Religion, what's the point?
- Thread starter TheRedFlag
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik and Imran are here to talk about a frustrating 2 points dropped at Crystal Palace. They then discuss the regeneration of Old Trafford. Finally, Nik is joined by special guest Michael Statham from the Football Oranje podcast - who gives us a more in depth look at our EL opposition FC Twente, and then runs through the (many) Dutch connections currently at United.
classicHe can't even say that what Mohammad did is wrong, because he tied himself to believing into only scientifically/materialistically proven beliefs.
Saying that Mohammad did something wrong actually destroys his main argument against religion, "believing only in things that are proven by factual scientific materialistic evidences".
You're the only one trying to tie morality to science. Morality is a social thing, not a scientific one. There are no moral absolutes, pedophilia isn't wrong because of some innate quality of it, pedophilia is wrong because society tells us we shouldn't harm children. This is independent of science.
Unless of course, you're saying that only science is worthy, which would of course mean that there are no moral truths, that nothing is wrong and nothing is right, that whatever you do is neutral. But that would be to shit in the face of all of human development so far. You don't need to do a scientific experiment to live in an ordered society.
Morals aren't something you believe in, morals are something you abide by.
Empathy is a evolutionary trait?
Traits are mostly physical characterestics driven by genes. For example, hair colur and such.
Emotional traits are common emotional charcterestics and they are not evolutionary.
It's a direct consequence of our instinct for self-preservation and our intelligence, so yeah I'd say it was at the very least a trait of our social evolution.
Empathy is a evolutionary trait?
Traits are mostly physical characterestics driven by genes. For example, hair colur and such.
Emotional traits are common emotional charcterestics and they are not evolutionary.
Completely and utterly wrong. Empathy may not be a solely human evolutionary trait, but it is most certainly an evolutionary trait. You are just betraying your own ignorance about evolution.
Wtf, where did I insert words in your posts ???
About respecting other people's opinions : I certainly respect people's opinions when they are founded and are not biased. Otherwise, I don't and I will not hold out from pointing out bullshit when I see it.
The rest of your paragraph is unreadable. I am not even sure you know what you are writing to be honest.
What a joke ! I grew up in an islamic society and I know what happens when you admit that you are a non-muslim. Remind me please of what happens to a muslim who chooses to quit Islam ? People in North Africa are showing enormous courage and risking their lives in order to bring some kind of secularism to their countries and your words are an insult to them. Listen to this guy for an example :
I have already explained why the Quran contains contradictory verses. There are muslim experts/scholars, those who you worship, who agree with me about the Quran's shift in violence between Mekka and Medina and the need for offensive war. Here is for instance what Mohamed Said Ramadan Al-Bouti has to say about the famous verse of the sword :
Muhammad Sa'id Ramadan al-Buti, Jurisprudence in Muhammad's Biography (Damascus: Dar al-Fikr, 2001), pp. 323-4.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohamed_Said_Ramadan_Al-Bouti
So basically, muslim scholars cannot even agree between them. Why should the more tolerant lecture be the correct one ? Just because it is more in phase with today's values ? Well, I say that the more violent lecture is closer to the truth as was shown by Muhammad's acts towards the end of his life/after his move to medina and how Muslims launched offensive wars years after his death.
Do you want to play the "quote scholars" game ? As you please :
Ibn Khaldoun :
Ibn Khaldun, The Muqudimmah: An Introduction to History, trans. Franz Rosenthal, vol. 1 (New York: Pantheon, 1958), pp. 60, 473, 480.
Ibn Abi Zayd :
Ibn Abi Zayd al-Qayrawani, La Risala (Epitre sur les elements du dogme et de la loi de l'Islam selon le rite malikite), tans. Leon Bercher, 5th ed. (Algiers, 1960), p. 165.
See how easy it is ? And those "Futuhat Islamya" (I spell it however the hell I want) were done on exactly this basis. Of course, the motives were not only religious but Islam is a very easy religion to instrumentalize
Also, I don't see you reacting to Muhammad's letters. Are those also in the context of provoked war ? Enlighten me !
