree with it.

This is why I try and stay out of these threads now tbf, 'cos you always end up arguing the dogmatic oddities of one particular form of modern faith.

I'd rather discuss why a tiny rock planet in an insignificantly small part of an unimaginably huge universe, that's existed for several billion years, spawning billions of life forms in its time, took over 99% of it's multi-billion year existence to produce the one species the entire cosmos was supposedly created for. And why, after 100,00 years of this species existence, did the vitally important knowledge of it's purpose stay hidden until over 10,000 years into it's development of civilisation. Only to be eventually revealed only to one small geographic location, in one specifically backward period, in the form of vague metaphorical poetry. And why despite the hugely time consuming effort of creating such an immeasurably huge universe in such meticulously perfect detail, just to put one species on one planet after trillions of years, the all knowing, all powerful, omnipotent creator couldn't get his message across well enough without having to come back twice more to clarify it. And still to the same backward sand tribes, in the same singular geographical area, in the same general shitty period. And why despite the infinitely more trouble these differing clarifications have caused for nearly 2,000 years, has he never bothered to come back again?

So we can argue all we like over whether an era appropriate conduit for some era appropriate poetry can be plausibly considered a miracle, but it's small fry shit compared to why the creator of all time and space would be in anyway concerned with our hats.
Click to expand...

If we consider the chain of events from the big bang, through to the formation of the planet, on to the process of evolution that ends up with you as a specific individual sat there thinking those specific thoughts and typing them into a machine at that very moment, the odds of it happening are phenomenally, immeasurably small. A series of events with near 0 probability of happening, repeated a near infinite number of times.* Seen only from that perspective, the chances of you existing are so low that I might reasonably conclude you don't exist.

But since you do exist, what's at fault is my understanding of what's going on. My error is thinking that the low probability of something happening can in any way prevent something happening. All it lets me do is predict something happening.

That something is mindboggling unlikely alone isn't enough to make it untrue. Evidence/proof is still required to confirm that something is true or not.

*Depending on how you view determinism.
 
Uzz said:
Again, I've haven't said in my posts that God is 'All loving'. He is the Most Compassionate, which is different.

To both-the only thing I've said that is All anything was All Knowing.

Anyone can make up something and claim another has said it, but I don't really see the point in doing so personally.
Click to expand...
I've misinterpreted your semantics but my point still stands.

Most compassionate, yet over 5 billion people today will go to hell according to his standards. (if you believe you go to heaven, if not you go to hell)

If that's what you call most compassionate then you have a very twisted defintion of "most."
 
Last edited:
Mockney said:
Well tbf, my question wasn't really realted to your argument with pete, it was just a contention of your claim that the information we have of God is "reliable". If I took that claim out of context, apologies, but it seemed pretty challengable.....

Also the claim that they're unianimously agreed upon only aplies to your particular sect, of your particular religion, at this particular time in history. The vast majority of people (alive, and especially dead) do not, and did not agree with it.

This is why I try and stay out of these threads now tbf, 'cos you always end up arguing the dogmatic oddities of one particular form of modern faith.

I'd rather discuss why a tiny rock planet in an insignificantly small part of an unimaginably huge universe, that's existed for several billion years, spawning billions of life forms in its time, took over 99% of it's multi-billion year existence to produce the one species the entire cosmos was supposedly created for. And why, after 100,00 years of this species existence, did the vitally important knowledge of it's purpose stay hidden until over 10,000 years into it's development of civilisation. Only to be eventually revealed only to one small geographic location, in one specifically backward period, in the form of vague metaphorical poetry. And why despite the hugely time consuming effort of creating such an immeasurably huge universe in such meticulously perfect detail, just to put one species on one planet after trillions of years, the all knowing, all powerful, omnipotent creator couldn't get his message across well enough without having to come back twice more to clarify it. And still to the same backward sand tribes, in the same singular geographical area, in the same general shitty period. And why despite the infinitely more trouble these differing clarifications have caused for nearly 2,000 years, has he never bothered to come back again?

