Religion, what's the point?

[Sparky Rhiwabon]

What are you talking about? If you read this thread you'll see why it should stay as it is. Trying to put the focus on one issue with one religion to avoid looking at the bigger picture and answering the more important questions is a bit odd, to me...and odd is putting it kindly.

Well, most of the posts seem to be about one religion in particular but it seems that pretending to be condemning religion as a whole makes it PC and acceptable? Sure, we could look at past history but it's the here and now that really matters to people.

 

[Brwned]

Well, most of the posts seem to be about one religion in particular but it seems that pretending to be condemning religion as a whole makes it PC and acceptable? Sure, we could look at past history but it's the here and now that really matters to people.

I find your view on this pretty offensive, to be honest. I think you should read some of the thread. The discussion is (thankfully) nowhere near as narrow as you think it is/want it to be.

 

[Arruda]

Well, most of the posts seem to be about one religion in particular but it seems that pretending to be condemning religion as a whole makes it PC and acceptable? Sure, we could look at past history but it's the here and now that really matters to people.

Absolutely nothing PC about it. Most discussions on here were really about religion as a whole (check my last post for example), and in the majority of them the issue wasn't even violence. It's mostly a long drawn-out debate among atheists and the religious.

 

[Sparky Rhiwabon]

I find your view on this pretty offensive, to be honest. I think you should read some of the thread. The discussion is (thankfully) nowhere near as narrow as you think it is/want it to be.

I didn't realise it was such an old thread to be honest, just read the past few pages. If anything I am trying to be anti-offending! Sorry if it didn't come across that way.

 

[Amethyst]

Well, most of the posts seem to be about one religion in particular but it seems that pretending to be condemning religion as a whole makes it PC and acceptable? Sure, we could look at past history but it's the here and now that really matters to people.

This is a thread to discuss religion generally. Obviously at the moment the focus will be more on Islam in the light of what has just happened in Paris, but if you were to go back to August last year when @Herman Van Rompuy was knocking about, you'd find most of the discussion was on Christianity. There's also been debate about other religions further back in the thread.

 

[Sparky Rhiwabon]

Absolutely nothing PC about it. Most discussions on here were really about religion as a whole (check my last post for example), and in the majority of them the issue wasn't even violence. It's mostly a long drawn-out debate among atheists and the religious.

Thanks, I didn't realise the purpose of the thread. I think others have missed the point recently as well though.

 

[Mutter Merkel]

I don't understand why some people make comments lumping religions together. Christ went to a cross to die at the hands of his enemies and asked that they be forgiven even after he was flogged, spat on and nailed to the wood, and the challenge for Christians is to follow this example of kindness in the face of blackest evil. He had that heart towards people every bit as vile as the ISIS militants who view the slaughter of civilians as beneficial, while Muhammad conquered with a sword and abrogated his own comments about the lack of compulsion in religion in those verses of the Qur'an that come later, such as Surah 9.29. And here is the commentary by one of their own most respected commentators:

http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2567&Itemid=64

 

[Revan]

Well, most of the posts seem to be about one religion in particular but it seems that pretending to be condemning religion as a whole makes it PC and acceptable? Sure, we could look at past history but it's the here and now that really matters to people.

Not really!

If you have been reading this thread, you see that it is a thread when people discuss pros and cons (mostly cons) of religions. It is not always like today. Many religions have been targeted for different things. Like abortion, gay marriage or the counter-effects of religion in science, the power of churches etc.

Obviously, in days like these, a specific religion will be on the center of the thread, but having followed and contributed in this thread for near 4 years, believe me that it is more a thread which condemns religions only because of Islam.

 

[Sparky Rhiwabon]

Not really!

If you have been reading this thread, you see that it is a thread when people discuss pros and cons (mostly cons) of religions. It is not always like today. Many religions have been targeted for different things. Like abortion, gay marriage or the counter-effects of religion in science, the power of churches etc.

Obviously, in days like these, a specific religion will be on the center of the thread, but having followed and contributed in this thread for near 4 years, believe me that it is more a thread which condemns religions only because of Islam.

Yes, I realise that now. I don't think people should be discussing the recent event in here then. These have no bearing on whether religion as a whole has a point. If people find comfort in their faith then it has a point even if it's a placebo effect.