The biggest disaster in the modern era had nothing to do with Islam.. The amount of hate Hitler instilled to cause what happened after that had nothing to with do with Islam, yet he was very successful, more than any Muslim could be.
The Islamic extremists in our days were actually funded and supported by the United States (at times).. Those extremists will also have their own "imams" whom they need to gain support (I'm not talking here about the quotes you mentioned as I didn't even read those because I only reply to quotes from the Quran, as that is the only way to prove a point against Islam as a religion).. But either way, that doesn't mean that all "imams" share the same views about Islam, and definitely doesn't mean that if one imam has a view, then his view will have to be representative for all Muslims. Will it convince you if I quote 10 other Muslims imams having different (very peaceful) ideas about other religions and even atheists?
Also, from a historical point of view when you're talking about the foutohat Islamya that you're so mad about, and you hate Islam for them, well, isn't the United States trying to convince everybody now that the offensive wars against Afghanistan, Iraq, and probably Syria and Iran too ... are all defensive wars? How can you justify those wars? Do you call them offensive or defensive wars? I'm not even going to discuss here what happened in the world in the last ~700 years, which was all but peaceful, even though the Islamic state had already collapsed (as a major power at least).
Exactly. I'm going to take moses' (member) advice and not continue - what is - a futile debate, with someone who has decided to generalise and marginalise a group of people. The fact that Werewolf took things out of context, just shows how pointless this debate is, especially when he thinks it's a Muslim's duty to kill someone, which is flawed thinking since the majority of Muslims are peaceful. I also find it peculiar and absurd that he uses the way he was brought up to formulate his opinion, so automatically - it becomes a majority. Sorry, but this thinking isn't right at all. It's like saying I grew up with a Christian/Jewish/Hindu friend, who killed others, therefore Christianity/Judaism/Hinduism is a terrorist religion.
Some more religious apologetic comedy courtesy of the dynamic duo. Speaking of, I thoroughly enjoy Cameron's supposed "I'm a former atheist and evolutionist." He was something like 16/17 when he supposedly became a Christian which means he never was an atheist, and I highly doubt he new didly about evolution at that age. It's a typical seed that supposed believers like to use as it portrays an apparent "I know what I'm talking about because I was once on that side of the fence" card. I call bullshit but we already know Cameron is full of it.
"Angry atheists" because religious people never get angry.
"Angry atheists" because religious people never get angry.
Nowhere did I say that Islam is the cause of the biggest disaster in the modern era. But again, I don't know why you feel the need to bring Hitler in the discussion.
Well for one this is an interesting point. Why is Quran the only way to prove a point against Islam ? I am not saying that it is not sufficient to disqualify Islam, I am just curious about this movement of thought and how they consider Muhammad's life and teachings (they are called Quranist by the way). All the quotes I have used in this thread were taken on purpose fom Imam Bukhari's Sahih which is considered by the vast majority of muslims as being authentic and strong. Muhammad's conversation are our best source of clarification for those verses and his acts should be analyzed as he was "chosen" by God to be his messenger. In fact, for a person outside of Islam and religion in general, he should be the main starting focus because he is the only thing we know for sure exists.
As for your second point : My original claim is not that nowaday's Islam is not peaceful, but that the peaceful version/reading/interpretation that is presented to us has nothing to do with the original message. People should realize that the Islam they practise now and the 7th century Islam have nothing in common because they have been influenced by modern values/advances. I am all for a peaceful interpretation of Islam : in fact, there are movements (in Tunisia for instance) which choose to retain only the spiritual aspect of Islam (the reconforting part which answers the metaphysical questions that people ask themselves) along with the more humanist part of it (values like helping poor people, modesty,...) and reject the rest. They admit that this is a modern reading of Islam and that it has nothing to do with the original message. Those movements are persecuted inside their countries and their leaders are obliged to flee abroad. I am all for a version of Islam which stays away from politics/public life/education, which does not interfer with science, which is confined to one's personal life but which answers some questions that perhaps science cannot respond to now for those who cannot live without having those answers.