So we can argue all we like over whether an era appropriate conduit for some era appropriate poetry can be plausibly considered a miracle, but it's small fry shit compared to why the creator of all time and space would be in anyway concerned with our hats.
Click to expand...

I agree with you and the reason I came back into the thread was because one poster had started to make a deist argument for a creator who then just buggered off and left us to it. An argument which Uzz tried to present in defence of Islam's god which it clearly can't be made for.

Quite how you can go from not knowing the mind of god to not being allowed to eat pork because god wills it, is beyond me. Why is anyone praying to god if they don't know that is wanted? So you are allowed to know the mind of god but not question it because you don't really know it,what ridiculous nonsense.
 
Mockney said:
Well tbf, my question wasn't really realted to your argument with pete, it was just a contention of your claim that the information we have of God is "reliable". If I took that claim out of context, apologies, but it seemed pretty challengable.....

Also the claim that they're unianimously agreed upon only aplies to your particular sect, of your particular religion, at this particular time in history. The vast majority of people (alive, and especially dead) do not, and did not agree with it.

This is why I try and stay out of these threads now tbf, 'cos you always end up arguing the dogmatic oddities of one particular form of modern faith.

I'd rather discuss why a tiny rock planet in an insignificantly small part of an unimaginably huge universe, that's existed for several billion years, spawning billions of life forms in its time, took over 99% of it's multi-billion year existence to produce the one species the entire cosmos was supposedly created for. And why, after 100,00 years of this species existence, did the vitally important knowledge of it's purpose stay hidden until over 10,000 years into it's development of civilisation. Only to be eventually revealed only to one small geographic location, in one specifically backward period, in the form of vague metaphorical poetry. And why despite the hugely time consuming effort of creating such an immeasurably huge universe in such meticulously perfect detail, just to put one species on one planet after trillions of years, the all knowing, all powerful, omnipotent creator couldn't get his message across well enough without having to come back twice more to clarify it. And still to the same backward sand tribes, in the same singular geographical area, in the same general shitty period. And why despite the infinitely more trouble these differing clarifications have caused for nearly 2,000 years, has he never bothered to come back again?

So we can argue all we like over whether an era appropriate conduit for some era appropriate poetry can be plausibly considered a miracle, but it's small fry shit compared to why the creator of all time and space would be in anyway concerned with our hats.
Click to expand...
Excellent point and articulated brilliantly. I've always struggled with Christian dogma (brought up as a Catholic) especially those fundamentalists that believe the bible literally.

I'm sure fundamental Christians would argue that the earth has only existed for 6000 odd years or so and so your point is moot.
 
Uzz said:
No I'm saying from birth to death I've had a limitless amount of choices for everything. I've chosen a certain set of choices that have led me to this moment now typing this response. Now if I'm looking externally I would be able to follow this strand from present time backwards until my birth going past the different choices/actions I've made (or not made).

I should clarify-in my original post I didn't mean God has created a immeasurable amount of algorithms for me or different versions of me. I meant in the sense, if I make one choice, that opens up a whole new set of choices, or a new algorithm for that one choice. I don't know if that makes it clearer.

Back to your original q-there is only one Uzz.
Click to expand...
Is this about free will?

If so, if God has created "algorithms" then you have no choice, there is no free will.
 
There was an old boy that I worked with a few years back (he's retired now) that is an absolute genius in the field of electrical and power engineering.

We all knew that he was a born again Christian and was devout in his beliefs, but some of the shite he would come out with was jaw dropping.

During one meeting he dropped into the conversation that there wasn't any water on the earth before Noah. WTF? How can the smartest guy I have ever met, someone with such a brilliant scientific mind believe this shit?
 
Mockney said:
Well tbf, my question wasn't really realted to your argument with pete, it was just a contention of your claim that the information we have of God is "reliable". If I took that claim out of context, apologies, but it seemed pretty challengable.....