 

[Revan]

I don't understand why some people make comments lumping religions together. Christ went to a cross to die at the hands of his enemies and asked that they be forgiven even after he was flogged, spat on and nailed to the wood, and the challenge for Christians is to follow this example of kindness in the face of blackest evil. He had that heart towards people every bit as vile as the ISIS militants who view the slaughter of civilians as beneficial, while Muhammad conquered with a sword and abrogated his own comments about the lack of compulsion in religion in those verses of the Qur'an that come later, such as Surah 9.29. And here is the commentary by one of their own most respected commentators:

http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2567&Itemid=64

And then Christians went into a series of Crusades which killed hundreds of thousands of people. Chatholic church sentenced to death around 5 millions of people, burning many scientists and practically stopping every advance in science.

You see, why it is a thread for religion. Obviously someone can make seperate threads for seperate religions, if he wants.

This is a thread to condemn all bad things which have as root religions. And to praise the rare good things. It had been like that for 7 years.

 

[Mutter Merkel]

And then Christians went into a series of Crusades which killed hundreds of thousands of people. Chatholic church sentenced to death around 5 millions of people, burning many scientists and practically stopping every advance in science.

You see, why it is a thread for religion. Obviously someone can make seperate threads for seperate religions, if he wants.

This is a thread to condemn all bad things which have as root religions. And to praise the rare good things. It had been like that for 7 years.

This comment was moved here by an admin after I responded to the Paris-attacks thread. I was responding to the fact so many lump the religions together when they couldn't be more opposed.

By the way, the crusades were defensive wars, attempting to prevent Islam's incursion (we, the west, lost), and the Catholic Church is not the same thing as the Church itself.

 

[Revan]

This comment was moved here by an admin after I responded to the Paris-attacks thread. I was responding to the fact so many lump the religions together when they couldn't be more opposed.

By the way, the crusades were defensive wars, attempting to prevent Islam's incursion (we, the west, lost), and the Catholic Church is not the same thing as the Church itself.

Ah sorry, thought that it was on this thread. I definitely agree that for specific acts, the religions shouldn't be lumped together. Here it is a religion, in crucades was adifferent religion.

The Crucades weren't defensive wars. Going into Jerusalem at the heart of Islam to fight them wasn't defensive at all. Unless, you have a very specific brainwashed definition of 'defensive'. How do you mean that the Chatholic Church isn't the same as the Church itself?

 

[2cents]

The Crucades weren't defensive wars. Going into Jerusalem at the heart of Islam to fight them wasn't defensive at all. Unless, you have a very specific brainwashed definition of 'defensive'. How do you mean that the Chatholic Church isn't the same as the Church itself?

The Crusaders themselves certainly saw them as defensive. The lands they invaded had been seized from a Christian empire by Muslim armies only a few centuries before, and the population was still, even at that stage, probably majority Christian.

Not that this excuses any of the Crusaders' actual actions.

 

[Revan]

The Crusaders themselves certainly saw them as defensive. The lands they invaded had been seized from a Christian empire by Muslim armies only a few centuries before, and the population was still, even at that stage, probably majority Christian.

Not that this excuses any of the Crusaders' actual actions.

Similarily, the nutters yesterday might consider their acts as defensive, because of the wars the West have been doing in Arabia.

Even going historically, those lands were occupied by a Christian Empire, and were Jewish lands. Which later got occupied by an Arabic Empire. It was for power, similar to new 'religion acts'.

 

[2cents]

Similarily, the nutters yesterday might consider their acts as defensive, because of the wars the West have been doing in Arabia.

Yes I agree. All of which goes to show the pointlessness of moralizing across the centuries, however gratifying it feels depending on what 'side' you're on.

Even going historically, those lands were occupied by a Christian Empire, and were Jewish lands. Which later got occupied by an Arabic Empire. It was for power, similar to new 'religion acts'.

Well technically it was a pagan empire which later embraced Christianity. But yes, agreed again.

 

[Di Maria's angel]

If religion was the issue, wouldn't all religious people be terrorists?

Islam (in the case of these recent events) is used as an excuse to brain wash vulnerable people in order to create havoc around the world. If terrorism was the only form of war, destruction or murder, I would be for the argument that religion is the major cause of these issues. But it's not. It's an excuse and exploited to attempt to justify these events carried out by monsters. They cannot be described as human beings or people.

Read an article about the Jihadi John guy and it wasn't surprising at all to learn about his younger years. He was an easy target for whoever corrupted his brain, further, and illustrates there's more to these terrors than just religion. Folk like yourselves and me can tell the difference between right and wrong, and good and bad. However, these monsters cannot. It's more a mental issue than anything else.