Again you are bringing examples of other persecutions as if I have a particular agenda against Islam only or as if it excuses Islam's violence. I am against all form of offensive war, persecution and such anywhere in the world and anytime in history. The thing is we are in a topic about religion so that's what we are discussing. This should make you realize that Islam is not an exception, that it too was as imperialist as other powers and that what you heard from a young age about it being the most peaceful religion is only one side of the story.
Funny : the persecuted becomes the persecutor. I didn't decide to generalise/marginalise a group of people, in fact I have already said in this thread that today's muslims in majority practice a religion that has nothing to do with the original message and that they are influenced my modern values/advances because Islam is not compatible with it. It was a muslim's duty to convert someone by force if necessary when Islam needed to expand, that's the only thing I have said. Islam would simply not have survived otherwise.
Again, my claim is that modern muslims have nothing in common with the 7th century muslims. Yet, as the example I have posted shows, they are still reluctant to accept other religious views within their borders simply because there is a difference between the Islam as it is taught in schools and as it is practiced in daily life. You don't teach children about Islam's glorious holy wars and how they crushed the infidels without expecting them to develop some kind of dislike for other religions. Get Islam out of politics/public life/eduction and things will get much better. Muslim scholars should leave the floor to science and admit that what is mentioned in Quran/hadith is simply accounts of 7th century battles between tribes and a set of values that applied at the time but from which we can take the positive things. I don't hate muslims, I hate the hypocrisy surrounding Islam.
But let's stop the "futile" debate, you are right.
I've still to figure out if Islam is such a violent religion - why is it such a very small minority of believers actually participate in violence. I wonder if 1.5 billion are not really Muslims and do follow the Quranic injunctions to fight, or convert by force? I'm also amazed why and how so many people how become experts of Quran, Hadith and Fiqh in such a short time over the last decade.
Day 57 in the Big God-Hating House Yep, exactly. It's the point I made in my first post in the thread. We have many experts on these issues, from Christianity to Hinduism and so on. I find it laughable and insulting that someone would suggest that the Islam advocates violence. People mistake Islam for a pacifist approach, which isn't the case. The time we should engage in violence is when it's needed, for instance, Palestine, where injustice has occurred for over 40 years. The argument that we should be violent is always dismantled because you have to see what the Muslims next to you and around you are doing - and add that to to the fact that Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world. Finally, Ramadan is a time where Muslims read/study the Qur'an - why is it, then, that not many terrorist attacks occur at this time? Surely, since they have read Surat Al-Taubah, for example, there should be more collisions with the west? It doesn't make sense.
Aaah, you might finally be onto something here.
As for your last sentence let me make an analogy (no offense intended) : It might take you decades of study in order to master the art of divination/astrology with all its complexity and history and finally become an expert. You don't necessarily need to be one in order to understand that it is bullshit. In fact, you only need to use logic and rationality.
Taking one verse and deliberately using a pick and choose methodology out of context when there are so many other verses on the same subject is intellectually dishonest - it is not the correct way to arrive at true meanings of the Quran.
I'll try to answer as shortly as I can.
1- When you say Islam pushes for violence, then logically you have to see that Muslims have historically been more violent than other people. The Muslims are not even close to rank the highest among worst "occupiers"/"war starters" in the history. Logically this should make us conclude that Islam didn't really push the people any harder towards violence, it's just that people are violent, whether Muslims or not. (If you can't prove that smoking caused an increase in cancer cases among smokers, you can't really claim that smoking in itself is a co-factor for cancer. In the example I gave I showed you that the worst cases of cancer occurred actually among the "non-Muslims", which goes against your hypothesis.)