Also the claim that they're unianimously agreed upon only aplies to your particular sect, of your particular religion, at this particular time in history. The vast majority of people (alive, and especially dead) do not, and did not agree with it.

This is why I try and stay out of these threads now tbf, 'cos you always end up arguing the dogmatic oddities of one particular form of modern faith.

I'd rather discuss why a tiny rock planet in an insignificantly small part of an unimaginably huge universe, that's existed for several billion years, spawning billions of life forms in its time, took over 99% of it's multi-billion year existence to produce the one species the entire cosmos was supposedly created for. And why, after 100,00 years of this species existence, did the vitally important knowledge of it's purpose stay hidden until over 10,000 years into it's development of civilisation. Only to be eventually revealed only to one small geographic location, in one specifically backward period, in the form of vague metaphorical poetry. And why despite the hugely time consuming effort of creating such an immeasurably huge universe in such meticulously perfect detail, just to put one species on one planet after trillions of years, the all knowing, all powerful, omnipotent creator couldn't get his message across well enough without having to come back twice more to clarify it. And still to the same backward sand tribes, in the same singular geographical area, in the same general shitty period. And why despite the infinitely more trouble these differing clarifications have caused for nearly 2,000 years, has he never bothered to come back again?

So we can argue all we like over whether an era appropriate conduit for some era appropriate poetry can be plausibly considered a miracle, but it's small fry shit compared to why the creator of all time and space would be in anyway concerned with our hats.
Click to expand...

In the end if you understand even a portion of the scientific evidence relating to the origins of life the universe and everything the idea of there being a god become more than a little ludicrous.
 
10978548_10153032107512311_9154605345042238830_n.jpg
 
Not sure where to post it, since I cannot post in the Charlie Hebdo thread.

But, I find this typical: 1000s of Muslims take to the streets in London to protest the Charlie Hebdo cartoons http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...eet-to-protest-at-Charlie-Hebdo-cartoons.html

To quote a comment: I missed the march where they protested about the killing of cartoonists and the burning alive of a human being.

*crickets*

Religion, ahhh, what a thing.
 
Essaux said:
Not sure where to post it, since I cannot post in the Charlie Hebdo thread.

But, I find this typical: 1000s of Muslims take to the streets in London to protest the Charlie Hebdo cartoons http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...eet-to-protest-at-Charlie-Hebdo-cartoons.html

To quote a comment: I missed the march where they protested about the killing of cartoonists and the burning alive of a human being.

*crickets*

Religion, ahhh, what a thing.
Click to expand...
Yeah the irony.

To be fair you have to give them some credit. I'd rather they protest peacefully than kill people for insulting their religion.
 
I've no idea if this has been posted before, I never come into this thread. Just happened to see this video, open the Caf and this was top thread so...

 
Essaux said:
Not sure where to post it, since I cannot post in the Charlie Hebdo thread.

But, I find this typical: 1000s of Muslims take to the streets in London to protest the Charlie Hebdo cartoons http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...eet-to-protest-at-Charlie-Hebdo-cartoons.html

To quote a comment: I missed the march where they protested about the killing of cartoonists and the burning alive of a human being.

*crickets*

Religion, ahhh, what a thing.
Click to expand...

It is outrageous that it has been left to the conservative/right wing press to comment on how the protest was segregated between men and women. The Mail in particular was very vocal in its condemnation. The Guardian and the Indie, however, not a word...

http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...rotest-against-muhammad-cartoon-charlie-hebdo

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...ce-of-britain-first-counterdemo-10032912.html

Britain's mainstream liberal/left-leaning media is totally fecking impotent.
 