Like some have stated before, you can take religion out of the equation, but you'll always find the same result.

This is just my opinion. I guess the only way you will ever find an answer is to ask those who commit these crimes.

 

[Arruda]

If religion was the issue, wouldn't all religious people be terrorists?

No.

It's an expression that fails any logical analysis. You know, those most basic logic propositions one learns at school in philosophy and maths.

 

[Di Maria's angel]

No.

It's an expression that fails any logical analysis. You know, those most basic logic propositions one learns at school in philosophy and maths.

Why do think a large proportion of religious people are peaceful and the rest, a small minority, are not?

 

[Arruda]

Why do think a large proportion of religious people are peaceful and the rest, a small minority, are not?

I don't know, certainly a multitude of causes. I was just replying to that assertion: if we could somehow prove that religion was the issue, it would still not mean all religious people would be terrorists. So you can't use the argument that not all religious people are terrorists to disprove the hypothesis that religion is a cause of this issue.

 

[Di Maria's angel]

I don't know, certainly a multitude of causes. I was just replying to that assertion: if we could somehow prove that religion was the issue, it would still not mean all religious people would be terrorists. So you can't use the argument that not all religious people are terrorists to disprove the hypothesis that religion is a cause of this issue.

Religion + person = terrorist

Religion + person = normal person

If it's not one or the other, then there's more to it, in which case religion isn't the major cause. Although simple maths would dictate that religion be cancelled out of the above equation leaving us with:

Person = terrorist

Person = normal person

If religion was causing people to turn into murderers, then it should be able to turn all religious people into murderers. Unless of course, there's another undefined issue within an individual that contributes towards their conversion into a cnut. In which case our equation starts making more sense:

Person with mental issues = terrorist

Person without mental issues = not terrorist

 

[shivab]

my two cents -

terrorism is not a religion problem - human beings are vile violent creatures. we are always living in fear of the 'other' and hence are always involved in conflicts. i cant think of a generation that hasnt had a major conflict which involves extreme violence.

this is not an islam problem - boko haram/ isis/ al quaeda make up 0.0003% of the 1.6 billion muslims in the world. this is a human problem.

few manipulate the many...some use guns as weapons some use economics other use both...at the end of the day it all becomes about perspective

when a bomb explodes in bhagdad it doesnt make the news. people are only worried when the west is affected. we are apathetic

people talk of reforming islam, but what we should be reforming is our human weakness. religion was probably created to address these weaknesses and keep them under control. somehow we managed to use that as a tool to destroy each other.

depressing

ps. every kid should read animal farm and candide or optimism. explains exactly whats wrong with humanity

 

[Arruda]

Religion + person = terrorist

Religion + person = normal person

If it's not one or the other, then there's more to it, in which case religion isn't the major cause. Although simple maths would dictate that religion be cancelled out of the above equation leaving us with:

Person = terrorist

Person = normal person

If religion was causing people to turn into murderers, then it should be able to turn all religious people into murderers. Unless of course, there's another undefined issue within an individual that contributes towards their conversion into a cnut. In which case our equation starts making more sense:

Person with mental issues = terrorist

Person without mental issues = not terrorist

That is not only extremely confusing, but riddled with mistakes. Think simpler, all I'm saying is this:

- "Religion is a cause of terrorism" is an hypothesis that may be true or false.
- The argument that not every religious person is a terrorist (an indisputable fact) cannot be used to exclude the above hypothesis.

An analogy:

- Let's say I hypothesize that rain causes floods.
- You cannot use the fact that "not every raining event leads to floods" (indisputable) to exclude the hypothesis I made.

 

[Di Maria's angel]

That is not only extremely confusing, but riddled with mistakes. Think simpler, all I'm saying is this:

- "Religion is a cause of terrorism" is an hypothesis that may be true or false.
- The argument that not every religious person is a terrorist (an indisputable fact) cannot be used to exclude the above hypothesis.

An analogy:

- Let's say I hypothesize that rain causes floods.
- You cannot use the fact that "not every raining event leads to floods" (indisputable) to exclude the hypothesis I made.

You could compile a thesis on "religion is cause of terrorism", yet the evidence against your claim would be staggering.

As for your analogy, it's not even slightly similar. You don't/can't factor in a second cause, which is seen in that of terrorism. An individual.

There are more variables in the "causes of terrorism" equation. However, religion is not a major one.