2- I'm not talking about the "Quranists" here who do not use hadith at all in their interpretations/beliefs. Most Muslims do use hadith (even though probably different sources for hadith) to try to understand the Quran, but they all also understand that the only infallible reference in Islam (which if proved fallible then Islam collapses) is the Quran itself. I hope you can recognize the difference. The Quran is for all sects in Islam the highest ranked book in term of infallibility.
3- If the original Islam was against science, can you explain to me how come the Islamic state (even after the death of Mohammad) was very advanced in term of science compared to other states in that era? (In all fields, physics, chemistry, medicine, math, ...etc.)
4- Can you mention a single war that Mohammad fought and you think it wasn't justified?
5- The point you made was not that "Islam is not an exception". The point you made was that "Islam promotes violence, more than other religions/atheism".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b02x90jj/Free_Speech_Series_2_Are_We_Getting_More_Racist/
You might want to view this, lads. Debate about racism and Islamophobia. Akala dominated the whole of this debate. Amazing character - and if you don't want to watch it, the main highlight is where he said Muslims have brought many things to British society, but not credited for it. If, however, a Muslim kills then his religion is primarily blamed. Ironic.
You might want to view this, lads. Debate about racism and Islamophobia. Akala dominated the whole of this debate. Amazing character - and if you don't want to watch it, the main highlight is where he said Muslims have brought many things to British society, but not credited for it. If, however, a Muslim kills then his religion is primarily blamed. Ironic.
Did you even understand the post, Jake?
No, I just decided I liked it because I enjoy bold text
I'll be the first guy to promote rights for freedom of religion, I've pushed for the political party I'm in to publicly endorse the building of an Islamic Center in The City Center.
However to try and deny that Islam is the same as pretty much every other religion in the history of the universe in the sense that it contains huge contradictions all over it, is or will be outdated, and goes against most progressive viewpoints in the world would be farcical.
I'm sure Muslims have brought many things to Irish society too, but Islam hasn't. The exact same as Christianity in that regard.
Historically Islam may not be as violent as Christianity, Judaism, whatever. However when you look at the world now, Islamic countries have significantly worse human rights then secular countries.
I was watching a debate with Prof. Kraus the other week and what he said just rang through. Take away all the media hysterics, the homophobia, and the racism. Islam is not special, it's no more or less likely to be correct then any of the other thousands of religions that are out there.
Empathy is a evolutionary trait?
Traits are mostly physical characterestics driven by genes. For example, hair colur and such.
Emotional traits are common emotional charcterestics and they are not evolutionary.
.
Yes. Yes it is.
Quran speaks the language of the heart. Our understanding of the Quran will be in accordance to our intentions.
If someone kills for religion, regardless of the religion, the religion is at least partly responsible. That much is hardly in doubt is it?
I'm gonna kill somebody tomorrow for you. Then we put you in jail.
Are you that stupid?
Indeed. Saying that "we should blame the religion just because somebody is killing somebody else and claiming that he did it for the religion" is indeed stupid.
Some religions actively call for violence. So of course you can blame the religion. That's just a fact.
Are you honestly comparing one random person one the internet to religions with hundreds of years of history and which invoke passionate responses from their followers?
I guess Al Qaeda isn't really Muslim? The IRA is full of atheists? The Crusades never happened?
That's not the point he made. That's the point Werewolf is arguing.
Werewolfs point quite obviously comes into it.
But it goes against the point you made.
If a religion calls for violence, and someone carries out violence in the name of that religion. Then the religion is partially to blame. I don't see the debate there.
That's Werewolf's point, and I think I said enough about it.
Add to that the US' major and direct role in developing Al-Qaeda.
You also said that the Quran is open to interpretations. Either the Quran is peaceful or Muslims are correct in murdering others in the name of their religion.
So religious people just went to violence because everyone else was doing it? How very Godly.
What's wrong with you jake? Can't you really see the difference in his post? He didn't say "if the religion calls for violence", he just said if somebody kills for religion then that's it, we should blame the religion!
I just don't get it. Everything is open to criticism, apart from your religion. When in fact the criticism is very appropriate in some cases.