Not just Britain's left, it's all over Western Europe, and the US too. The defence of secularism and liberal values is being outsourced to the far-right, and groups that often have a sinister agenda of their own. The liberal left has largely become a bunch of servile cowards. Hitchens was right.

 
rednev said:
It is outrageous that it has been left to the conservative/right wing press to comment on how the protest was forcibly segregated between men and women. The Mail in particular was very vocal in its condemnation. The Guardian and the Indie, however, not a word...

http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...rotest-against-muhammad-cartoon-charlie-hebdo

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...ce-of-britain-first-counterdemo-10032912.html

Britain's mainstream liberal/left-leaning media is totally fecking impotent.
Click to expand...

tbh I think the left wing press has a hard time figuring out how to deal with Islam. Christianity is fine because both religious liberals and atheists come under the left wing umbrella. So they can happily publish an article about Stephen Fry's comments and then also publish a reply by Giles Fraser. As for right wing christian fundemantalists? Well, they're fair game.

But with Islam its different. The most audible opponents of Islam in the UK these days seem to be UKIP, the Daily Mail & co, the natural enemies of places like the Grauniad. My enemy's enemy is my friend, so they should support Islam right? Oh but hang on Islam is distincly non-left too, with no real equivalent to the british religious liberal tradition and a number of major equality issues endemic among (or even intrinsic to) even modern Islam.

So it find itself in a position where it supports neither side in one of the most crucial debates of our time.
 
rednev said:
It is outrageous that it has been left to the conservative/right wing press to comment on how the protest was segregated between men and women. The Mail in particular was very vocal in its condemnation. The Guardian and the Indie, however, not a word...

http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...rotest-against-muhammad-cartoon-charlie-hebdo

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...ce-of-britain-first-counterdemo-10032912.html

Britain's mainstream liberal/left-leaning media is totally fecking impotent.
Click to expand...

The Guardian has spoken out against Islamic segregation in the past and covered it extensively

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/26/british-universities-gender-segregation-secular
http://www.theguardian.com/education/2013/may/27/gender-segregation-university-voluntary-equality
http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...parliament-we-are-gripped-by-security-madness
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/mar/15/ucl-bans-islamic-group-over-segregation

They covered it as an angle during the debates about segregation in universities but didn't feel it was important here. Also argued against faith based schools during the trojan horse scandal with regards to radicalisation in schools. Note that the Guardian's online website did have the new Charlie Hebdo cover (prefaced with a warning)

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/jan/13/charlie-hebdo-cover-magazine-prophet-muhammad

They also ran an op-ed by Maajid Nawaz who tweeted a pic of the prophet
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/28/speaking-islam-loudmouths-hijacked

But of course has run numerous articles that often go against the usual new atheist talking points with regards to terrorism and foreign policy, and of course anything that differs from that is immediately called liberal cowardice. I've got that a lot from fellow atheists and ex-muslim/secular muslims. I can't challenge Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens' talking points without now being called a coward or naiive.

Left leaning media in Britain does a decent job introducing nuance in a country dominated by right wing press (the Mail, the Sun by far out-sell the guardian) while knowing a significant amount of those on the left are secular.
 
Last edited:
bishblaize said:
tbh I think the left wing press has a hard time figuring out how to deal with Islam. Christianity is fine because both religious liberals and atheists come under the left wing umbrella. So they can happily publish an article about Stephen Fry's comments and then also publish a reply by Giles Fraser. As for right wing christian fundemantalists? Well, they're fair game.

But with Islam its different. The most audible opponents of Islam in the UK these days seem to be UKIP, the Daily Mail & co, the natural enemies of places like the Grauniad. My enemy's enemy is my friend, so they should support Islam right? Oh but hang on Islam is distincly non-left too, with no real equivalent to the british religious liberal tradition and a number of major equality issues endemic among (or even intrinsic to) even modern Islam.

So it find itself in a position where it supports neither side in one of the most crucial debates of our time.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure most sensible people nowadays, regardless of their political leanings, recognise that Islam is a fairly barbaric and especially outdated faith. Everyone I know who comes from a religious muslim household is completely brainwashed by its teachings. Opposition to Islam is one thing that seems to unite people actually. I think everyone except muslims would be happy to see Islam disappear.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.