 

[MJJ]

It's quite obviously not. ISIS uses it, ISIS believes in it. It pulls the trigger.

Uses it, yes. How do you even know they believe the crap they spout?

 

[MJJ]

No, it's pretty obvious that Christianity was just as horrible and violent as all the other religions. It's just that through Enlightenment values and secular governance we were able to convince them to not be as crazy. The difference is that no one has been able to reform Islam in the same way.

So the problem lies less with religion itself but more with social factors? Because otherwise that would never have happened.

 

[Seveneric]

I have a question, all over twitter today, understandably in defence of their religion, you have Muslims quoting parts of the Qur'an that discourages war and compulsion to make anyone follow your religion, etc.

But I've seen other parts of the Qur'an quoted, which expressly advocates for war and shit, killing people that have turned away from the religion, so which is it? Why are there contradictory messages in the book?

I'm not familiar with the Qur'an, but is it like split into OT & NT like the Bible, where the OT is now held to be the crazy part that no one takes seriously, while the NT is more rational? Just trying to figure out why on one hand people can quote the parts of the Qur'an that discourages extremism, while on the other hand, you can also find quotes from the same book that kind of encourage it.

 

[Arruda]

You could compile a thesis on "religion is cause of terrorism", yet the evidence against your claim would be staggering.

As for your analogy, it's not even slightly similar. You don't/can't factor in a second cause, which is seen in that of terrorism. An individual.

There are more variables in the "causes of terrorism" equation. However, religion is not a major one.

Of course there is a second cause in my analogy, in fact there are immense secondary causes and variables. The most obvious is the terrain ability to drain the rain, but the final result is also influenced by the intensity and duration of the rain. In fact, the terrain is certainly a major determinant of whether there will be major flooding or not. In some places there are no floods irrespective of how much it rains.

Much like when I suggest that religion is a cause for terrorism, I'm not saying is the only one, nor am I saying is the major one. I may think that the terrain is the major determinant, and that this terrain is poverty, cultural distance, social exclusion, etc...

Anyway, I'm not compiling a thesis on "religion is a cause of terrorism", I was just saying that your argument against that hypothesis didn't make any sense from a logical standpoint.

I know there are plenty of variables in the causes of terrorism, even when we limit the discussion to Islamic terrorism. This much is obvious for anyone.

From a simple assertion I made, you made a big confusion. Just leave it at that.

 

[Nick 0208 Ldn]

Last year the BBC had an interesting panel discussion with young British Muslims about the concept of caliphate in the modern world, the range of opinion was quite diverse.

Here it is for anyone interested:

Islamic State: Young British Muslims debate Caliphate

14 August 2014

When the extremist group widely known as Isis (now renamed Islamic State) declared a Caliphate taking in parts of Syria and Iraq, they reignited a debate over the issue.

The Ottoman Empire was the last widely recognised Caliphate and most of those in the West have only the faintest, if any, idea of what the word means.

But for some Muslims it is what they are waiting for, whether they back Islamic State or not - a state to restore a sense of dignity that many feel has been lost.

BBC Asian Network reporter Catrin Nye gathered young British Muslims from different sects of Islam to hear about their views on the concept of a Caliphate and what it means to them.

You can listen to Catrin's full radio documentary, Caliphate: Searching for the Islamic State on Thursday 14 August at 17:00 BST on BBC Asian Network, from Saturday 17 August on BBC World Service, or listen online now.

Watch video here :: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28772646

Listen to full documentary :: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p024q3r7

Apologies if this was posted at the time.

 

[Eboue]

So the problem lies less with religion itself but more with social factors? Because otherwise that would never have happened.

The problem is the all of the major religions were created in a time where things we now think of as barbaric were the norm. Trying to keep those same values in a rapidly changing world proved to be increasingly untenable. Christianity managed to reinvent itself as something silly and negative but not as a lightning rod for terrorists. It is my hope that Islam can do the same.

 

[MJJ]

I have a question, all over twitter today, understandably in defence of their religion, you have Muslims quoting parts of the Qur'an that discourages war and compulsion to make anyone follow your religion, etc.

But I've seen other parts of the Qur'an quoted, which expressly advocates for war and shit, killing people that have turned away from the religion, so which is it? Why are there contradictory messages in the book?

I'm not familiar with the Qur'an, but is it like split into OT & NT like the Bible, where the OT is now held to be the crazy part that no one takes seriously, while the NT is more rational? Just trying to figure out why on one hand people can quote the parts of the Qur'an that discourages extremism, while on the other hand, you can also find quotes from the same book that kind of encourage it.

No, its just one book.

 

[JPRouve]

I never said it's the main motivator. It IS a motivator though. A big one. And a big problem.

The motivator is the sense of belonging, for example in France our politicians are pretty bad, they don't represent the people well and they don't propose a common future. At the moment we kind of live day by day and that's perfect for megalomaniacs like El-Zarqawi, El Zarqawi doesn't care about Islam he cares about power and he uses Islam because it's a very "open" religion, everyone can become muslim and everyone can interpret the texts as he wants, it's easy to create a sentiment of belonging with Islam. Also it's easier to create martyrs with Islam than any other religion because the economical and political powers are in "Christians" hands.

 

[Seveneric]

No, its just one book.

Then why so much contradiction? Like I said I've seen quotes that call for Islam as a peaceful religion and I've seen quotes that read like a call to arms for anyone who turns against the religion, I'm just wondering, how can it preach both.

 

[MJJ]

The problem is the all of the major religions were created in a time where things we now think of as barbaric were the norm. Trying to keep those same values in a rapidly changing world proved to be increasingly untenable. Christianity managed to reinvent itself as something silly and negative but not as a lightning rod for terrorists. It is my hope that Islam can do the same.

Again that has to do with society, not religion. I dont think the bible has changed in the last few hundred years (can just as easily be wrong though), so the core religion has remained the same. You guys just managed to educate the lunatics and it wasnt done through bombing innocents along with them.

 

[mu77]

the american NRA would agree with - it's a people thing and add it's not a gun thing. if you put a timeline (recent) into this discussion of i'd have to say that one religion is doing a majority of the killing and the majority getting killed are of the same religion.

 

[Arruda]

Then why so much contradiction? Like I said I've seen quotes that call for Islam as a peaceful religion and I've seen quotes that read like a call to arms for anyone who turns against the religion, I'm just wondering, how can it preach both.

You shouldn't expect coherence from something like the Quran, or any kind of religious text. They're all a huge pile of bollocks.

Though like any book, all those expressions (whether the peaceful or aggressive ones) have a context in the "story", which is often lacking when one just quotes a random passage. This is an assumption of mine, as I never read it.

 

[dannyrhinos89]

All wars past and probably present and terrorist attacks are caused by a select few people taking their religion and beliefs to the extreme.

It's entirely possible had religion never existed there would be "world peace" right now because nobody would have religion driving them on.

It's a shame people are too stupid to not realise it's all pixies and fairydust.

 

[MJJ]

Then why so much contradiction? Like I said I've seen quotes that call for Islam as a peaceful religion and I've seen quotes that read like a call to arms for anyone who turns against the religion, I'm just wondering, how can it preach both.

A scholar would probably be able to explain it better as am not really that qualified but will try my best to explain. Islam does prohibit the killing of innocents, their are numerous examples from the life of our Prophet where he forbid his followers from killing innocents after conquering a country or even robbing them. The other parts probably have some context attached to them, specially since its in arabic and am guessing the translation might be off. If they were true, it would contradict the life of the Prophet which makes little sense even if you believe that there is no God.

 

[Winrar]

Then why so much contradiction? Like I said I've seen quotes that call for Islam as a peaceful religion and I've seen quotes that read like a call to arms for anyone who turns against the religion, I'm just wondering, how can it preach both.

from what little I know if Islam, it means to submit/surrender. goal of islam is to achieve peace after forcing everyone submit/surrender to their god allah and their prophet muhammad.

and qu'ran, of course, is contradictory book full of BS that is left to human interpretation just like the bible so that it can be manipulated by the people who interpret it.

 

[MikeUpNorth]

Again that has to do with society, not religion. I dont think the bible has changed in the last few hundred years (can just as easily be wrong though), so the core religion has remained the same. You guys just managed to educate the lunatics and it wasnt done through bombing innocents along with them.

We convinced them that the bible is largely shite. Even the proper nutty Christians now only believe about 10% of what's written in the bible.

Muslims need to become less literalist and see their favourite book, religion and god as fallible.

 

[MJJ]

All wars past and probably present and terrorist attacks are caused by a select few people taking their religion and beliefs to the extreme.

It's entirely possible had religion never existed there would be "world peace" right now because nobody would have religion driving them on.

Was hitler a christian crusader or a muslim jihadi?